Object Oriented Ontology
Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT) are two philosophical frameworks that share some similarities but also have notable differences.
First, letâs define each framework. OOO is a metaphysical theory that posits that objects exist independently of human perception and that they have their own properties and relations. It emphasizes the agency of non-human objects and aims to develop a non-anthropocentric ontology. ANT, on the other hand, is a sociological theory that focuses on the agency of both human and non-human actors in the construction of networks. It views networks as the basic unit of analysis and emphasizes the importance of tracing the connections between actors and the role of material objects in shaping social interactions.
One similarity between OOO and ANT is their rejection of the traditional subject/object dichotomy. Both frameworks seek to overcome the limitations of anthropocentric thinking and emphasize the importance of non-human actors in shaping reality.
However, there are also notable differences between OOO and ANT. First, OOO is primarily concerned with ontology, whereas ANT is concerned with sociology. OOO seeks to develop a theory of being, while ANT seeks to develop a theory of social action. Second, while both frameworks recognize the importance of non-human actors, they have different approaches to understanding their agency. OOO emphasizes the autonomy of objects, while ANT emphasizes the role of objects in shaping human action.
In summary, while OOO and ANT share some similarities in their rejection of anthropocentric thinking and recognition of the agency of non-human actors, they are fundamentally different frameworks with different goals and approaches.
New forms of realist art are important
- Philosophical movement of new realist art
- Various material isms taking objects seriously
Object-oriented ontology critiques the correlation between thought and being
- The philosophy challenges the belief that the world cannot be separated from the mind.
- It questions the idea that our ideas, words, and feelings bring objects into existence.
Object-oriented ontology challenges Kantâs separation of noumenon and phenomenon.
- Kantâs belief implies that objects cannot exist independently of us.
- Object-oriented ontology argues this belief is wrong and critiques Kantâs Copernican revolution.
02:49 Object-oriented ontology examines whether objects can function independently from human subjectivity.
- Objects can indeed function independently from human subjectivity.
- Objects are never undermined, misused, or weakened by their relation with human subjectivity.
03:39 Human subjectivity is central to the philosophy
- Context without human perspective is meaningless
- Kant recognized the limits of human representation of objects
04:33 All objects have distorted relationships.
- Direct interaction is absent between objects and humans.
- Harmon defines objects as unified realities that cannot be reduced to their pieces or effects.
OOO and Art Relation
05:30 Humans and non-human beings are on an equal footing with objective reality.
- Contemporary artists invest objects with meaning and display them in galleries.
- Objects have their own lives and relate to other objects, producing aesthetic sensuality.
06:25 Realist ontology requires uncovering the relationality of objects
- Ontological categories can only be described through language or ideas
- Going beyond human subjectivity is necessary to do justice to ontology
Wikipedia
-
Object-oriented ontology rejects anthropocentrism:
- OOO rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects.
- All relations, including those between nonhumans, exist on an equal footing with one another.
-
Object-oriented ontology critiques correlationism:
- OOO rejects speculative idealist correlationism that restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought.
- OOO is a realist philosophy that stands in contradistinction to correlationism by acknowledging the reality of objects external to human experience.
-
Object-oriented ontology preserves finitude:
- Relation to an object cannot be translated into a direct and complete knowledge of an object.
- Finitude is an inherent limitation of relationality that extends to all objects.
-
Object-oriented ontology upholds withdrawal:
- Objects exist independently of other objects and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.
- The reality of objects is always ready-to-hand and retains a surplus that never becomes present.
-
Harmanâs metaphysics of objects:
- Harmanâs ontology of objects values objects themselves over practical action or networks of signification.
- Zuhandenheit, or readiness-to-hand, indicates the withdrawal of objects from practical and theoretical action.
- The primary site of ontological investigation is objects and relations, instead of the human-world correlate.
-
Harmanâs Object-Oriented Ontology:
- Harman proposes a concept of objects that are irreducible to both material particles and human perception.
- He introduces two types of objects: real objects and sensual objects.
- Real objects are objects that withdraw from all experience, whereas sensual objects are those that exist only in experience.
-
Pairing sensual and real objects and qualities yields the framework of four types of objects and qualities.
To explain how withdrawn objects make contact with and relate to one another, Harman submits the theory of vicarious causation.
Causation entails the connection between a real object residing within the directionality of consciousness and another real object residing outside of the intention.
Harman extrapolates five types of relations between objects.
No relation represents the typical condition of reality, since real objects are incapable of direct interaction and are limited in their causal influence upon and relation to other objects.
Onticology:
Levi Bryant articulates an object-oriented philosophy called onticology. Onticology is grounded in three principles: Ontic Principle, Principle of the Inhuman, and Ontological Principle.
Onticology distinguishes between four different types of objects: bright objects, dim objects, dark objects, and rogue objects.
Bryant has proposed the concept of âwilderness ontologyâ to explain the philosophical pluralization of agency away from human privilege.
Hyperobjects:
Timothy Morton introduced the concept of hyperobjects to describe objects that are so massively distributed in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal specificities.
He has enumerated five characteristics of hyperobjects: viscous, molten, nonlocal, phased, and interobjective.
Hyperobjects and their significance:
Hyperobjects, such as global warming, are objects that are distributed in time and space and can only be experienced in pieces.
They become visible during an age of ecological crisis and alert humans to the ecological dilemmas defining the age in which they live.
Alien phenomenology:
Ian Bogostâs applied object-oriented ontology is concerned with the being of specific objects rather than the exploration of foundational principles.
Alien phenomenology is grounded in three modes of practice: ontography, metaphorism, and carpentry.
Criticism of object-oriented ontology:
Some critics argue that object-oriented ontology degrades meaning by placing humans and objects on equal footing.
Others comment on the historical situatedness of an ontology that mirrors computational processes and even the metaphors and language of computation.
Object-oriented ontology fails to attain one of its proclaimed goals, namely the rejection of anthropocentrism because the objects it discusses are always just those that the human cognitive apparatus readily perceives or the human mind conceptualizes.
Object-oriented ontology is too dismissive of process philosophy.
Other information:
Hyperobjects have the potential to outlast a turn toward less materialistic cultural values and become indistinguishable from reverential care.
Overview:
Object-oriented ontology is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the importance of objects, both natural and artificial.
It rejects the traditional focus on human subjectivity and instead proposes that objects have their own inherent qualities and agency.
Key Figures:
Graham Harman is considered the founder of object-oriented ontology.
Other key figures include Ian Bogost, Levi Bryant, and Timothy Morton.
Concepts:
Object-oriented ontology emphasizes the importance of objects and their relations to one another.
It rejects the notion of a hierarchy of being, in which humans are placed at the top. Instead, it proposes a flat ontology, in which all objects are equally important.
It also emphasizes the concept of withdrawal, in which objects have a hidden essence that can never be fully known.
Critiques:
Object-oriented ontology has been criticized for its rejection of traditional forms of knowledge, such as science and mathematics.
It has also been criticized for its lack of engagement with social and political issues.
Adventure Time
It is just a cartoon but it is analogically related to OOOâs philosophy. The universe of Adventure Time does not showcase only humanistic entities. There are non-human entities like BMO. It has its own existenti
al crisis and other feelings independent from its species.