/lit/ - Literature

>>10123377
Can I get a quick rundown on Graham Harman and also Bruno Latour? is object oriented philosophy a meme?

>>10124554

>Can I get a quick rundown on Graham Harman and also Bruno Latour?

No

>is object oriented philosophy a meme?

No

I haven't read any metaphysics more modern than Berkeley/Leibniz. Can anybody tell me if modern metaphysics even attempts to reconcile itself with quantum mechanics/particle physics?

>>10126412
Yeah, that's what the philosophy of physics is for. Don't see what particle physics has to do with the problem of universals though

>>10126345
lol wtf

>>10126481
Isn't the concept of universals just a quirk of language?

>>10126620
Yes, abstract universals cannot exist. Their only function is to allow communication

>>10126620
No

>>10126634
Why "can't" they exist?

No, my Heidegger professor is pretty good too.

>>10123377
>Is he the only metaphysicist of note today?
>>10124554
>is object oriented philosophy a meme?

OOP is extremely gimmicky and simplistic. It feels like its whole purpose is to become another philosophy fad or movement - out of desperation because philosophy is stagnating today, if not dying.

But OOP is too boring and too unoriginal to gain any attention beyond those who share the same desperation for some new philosophy fad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oOqGo3_YHA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK-5XOwraQo
His interpretation of previous philosophy here is extremely simplistic and reductive - so that he can present his own philosophy as a radical breakthrough. In a sense he's projecting his own simplistic approach to metaphysics to others, while his own philosophy is merely a mirror image of what he's reacting to instead of going truly beyond it.

I think the actually interesting and novel "object-oriented" theory was conceived three decades ago by Baudrillard who posits "the supremacy of the object over the subject". And this theory took itself way less seriously, it's sort of a joke aimed against the subject. Pic related.

>>10123377
There's a considerable aristotelian revival going on.

>>10123377
Dugin (no meme)

>>10127989
So another remake or reboot, like in Hollywood, in order to keep to maintain the level of academic production?

A proper new metaphysics can only emerge in some kind of relation to the "common sense" of its times, either to oppose it or to raise it to the level of metaphysics. But the times we live in have no coherence, there is nothing to use as an anchor or a reference anymore, and any attempt at doing so ends up being just another piece in the same incoherent cultural soup.
I'm afraid we'll have to wait until this non-culture dies off before any philosophy in the strong sense becomes possible again.

*blocks youre access*

Graham Harman is not of note, so no

>>10128119
who is then?

>>10128122
The only currently living metaphysician worthy of the name who I can think of is Badiou. And I don't even like Badiou.
The guy is really old tho, and I really don't see anyone else appearing.

>>10126620
If it's a "quirk" of anything it's a quirk of the human mind. We seem to notice, even without categories, that there are categories of things. Think of how a baby or an African gray parrot can recognize multiple things of the same color.

Also, >>10126873 is right. There is really no way to disprove the existence of abstract universals. It's not out of the question that Plato's Forms exist, really, considering they're defined as being immaterial.

>>10128340
*even without language, that there are categories of things

Dumb typo.

>>10128092
The malnourishment is real in this pic.