Graham Harman: What is an Object? | Föreläsning

[@sabinoluevano7447]

this man is smart and eloquent as fck

[@Torgueuere]

Not really, you lacking philosophical background is not exactly Graham's merit...

[@Z1ddee]

@@Torgueuere Your a dick

[@Kazishairslikesoradd]

well if you've seen one Graham Harman lecture, you've seen them all...(for the most part)

[@novapan1906]

so true…

[@agoateatingvinesinalabyrinth]

Dude I was just going to say that

[@Torgueuere]

That's absofuckingloutely true.

[@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw]

@@Torgueuere Martin Heidegger was not a Nazi Philosopher; but, paradoxically, by Graham Harman is a Nazi Philosopher as confessed through Object Oriented Ontology. Graham Harman overtly ordains a Nazi Philosophy because his Object Oriented Ontology epitomizes the essence of Nazi Philosophy. Heidegger never reduced beings to objects as the Nazis had done, and as Harman does. Nazi Philosophy has to be denounced and destroyed yet Harman disseminates Nazi Philosophy through Object Oriented Ontology (of which Heidegger would have had strongly objected). For the Nazis, Jews were Objects and not Beings; yet Objects are not Beings: there is no such thing as: 'tool being'. Object Oriented Ontology is an oxymoron.

[@PaulFishwick]

Computer scientists are trained in methods of object-orientation (arising in the 60s -- Alan Kay). This training is implicitly packaged with a philosophical approach to seeing the world in terms of classes and instances (objects). Does anyone know how to connect or position Harman's perspective with CS object-based design and implementation?

[@bradmodd7856]

Thanks for an intelligent insight. overdue...as we create the world again in code we must build all the objects here again and there must be valuable lessons in the process, assuming there will soon be a virtual Earth we can enjoy as well as this one. A good place to buy real estate,

[@rapidopato]

For years I worked as a computer programmer in Java, and I see no direct relation with Object Oriented Philosophy. .Harman deals with the nature of objects and their relationships, what it means for objects to be real, and how they influence one another. Harman also use the term object oriented but they are distinct concepts used in different fields, each with its own set of principles and ideas.

[@PaulFishwick]

Good replies. I need to dig further as I am not grasping Harmon’s argument.

[@InsertPhilosophyHere]

Like all worthy philosophers, Harman peels back the curtain and exposes that people's comfortable assumptions are false. It makes some people uncomfortable. Like all worthy philosophers, Harman probably won't get his due until years in the future.

[@bradmodd7856]

Of couse explaining what something is made of is precisely explaining what it does....what it does in a model that is then verified by experiment produces a value to describe what it does. What it does to the scale gives us something called it's weight. I think it is too early to make 000 work...we need to go back a step to Latour first and really identify how to proceed. 000 is like a pre-Wright brothers plane.

[@HelsinkiFINketeli_berlin_com]

Of course. If the only objects are let's say quarks. Even if so, and it isn't so, how something behaves is not equal with what something does. And so forth. And so forth.

[@JeremyHelm]

Folder of time

[@JeremyHelm]

1:03 an object, for me is simply something that cannot be reduced in either of two directions

[@JeremyHelm]

1:42 reduce upwards: objects are too deep to be the truth

[@philippococktube]

don't buy it, weak arguments, enormous assumptions and exclusions... for example the speaker claims an 'object' doesn't change when it is relocated (within limits, he adds). what is that supposed to claim? naive pragmatism seems to be the point. not my cup of art tea.

[@davidscher4303]

art resists

[@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw]

There are no objects 'for' Ontology or 'of' Ontology: there is no such thing as ‘object oriented ontology’ .

[@anomos1611]

k

[@samadams1998]

I may or may not agree with you depending on your definitions. Could you clarify what you mean by “there are no objects”? The reason I ask is because, if I do hold a similar position to you, then you’re understanding of OOO (which I lack) may be useful in helping understand the problems with OOO.

[@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw]

@@samadams1998 There are noobjects in that everything is nowdesignated as an object if it has a materiality to itso the word object becomesmeaningless really but for ontology, being is not an object because being is not an everything; yet we tend to nominate things as objects; even Heidegger mistakenly nominates things as beings.

[@jimcameron9848]

Hey yo yo yo Graham. Bro, tie this to the human capacity for EVIL, get rid of too many words, and hint that we can be forgiven for being EVIL but we need help identifying how EVIL we are. Quick BrOH! Do it broh - Publish a 10 step book. Jordan Peterson baby ... Oh yeah!. Mercedes Benz weekends and shrimp cocktail summers here we come WOOOOOOOOOHHH! I am a philosopher.