Object-oriented correlationism

On Graham Harman’s object-oriented ontology, all objects withdraw from each other. Objects have an inner depth or essence that is not exhausted or disclosed by their relations to other objects. Universal withdrawal of objects is the core claim of Harman's object-oriented ontology. Now, Harman is a metaphysical realist. He thus construes his object-oriented ontology as a metaphysics of the absolute or reality in itself. He believes that the core claims of his object-oriented ontology are justified as claims about how the world is in itself. But what if correlationism is irrefutable and therefore inevitable? In that case, Harman may still defend his object-oriented ontology as a metaphysics posited within the correlationist circle and thus within the context of how the world is for us instead of how it is in itself. By doing so he would become an adherent of what we could refer to as object-oriented correlationism (OOC).

In fact, many of Graham's core object-oriented ontology theses - such as that there are multiple objects, that we have to make a distinction between objects and qualities, that there are real and sensual objects and real and sensual qualities, that objects maintain a degree of autonomy and can thus not be reduced to their relations, and that there corresponds exactly one real object to each sensual object of ordinary experience (e.g., a real hammer compared to a sensual hammer, a real table compared to a sensual table, and a real bike compared to a sensual bike) - are epistemically reasonable and defensible as claims within the correlationist circle, that is, as claims about how reality is for us as human beings, whereas these claims are not justifiable as claims about how reality is in itself. For on correlationism no claim at all can be epistemically justitied as claim about the absolute or the 'in itself'.

Harman maintains though that correlationists assume a strict division between humans on the one side and non-humans on the other side. He considers it utterly implausible that human beings deserve to fill up a full half of philosophy. But this critique of correlationism is misconceived. For correlationists do not introduce an implausible taxonomy between human thought and everything else within the realm of objects. They do not allow humans to fill up fifty per cent of ontology. Correlationists do not introduce a horizontal split between humans and all other objects. They introduce instead a vertical distinction between the transcendental level of the human conditions of knowledge of objects and the object level of the objects of human knowledge. For correlationists object-oriented metaphysics resides solely at the object level and thus not at the transcendental level. At the object level an object-oriented correlationist can initially posit any flat ontology that he or she wants to pick as his or her point of departure. There is on correlationism no need at all for a horizontal dogmatic split between humans and non-humans at the level of objects. The human conditions of knowledge only appear vertically at the transcendental level of knowledge of objects and not within the world of objects we perceive and think and speak about. So, as said, all core theses of Harman's object-oriented ontology, including his initial flat ontology, can be posited and reasonably defended - in fact, on correlationism only be posited and reasonably defended - within the correlationist circle. That is to say, they can only be posited and reasonably defended within the-world-as-it-is-for-us or within the world of objects of human knowledge.

Prison break? In Defense of Correlationism

Recently I’ve enhanced my paper on Meillassoux’s arguments in After Finitude against correlationism. The new version of my paper can be found here on my website.

In Defense of Correlationism

In his influential book After Finitude Quentin Meillassoux argues that post-Kantian correlationism, the idea that we can only access the correlation between thinking and being, and never being itself, is contradictory. For that he provides three original arguments, the argument from ancestrality, the argument from facticity and the argument from mathematization. In a new paper I argue that his arguments do not go through. Meillassoux did not break the correlationist circle. Correlationism stands unrefuted.

Are we our own demon?

Cartesian demon skepticism lacks force. But could the human picture of the world be transformed by human thought? Could we be our own demon? So, what if this condition is universal, that is, what if human thought qua human thought always already deeply transforms what is given to human beings? What if the demon Descartes posited as a mere possibility outside us is in fact in us. Is us.

An argument for a world-for-us epistemology

That the world appears exhaustively mathematizable, can be cashed out as argument for the claim that we only have access to the-world-for-us. Let me explain. Mathematics can be applied succesfully to the world. But why is this in fact the case? Why is the world so perfectly mathematizable? This asks for some kind of explanation. But how to explain this? On metaphysical realism, there does not seem to be a straightforward explanation (although some philosophers, such as Craig, have opted for a theistic solution). However, on a world-for-us epistemology the almost perfect applicability of mathematics to reality is no surprise. For if mathematics is just extended rigorous thought (which seems plausible to me), then it is no wonder at all that the world as it is thought by us (i.e., the-world-for-us) is inherently mathematical. In fact, on an epistemology according to which we can only access the-world-for-us the successful applicability of mathematics is simply something one would expect. Therefore it seems to me that the fact that the world appears exhaustively mathematizable increases the likelihood of a world-for-us epistemology. Clearly, it is what Meillassoux has dubbed 'correlationism' in his much discussed book After Finitude.

VU Seminar on Speculative Realism

This year I shall teach a VU course on Speculative Realism. Speculative Realism is a growing and fascinating movement within contemporary philosophy. The course has the form of a seminar. Below I provide a short outline of its contents. Those interested in attending can contact me for further information.

Post-Kantian critical philosophy has focused almost exclusively on discourse and consciousness as what constitutes reality. Reality appeared only as the correlate of language or thought. Yet, in recent years one can detect a new development within philosophical thought. By contrast with the focus of post-Kantian critical philosophy on discourse and consciousness, a number of philosophers within the existential and phenomenological tradition turned again towards reality in itself. This movement is known as Speculative Realism.

The adjective speculative might suggest a return to pre-Kantian dogmatic philosophy. This is however not the case. Speculative realist thinkers purport to think reality in itself again, without falling back to pre-critical unreflective thought.

Speculative realists share a strong resistance to post-Kantian philosophies of human finitude. They reject the Kantian idea that we only have access to the correlation or interplay between thinking and being, and never to one of them considered apart from the other.

Further, these thinkers want to overcome the Kantian presumption that our human access to reality is somehow privileged. The target of philosophical reflection is thus shifted away again from the thought-world correlate.

Apart from these commonalities, there are important differences between leading speculative realists. Core members within speculative realism are Quentin Meillassoux (defending speculative materialism), Graham Harman and Levy Bryant (defending object oriented ontology), and Tristan Garcia (defending a flat ontology).

The objective of the seminar is to gain clear insight into the various positions within speculative realism and to be able to critically assess and compare these views. We shall explore together a number of fundamental texts that are generally considered to be representative of speculative realist thought and which founded the school of speculative realism. Participants are expected to actively participate by contributing to the discussion and giving a talk.

Literature includes (but is not limited to) selected chapters from After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency by Quentin Meillassoux; 'The Current State of Speculative Realism’ in Speculations, ‘Meillassoux’s Virtual Future’ in Continent, and ‘The Road to Objects’ in Continent by Graham Harman; selected essays from The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism edited by Levi Bryant, Nick Srnicek, and Graham Harman; and selected chapters from Form and Object: A Treatise on Things by Tristan Garcia.