Prof. Bruno Latour 'From Critique to Composition'

[@ineffable1000]

Good speech. Thanks for posting.

[@LuisSampaio123]

I cvant wait to read his new book

[@MichisMarxistas]

Which is?

[@andrewwelch5]

agreed that is is easily open to interpretation. This was also my impression. If anything it says a lot about the context from which harman speaks. However, I really like to see it from the points of view of people like steven shaviro and ian bogost and even morton, in the sense of making thought explorations into the 'alien' other in the sense that it evokes a very tricky but very rich space of thought.

[@alexalien2456]

An object is existence without being and the horror of existence is what an object is and existence without being is all around us for we live in a world of objects that exist-there without being-there and to our absolute horror there are even humans there that exist without being existing-there-without-being-there for existing-there is not being-there: Ontology for Heidegger is Obology just as Ontology for Harman is Obology and Obology for Heidegger and Harman is objectified-being-into-obing.

[@alexalien2456]

The Object-oriented ontology of Harman, Bryant and Latour is fascist to its innermost-core where we live in a world in which all levels are on the same playing field and all objects are equal and all actors are equally actors and object-oriented ontology is not about ontology but obology and obology is the objectifying of everything which is an object-oriented fascism; yet Harman, Bryant and Latour cannot see that their object-oriented obology is a fascist ideology is a deeply disturbing thing.

[@RiotAngel13]

I think you didn't really get Latour if you think his ontology is object-orientated. By turning "objects" and "facts" into "matters of concern", Latour is doing the very opposite. By this transformation, i.e. by questioning the absolute rupture between "facts and values, nature and society, ... we arrive at the notion of matters of concern which enables public discourse. This form of discourse is fundamental to a "deliberative democracy" which I think is definitely not fascist. Latours thinking is strongly influenced by Heidegger, but Heidegger definitely understood this problem of an object-orientated ontology (see for example his notion of truth: "aletheia" which elucidates the formation of truth as disclosing and being disclosed. Truth is not reduced to a true proposition but to an engagement in the 'lifeworld'). Considering Heidegger definitely supported some elements of nazi ideology, but nonetheless had this insight considering the problems of an object-orientated ontology, it is very ambiguous to refer to Latours ontology as "fascist"... Moreover, if you take into account the fact that Heidegger was of great influence to Foucault (whose ideas and motives were very much opposite to fascist ideas) and Foucaults influence on Latour, it's safe to say Latours Heidegger is anything but fascist. I suggest you read "We've never been modern" or "Politics of Nature" to understand what I mean by "influenced" by...