A serious critique: Object Oriented Ontology is a term that poses that such an idea did not arise from a transcendent inspiration. It turns the transcendent into a common universal element such that thus all Objects rely upon such ‘intensionality’ and thus by thier operation(s) nullify that any such transcendent might be inspiring the Object to make it phenomenal. Since Objects are now the ‘withdrawn’ tool of another Object in the real universe.
The system OOO as a system completely argues that it arose due to its own ability or capacity to inuit the trascendental In itself Object: ie. Phenomenalism denied.
But, this is not so much a critique as it is a stating of facts.
HERE. Cole wrote one in 2013, I believe, but it was mostly an attack on those of his fellow medievalists who have taken a liking to OOO.
This one’s a bit more acerbic, and aimed directly at me. (What is it with Duke Ph.D.’s and OOO? Galloway came out of Durham as well.)
In case I have the opportunity to write a full response somewhere, I won’t write a long one here, but will just make a few brief points.
•Cole takes the line that although Speculative Realism thinks Kant is a “moron” (his word), Kant actually discovered all of the insights of Speculative Realism before we did.
•This claim has been answered many times, in print and in the blogosophere. Kant is certainly not a moron. I’d probably rank him just behind Aristotle/Plato or Plato/Aristotle as the third greatest philosopher in the West, and I’ve said in print that…
View original post 434 more words