Levi is out swinging (in the most entertaining way possible; I love it when he gets on a roll, and I do agree with him on much of it). Of course, there’s not much new in what he says (that hasn’t been said by Left-realists for the last few decades, and by Latour more recently). […]
Posts Tagged ‘Bryant’
Realism & Peirce
Posted in Philosophy, tagged anti-realism, Bryant, constructivism, constructivist realism, Peirce, realism on October 14, 2013 | 8 Comments »
Democracy of Objects
Posted in Philosophy, tagged Bryant, object-oriented philosophy, speculative realism on September 13, 2011 | 2 Comments »
Levi Bryant’s The Democracy of Objects is finally available and readable on-line, courtesy of a wonderfully innovative relationship between Open Humanities Press and the University of Michigan Library’s Scholarly Publishing Office. The book is part of OHP’s New Metaphysics Series, edited by Graham Harman and Bruno Latour. As regular readers know, Levi has been a […]
The movement of larval objects
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Bryant, object-oriented philosophy on May 24, 2011 | 1 Comment »
Levi Bryant has a wonderful post up in response to my announcement of Stengers’s book. If mine was “less appealing” to him, as he puts it, this may not be a bad thing, as it seems to have elicited a shimmering cascade of resonating strings in his thinking. (Perhaps appeal has a devilishly indirect manner […]
Progress (toward Ω?)
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Bryant, correlationism, Meillassoux, object-oriented philosophy, Peirce on April 12, 2011 | 3 Comments »
(This is a slightly revised version of the piece I posted a few hours ago…) I haven’t posted about the debate between object-oriented and process-relational ontologies for a while here, in part because I said I’d had enough of that debate. But the more I read of Levi Bryant’s work — both in Democracy of […]
Agreements & productive differences
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Bryant, OOO on December 13, 2010 | 10 Comments »
Levi Bryant has proposed a ceasefire on the objects/relations debate, and followed that up with a nice post calling for self-moderation of our more confrontational urges and for a more affirmative writing (and blogging) style that would render the form of our writing more consonant with its content. I’m all for the latter; it’s something […]
repetition with (slight) difference
Posted in Eco-theory, Philosophy, Process-relational thought, tagged Bryant, object-oriented philosophy on December 10, 2010 | 4 Comments »
Just a few quick responses to Levi Bryant. Levi writes: 1) entities are nonetheless patterned or structured despite their becoming, 2) they are unities, and 3) they cannot be submerged in or exhausted by their relations. Relations can always be detached. Objects can always enter into new relations. [. . .] if you hold that […]
Buddhist objects & processes
Posted in Philosophy, Process-relational thought, Spirit matter, tagged Bryant, Buddhism, Hartshorne, object-oriented philosophy, process philosophy, theology, Whitehead on September 29, 2010 | 6 Comments »
Does object-oriented ontology = Buddhism? Tim Morton has been making intriguing sounds to that effect, and Levi Bryant has begun to ask him the hard questions about how and whether that might be possible — of how to “square the circle” of independent substances (OOO) with Buddhism’s conditioned genesis (a.k.a. dependent arising, codependent origination). Tim’s […]
subjects & objects, together or apart…
Posted in Philosophy, tagged Bryant, Deleuze, Harman, object-oriented philosophy, relationalism, speculative realism, Whitehead on April 9, 2010 | 1 Comment »
Levi Bryant’s detailed and generous replies to my critical queries, both in the comments section of this post and at Larval Subjects, and Graham Harman’s replies here (and in an e-mail exchange) have helped me get a much clearer sense of where the main differences lie between their respective “object-oriented” positions and my relational view. […]
let a thousand objects bloom
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged Bryant, object-oriented philosophy, speculative realism on April 6, 2010 | 15 Comments »
Here’s a quick reply to Levi Bryant’s reply to my post from this morning on objects and relations:
space junk & the (relational) Real
Posted in Philosophy, tagged Bryant, geophilosophy, Harman, Jameson, Lacan, object-oriented philosophy, relationalism, speculative realism, Whitehead on April 6, 2010 | 5 Comments »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzUYiOV2-kE?fs=1&hl=en_US (This post spun off from the last, where I concluded by noting the increasing amount of debris out in the upper atmosphere. Somehow I couldn’t resist pulling that image into the vortex of ecopolitics and the objects-relations debate, which is carrying on at hyper tiling, Object-Oriented Philosophy, Larval Subjects, and elsewhere.) Like the tail […]
Bryant’s objects & a possible object/subjectology
Posted in Philosophy, tagged Bryant, Harman, object-oriented philosophy, relationalism, speculative realism, Whitehead on January 31, 2010 | 9 Comments »
Reading Levi Bryant’s blog sometimes feels like having a brilliant storm of white-hot thought rain down upon one’s backyard garden, the shoots struggling to stay vertical, but rendered that much stronger after the rain. There are wonderful passages in his recent musings on ethics, relations, objects, and ontology. From Ethical Etymologies: Thinking Out Loud (Always […]
the politics of objects & relations
Posted in Eco-theory, Philosophy, tagged Bergson, Bryant, Buddhism, Deleuze, Harman, object-oriented philosophy, political theory, relationalism, speculative realism, Spinoza, Whitehead on January 29, 2010 | 5 Comments »
The objects versus relations debate has revved up again over at Larval Subjects, in the commentary responding to Levi Bryant’s Questions about the possibility of non-correlationist ethics. The debate, as I would describe it, circles around the following question: If we agree that traditional philosophy has been too centrally premised on the relationship between humans […]