I was looking for a video on Object Oriented Programming and it's relation to philosophy, so I was a bit surprised when I realized this was actually just a philosophy lecture with no programming at all. That said, I absolutely loved this lecture. He put to words many ideas I've had swarming in my head. I definitely look forward to reading his book now.
@@severanceflames2201 I was trying to find some smart people talking about the Aristotelian logic behind classes and still haven't found anything. That said, the more I dig into Graham Harman's stuff the more I like it lol. Let us know if you actually found some programming philosophy stuff.
8:43 Two kinds of knowledge? What about, "How did it come to be? (process again). And for what purpose?" I take purpose to be different from function. I guess the first two questions are what questions, and mine are why questions (history, and intention). Universities and Football Teams are just objects (process entities) on a different spatial and temporal scales than a chair or a table. (Chairs and Tables are processes too, when viewed at various scales). On one scale they are practically static, on another the are a blur of energy.)
I really enjoy the simple way Harman explains his thoughts. But I cannot understand his fourfold structure. If we already have a defined Object as something that lies deep in realism, how can it be that there is also the sensual Object. The real Object seems to be behind everything we interact with it, and doesn´t leave enough space for another object behind. The sensual Object of Husserl seems to me to be a whole other Idea, how can these two Ideas of Object get into the same Philosophy?
@@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw That took a lot of courage for you to write that. Please post one of your lectures. I'm looking forward to learning your philosophy. From your comment I'm sure it's full of insight and super compelling.
Wait a minute. Fire doesn't burn cotton. Cotton burning is Fire. Fire is not an object relating incompletely to cotton. its a process that is transforming the cotton. He talks about the East Indian Company as object which is definitely one one to look at it, but I think a better was is to look at it as "Entity as Process" OO is so 20th century. He needs to Haskell. Functions not objects is what the cool kids work with. First order and higher order functions. 4:12 What are his primitives. In a functional ontology, the primitives are Null-ary functions that always return themselves. Yeah. We can always substitute functions for objects. If objects are functions the return values are it's qualities and relations and the arguments are the observers relation to the object. If stand in the same relation to an object (send in the same arguments), you get a consistent return value (time is always and implicit argument). Yes anything he's says about objects can be morphed into functions. And functions capture the dynamic structure of reality much better than objects.
I’m not convinced that ideas don’t emerge from physical properties, and while yes, physics would be a poor way to gain knowledge of many things that emerge from its rules- that doesn’t make it so they haven’t emerged. When Conway made the game of life, he knew the rules that governed the game- but I’m sure he didn’t immediately know how to make a “glider” or “airship” in that game. Just because a thing is not easily predicted by base rules doesn’t mean those base rules cannot constitute the thing.
31:07 - "I'm sorry, our ethics panel is run by AI now, and our ethicist is really more of a quality control position. It would be great if you had an engineering degree."
The love of wisdom is a process and wisdom is a result; therefor, philosophy emphases process over result. Both are needed and so is the truth that a process always produces a true result WRT that process. Always! How many other truths are there like this? This point of view made the ongoing deceptions of parts in our society rather easy to see...the result is looked at first and given emphasis, and it's usually altruistic on the individual level, and gainful for the group. The education system where teachers have altruistic motives, the result is switched from learning to producing good workers, which is good for the group; or health care, where doctors are mostly altruistic, the goal is health, and is now big business, ditto for foreign aid. A process is adopted and at the same instant there is a subtle shifting of the goalposts, with cost being the reason I think. Doing this excludes other solutions and acts to marginalize some of the actors...because that one result is demanded...and the actual true process to achieve the result looks or is made to look funny and so disregarded (but actually works). Choice is removed. We understand the business behind it and acknowledge the altruism, but can't see the individual vs group dichotomy, the switch in the result. An example are tractors, which are supposed to save work, but tend to destroy or alter ecosystems, so that in the long term much more work is created. The soil micro biology is marginalized, and this is seriously bad for a ground up ontology (as opposed to top down). Mess with the bottom layers and the upper layers disappear, not the other way around. Now a huge amount of resources are needed to "fix" the process: it becomes a system of problem solving instead of problem prevention, which of course is much more lucrative. I'm not saying it happened deliberately or purposely, like Adam Smith's invisible hand it appeared and was then taken advantage of. Much of society has been repeated enough so that it becomes obvious that something is not working (large cities for instance, or fast food) and I think this is because the philosophy behind it is wrong. Even more seriously, people seem to be getting messed up, more angry and fearful, and perhaps this is the reaction to a lack of choice. Far from being depressing, this shows the problem and how to fix it.
To me the fix involves architecture, but also civil engineering since I feel the grid like structure and individualizing effect of cities both reflects and provides the means for the idea presented in the above comment, that result has taken precedent over process and allowed corruption to move in. I don't think this is against OOO and I don't think this is ANT, or Whitehead's philosophy since the spirituality is in the truth that a process yields a true result, not in some god actor. I'm not saying it's all about process. The process is an object and so is the result, and in between is this structure that exerts an influence WRT humans (when it drops out of philosophy and becomes applied philosophy) and is represented by the structure of the neighborhoods. This is the area to focus on to change things for the group level, but the architecture in individual buildings plays a part on an individual level, and the two are necessarily connected.
"Graham Harman writes about objects. When considering two 'objects' he notes their interaction. For instance, he writes about cotton burning, 'the cotton burns stupidly.' If all objects are ontologically, or in their Being (Sein) 'democratised' or equal, then a certain philosophical ground arises from this proposition. Since these objects are equal, that is to say, the same ontologically, then it follows that they can be interchangeable - ontologically - with any other objects. Objects are objects. Moving from the 'objects' of cotton and fire, interacting as they are through what Harman calls a 'sensual vicar' - another object that is created from the interaction of the two objects, let us apply this proposition to another case. When a Monk in Tibet sets himself aflame, when he self-immolates in protest against China's occupation of Tibet, does the Monk too 'burn stupidly?' Since the Monk and the cotton are in-their-being totally equal, an Object is an Object, the Monk, just another 'object' can be said to 'burn stupidly.' Political ideologies to light to Monks and cotton are all 'objects' for Harman. The object withdraws, as 'we' or 'I' or another object can never fully know its being. This is a proposition he picks up from Martin Heidegger the Nazi philosopher. Harman associates himself so much with Heidegger that he says he is more of a Heideggerian than Heidegger himself. Given Heidegger's support for the discrimination and even extermination of Jews and other (objects), we can deduce via Harman's object-oriented ontology that he would, at an ontological level (that is at the level of Sein) find no problem with Nazi ideology, for it is simply another object that withdraws and relates with other objects. We must then ask, given Harman's fetishising of Heidegger and his objectification of everything, does 'the Jew burn stupidly?' That is to say, does the life of the Jewish person under the object of Nazism represent a mere interaction of equal objects via a 'sensual vicar?' ... Does the Jew get gassed stupidly under the object of Nazi philosophy which is entirely equal to the Jew and interacts with the Jew through the sensual vicar of another object that being the gas - the gas supposedly I would imagine an object that interacts with the Jew that's being killed and the gas chamber through a sensual vicar creating another object - everything is ontologically equal - what are the political consequences of that?" Eilif Verney-Elliott, Graham Harman's Object-oriented ontology, 2013.
@@rubyleopard feels like it misses the point as well. You could level the same argument at Darwin (not a comparison of the theories; I don't know a great deal about either)
@@ilja857 Yes, of course; though it is not 'spam' but a necessarily repetition to expose the inane idiocy of both Graham Harman and Object Oriented Ontology.
@@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw The more I reread your block of whining, the more I see that your assumptions are just silly virtue signaling and a lazy, one-sided interpretation of Third Reich. As if this is the first time people are massively killed. Without Hitler or OOO no one has ever genocided anyone. My final point - NO, this philosophy has no political consequences and will not lead to any form of totalitarianism. You have no way to prove any on this.
“Why should we define Realism as a reality existing outside the mind, is the mind the only thing with an outside?”
this!
I was looking for a video on Object Oriented Programming and it's relation to philosophy, so I was a bit surprised when I realized this was actually just a philosophy lecture with no programming at all. That said, I absolutely loved this lecture. He put to words many ideas I've had swarming in my head. I definitely look forward to reading his book now.
Lmao same. Might have to give this a full watch some time!
@@severanceflames2201 I was trying to find some smart people talking about the Aristotelian logic behind classes and still haven't found anything. That said, the more I dig into Graham Harman's stuff the more I like it lol.
Let us know if you actually found some programming philosophy stuff.
@@mosescosme8629 Wolfram, specially in the last lex friedman podcast, he goes on and on about Aristotle
The irony of him not being able to describe what not being able to describe is like as he takes shots at writers 56:00
An absolutely brilliant talk . Thank you.
8:43 Two kinds of knowledge? What about, "How did it come to be? (process again). And for what purpose?" I take purpose to be different from function. I guess the first two questions are what questions, and mine are why questions (history, and intention). Universities and Football Teams are just objects (process entities) on a different spatial and temporal scales than a chair or a table. (Chairs and Tables are processes too, when viewed at various scales). On one scale they are practically static, on another the are a blur of energy.)
I really enjoy the simple way Harman explains his thoughts. But I cannot understand his fourfold structure. If we already have a defined Object as something that lies deep in realism, how can it be that there is also the sensual Object. The real Object seems to be behind everything we interact with it, and doesn´t leave enough space for another object behind. The sensual Object of Husserl seems to me to be a whole other Idea, how can these two Ideas of Object get into the same Philosophy?
More like sensual objects are also objects
@Call me Schibboleth The man is an idiotic and stupid lecturer and a total fraud.
@@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw That took a lot of courage for you to write that. Please post one of your lectures. I'm looking forward to learning your philosophy. From your comment I'm sure it's full of insight and super compelling.
44:50 - Wow! Now I know why my teachers always called me weird. I'm an Monadologist.
Wait a minute. Fire doesn't burn cotton. Cotton burning is Fire. Fire is not an object relating incompletely to cotton. its a process that is transforming the cotton. He talks about the East Indian Company as object which is definitely one one to look at it, but I think a better was is to look at it as "Entity as Process" OO is so 20th century. He needs to Haskell. Functions not objects is what the cool kids work with. First order and higher order functions. 4:12 What are his primitives. In a functional ontology, the primitives are Null-ary functions that always return themselves. Yeah. We can always substitute functions for objects. If objects are functions the return values are it's qualities and relations and the arguments are the observers relation to the object. If stand in the same relation to an object (send in the same arguments), you get a consistent return value (time is always and implicit argument). Yes anything he's says about objects can be morphed into functions. And functions capture the dynamic structure of reality much better than objects.
I’m not convinced that ideas don’t emerge from physical properties, and while yes, physics would be a poor way to gain knowledge of many things that emerge from its rules- that doesn’t make it so they haven’t emerged.
When Conway made the game of life, he knew the rules that governed the game- but I’m sure he didn’t immediately know how to make a “glider” or “airship” in that game. Just because a thing is not easily predicted by base rules doesn’t mean those base rules cannot constitute the thing.
Whats the sense of speaking 3 rows of quantum physics ?. A philospher of methaphysics needs that?
31:07 - "I'm sorry, our ethics panel is run by AI now, and our ethicist is really more of a quality control position. It would be great if you had an engineering degree."
The love of wisdom is a process and wisdom is a result; therefor, philosophy emphases process over result. Both are needed and so is the truth that a process always produces a true result WRT that process. Always! How many other truths are there like this? This point of view made the ongoing deceptions of parts in our society rather easy to see...the result is looked at first and given emphasis, and it's usually altruistic on the individual level, and gainful for the group. The education system where teachers have altruistic motives, the result is switched from learning to producing good workers, which is good for the group; or health care, where doctors are mostly altruistic, the goal is health, and is now big business, ditto for foreign aid. A process is adopted and at the same instant there is a subtle shifting of the goalposts, with cost being the reason I think.
Doing this excludes other solutions and acts to marginalize some of the actors...because that one result is demanded...and the actual true process to achieve the result looks or is made to look funny and so disregarded (but actually works). Choice is removed. We understand the business behind it and acknowledge the altruism, but can't see the individual vs group dichotomy, the switch in the result. An example are tractors, which are supposed to save work, but tend to destroy or alter ecosystems, so that in the long term much more work is created. The soil micro biology is marginalized, and this is seriously bad for a ground up ontology (as opposed to top down). Mess with the bottom layers and the upper layers disappear, not the other way around. Now a huge amount of resources are needed to "fix" the process: it becomes a system of problem solving instead of problem prevention, which of course is much more lucrative. I'm not saying it happened deliberately or purposely, like Adam Smith's invisible hand it appeared and was then taken advantage of.
Much of society has been repeated enough so that it becomes obvious that something is not working (large cities for instance, or fast food) and I think this is because the philosophy behind it is wrong. Even more seriously, people seem to be getting messed up, more angry and fearful, and perhaps this is the reaction to a lack of choice.
Far from being depressing, this shows the problem and how to fix it.
To me the fix involves architecture, but also civil engineering since I feel the grid like structure and individualizing effect of cities both reflects and provides the means for the idea presented in the above comment, that result has taken precedent over process and allowed corruption to move in. I don't think this is against OOO and I don't think this is ANT, or Whitehead's philosophy since the spirituality is in the truth that a process yields a true result, not in some god actor. I'm not saying it's all about process. The process is an object and so is the result, and in between is this structure that exerts an influence WRT humans (when it drops out of philosophy and becomes applied philosophy) and is represented by the structure of the neighborhoods. This is the area to focus on to change things for the group level, but the architecture in individual buildings plays a part on an individual level, and the two are necessarily connected.
"Graham Harman writes about objects. When considering two 'objects' he notes their interaction. For instance, he writes about cotton burning, 'the cotton burns stupidly.' If all objects are ontologically, or in their Being (Sein) 'democratised' or equal, then a certain philosophical ground arises from this proposition. Since these objects are equal, that is to say, the same ontologically, then it follows that they can be interchangeable - ontologically - with any other objects. Objects are objects. Moving from the 'objects' of cotton and fire, interacting as they are through what Harman calls a 'sensual vicar' - another object that is created from the interaction of the two objects, let us apply this proposition to another case. When a Monk in Tibet sets himself aflame, when he self-immolates in protest against China's occupation of Tibet, does the Monk too 'burn stupidly?' Since the Monk and the cotton are in-their-being totally equal, an Object is an Object, the Monk, just another 'object' can be said to 'burn stupidly.' Political ideologies to light to Monks and cotton are all 'objects' for Harman. The object withdraws, as 'we' or 'I' or another object can never fully know its being. This is a proposition he picks up from Martin Heidegger the Nazi philosopher. Harman associates himself so much with Heidegger that he says he is more of a Heideggerian than Heidegger himself. Given Heidegger's support for the discrimination and even extermination of Jews and other (objects), we can deduce via Harman's object-oriented ontology that he would, at an ontological level (that is at the level of Sein) find no problem with Nazi ideology, for it is simply another object that withdraws and relates with other objects. We must then ask, given Harman's fetishising of Heidegger and his objectification of everything, does 'the Jew burn stupidly?' That is to say, does the life of the Jewish person under the object of Nazism represent a mere interaction of equal objects via a 'sensual vicar?' ... Does the Jew get gassed stupidly under the object of Nazi philosophy which is entirely equal to the Jew and interacts with the Jew through the sensual vicar of another object that being the gas - the gas supposedly I would imagine an object that interacts with the Jew that's being killed and the gas chamber through a sensual vicar creating another object - everything is ontologically equal - what are the political consequences of that?"
Eilif Verney-Elliott, Graham Harman's Object-oriented ontology, 2013.
bro you commented this on like all these vids
@@rubyleopard feels like it misses the point as well. You could level the same argument at Darwin (not a comparison of the theories; I don't know a great deal about either)
Are you going to spam this under every video? This is moralistic fallacy
@@ilja857 Yes, of course; though it is not 'spam' but a necessarily repetition to expose the inane idiocy of both Graham Harman and Object Oriented Ontology.
@@AlexanderVerney-Elliott-ep7dw The more I reread your block of whining, the more I see that your assumptions are just silly virtue signaling and a lazy, one-sided interpretation of Third Reich.
As if this is the first time people are massively killed. Without Hitler or OOO no one has ever genocided anyone.
My final point - NO, this philosophy has no political consequences and will not lead to any form of totalitarianism. You have no way to prove any on this.