Slavoj Zizek - Object-oriented ontology

GET THE 'I Would Prefer Not To' T-SHIRT: i-would-prefer-not-to.com

[@iwouldprefernotto49]

If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here: i-would-prefer-not-to.com

[@bradleymarquette6224]

I would be really interested in a more Zizekian approach to OOO, how negativity could come into play in Harmon's ontology of objects. How would Zizek's ideas of ontological gaps, the incompleteness of ontology itself, factor in? Could the empty space between things, the gaps, be just as vital of a relation between objects as anything Harmon has proposed? Perhaps these ontological gaps are objects themselves, a kind of parallax object that is fully withdrawn and may lend some relation to cause other objects to already always be partially withdrawn in themselves. Maybe in a Zizekian interpretation of OOO negativity could lend the space in between objects to let the Subject emerge. Instead of the Subject being in the same category of objects that Harmon proposes, it could be that it is not an object at all but a very specific and unique network of relations between real and sensual objects that mediates from the human object. These ideas would be interested for someone to work through to see if OOO is more than just a sterile theory of everything. As fascinated as I am with ontologies put forward by Harman and Garcia, I still find lots of dead-ends in OOO. It is a great aesthetic theory of everything but it needs to expand to be more than it is now for it to truly be a theory of subject and object. Also, I think if Harmon really wants to take OOO all the way beyond just aesthetics then he needs to try to include mathematical objects, numbers, and quantum mechanics in the future. I think any modern, serious work on ontology has to make more of an attempt to put quantum theory into play because it has become way too fundamental to ignore. Even Zizek touches on quantum theory in his exploration of reality itself being ontologically incomplete. (Even though Zizek tends to use quantum theory in a less than accurate way, hey, at least he gives it a shot!) These ideas I touched on are all just stream of consciousness I've been having lately thinking about OOO so if anyone thinks any of these ideas are way off base, please give me thoughts in regard to them. I'm not an academic by any means, just a proletariat laborer who likes to think about ontology from time to time.

[@Nalhek]

Considering that both Zizek and Harman both come from a background in Heidegger, it isn't surprising that there is a huge overlap here. Both Harman and the sniffly Racoon agree that the subject would be a... something (?) Which "withdraws" from any attempt at being ontologically "exhausted" by cognition. The discrepancy here (I think?) Is in that Zizek seems to regard the "withdrawal" or "withholding" of everything else in the world as stemming from the ontological "incompleteness" of the subject, while Harman would probably argue that everything is already ontologically "incomplete" simply due to the way in which ANY kind of object is withdrawn from everything else. So basically it seems to me that both feilds of thought converge in a way, with one merging psychoanalysis with Heidegger (Lacan) and the other merging Heidegger with a quasi-Whiteheadian quasi-panpsychism. Hopefully that was a sensical contribution to this discussion. Idk, I'm baked as a cake rn, fr.

[@nonah60]

Kehlan Morgan :'D

[@isawilraen9816]

You seem like a clever subject, so if you have the time........ What does 'negativity' mean in "how negativity could come into play in Harmon's ontology of objects?" My short take on Z is that I have no fking clue what he's talking about. The long take is that I sometimes feel that I kind of somewhat have a faint hunch of what universe he might be coming from... something like, he's an "absolute subjectivist" in the sense that we can't conceive of anything, including our own subjectivity, without doing so subjectively. We're stuck in our own heads (I'm guessing that that's a misleading way of stating it (if I'm even right about the general idea), but hopefully you get my point). And subjectivity (experience?) is fundamentally constructed such that it's "incomplete"; it's always in a dialectical movement of encountering inconsistencies or gaps in the objects, or the reality, that it conceives of, and of having to account for those inconsistencies by synthesizing the contradictory perceptions. That's why all ideologies/worldviews/narratives are always about some "lack" in one's reality, and why they provide an answer to that lack (e.g. we are unhappy because of the Fall, and God is the solution); it's just how our "minds" are constructed to perceive things. And he gets this idea of reality/experience of reality being itself fundamentally, always, inconsistent, from Hegel and Lacan. For Lacan, a subject "labels" its sensory inputs and then "lives" in that "world" of labels (Symbolic Order), yet that "world" is and always will be fragile and incomplete (the Real is a fundamental aspect of that "world" (mind?) -- it's part of the Symbolic Order/"world" itself; nothing avoids symbolization per se, but that network of labels could collapse at any moment due to the incompleteness inherent in it, and in fact is constantly dealing with mini-collapses and hence with reconstructing itself). And Hegel of course was all about things fundamentally being in contradiction with themselves, which -> Becoming (Graham Priest's dialetheism is mainly inspired by Hegel; the difference between a still arrow, and a moving one in a point in time, is that the latter is both there and not-there). Assuming that the above is even a little bit right, my short take would still be that I'm clueless as to what he's saying. I mean, I still have no idea how he derives his politics from those foundations; or why he thinks that gender identity is a choice; or why Pinker is really stupitt; and so on.... Is there a basis from which those views logically follow, or are those aspects of his thought independent in which case there'd be room for Zizekian fascism, or whatever? And oh, what does "Maybe in a Zizekian interpretation of OOO negativity could lend the space in between objects to let the Subject emerge" mean? That the incompleteness of material reality -> the human mind? What about the brain, then? Aren't we born with brains that process info and so on which = the subject? Yeah, I don't get it. And I feel like trying to read him directly again without having an idea of what he's saying, and confidence in that being what he's actually saying, would be a waste of time.

[@stiller44]

who

[@VVeltanschauung187]

@@isawilraen9816 Yeah, I think I'm done with these new ""philosophers""

[@QoraxAudio]

Now this is true continental philosophy.

[@a_new_brand]

Just as Brassier and Meillassoux are.

[@rudolfbaresic]

The subject/object dichotomy is outdated, especially at a time when we're entering the digital and post-industrial era. We need to approriate these technological mechanisms to challenge the power of the oligarchs.

[@davidantolinezuribe2413]

The problem might be that the technological development is produced and controlled by the main powers. See what happened when someone approriate those tools in the case of Assange or Snowden. It is a complex situation.

[@farrider3339]

@Rudolf : 🤝 ✊😈 .•°

[@farrider3339]

@@davidantolinezuribe2413 : just pull the plug and blow up some ⚡️power plants Techno-feudalism must be broken (i'm sayin this while using their technology 🤔eerie) ✊🤤 .•°

[@brilliaurabillah8974]

As far as i know this philosophy is talking about human relation especially around object, not power struggle

[@asdfghjk6493]

Is Object-oriented ontology better than Functional Ontology?

[@riccardocuciniello2044]

OOO is good if properly interpreted through Heidegger. Where do these objects come from? That's the question. They don't seem to answer it. A good triangle could be Heidegger (Being) / Zizek (barred subject, $) / OOO (object) Subject and object are not those of classical metaphysics, but: $ is Dasein at the end of Being's destiny; OOO's object is the being thing at the end of Being's destiny. This is not historicism, since at the end of western metaphysics we find the Kehre, where the beginning and the end meet again (it's actually more complicated, but nonetheless). I think Zizek and OOO help us deal with this Kehre.

[@asdfghjk6493]

@@riccardocuciniello2044 I was making joke about object-oriented programming vs functional programming, thanks for explanation though

[@riccardocuciniello2044]

@@asdfghjk6493 ahahahahha am sorry

[@AdrianLozano1]

ObjectFactorySingletonNeumenaFactory vs the MarxMonad in the category of Hegelianism, you can sell the former, but you enjoy the latter.

[@farrider3339]

@@riccardocuciniello2044 to.me this Kehre is nothing but a circular or pendulum like movement . The dreariness of mere objectivism drives man back to the arabesques of ideologies cultures and teachings as passed on previously. Nobody wants to stand naked in an storm ❄️of ice. Narratives ♨️ warm up and fuel the thinking structure humans are blessed (sarcasm) with . Generally I may add : It is the object creating the subject in the first place. There is nothing but metaphysics .•°

[@masonkerr8359]

Zizek claims he has read Difference and Repetition, but stuff like this makes me doubt it.

[@davidantolinezuribe2413]

Of course he did. One of his best books is about Deleuze "Organs without bodies". He simply does not submmit to Deleuze's metaphysics - Zizek remains a hegelian in many aspects

[@masonkerr8359]

@@davidantolinezuribe2413 Zizek himself admits that Organs Without Bodies was terrible- one of his worst books.

[@davidantolinezuribe2413]

@@masonkerr8359 Franz Kafka hated his books, Kubrick also hated some of his films. I trust very little of the way authors talk about themselves. The fact is that Zizek did read Deleuze and wrote a book giving some critic insight on the metaphysics of Difference and Repetition.

[@masonkerr8359]

@@davidantolinezuribe2413 Yeah those are facts, sure. What I am arguing against is your value judgement...

[@davidantolinezuribe2413]

@@masonkerr8359 Well, it seems I appreciate more Bodies wothout object that Zizek himself. I believe it is a good lecture about Deleuzian system, concearning some issues like quantum physics, psychoanalysis and good old hegelianism. In some aspect, what Zizek critiques of Deleuze is the very same he is arguing here abour Harman's OOO: How any metaphysics without the negative dimension of the subject - or any other object, for that matter - is always uncomplete. Funny thing is that Deleuzians do not like OOO either.

[@bozoc2572]

Žižek hit the nail here: "But for me what they do is simply a massive return to old realist ontology. And for me, this is way too arrogant"

[@11deicide]

I don't understand why "old" realist ontology is obviously arrogant. Could someone tell me why one would think this? What isn't arrogant if both transcendentalism and realism is? A combination of both? Transfused arrogance? I'm sorry, I'm not really well read, I just don't understand.

[@maldoror5750]

@@11deicide I’d also like to understand why he thought of it as arrogant

[@farrider3339]

@@11deicide let me suggest he just wanted to place a provocation to fire up 🔥 the discourse . Or he simply hasn't understood the meaninglessness of any philosophy .•°

[@VVeltanschauung187]

Zizek thinks Ruins == Castles

[@itsvoskalper3693]

@@11deicide because after Kant aristotelian ontology (which is based on the presuposition that there are real objects out there which we can know) is outdated. Kant says there are only objects TO THE SUBJECT, not in themselves. They aint independent nor we can know them fully. Hegel would later on superate kant by saying that there are no objects outside the subject, so thats a subjective ontology. These new guys (object oriendted ontologists) want to go back to the problem of objects existence. Hope this helped.

[@thenewtwenties]

Can someone explain this in simpler terms?

[@farrider3339]

He loves the mumbo jumbo of the arabesques attached to simple plain living .•°

[@tathagatsingh6634]

should have put Kant

[@tathagatsingh6634]

@Pete Haskell Hahahahaahhahahahahaha Good onw

[@Zen-rw2fz]

@Pete Haskell no

[@RYBATUGA]

I agree with Zizek. We have to be careful of limiting ourselves to the dialectic of things.

[@farrider3339]

A thing is a think . Is there anything beyond think 💭 ? .•°

[@Y0UT0PIA]

DESTROYED

[@lxjunius9276]

“didn’t know what to put here lol” This is Graham Harman’s general approach to ontology.

[@reviveramesh]

just put that

[@GayTier1Operator]

OOO has a lot to offer for the way we think about ecology and relationality but the willful ignorance in avoiding human subjectivity leaves us in an anti political place. how can you assess social relations by focusing on “thing power”? it places everything outside apprehension

[@Namerson]

i always thought it did the opposite, by treating each social 'phenomenon' as it's own object, it almost allows you to talk about them more objectively, drawing no distinction between physical phenomenon & social phenomenon.

[@coryhenshaw8487]

Read Spinoza. It is no great wonder why the most monistic thinker who sees all Being as part of one substance was also a great political thinker, stressing the importance of direct action on behalf of the multitude of concretely existing individuals. Spinoza is monistic - many OOO thinkers love this about him, thought and matter and equal parts of one substance for him - and yet this only invigorates his political ideas of political subjectivity etc.

[@GayTier1Operator]

Cory Henshaw perhaps true. i know he’s part of the lineage of that strand of philosophy but haven’t directly read him. but i’m talking about OOO in particular

[@coryhenshaw8487]

@@GayTier1Operator fair enough ,i'm not too familiar with any of the major OOO thinkers in particular.

[@davidantolinezuribe2413]

I agree somehow with you. That's why I prefer Latour's work over Harman. Latuour is very careful to not fall into modern anthropocentrism nor the anti-political place of a world without responsability for the actions of both objects and subjects. I highly recomend "We've never been modern" by Latour.

[@Fabzil]

Dat thumbnail do

[@markuspfeifer8473]

we should move to a functional ontology and become semi-experts on category theory!

[@farrider3339]

semi-experts 😍 #meLike That's what we already are and will remain, don't we ? .•°

[@markuspfeifer8473]

@@farrider3339 We can only be free if our monads are! And you can’t be a scientific socialist (TM) unless you understand natural transformations as morphisms in functor categories :D

[@farrider3339]

@@markuspfeifer8473 "scientific socialist™ " 😳 freakn hell 😁 OK let's go for it ! 👆 this 👈 way 👉 👇 ✊😏.•°

[@davidantolinezuribe2413]

I just saw the 2 Harman-Zizek debates. In there, they agree pretty much on the main topics of materialism and realism. I don't know why he put himself in a different possicion here. I agree with Zizek that there is some sorto of negativity ontology. Harman talks about potentiallity, but it is a bit more complicated that than when we talk about the subject - here it goes everything from freudian Uncounscious and Lacan's Real. I think Zizek's not being fair when he says Harman is an arrogant and massive return to old-fashion realism. OOO consider's the openess or uncompleteness of the matter (suggested by quantum physics), the networks that links agent-objects (proposed by Latour's constructivism) and rejects the undermining or overmining of reality. Harman consider aesthetics, jokes and subjectity as something that cannot be reduced to fundamental particles nor be abstracted into language-games or power-relations. I agree that OOO does not take into account the negativity ontology that exist in both objects and subjects. But I also agree with Harman, who says to Zizek "why call yourself a materialist if there is nothing material to hold on?" - check the 2017 debate. A more complete ontology must take into account both of those aspects of reality.

[@QoraxAudio]

I have a Harman Kardon.

[@farrider3339]

Agree ! Z.'s objection about "arrogance of objectivity" to me is more a provocation than truly meeting the point. He just adds a bit of fuel to the fire of the debate , the way I sees it .•°

[@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw]

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

[@farrider3339]

It is the object creating the subject .•°

[@AG-ni8jm]

Not gonna lie, once I hear/read about Subjects, Ontology, Objects, etc my brain fizzles out. This is radical thinking?

[@rodya_raskolnikov]

No, this is metaphysics and epistemology. There's nothing political (i.e., radical) being discussed.

[@farrider3339]

@@rodya_raskolnikov true ! Metaphysics is opinion and ideology. Is there anything else but opinions 🤔 .•°

[@farrider3339]

Strip away the narratives ideologies doctrines (which are in themselves volatile & fleeting) - What have we ? Even if object oriented ontology doesn't say it all , it might be able to bring about a reduction of that boundless overestimation (Selbstüberschätzung) about what the species 👥 inherently and ultimately truly is . Biology doing its stuff .•°

[@Rainin90utside]

OOT is hot trash