MORE MONIST IDEALISM: Review of Graham Harman's BELLS AND WHISTLES

by Terence Blake
Argument: Graham Harman judges science and common sense in terms of the crude philosophical criteria of another age and finds them lacking in knowledge of reality. He posits a shadowy "withdrawn" realm of real objects in order to explain the discrepancies between his naive abstract model of knowledge as access and the concrete reality of the sciences. Works such as THE QUADRUPLE OBJECT, THE THIRD TABLE and BELLS AND WHISTLES, like the whole of his philosophy, are the record of Harman noticing the discrepancies, but refusing to revise the model. His solution is a dead-end, the timid, nostalgic, and fundamentally misleading propounding of an antiquated epistemology under the cover of a "new" ontology.

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

OOO: A DEMI-POST-STRUCTURALISM
1)NOSTALGIA FOR THE STRUCTURE vs DECONSTRUCTION ALL THE WAY DOWN We are living through a period of intellectual regression in the real of !ontinental "hilosoph#$ a ne% regression that erel#

proclai s itself to &e a decisive progress &e#ond the

negative and critical philosophies of the recent past' (et the pluralist philosophies of Deleu)e$ *oucault$ Derrida and L#otard cannot &e su ed up in the one+sided i age of pure criti,ue'

Their critical dissolution of the dog atic residues contained in even the ost innovative philosophies the# had encountered did

not leave us in a po%erless void of negativit# and paral#sis' Their -deconstruction- %ent all the %a# do%n$ deconstructing even the notion of criti,ue and li&erating the possi&ilit# of ne% asse &lages and ne% processes of su&.ectivation' /e#ond the criti,ue of the ne% figures of transcendence and ontotheolog# the# gave concrete s0etches of ho% to see the %orld in ter s of a ver# different sort of ontolog# &ased on i diachronic ontolog#' anence 1 a

2) OOO AS REGRESSIVE SUCCESSION The recent pro otion of philosophical successors to this constellation of thin0ers of i anence$ such as /adiou and

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 3i)e0$ has not led to an# real progress &ut to a la&our of travest#ing the past 4one has onl# to loo0 at /adiou5s DELE63E and 3i)e05s OR7ANS WIT8O6T /ODIES9 and to a return to such intellectual dead+ends as Lacanian ps#choanal#sis' /ut even these regressive philosophers re ain in dialogue$ ho%ever one+ sided and un.ust$ %ith their illustrious predecessors$ and strive to confront the at the level of conceptual richness that

characterised their %or0' 3) OOO AS POP FORMALISM The ne:t step %as ta0en &# the epigoni; Meillassou:$ %ho still retains an elevated st#le and at least an intention of conceptual rigour< and its pop variant in 8ar an5s adaptation of /adiousian for alist ontolog# for the asses' The ethod %as to

0eep up the general aura of having -gone &e#ond- the older supposedl# negative thin0ers &ut to radicall# si plif# the conceptual level$ presenting eas# su ar# presentations of the

ne% thought %hile convenientl# forgetting the conceptual paths follo%ed'

4) DEMI-POST-STRUCURALISM Thus certain figures have e erged in !ontinental "hilosoph# that occup# a conceptual space that is half%a# &et%een structuralis and post+structuralis ' One could call the de i+

post+structuralists' /adiou is a good e:a ple$ %ith his

MORE MONIST IDEALISM athe atical reductionis ' Still stuc0 in the pro&le atic space opened up &# the Althusser+Lacan con.uncture$ these thin0ers tr# to privilege Lacan as an alternative %a# out of structuralis #et the# tr# to -rationalise- their pro&le atic &# appeals to notions of speculative 0no%ledge &ased on ethodological rigour'

5) ONTOLOGICAL CRITI UE IS A FORMALISM The pro&le %ith the pri ac# of for alist ethod ethod is that it

is not content neutral' A for al

a0es su&stantive clai s

a&out its do ains of application coded into it' The opponents of - ethod- are not cra)# spontaneit#+addicted narcissists &ut people li0e /ohr and Einstein %ho clai ed that the e pirical ethod %as either the &otto +up heuristic li&ert# to e:plore an# h#pothesis &# eans of an# suita&le procedure or else a post hoc

clarification$ not an a priori for alist topdo%n i perative' The sta0es do not involve &lindl# insisting on the priorit# of creation$ &ut i pl# having a place for the possi&ilit# of novelt# and creation versus closing off in advance so e possi&le develop ents$ often %ithout even noticing'

!) "ADIOU REMAR#ETISED: SET-THEORETIC REDUCTION FOUNDS OOO$S AFFECTIVE REDUCTION One can agree %ith &oth Mehdi /elha. >ace and Ale:ander

7allo%a# that it is /adiou5s set theoretic philsoph# that

MORE MONIST IDEALISM e:presses in its purest and ost general for the ne% paradig

that articulates e:plicitl# %hat is else%here .ust &lithel# presupposed as a for of thought too evident to even &e a%are

of' The# indicate that the ne:t step in consolidating the regression that /adiou5s philosoph#$ ho%ever innovative$ does not initiate &ut rather registers and legiti ates$ corresponds to the far less a &itious productions of the o&.ect+oriented ontologists' I sa# far less -a &itious- in the sense of conceptual a &ition$ &ecause their a &ition is of a different order' The# are the ar0etised version of the /adiou+3i)e0

constellation$ and so the e:tre el# politicised tone has &een discreetl# dissolved to leave a ore de agogic pac0aging to the

stale ideas that OOO tru pets a &itiousl# as the ne% construction after so uch criti,ue' The# pro ulgate a du &ed

do%n de+ ar:ised version of the set+theoretic universe e:plicated &# /adiou'

%) OOO AS SYNCHRONIC ONTOLOGY LAGS "EHIND LARUELLE$S NONSTANDARD PHILOSOPHY It is nor al that in this conte:t *ran@ois Laruelle5s philosoph# is at last co ing into its o%n' It could not full# succeed %hile the %or0 of Deleu)e and Derrida %ere in progress$ as his criti,ues of that %or0 %ere onl# half+true$ &ased on giving it an ulti atel# uncharita&le reading as re aining %ithin

MORE MONIST IDEALISM the nor s of standard philosoph#$ and refraining fro considering other possi&le readings' Laruelle has pursued over the decades his un%avering co it ent to i anence and his

criti,ue of sufficient philosoph#$ and this pro.ect shines forth no% against the &ac0ground of the regression that /adiou+3i)e0+ Meillassou: and the OOO:ians represent'

&) OOO AS SYNCHRONIC ONTOLOGY LAGS "EHIND LATOUR$S COMPOSITIONISM Despite his insinuations to the contrar#$ /runo Latour %ith his co positionis is the direct application of

deconstructionist and post+structuralist thought$ %hich he is ver# fa iliar %ith' 8is tal0 a&out his -e pirical- research is ver# isleading and contains overtones of scientistic &ravado$ is in an# places a logical continuation of the

as his s#ste

%or0 of on these predecessors' 8e is ho%ever a good populariser of good ideas$ and his %or0 should &e encouraged as long as %e do not accept his o%n conte:tualisation of his ideas' Latour is ve# uch an inheritor of Deleu)e$ L#otard$ *oucault$ Derrida$

and Serres$ and also the intellectual conte porar# of Laruelle and Stiegler' It is this philosophical inheritance that gives his %or0 its superiorit# over /adiou5s and of 8ar an5s$ not an# pri ac# of the e pirical over the philosophical'

') OOO AS SYNCHRONIC ONTOLOGY LAGS "EHIND "ERNARD STIEGLER$S

MORE MONIST IDEALISM PHARMACOLOGY /ernard Stiegler is activel# re+reading and re+thin0ing thin0ers such as L#otard$ Deleu)e and 7uattari$ *oucault$ and Derrida &ecause he finds that despite the conceptual advances achieved &# this generation the# represent also a degree of failure in not helping us thin0 ade,uatel# the transfor ations in the econo # and in digital technologies that are i pacting our lives and re,uiring of us a ne% orientation in our e:istences' 6nli0e /runo Latour$ Stiegler is ,uite up front a&out the influences on his ideas and the need to re+read such philosophical sources %ith ne% e#es$ i'e' in relation to conte porar# events'

1() HARMAN$S ONTOLOGICAL CRITI UE IS TECHNOCHRATIC FORMALISM /ernard Stiegler has argued that it is regretta&le that in !ontinental "hilosoph# a direct confrontation %ith Althusser5s positions on the science+ideolog# distinction never too0 place' This non+engage ent %ith Althusser5s dualist and de arcationist episte olog# left the field free not .ust for scientis &inar# opposite$ relativis 9 &ut also unprotected fro 4or its the

hege on# of technocrats and the t#rann# of e:perts$ and also fro the pri ac# of anage ent over politics' A distant 8ar an5s

conse,uence of this neglect has &een the rise of 7raha

OOO pac0aged as conte porar# !ontinental "hilosoph# %hen it is

MORE MONIST IDEALISM in fact its e:act opposite$ a regression to a for of

Althusseris $ onl# de+ ar:ed$ depoliticised$ and de+scientised'

11) HARMAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND SCIENTIFIC ANTI-REDUCTIONISM *or e:a ple$ in T8E T8IRD TA/LE 7raha 8ar an gives a of

popularised version his o%n theoretical position in the for

a fla%ed reading of and an unsatisf#ing response to Sir Arthur Eddington5s fa ous parado: of the t%o ta&les' 6nfortunatel#$ 8ar an sho%s hi self incapa&le of grasping the anti+ reductionistic i port of Eddington5s argu ent and proposes an a&stract philosophical dualis to replace Eddington5s pluralist

vision of scientific research' It is tacitl# i plied that the theoretical .ustification for this unsatisf#ing presentation is to &e found else%here in 8ar an5s %or0s$ &ut this is not the case'

12) HARMAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND EPISTEMOLOGICAL ANTIREDUCTIONISM 8ar an5s position is one of a surface pluralis there are &# a deep 4for 8ar an

ultiple rDgi es of 0no%ing for an O&.ect9 overcoded onis and de arcationis 4the hu anist$ the

scientific$ and the co

on sense o&.ects are -si ulacra-$ onl#

the %ithdra%n o&.ect is real9 e &edded in a s#nchronic ontological fra e 4ti e is not an ontologicall# pertinent feature of real o&.ects'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

13) OOO: ONTOLOGICAL ACTIVISM) POLITICAL PASSIVISM Toda#$ o&.ect+oriented philosoph# is at a loss' Its hac0ne#ed set of critical ter s 4philosoph# of access$ sha s and si ulacra$ lavala p# over ining$ ato istic under ining$ strea s of &eco ing$ correlationis 9 clearl# have no point of application at all to the ne% lines of research opened up in recent !ontinental "hilosoph# &# a.or thin0ers such as /runo

Latour$ /ernard Stiegler$ and *ran@ois Laruelle' One has onl# to loo0 at the utter inco prehension that OOO:ians anifest %ith to

regard to Laruelle5s non+philosoph# to see that their clai - ove &e#ond- deconstruction is an e pt# &luff'

14) OOO$S FAILED ENCOUNTERS: TRAVESTY OF THE PAST) INCOMPREHENSION OF THE PRESENT The OOO:ians never understood the argu ents of their philosophical predecessors$ despite their pretentions To &eing the conte porar# response to and inheritors of the philosophies of deconstruction and of post+structuralis that flourished at

the end of the last centur#' Thus the# are ille,uiped to engage the ideas of the true creative successors' *ar fro a ne% inaugurating

ore constructive philosoph# that &uilds on the positive

achieve ents of the past %hile rectif#ing or a&andoning its erroneous pro&le atics and procedures$ 7raha 8ar an5s /ELLS AND

MORE MONIST IDEALISM W8ISTLES; MORE S"E!6LATIHE REALISM is a sterile co pendiu OOO5s fa iliar &ut disappointing histor# of of

FG

isunderstandings

and failed encounters$ and its pu&lication is a fitting funerar# onu ent to a set of affective gesticulations that never ,uite cohered into a philosoph#'

2( THESES ON GRAHAM HARMAN$S A"STRACT MONIST IDEALISM

1) OOO *s +, +-s./+0. 12,*s1 8ar an5s ontolog# reduces the ultiplicit# and a&undance of

the %orld to -e ergent- unities that e:clude other approaches to and understandings of the %orld 1 his o&.ects are the -onl# real- o&.ects$ all the rest are -utter sha s-' More i portantl#$ his o%n 4philosophical9 0no%ledge of o&.ects is the onl# real 0no%ledge' All that is ordinaril# thought of as 0no%ledge$ &oth theoretical and practical$ is also utter sha ; -8u an 0no%ledge deals %ith si ulacra or phanto s$ and so does hu an practical action- 4/ELLS AND W8ISTLES$ F29' 8ar an5s -realis - de+realises ever#thing e:cept his o%n a&stract 0no%ledge and his %ithdra%n o&.ects'

2) OOO *s 3/2425,678 /9650.*2,*s. Repeatedl#$ 8ar an goes to great lengths to criticise a generic &ut non+e:istent -reductionis -$ #et he see s to have no idea %hat reductionis is' 8e easil# %ins points against stra%

MORE MONIST IDEALISM en$ and then proceeds to advocate one of the %orst for s of reductionis i agina&le; the reduction of the a&undance of the of untoucha&le$ un0no%a&le$

FF

%orld to an a&stract hidden real #et intelligi&le$ -o&.ects-'

3) T:9 ;*.:6/+;, /9+7 2-<90. *s +, +-s./+0.*2, 8ar an produces a a highl# technical concept of o&.ect such that it replaces the fa iliar o&.ects of the ever#da# %orld$ and the less fa iliar o&.ects of science$ %ith so ething -deeperand -inaccessi&le-$ &ecause %ithdra%n' These real o&.ects have none of the e pirical predicates of co on sense e:perience or ere a&stract

of scientific o&servation and research$ the# are posits'

4) H+/1+,$s .9/1*,27=8 *s 9>5*v20+7 In OOO %ords do not ean %hat the# see to' 8ar an

e,uivocates %ith the fa iliar connotations and associations of -o&.ect- to give the i pression that he is a concrete thin0er$ %hen the level of a&straction ta0es us to the heights of a ne% for of negative theolog#; the invisi&le$ un0no%a&le$ ineffa&le

o&.ect that %ithdra%s' No concrete e:a ple can &e given$ as it %ould &e ta0en fro the sensual$ i'e' sha $ real ' (et 8ar an

repeatedl# gives e:a ples$ %hich in his o%n ter s is the ver# categor# ista0e that his philosoph# is designed to prevent'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

F2

5) OOO *s 2,.272=*0+7 ,*:*7*s1: .:9/9 +/9 ,2 ?/9+7 2-<90.s? *, H+/1+,$s s9,s9 No e:a ple of a real o&.ect can &e given' All that is given in e:perience$ all that is contained in our co on sense and

scientific 0no%ledge$ all that %e can see and touch and create and love is -utter sha -$ -si ulacra-$ -phanto s-' All that %e 0no%$ including %hat %e 0no% a&out ourselves$ is unreal' All our hopes and .o#s$ all our suffering and struggle$ all that %e strive for and value &elong to the %orld of illusion' Nothing fro the e pirical %orld 4none of its o&.ects or properties or

relations9 is real$ so 8ar an is left %ith nothing to populate his real %orld' 8ar an5s ontolog# of the real is e pt#' There are no -real o&.ects-$ this e:pression is an e pt# place+ ar0er in 8ar an5s ontological for alis '

!) OOO *s + s0:227 3:*72s23:8 8ar an5s OOO is &# no eans a return to -naIvetD- and to

the o&.ects of our e:perience OOO deals in generalities and a&stractions far fro the concrete .o#s and struggles of real

hu an &eings 4-The %orld is filled pri aril# not %ith electrons or hu an pra:is$ &ut %ith ghostl# o&.ects %ithdra%ing fro all

hu an and inhu an access-$ T8E T8IRD TA/LE$ F29' Despite its pro ises$ 8ar an5s OOO does not &ring us closer to the richness

MORE MONIST IDEALISM and co ple:it# of the real %orld &ut in fact replaces the ultiplicitous and variegated %orld of science and co on sense

F2

%ith a set of &loodless and lifeless a&stractions 4-si ulacra-$ -phanto s-$ -ghostl# o&.ects-9'

%) OOO$s /9+7 2-<90.s 62 ,2. ;*.:6/+;) .:98 ./+,s09,6 *or 8ar an$ %e cannot 0no% the real o&.ect' The o&.ect %e 0no% is unreal$ a sha $ a -si ulacru -' Real o&.ects transcend our perception and our 0no%ledge$ the# transcend all relations and interactions'

&) WITHDRAWAL IS VERTICAL: OOO$s 2,.272=8 24 /9+7 2-<90.s *s ,2. 47+. 8ar an sa#s repeatedl# that real o&.ects are -deep-$ deeper than their appearance to the hu an ind$ deeper than their

relations to one another$ deeper than an# theoretical or practical encounter %ith the ' This -depthof the real is a

0e# part of 8ar an5s ontolog#$ as is its transcendence' 8ar an5s OOO is not flat at all$ &ut centered on this vertical di ension of depth and transcendence'

') H+/1+,$s /9+7 2-<90. *s 93*s.91*0+778 +1-*=525s The episte ological status of OOO5s real o&.ects is unclear$ oscillating &et%een the idea of an a&solutel#

MORE MONIST IDEALISM un0no%a&le$ uncaptura&le realit# and the idea that it can &e captured in so e ver# a&stract and indirect %a#' In virtue of the un0no%a&ilit# of his o&.ects he is o&liged to place all t#pes of 0no%ledge$ including the scientific one on the sa e plane 40no%ledge of -si ulacra or phanto s-9$ as illusor#$ and at the sa e ti e presu e that %e can 0no% so ething a&out these o&.ects 4e'g' that the# e:ist$ and that the# %ithdra%9'

F=

1() OOO 07+*1s .2 @,2; .:9 5,@,2;+-79 "hilosophical intellection in 8ar an5s s#ste has the

contradictor# role of 0no%ing ontologicall# the real$ as that %hich %ithdra%s fro 0no%ing' In effect$ science is de oted to

the status of non+0no%ledge$ as the real cannot &e 0no%n' 8ar an is caught in a series of contradictions$ as he %ants to have his un0no%a&le realit# and #et to 0no% it' !o on sense cannot 0no%

realit#$ nor the hu anities$ nor even science'

11) OOO *s +, 93*s.91272=8 1+s>59/+6*,= +s +, 2,.272=8 The &asis of 8ar an5s s#ste is an episte ological criti,ue to

of so+called -philosophies of access-$ %hich leads hi

propose an alternative episte olog# disguised as an ontolog#' The as,uerade is necessar# to give the i pression that he has

found a solution to %hat he sees as the i passe of access' 6nfortunatel# no solution is given &ecause 8ar an is still

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

F?

oving inside the pro&le atic of access$ a pro&le atic %hich %as a&andonned &# ever# a.or philosoph# of the 2Gth !entur#' To

hide the a&sence of solution 8ar an is led to posit a solution in a previousl# un0no%n ontological di ension' This o&fuscation accounts for the strange i:ture of ontological and

episte ological considerations that caracteri)es 8ar an5s philosophical st#le' This generates such contradictions as pretending to acco plish a return to the concrete and giving us in fact a&straction$ and pretending to critici)e reduction and in fact perfor ing an even ore radical reduction'

11) OOO *s 93*s.91272=*0+7 /97+.*v*s1 8ar an5s episte olog# is relativist$ de oting science to an instance of the general relativis of for s of 0no%ledge$ all

&elonging to the %orld of si ulacra' 8o%ever$ &# fiat$ his o%n philosophical intellection and so e artistic procedures are partiall# e:cluded fro this relativisation' (et no criterion of ust suffice'

de arcation is offered' 8ar an di:it

12) F2/ OOO /9+7 @,2;796=9 *s *132ss*-79 8ar an .udges science in ter s of the crude philosophical criteria of another age and finds it lac0ing in 0no%ledge of realit#' 8e is then o&liged to posit a shado%# -%ithdra%n- real of real o&.ects to e:plain the discrepancies &et%een his naive

MORE MONIST IDEALISM a&stract odel of 0no%ledge as access and the realit# of the

FA

sciences' /ELLS AND W8ISTLES9$ li0e the %hole of his philosoph#$ is the record of 8ar an noticing the discrepancies$ &ut refusing to revise the odel' 8is solution is a dead+end$ a ti id$

nostalgic action propounding an anti,uated episte olog# under the cover of a -ne%- ontolog#'

13) OOO *s *69+7*s1 7raha 8ar an proclai s that his philosoph# is realist$ ost thoroughgoingl# idealist philosophies on sense o&.ect

%hen it is one of the

i agina&le' Ti e is unreal$ and so is ever# co

and ever# ph#sical o&.ect' All are declared to &e -si ulacra-' -Space-$ one a# o&.ect$ is real for 8ar an$ &ut that is no on sense space nor

space one %ould ever recognise; neither co

ph#sical space 4&oth -si ulacra-9$ 8ar anian space is an a&stract -%ithdra%n- intelligi&le space'

14) O,.272=8 *s ,2. 3/*1+/8 42/ H+/1+, 8ar an5s real pole ic is in the do ain of episte olog# against a stra% an position that he calls the philosoph# of

hu an access' No i portant philosoph# of at least the last ?G #ears is a philosoph# of access$ so the illusion of a revolution in thought is an illusion generated &# the isuse of the notion

of -access-$ inflating it into a gra&+all concept under %hich

MORE MONIST IDEALISM an#thing and ever#thing can &e su&su ed' /ut a philosoph# of non+access is still episte ological$ in 8ar an5s case it ta0es the for of a pessi istic negative episte olog# that su&tracts eaningful hu an theoretical 0no%ledge and

FB

o&.ects fro

practical intervention 4cf' T8E J6ADR6"LE O/KE!T$ %here Eg#pt itself is declared to &e an o&.ect$ al&eit$ strangel# enough$ a -non+ph#sical- one$ and so un0no%a&le and untoucha&le9'

15) #,2;796=9 +,6 3/+0.*09 +/9 *775s2/8: /+6*0+7 0:+,=9 *s *132ss*-79 One conse,uence of the reduction of 0no%ledge and practice to the status of e pt# phantas s and illusions of access is that glo&al change is i possi&le' The ontological neutralisation of our 0no%ledge is allied to its practical 4and thus political9 neutralisation' This e:plain5s 8ar an5s ina&ilit# to deal %ith criti,ues such as that of Ale:ander 7allo%a#$ &# an# than denial' eans other

1!) OOO *s 02,093.5+778 *,02:9/9,. +,6 .9/1*,272=*0+778 02,45s96 8ar an s#ste aticall# confuses access$ contact$ relation and interaction' 8is argu ent to esta&lish the ina&ilit# of relational ontologies to e:plain change e:hi&its rather his ina&ilit# to understand relations and to a0e si ple conceptual

MORE MONIST IDEALISM distinctions'

FC

1%) H2; 0+, + ;*.:6/+;, 2-<90. ?69-;*.:6/+;?A 8ar an cannot e:plain an# interaction at all$ in ter s of his s#ste ' One is entitled to as0; ho% can a %ithdra%n o&.ect -de+%ithdra%-L 8e can onl# .ust posit such de+%ithdra%al$ %hich is %h# his s#ste is conde ned to &e a dualist re%rite of ore

co ple: relational thin0ing' Withdra%al is a&solute$ universal$ a priori$ and non+e pirical' There are no degrees of %ithdra%al' 8ar an .ust postulates an a&solute &ifurcation &et%een interaction on the one hand and %ithdra%al on the other' 8ar an cannot thin0 %ithdra%al or its opposite 4interaction9 as an e pirical concept appl#ing onl# in certain circu stances'

1&) D*s02,.*,5*.*9s +/9 1*s-69s0/*-96 -8 ?;*.:6/+;+7? 8ar an cannot thin0 that %ithdra%al is itself one t#pe of relation a ongst variant of the an# others$ and that it constitutes onl# one ore general class of discontinuous relations' In

contrast$ Whitehead tells us that; -continuit# is a special condition arising fro our i the societ# of creatures %hich constitute

ediate epoch- 4"RO!ESS AND REALIT($ 2A9'

1') W*.:6/+;+7 /937+09s 021379B 6*s.*,0.*2,s ;*.: + s*1379 3s9562-02,093t

MORE MONIST IDEALISM The notion of cuts$ .u ps$ ruptures$ intervals$ or discontinuities is a far ore useful concept than the %holesale

FE

&ifurcation operated &# the notion of -%ithdra%al-$ %hich is &oth too si ple and too a&solute 4there are no degrees of %ithdra%al$ all %ithdra%al is of the sa e t#pe$ there are no special conditions for %ithdra%al$ it is a purel# non+e pirical concept9 and splits the %orld in t%o 4realMsensual9' 8ar an5s s#ste is too a&solute %ith its su ar# dualis s to &e a&le to

deal %ith the fine+grained distinctions that co e up in our e:perience'

2() OOO$s /9+71 24 /9+7 2-<90.s *s + 69->5+7*4*96 +,6 69>5+,.*4*96 v2*6 Real o&.ects are not ,ualifia&le in ter s of the e pirical predicates of co reductionist' W8ISTLES on sense or of science$ &oth declared to &e

Nor are real o&.ects ,uantifia&le' In /ELLS AND

8ar an declares several ti es that e:plaining things athe atical structures is reductionist' So finall#

in ter s of

his real o&.ects are neither ,ualitativel# distinct 4in ter s of e pirical predicates &elonging to the phantas atic real s of co on sense$ the hu anities$ the sciences$ and even

athe atics9$ nor are the# nu ericall# or ,uantitativel# distinct 4as athe atics is itself a reductionist phantas 9' So is a de+,ualified and de+,uantified void and

8ar an5s real real

MORE MONIST IDEALISM his philosoph# is an intellectuall# de&ased for of nihilis '

2G

THE SRCOO PROPAGANDA ?TUTORIAL?

1) P/*1+08: ./+,s09,69,.+7 3:*72s23:8 vs 913*/*0+7 /9s9+/0: One of the &iggest o&.ections to OOO concerns the ,uestion of pri ac#$ %hich re ains oot in conte porar# philosoph#'

8ar an5s ontological turn gives pri ac# to 4transcendental$ eta+level9 philosoph#' *e#era&end articulates a Machian position$ one that gives pri ac# neither to philosoph# nor to ph#sics$ &ut defends the open+ indedness of e pirical 4though not necessaril# scientific9 research'

2) R9s9+/0: *s ./+,sv9/s+7 This can &e clarified &# e:a ining *e#era&end5s defense of the -%a# of the scientist- as against the -%a# of the philosopher-' *e#era&end5s references to Mach 4and to "auli9 sho% that this -%a# of the scientist- is transversal$ not respecting the &oundaries &et%een scientific disciplines nor those &et%een the sciences and the hu anities and the arts' So it is ore properl# called the -%a# of research-' *e#era&end

tal0s of Mach5s ontolog#5s -disregard for distinctions &et%een areas of research' An# ethod$ an# t#pe of 0no%ledge could enter

the discussion of a particular pro&le - 4pFEB9'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2F

3) E/,s. M+0:: P2s*.*v*s. vs P75/+7*s. Ernst Mach is often seen as a precursor of the logical positivists$ an e:ponent of the idea that -things- are logical constructions &uilt up out of the sensor# ,ualities that co pose the %orld$ ere &undles of sensations' 8e %ould thus &e a 0e# 8ar an in T8E J6ADR6"LE O/KE!T calls

e:a ple of %hat 7raha

-over ining-' *e#era&end has sho%n in a nu &er of essa#s that this vision of Mach5s -philosoph#- 4the ,uotation ar0s are

necessar#$ according to *e#era&end -&ecause Mach refused to &e regarded as the proponent of a ne% -philosoph#--$ S!IEN!E IN A *REE SO!IET($ FE29 is erroneous$ &ased on a isreading &# the

logical positivists that confounds his general ontolog# %ith one specific ontological h#pothesis that Mach %as at pains to descri&e as a provisional and research+relative specification of his ore general proposal'

4) G9,9/+7 M9.:26272=8

*ollo%ing Ernst Mach$ *e#era&end e:pounds the rudi ents of %hat he calls a general ethodolog# or a general cos olog# 4this

a &iguit# is i portant; *e#era&end$ on general grounds &ut also after a close scrutin# of several i portant episodes in the histor# of ph#sics$ proceeds as if there is no clear and sharp

MORE MONIST IDEALISM de arcation &et%een ontolog# and episte olog#$ %hereas 8ar an$ %ithout the slightest case stud#$ asserts the e:istence of such a dichoto #' 8ar an5s actual practice$ I have argued$ proceeds &# ignoring the distinction and i:ing in a confused %a#

22

episte ological and ontological considerations9'

5) MACH$S ONTOLOGY *e#era&end discusses Mach5s ontolog# in S!IEN!E IN A *REE SO!IET(4FEA+2G29 and a0es it clear that it is one of the

enduring inspirations of his %or0' 8e clai s that Mach5s ontolog# can &e su arised in t%o points;

i9 the %orld is co posed of ele ents an their relations ii9 the nature of these ele ents and their relations is to &e specified &# e pirical research

!) HARMAN$S ONTOLOGY One su a# note a rese &lance %ith 7raha 8ar an5s ontolog#$

arised in his - &rief SRMOOO tutorial-$ reprinted as !hapter

F of /ELLS AND W8ISTLES; i9 Individual entities of various different scales 4not .ust tin# ,uar0s and electrons9 are the ulti ate stuff of the cos os' ii9 These entities are never e:hausted &# their relations'''O&.ects %ithdra% fro relation'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

22

%) THE ELEMENTS: M+0:*+, 239,,9ss vs H+/1+,*+, 072s5/9 The difference is illu inating' Whereas Mach leaves the nature of these ele ents open$ allo%ing for the e:ploration of several h#potheses$ 8ar an transcendentall# reduces these possi&ilities to one; ele ents are o&.ects 4N/; this reduction of the possi&ilities to one$ enshrined in a transcendental principle$ is one of the reasons for calling 8ar an5s OOO an o&.ectal reduction9'

&) THE RELATIONS: A-s275.9 W*.:6/+;+7 vs D9=/99s +,6 5+7*.*9s 24 C2,,90.*2, +,6 D*s02,,90.*2, /# allo%ing e pirical research to specif# the relations$ Mach does not give hi self an a priori principle of %ithdra%al; here again -%ithdra%al- is .ust one possi&ilit# a ong an#'

Another advantage of this ontolog# of unspecified ele ents is that it allo%s us to do research across disciplinar# &oundaries$ including that &et%een science and philosoph#'

') TEMPORALITY: S8,0:/2,*0 vs D*+0:/2,*0 Mach5s ontolog# is diachronic$ evolving %ith and as part of e pirical research' !onversel#$ 8ar an5s ontolog# is s#nchronic$ dictating and fi:ing transcendentall# the ele ents of the %orld'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 1() INTRA-WORLD REDUCTION: 9v9/82,9 97s9 -5. H+/1+, *s ?/9650.*2,*s.? 8ar an has invented a ne% voca&ular# to descri&e various t#pes of reductionis various philosophical that he &elieves he has discerned in oves' The ove of e:plaining a

2=

acroscopic o&.ect such as a ta&le in ter s of its ato ic and su&+ato ic is called -under ining-' E:plaining the ta&le in ter s of the flu: of perceptions is called -over ining-' 8ar an has recentl# detected argu ents that he has &aptised the a0e &oth oves at once$ so

-duo ining-' A nota&le feature of all three

oves is that their reduction operates inside onl# one of the %orlds that 8ar an discusses 1 the %orld of -utter sha s-'

11) TRANSWORLD REDUCTION: H+/1+, *s + s39057+.*v9 /9650.*2,*s. /ut 8ar an hi self operates a different sort of reduction that reduces the realit# of one %orld$ the -sha - %orld of sensual o&.ects$ to that of the -real- %orld of %ithdra%n o&.ects' As this reduction cuts across &oth %orlds$ I propose to call it trans ining-' The difference %ith the preceding is that intra+%orld reduction is an e pirical h#pothesis$ that is to &e tested and to /e discarded if it does not hold up to e pirical investigation' 8ar an5s o&.ectal reduction is an apodictic posit$ invulnera&le to e pirical testing'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2?

HARMAN$S TEMPORAL DENIALISM: 0:+,=9 *s ?42/-*669,? -8 /97+.*2,+7 2,.272=*9s

We co e no% to one of 8ar an5s against pluralist relationis ore aggressive argu ents

1 that it cannot acco odate

change' 8ar an5s philosoph# in fact denies all realit# to ti e and is an e:tre e for of spatialised s#nchronic ontolog#$ #et

he pro.ects his difficult# %ith the concept of real ti e onto the positions that he supposedl# goes &e#ond; 1) H+/1+, +=+*,s. /97+.*2,+7 2,.272=*9s: 0:+,=9 *s 42/-*669, 8ar an5s aster argu ent against relational ontologies is

that the# cannot e:plain change$ that if ever#thing %ere related nothing %ould change' This is patentl# false$ as relations include te poral relations' Deleu)e for e:a ple tal0s a&out &oth 0inetic 4relative speeds and accelerations9 and d#na ic 4relative forces$ and relative capacities to affect and to &e affected9 relations' It is ludicrous to clai s#ste entails that change is i possi&le' that Deleu)e5s

2) H+/1+, 629s ,2. 5,69/s.+,6 /97+.*2,s This forgetting 0inetic and d#na ic relations$ and ore

generall# 8ar an5s confusion over te poral relations sho%s that

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 8ar an5s real %orld has no place for ti e and for change and ultiplicit#' 8ar an constantl# and indiscri inatel# conflates relations in general %ith specific su&sets of relations such as interactions$ and also %ith specific t#pes of relation such as contact and access'

2A

3) H+/1+,$s *,0213/9:9,s*2, 24 6*+0:/2,*0 2,.272=*9s 8ar an is una&le to understand the positions he is arguing against$ and that he is supposed to have gone &e#ond' 8e criti,ues onl# stra% an positions that have never e:isted' 8e

has no understanding of$ for e:a ple$ Deleu)e$ and .ust deprecates his philosoph# %ithout getting into an# detail'

4) H+/1+,$s +/=519,.s +/9 +4490.*v9 +,6 ,2. 02,093.5+7 8ar an gives pseudo+conceptual affective refutations %ith no citations and no anal#sis$ ere picture+thin0ing designed to

produce the sa e -eure0a- e:perience as a co parative pu&licit#' There is no su&stance to 8ar an5s accusation$ %hich is close to an Or%ellian parod# 4fro -%ar is peace- to -ti e is stasis-9'

*urther$ he has given no su&stantial account of %hat is %rong %ith so+called -relational- ontologies in general$ e:cept for his aster+argu ent that if ever#thing %ere related change %ould

&e i possi&le' 8ar an tries to insinuate that in his ontolog# change can &e accounted for'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2B

5) T*19 *s 5,/9+7 42/ H+/1+, 8ar an denies the realit# of ti e and so his ontolog# is s#nchronic in a ver# strong sense' 8is understanding of other philosophers is &ased on a s#nchronic reduction of their st#le' Even his reading 4in T8E T8IRD TA/LE9 of Eddington5s t%o ta&les argu ent falsifies it &# e:tracting it fro the %hole ove ent

of Eddington5s -Introduction- to his &oo0 T8E NAT6RE O* T8E "8(SI!AL WORLD$ and fro in general' his vision of the ove ent of research

!) H+/1+,$s 69,*+7 24 .9132/+7*.8 8ar an .ust doesn5t -get- te poral relations' 8ence his repeated$ and a&surd$ clai that if ever#thing %as co posed of oving faster or slo%er

relations nothing %ould change' As if

than$ accelerating faster or slo%er than$ &eing attracted or repelled or pushed or %hirled around %ere not relations'

HARMAN$S A"STRACTIVE ONTOLOGY: 0213+/*s2, ;*.: "+6*25

1) H+/1+, +,6 .:9 ,927*-9/+7 :832.:9s*s We have traversd a period of polarisation during %hich the neoli&eral do:a reigned uncontested al ost ever#%here$ e:cept in

MORE MONIST IDEALISM a fe% acade ic and para+acade ic enclaves$ %here a -refined- or aristocratic criti,ue %as ela&orated' The philosophical result

2C

of the e:tenuation of this cognitive polarisation is in part the develop ent of an a&stractive 4and a+political9 ontolog# of o&.ects as legiti ation$ rela# and effectuation of the neoli&eral h#pothesis 47raha 8ar an9$ and in part the ultiples as unist h#pothesis

ela&oration of the su&tractive ontolog# of

legiti ation$ rela# and effectuation of the co 4/adiou9'

2) T/5,0+.96 P75/+7*s1 +,6 D*+0:/2,*0 S5337919,. In &oth /adiou and 8ar an %e have a truncated for pluralis ; a s#nchronic ontolog# of o&.ectal of

ultiples %here the

diachronic di ensionis added on after%ards as a supple ent' /adiou has t%o ontologies grafted together 4/eing AND the event9$ 8ar an has ontologicall# real o&.ects$ and sha ti e'

3) U,/9+7*.8 24 .*19 *or 8ar an ti e is not a real relation &et%een real o&.ects$ &ut rather a -sensual- relation &et%een sensual o&.ects$ in the illusor# do ain of si ulacra 4T8E T8IRD TA/LE calls these sensual o&.ects$ i'e' the o&.ects of co on sense

and of the sciences$ -utter sha s-$ /ELLS AND W8ISTLES calls the -phanto s- and -si ulacra9' *or /adiou ti e in the strong

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2E

sense &elongs to the event in the na ing intervention$ and there also$ as for 8ar an$ see s to &e dependent$ at least in part$ on su&.ectivit#'

4) S5/4+09 P75/+7*s1 +,6 Ov9/026*,= M2,*s1 There is also a onis %hich co es to overcode this

ontological pluralis $ at &oth the ontological and the episte ological level' At the ultiples of aterial or sensual level %e have ultiple

ultiples or plural o&.ects$ prehended in

0no%ledges' At the for al or

eta+level %e have transcendental

restrictive categorisation and the pri ac# of philosophical intellection'

5) O,.272=*0+7 M2,*s1 *or 8ar an the real is a uni,ue and separate do ain$ real o&.ects are -%ithdra%n-< the o&.ects of co on sense$ of the

hu anities and of the sciences are pure si ulacra' *or /adiou the real is the non+,ualified o&.ects of co athe atical ultiple$ and the

on sense$ &ut also of the sciences and of the ultiples 4it is to

-hu anities-$ are constructed out of these

&e noted$ and this signals an i portant difference &et%een /adiou5s and 8ar an5s s#ste s$ that for /adiou these constructed o&.ects are not necessaril# si ulacra$ nor is 0no%ledge of the necessaril# sha 9' In &oth cases there is ontological pri ac# of

MORE MONIST IDEALISM one do ain placed over and a&ove the others' *or /adiou the un,ualified do ain of ultiples of ultiples has pri ac# and so

2G

Mathe atics is ontolog#' *or 8ar an the do ain of real o&.ects is un,ualified in ter s of 0no%a&le co on sense or scientific

properties$ even if it is ,ualified in ter s of its o%n nou enal properties'

!) E3*s.91272=*0+7 M2,*s1 *or 8ar an co on sense and scientific 0no%ledge do not

accede to the realit# of o&.ects$ the onl# possi&le 0no%ledge is indirect and appertains to philosophical intellection or to the arts under the control of o&.ect+oriented ontolog#$ %hich dissipates the ontological and episte ological illusions$ such as the naturalist pre.udice and the scientistic pre.udice' Si ilarl#$ for /adiou$ to each do ain there corresponds a generic and paradig atic truth+procedure 4 athe e$ poe $ political invention$ love9' "hilosoph# in /adiou5s s#ste is not

itself a truth procedure$ &ut serves to asse &le the truths of an epoch and to enounce the co on configuration of the

paradig atic procedures of the con.uncture and also to dissipate the pre.udices resultng fro the suture of philosoph# to .ust ore pluralist

one of these truth+do ains' /adiou here is again

than 8ar an$ as he recognises the e:istence of four truth+ do ains$ and not .ust one'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2F

%) T:9 6907*,9 24 H+/1+,$s +-s./+0.*v9 2,.272=8 +,6 "+6*25$s s5-./+0.*v9 2,.272=8 A&stractive and su&tractive ontologies are in regression co pared to the pluralist philosophies of their predecessors' The# are the co ple entar# representatives 4a politicised co unist version in /adiou5s case$ a -de+politicised-

neoli&eral version in that of 8ar an9 of truncated pluralis $ the s#nchronic shado% of the diachronic ontologies that the# ape %ithout &eing a&le to rival in their force of thought'

&) H+/1+,$s "+6*25s*+,*s1: M+.9/*+778 P75/+7*s.) F2/1+778 M2,*s. 8ar an5s OOO is a specific variant %ithin the general paradig set out &# /adiou5s philosoph#' The ter inological ultiples

differences are i portant' /adiou spea0s in ter s of

and events$ 8ar anin ter s of o&.ects' /adiou e:plicitl# e phasises the pluralist aspect of his ontolog# &# the choice of the ontologicall# &asic ter roo of - ultiples- and anages to a a0e

for ti e and change 4events9$ even if he gives the

secondar# place in his ontolog#' 8ar an prefers the ter

ore unitar# of

of -o&.ect-$ and consigns ti e and change to the real

the -sensual-$ i'e' of sha s and si ulacra'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

22

HARMAN$S CONFUSIONISM: +1-*=525s .9/1*,272=8 +,6 02,093.5+7 02,47+.*2,

1) HARMAN CONFLATES #NOWLEDGE AND ACCESS 8ar an argues against -philosophies of access-$ &ut this is .ust to redo$ onl# uch ore sloppil#$ the critical %or0 done &#

"opper and Sellars$ Juine and >uhn$ /achelard and *e#era&end$ Lacan and Althusser$ Wittgenstein and Rort# refuting and dis antling the dog as of e piricis ' *ar fro going &e#ond the

post+structuralists 8ar an has not even caught up %ith the structuralists' No i portant philosoph# of the 2Gth !entur# has &een a philosoph# of access$ and 8ar an5s OOO is a regression on ost of the preceding philosoph# that he clai s to criti,ue and surpass'>no%ledge is not -access-'

2) HARMAN CONFLATES RELATIONS AND INTERACTIONS >no%ledge is neither access nor contact' "ropositional relations are not access' An interaction is not in general access$ either' More i portantl#$ a relation is not the sa e thing as an interaction' 8ar an conflates all this to o&tain so e &lurr# stra%+ an that even a FG #ear old child %ould have no trou&le refuting' So the %hole picture of relations as not -e:hausting- the ,ualities of the o&.ect accessed is erroneous' Thus -%ithdra%al- has no sense as a general concept' These ter s

MORE MONIST IDEALISM -access-$ -e:haust- -%ithdra%al- are nor all# part of a te poral$ d#na ic voca&ular#' The# are used illegiti atel# in 8ar an5s s#ste and serve to give an allure of te poralit# to

22

%hat is in fact an ontolog# of stasis'

3)HARMAN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PLURALIST CRITI UES OF MONISM 8ar an is so concentrated on criticising the privilege given to hu an access and to anthropocentric assu ptions in general$ a rearguard action if ever there %as one$ that he has no understanding at all for the recent and conte porar# pluralist philosophies that atte pt to trac0 do%n and dissolve the privilege given to reified categories and to onist

assu ptions in general' 8ar an5s ontolog# falls under the pluralist criti,ues of the post+structuralists and the post+ e piricists'

4) HARMAN$S CONTRADICTIONS ARE DISGUISED "Y AM"IGUOUS TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL CONFLATION 8ar an5s OOO relies on a s#ste atic a &iguit# in his 0e# ter s 4o&.ect$ %ithdra%al9 &et%een their use as eta+categories

and their use as categories' We can never see or touch or 0no% an o&.ect 4 eta+categor#9 &ut he constantl# gives e:a ples fro different do ains 4categor#9' Withdra%al a&straction fro eans ulti ate

sensual ,ualities and relations$ a&solutel# no

MORE MONIST IDEALISM direct contact or relation 4 eta+categor#9$ or it .ust sensual richness of o&.ects$ al%a#s ore than our i

2=

eans the

ediate

e:perience of the ' We get a contradictor# s#nthesis &et%een a Northern asceticis and a Mediterranean sensualis ' /ut in the

last instance this concrete a&undance$ this aesthetic sensualis is declared to &e an -utter sha -'

5) HARMAN$S SYSTEM IS "ASED ON HOMOLOGY It is at the level of his ontolog# as rudi entar# set of eta+categories that the ho olog# of 8ar an5s OOO %ith speculative capitalis can &e affir ed' /adiou accepts the

e:istence of this ho olog# for his o%n ontolog#$ and ta0es it ver# seriousl# as a pro&le ' 8ence his repeated engage ent %ith the concepts of the event and change$ re,uiring hi to co plete

his s#nchronic ontolog# %ith a diachronic supple ent' 8ar an5s response is .ust inco prehension and denialis $ as %ith all the other criti,ues that his s#ste the internal ho olog# &et%een that instantiate the 4%hich has received' Nevertheless it is eta+categories and the categories a0es of 8ar an5s s#ste an

ela&orate pla# on %ords9 that

a0es possi&le the e:ternal and various concrete do ains$

ho ologies &et%een 8ar an5s s#ste including the econo #'

!) OOO$S PHILOSOPHICAL INTELLECTION HAS PRIMACY: +77 97s9 *s

MORE MONIST IDEALISM *775s*2, The ,uestion of pri ac# re ains oot in conte porar#

2?

philosoph#' Despite repeated allusions to the collapse of foundations and the atte pt to construct a post+foundationalist philosoph#$ conte porar# thin0ers still grapple %ith this ,uestion' One ust as0 of each philosoph#; to %hat does it give on sense

pri ac# 1 to philosoph#$ science$ art$ religion$ or co

4or to none9L /adiou and 8ar an give pri ac# to 4transcendental$ eta+level9 philosoph#' Laruelle is ore a &iguous$ giving

pri ac# to science$ #et including non+standard philosoph# on the sa e level as the sciences' Deleu)e and 7uattari in W8AT IS "8ILOSO"8(L are so e%here &et%een the t%o positions$ and so see to avoid the pitfalls of pri ac#; the# situate philosoph# on the sa e level as the sciences 4and the arts9 &ut capa&le of a0e philosoph#

eta+operations that ta0e -functions- in ph#sics 4and

affects and percepts in the arts9 as o&.ects of its o%n philosophical concepts'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2A

HARMAN$S CONTRADICTORY HERMENEUTICS OF SU"DECTIVITY

1) OOO SPLITS EEPERIENCE INTO A"STRACT INTELLECTION AND CONCRETE ILLUSION 8ar an5s OOO splits her eneutic$ i'e' participative$ e:ploration of the %orld into o&.ective speculation 4an a&solutised and thus -%ithdra%n- conte:t of .ustification9 and sensual or su&.ective encounter 4an a&solutised$ and thus -sha -$ conte:t of discover#9' This splitting de otes the su&.ect to the %orld of sha s$ %hich leads to a -reurn of the repressed-$ in the for of an i plied su&.ectivit#$ &ut one that

he is either una%are of or un%illing to endorse e:plicitl#$ adapted to the neo+li&eral order' *ar fro su&.ectivit# fro eli inating

the %orld of o&.ects 8ar an5s OOO is su&tended as,uerading as its

&# an all+pervasive degraded su&.ectivit#

opposite' 8ar an then proceeds to re+su&.ectif# his philosophical vision %ith e:pressions connoting a su&.ectivit# that is ruled out &# the strict application of that philosoph#'

2) WITHDRAWAL CAN "E PARTIALLY OVERCOME: O"DECTUAL LOVE AND THE ART OF O"LI UITY Wa:ing l#rical$ 8ar an tal0s of ho% %e ust love the

o&.ect; -The real is so ething that cannot &e 0no%n$ onl# loved-

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 4T8E T8IRD TA/LE$ F29< thin0ing ust &e indirect$ -its approach

2B

to o&.ects can onl# &e o&li,ue- 4F29$ and -allude to o&.ects that cannot ,uite &e ade present- 4F=9' All this tal0 of loving

and hunting and approaching and alluding to$ all these e:pressions are strictl# ill+for ed' A sensual su&.ect cannot love$ hunt$ approach$ or even allude to a real o&.ect' It5s not that o&.ects cannot -,uite- &e ade present$ the# cannot &e ade

present at all' Withdra%al is all or none$ it does not ad it of degrees'

3) OOO IS A CONTRADICTORY MIE OF NOETIC ASCETICISM AND SENSUAL HEDONISM (et to give appeal to the theor# 8ar an has need of descriptors of the su&.ective attitude of those %ho endorse it' 8ence the constant tal0 of o&.ects that redounds in unthe atised su&.ective participation in the theor# as vision of the %orld' The o&.ectal conversion as the passage to the constructed -naivetD- that sees o&.ects ever#%here is thus a su&.ective conversion to a hard+headed noetic asceticis of intelligi&le of the

o&.ects coupled %ith a soft+hearted sensual e:oticis

aesthetic pla# of si ulacra' (ou can &e a gee0 and an esthete at the sa e ti e$ %ith the contradiction &eing covered up &# the edial su&.ectivit# of loving indirectness$ of hunterl# o&li,uit#$ and of diaphonous allusion'

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2C

4) OOO PROSCRI"ES THE ETHICAL ENCOUNTER Despite appearances to the contrar#$ 8ar an in fact privileges su&.ectivit# in various 0e# aspects of his philosoph#; %hile tr#ing desperatel# to contain it %ithin his conceptual reductions it seeps out and conta inates the %hole %ith a gee0o+esthetic co pound su&.ectivit# fusing cold intellectual anipulation and %ar sensual en.o# ent$ thus erel#

proscri&ing the ethical encounter %hich can &e neither conceptual nor t%o'

erel# esthetic nor so e conflicted h#&rid of the

5) OOO CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR #NOWLEDGE 8ar an is in denial of her eneutics$ and as %ith his denegation of episte olog# 4%hich results in his ela&orating a &ad episte olog# under the guise of ontolog#9$ ends up doing &ad her eneutics' 8is her eneutics of specific te:ts such as Eddington5s -Introduction- is ,uite inade,uate and erroneous$ as is his her eneutics of the histor# of philosoph#' 8ar an5s 0e# ter s$ such as -%ithdra%al- and -access-$ are ill+for ed her eneutical concepts$ giving a grotes,ue si plification and defor ation of the histor# of philosoph# and of conte porar# rival philosophies' *e#era&end and Latour argue that the sciences are not a&stract cognition onl#$ &ut also have a

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

2E

constitutive$ and thus necessar#$ her eneutic di ension' This is %h# even the sciences provide so e resistance against neo+ li&eral neo+lei&ni)ian a&straction and speculative anipulation' 8ar an5s odeling and

odel is not enough to account for

0no%ledge$ and it is he %ho is &eing reductionist %ith his real o&.ects and their supposed sensual instanciations'

OOO: A SU"DECT WITH A NOT SO GREAT PAST

Over the last fe% #ears the OOO:ian ove ent has ultiplied

signs of success at the sa e ti e as sho%ing un ista0a&le s# pto s of decline' /ased on a denial of episte olog# and on &lindness to its o%n status as 4&ad9 episte olog# OOO %as a&le to capture the attention of those %ho %ere loo0ing for a ne% speculative st#le$ after the Science Wars and in opposition to those %ho %ere content to .ust parrot Deleu)e or Derrida or *oucault' Stanle# !avell and Richard Rort# had each in his o%n %a# sought to attain to the status of ho egro%n A erican !ontinental "hilosoph#$ &ut their Wittgensteinian and 8eideggerian fra e%or0 %as too o&scure and a&struse$ too Dlitist and erudite' A and 7raha ore pop version of the sa e a &ition %as needed

8ar an5s OOO satisfied a strongl# felt need to have

done %ith deconstruction and return to -naivetD- 48ar an5s %ord fro the opening of T8E J6ADR6"LE O/KE!T9' 8ar an is &# far the

MORE MONIST IDEALISM ore radical thin0er %hen %e co pare his ontolog# of %ithdra%n o&.ects to the athe atis of Meillassou:$ the scientis of

=G

/rassier$ and the Lacanian naturalis

of /r#ant' 8ar an alone

has &een %illing to discard the scientistic pre.udice that vitiates the %or0 of these thin0ers' (et this superiorit# of 8ar an5s position could onl# &e aintained &# stic0ing to the pathos of an escape fro episte olog#' As long as 8ar an did not e:plicitl# engage %ith episte ological the es in his o%n na e the denegation of its status as episte olog# on %hich his %or0 %as &uilt gave it even ore force of conviction and persuasive po%er' The o&.ectual conversion re ained a potent possi&ilit#' With the pu&lication of T8E T8IRD TA/LE this anti+epste ological posture %as revealed as an i posture$ OOO %as revealed not as superior insight over and a&ove co the narcissis on sense and scientific realities$ thus gratif#ing of the artistic co unit# %hile saving it fro ode of

the accusation of post odern relativis $ &ut rather as a

philosophising that %as intellectuall# inco petent to give a satisf#ing account of the do ains of science$ the hu anities and co on sense' Instead of an account %e get dis issive

gesticulation; these do ains are -sha -$ their o&.ects are -si ulacra- or -phanto s-' The a&sence of an# understanding of diachron#$ fro the diachron# of science and that of co on

sense$ to the diachron# of a si ple argu ent is patent' Real

MORE MONIST IDEALISM philosophical positions and argu ents are replaced %ith a&surd caricatures %hich are then easil# re&utted$ giving the

=F

i pression of a livel# pole ical force read# to accept and repl# to o&.ections'

ON DISAPPOINTMENT IN PHILOSOPHY: .:9 0+s9 24 OOO

We easil# tal0 a&out our enthusias s in philosoph#$ as if our path of thin0ing %as one of the accu ulation of truths and eli ination of errors$ one of progress' /ut disappoint ent is .ust as i portant a driving force$ a non+philosophical affect that shado%s our enthusias s' A philosoph# can see to e:press

%hat %e find essential to hear at a turning point in our life$ and to pro ise a ne% %orld of insight and freedo $ onl# to turn out to &e a lure$ a deceitful pro ises' irage una&le to live up to its

When I first read 7raha

8ar an5s &oo0s I found the

pro ising' At least there %as a reference to conte porar# pluralist thin0ers and a %illingness to engage in e:planation and argu ent' It too0 e onl# a couple of onths to realise that

the pro ised e:planations %ere either totall# inade,uate4the #th of -episte ologies of access- for e:a ple is aintained

onl# &# loft# ignorance of huge parts of recent philosoph#$ and

MORE MONIST IDEALISM &# refusing to engage an# real reading of te:ts; .ust glo&al denunciation9 or not forthco ing' The initial shoc0 of recognition %as te pered &# the realisation that 8ar an %as &uilding on ideas that %ere %idespread in !ontinental circles 2? #ears ago$ and that I had alread# su&.ected to a thoroughgoing criti,ue &efore oving on

=2

to so ething else' 8is -progress- %as in fact a regression to &arel# disguised rehashes of old refuted ideas' I %as astounded at the pretentiousness of the clai s of OOO$ given their fli s# &asis$ and at the credulousnesss of the supporters$ too #oung to have personal 0no%ledge of the prior avatars of these ideas' Luc0il#$ I ,uic0l# found far ore satisf#ing and

intellectuall# challenging thin0ers 4/runo Latour$ Kohn La%$ Andre% "ic0ering$ Willia !onnoll#$ /ernard Stiegler$ !atherine

Mala&ou$ and *ran@ois Laruelle$ to na e a fe%9 and &egan to ela&orate the non+standard pluralist philosoph# that I had discovered in Deleu)e and *e#era&end and 8ill an$ and that I thin0 has still not seen its da#' I decided to deconstruct OOO as a %a# of clarif#ing %h# I had initiall# &een attracted and %h# I thought it %as a great step &ac0%ards' I do not care for OOO in an# of its variants$ and I thin0 its onl# value is pedagogical; a %arning of the stupidit# that dogs us all of enthrall ent %ith the plausi&le products of cognitive ar0eting' I thin0 that OOO5s popularit# is &ased on a

MORE MONIST IDEALISM cruel isunderstanding' "eople see to thin0 that OOO announces

=2

a return to the things the selves$ &ut as %e have seen this is not so' Nor is it a return to the concrete diversit# and a&undance of the %orld' This i pression is an illusion' OOO gestures at the %orld$ even as it %ithdra%s an# real possi&ilit# of e:ploring it and co ing to 0no% it' In # o%n case$ I have used OOO to help e clarif# # o%n

ideas on pluralist ontolog#$ and especiall# on Deleu)e and *e#era&end' OOO is a de&ased s#nchronic travest# of the diachronic pluralis that *e#era&end and Deleu)e espouse' What

people are loo0ing for and thin0 the# find in OOO is the e:act opposite of %hat is there' "eople are loo0ing for intellectualit#$ strange ne% concepts to go further on the paths opened &# the preceding generation of philosophers$ and concreteness$ an engage ent %ith the a&undance of the %orld$ its passions$ its pleasures$ and its pro&le s' /ut OOO5s intellectualit# is a ta%dr# sha $ and its concreteness is a c#nical &luff' 8ar an5s OOO is the %orst for of dualis i agina&le$ a the great

dualist episte olog# and ontolog# in regression fro

pluralist philosophies that preceded it' Are these pluralist philosophies that I ad ire perfectL No the# are ver# inco plete and one+sided$ developped in response to concrete conte:ts that are no% &ehind us' Are the#$ these deconstructive philosophies$

MORE MONIST IDEALISM the selves i

==

une to deconstructionL Not at allN The# the selves

even call for their o%n deconstruction$ and Stiegler$ Latour$ and Laruelle continue the effort and deconstruct$ each in their o%n %a#$ %hat re ains undeconstructed in their predecessors5 ideas' A li&eration fro the conceptual sche as of philosoph# is

possi&le if$ as "aul *e#era&end invites us$ %e thin0 and act outside sta&le fra e%or0s 4-There are the an# %a#s and %e are using

all the ti e though often &elieving that the# are part of a

sta&le fra e%or0 %hich enco passes ever#thing-9 and fi:ed paths 4-Is argu ent %ithout a purposeL No$ it is not< it acco panies us on our .ourne# %ithout t#ing it to a fi:ed road-9' This is %hat I have &een calling diachronic ontolog#' It is the e:act opposite of the path that OOO has chosen$ %here %e find a s#nchronic ontolog# incapa&le of dealing %ith ti e and change$ and a onis of transcendent %ithdra%n entities'