*Contents* 02:19 INTRODUCTION 02:30 Graham Harman 02:48 Speculative realism 07:28 AGAINST SCIENCE 07:50 Four false assumptions of science 17:09 WHAT IS AN OBJECT? 17:30 Undermining 17:51 Overmining 18:40 Object: Definition 21:44 Flat ontology 23:31 Summary
i have a huge pet peeve about the "more than constituent parts but less than effects" definition of an object. Because an object is not 'less" than its effects, if by definition the effects do not suffice to describe an object. In this case, you need more than the effects to define the object, not less! so saying an object is less than its effects creates a lot of confusion, just for the benefit of using the undermining/over mining imagery
There are many things I don't like about OOO, but actually this isn't one of them. Is it possible that there is a semantic misunderstanding here? It seems like you are taking "less" to mean something like "a part of", which then, as you correctly point out, has it backwards because the effects belong to the object, not the other way around. But this isn't Harman's point. He's simply looking for a clear boundary we can draw to delineate what an object is. If we include the effects of an object as a part of the object, we end up with a very fuzzy boundary indeed... really, we end up with no boundary, which means no objects. This 'no objects' approach does actually have some merits, I think. In particular, I'm reminded of Merleau-Ponty's concept of _flesh._ Nevertheless, as human beings, we _do_ break the world up into objects. Given this, does it not seem reasonable to exclude the parts and the effects from the definition of an object?
@absurdbeing2219 from that point of view, I understand. I think my point still stands tho, to me good use of nomenclature is one that applies to many different perspectives, like the use of color charge in quantum chromodynamics despite the particles having no real "color". In more than constituants and less than effects definitions, a lay reader could absolutely get stuck in my original perspective and have an even tougher time understand what is meant here. For a book targeted at a lay audience, this specific bit needed more explanation in the book imo
another assumption science makes is that "dimensionality" is as real as matter or energy. Thus the internal logic of String Theory can say ridiculous things like the "universe reuqiring 12 dimensions", fastbreaking episteme etc and revealing itself as a just a consistent reverie. Someone has to be there to overlay the cartisian coordinates over the physical world. It's an abstractio, there is no x=0 or Y=0 in reality for nothingness is not a thing, so a perfect circle does not exist, nor does a unidimensional line exists. All is "tridimensional" then, which should pose the question of how to think about dimensionality at all. But this goes unquestioned and we are often told about the "4th dimension of time" and such. Which in abstract, makes sense, but I think something is lost in the wires of signs and signifiers here.
Good point. As a good Bergsonian, the fourth dimension of time is a particular bugbear of mine. I hadn't extended my criticism to multiple _spatial_ dimensions before, but the presumed 'reality' of dimensionality is interesting to think about. I talk a lot about the way we _reify_ abstract concepts, and I think this might be a good example of that. Nice.
@@absurdbeing2219 thanks! In the way I see it, in the abstract sense, Time is not really "the fourth dimension" but really the current dimension "n" + 1. Like, the 3rd dimension is time for the 2nd. The 2nd is time for the 1st, and as such, the 4th dimension is time for a 3d observer. Because an hypothetical 2d observer could never grasp a sphere, but could grasp the infinite 2d sections of it should it cross a 2d plane. It would see a circle come out of nowhere, expand and then shrink until disappearing. It might then hypothetise what it might look like using "time", which for them would be what we call 3d space. Of course, they wouldn't be able to visualize it 1to1, but might come up with an aproximation as we do for supposed 4D objects, like the tesseracts we use as an aproximation of a shadow/3d section of a 4d object. Ofc, all this is purely hypothetical. It can't be espitemically observed and lies only in the abstract language of math and physics.
Thank you so much for this! I've honestly been struggling to understand Harman's OOO in simple terms as I am, unfortunately, not all that familiar with modern philosophy movements or even foundational stuff like "ontology", "epistemology", etc. Not with a level of familiarity that one might demand in reading subjects such as these, anyways. I really needed to "get" it, at least on some level, for my thesis on Lovecraft. Thank you for the life-saving videos and clear explanations!
I have been watching your videos for a while now. Have you considered doing some more videos outlining your own views on particular subjects. As I found it quite interesting hearing your opinion on this. I would like to hear what you think about other topics.
Hi Noah. Yes, I remember you from earlier comments. Not sure if you're aware, but I do have a blog where I try to post an article every month, and those are almost always personal opinions as opposed to commentaries/explanations. Different medium (written), of course. I did start a YT series where I was going to look at specific philosophy arguments and give my take on them (the first (and so far only!) one was on Mary's Room). I might revisit that project in light of your comment though. TBH it never occurred to me anyone would be interested in _my_ opinions! Thanks for the suggestion.
@@absurdbeing2219 Big thanks from me too, Nathan! I enjoy your videos especially because of the respect you have for the texts, even if you disagree. I am, of course, interested in your opinion as well but I enjoy the fact that I get an introduction from you, seemingly without heavy bias.
@@Schildkroetenpanda Thanks. I'm actually really glad you feel like that because I deliberately try to present the author's views without overlaying my own interpretations. You can't agree or disagree if you haven't understood the author properly in the first place. Still, nothing to stop me following Noah's suggestion in separate videos though.
Saying that objects exist in and of themselves is rediculous and sets his whole project astray. Objects are structural entities, they are relations, bonds between groups of sensations present to us. The boundaries of objects are defined wholly by us and they are nominal and conventional. The world in itself doesn't consist of objects, that's completely rediculous.
I've seen Graham Harman popping up in various places, but frankly i do not think he's remotely worth the hype, this OOO stuff is worse even than physicalism.
Yes, that was my first (second, and third) reaction, as well. I agree with you that you can't purge the world of a conscious observer and still have a world in any meaningful sense of that term. So, there's the continuous whole at one end (metaphysics), and the rich, meaningful human world of objects at the other (phenomenology). A generous interpretation of OOO could see it as marking out a space in between these extremes where some interesting insights might be on offer. (Tim Morton's notion of hyper-objects comes to mind here. Another is the flexible definition of 'object' as a balance between under- and over-mining). I think this is the basic premise underneath OOO, which isn't so crazy. Of course, you're right that Harman's claim is definitely stronger than this. His appeal to a mysterious, Kantian thing-in-itself is particularly unappealing. I'll never be a OOOer, but I think there might still be something of value here.
This comment is really helpful. Can you recommend any books or philosophers that discuss objects as structural entities, please? I sort of makes me think of the idea that external reality is a single unity and our minds constitute it into separate things, objects, space, time ect.
@@bellyspecial9152 Absolutely! And I totally agree with you. My thinking on this was influenced the most by the mathematician Henri Poincare. He has 3 excellent volumes on the foundations of Science which are quite philosophically rich. In particular, there is a section titled "Objectivity of Science" from his book "The Value of Science" where he discusses the reason for the structural nature of anything objective. I'll quote the key passage: "... External objects, for instance, for which the word object was invented, are really objects and not fleeting and fugitive appearances, because they are not only groups of sensations, but groups cemented by a constant bond. It is this bond, and this bond alone, which is the object in itself, and this bond is a relation. Therefore, when we ask what is the objective value of science, that does not mean: Does science teach us the true nature of things? but it means: Does it teach us the true relations of things ?" (This by the way pre-dated the whole contemporary revival of structural realism in philosophy of science by 100 years) But the whole of Poincare's works in all three books are astonishingly accessible and rich, I recommend them strongly particularly if you're interested in the foundations of physics. Another figure who made similar points around the same time was Enrst Mach, especially in his work on "The Analysis of Sensations". The roots however of all these insights come from Kant, who's great central realisation in this respect was that space and time are not features of an external reality but are brought by the subject as a means of synthesizing sensations into a coherent experience. The clearest exposition of Kant's views can be found in his "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" which is an excellent book. And indeed, as you say, the picture that this all leads to is that the world behind our representation is an intangible and indivisible whole, since it does not posses a spatial or temporal character, as Schopenhauer and others have made clear. Concerning contemporary philosophers, "structural realism" has gained popularity, but they tend to affirm that in some sense there is at least a structural independent reality, and avoid accepting that space and time are ideal. The confused conception of spacetime in general relativity to some degree licenses their ignorance.
@@roygbiv176 I didn't know that about Poincare. Once I realised physics couldn't explain (or even really describe) reality, I found myself less and less interested in it. I would also highly recommend Gilbert Simondon's _Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information._ He specifically argues that relation has the same status as being and connects this to individuation, or what we are calling the object. I am also just about to start _Helgoland_ by physicist Carlo Rovelli, a book I bought solely because he makes the same claim. I don't know if it's any good yet, but it appears to be in the same vein of thought.
Hi Oscar. That does look like an interesting read. I do have a few other books I want to make videos on first, so I really can't promise anything as major as a TH-cam series, but I will definitely keep it in mind. My reading list is also pretty solidly stacked, but I'm always looking out for good philosophy books.
The book / author sounds a bit deranged. He conflates the modern clown-world version of science with the principle of science. A flat ontology is nonsensical: One-to-many relationships exist in reality. The one-to-many relationship is a kind of "basic unit of structure". It denotes and necessarily implies structure.
Yes, Harman turned out to be a bit of a disappointment, and the articles I've read since in which OOO comes in for some scrutiny haven't changed my mind. Re: flat ontology. If you have the time, take a look at Tristan Garcia, _Form and Object,_ before you dismiss this. Speculative realism hasn't impressed me much, and although Garcia appears to nominally fall into this category, the differences between him and other more 'conventional' spec realists make him much more compelling.
i dont understand your comment: does a flat ontology preclude relationships and structure? i dont think it does... Maybe i dont understand what a "one-to-many relationship" is
@@brubrusuryoutube Some objects are derived from more fundamental ones. Not everything can be on the same ontological level. One cause can have many effects. One parent can have many children. etc. Hierarchy is natural... TBF, I've not read the book. Maybe he makes it make sense somehow... I don't know.
Been reading this book and finding it interesting but not fully convinced by it. looking forward to hearing your thoughts as it may help my thinking too. Thanks for doing these videos :) I'm also interested in Burno Latour's book We Have Never Been Modern (1991), be very keen to hear your thought on this work.
Your first sentence precisely sums up my thoughts, as well. At the moment, I think I like it, but maybe for diff reasons than Harman does! We'll see what happens as the series progresses.
Never. I had a little free-time this week and finished getting my head around Harman's book, so I thought I'd slip this in at the same time. Editing Levinas 13 right now. On track to wrap him up in two more weeks, concluding with #15.
![ว้าว!ลุงบีมแบกทองมารับขวัญหลานกันยกบ้าน [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.49 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Osihq1OAs-4/mqdefault.jpg)
*Contents*
02:19 INTRODUCTION
02:30 Graham Harman
02:48 Speculative realism
07:28 AGAINST SCIENCE
07:50 Four false assumptions of science
17:09 WHAT IS AN OBJECT?
17:30 Undermining
17:51 Overmining
18:40 Object: Definition
21:44 Flat ontology
23:31 Summary
i have a huge pet peeve about the "more than constituent parts but less than effects" definition of an object. Because an object is not 'less" than its effects, if by definition the effects do not suffice to describe an object. In this case, you need more than the effects to define the object, not less! so saying an object is less than its effects creates a lot of confusion, just for the benefit of using the undermining/over mining imagery
There are many things I don't like about OOO, but actually this isn't one of them. Is it possible that there is a semantic misunderstanding here?
It seems like you are taking "less" to mean something like "a part of", which then, as you correctly point out, has it backwards because the effects belong to the object, not the other way around. But this isn't Harman's point. He's simply looking for a clear boundary we can draw to delineate what an object is. If we include the effects of an object as a part of the object, we end up with a very fuzzy boundary indeed... really, we end up with no boundary, which means no objects.
This 'no objects' approach does actually have some merits, I think. In particular, I'm reminded of Merleau-Ponty's concept of _flesh._ Nevertheless, as human beings, we _do_ break the world up into objects. Given this, does it not seem reasonable to exclude the parts and the effects from the definition of an object?
@absurdbeing2219 from that point of view, I understand. I think my point still stands tho, to me good use of nomenclature is one that applies to many different perspectives, like the use of color charge in quantum chromodynamics despite the particles having no real "color". In more than constituants and less than effects definitions, a lay reader could absolutely get stuck in my original perspective and have an even tougher time understand what is meant here. For a book targeted at a lay audience, this specific bit needed more explanation in the book imo
Hello, I just finished reading "ooo" and then I found this video, I want to thank you for such a good review.
Thanks a lot! Glad you like it.
Excellent introduction to GRAHAM HARMAN'S Triple O
Thanks a lot.
another assumption science makes is that "dimensionality" is as real as matter or energy. Thus the internal logic of String Theory can say ridiculous things like the "universe reuqiring 12 dimensions", fastbreaking episteme etc and revealing itself as a just a consistent reverie. Someone has to be there to overlay the cartisian coordinates over the physical world. It's an abstractio, there is no x=0 or Y=0 in reality for nothingness is not a thing, so a perfect circle does not exist, nor does a unidimensional line exists. All is "tridimensional" then, which should pose the question of how to think about dimensionality at all. But this goes unquestioned and we are often told about the "4th dimension of time" and such. Which in abstract, makes sense, but I think something is lost in the wires of signs and signifiers here.
Good point. As a good Bergsonian, the fourth dimension of time is a particular bugbear of mine. I hadn't extended my criticism to multiple _spatial_ dimensions before, but the presumed 'reality' of dimensionality is interesting to think about. I talk a lot about the way we _reify_ abstract concepts, and I think this might be a good example of that. Nice.
@@absurdbeing2219 thanks! In the way I see it, in the abstract sense, Time is not really "the fourth dimension" but really the current dimension "n" + 1. Like, the 3rd dimension is time for the 2nd. The 2nd is time for the 1st, and as such, the 4th dimension is time for a 3d observer. Because an hypothetical 2d observer could never grasp a sphere, but could grasp the infinite 2d sections of it should it cross a 2d plane. It would see a circle come out of nowhere, expand and then shrink until disappearing. It might then hypothetise what it might look like using "time", which for them would be what we call 3d space. Of course, they wouldn't be able to visualize it 1to1, but might come up with an aproximation as we do for supposed 4D objects, like the tesseracts we use as an aproximation of a shadow/3d section of a 4d object. Ofc, all this is purely hypothetical. It can't be espitemically observed and lies only in the abstract language of math and physics.
That was extraordinary! Please stay in touch with this author. Happy Easter.
J@
Thanks Jan! Happy Easter to you, too!
Reading the introduction to OOO now and this video was very helpful!! Great work!
Thanks. This one just kind of pieced itself together. All I had to do was press 'record.'
Thank you so much for this! I've honestly been struggling to understand Harman's OOO in simple terms as I am, unfortunately, not all that familiar with modern philosophy movements or even foundational stuff like "ontology", "epistemology", etc. Not with a level of familiarity that one might demand in reading subjects such as these, anyways. I really needed to "get" it, at least on some level, for my thesis on Lovecraft. Thank you for the life-saving videos and clear explanations!
Oh great. Glad I could help. Interesting idea tying Harman to Lovecraft. Good luck on the thesis!
@@absurdbeing2219 Thanks! 😄 I appreciate it!
You should look at Peter Woldendale’s critique of OOO, it’s pretty persuasive imo.
Thanks. I'll do that.
I have been watching your videos for a while now. Have you considered doing some more videos outlining your own views on particular subjects. As I found it quite interesting hearing your opinion on this. I would like to hear what you think about other topics.
Hi Noah. Yes, I remember you from earlier comments. Not sure if you're aware, but I do have a blog where I try to post an article every month, and those are almost always personal opinions as opposed to commentaries/explanations. Different medium (written), of course.
I did start a YT series where I was going to look at specific philosophy arguments and give my take on them (the first (and so far only!) one was on Mary's Room). I might revisit that project in light of your comment though. TBH it never occurred to me anyone would be interested in _my_ opinions! Thanks for the suggestion.
@@absurdbeing2219 Big thanks from me too, Nathan! I enjoy your videos especially because of the respect you have for the texts, even if you disagree. I am, of course, interested in your opinion as well but I enjoy the fact that I get an introduction from you, seemingly without heavy bias.
@@Schildkroetenpanda Thanks. I'm actually really glad you feel like that because I deliberately try to present the author's views without overlaying my own interpretations. You can't agree or disagree if you haven't understood the author properly in the first place.
Still, nothing to stop me following Noah's suggestion in separate videos though.
Saying that objects exist in and of themselves is rediculous and sets his whole project astray.
Objects are structural entities, they are relations, bonds between groups of sensations present to us.
The boundaries of objects are defined wholly by us and they are nominal and conventional.
The world in itself doesn't consist of objects, that's completely rediculous.
I've seen Graham Harman popping up in various places, but frankly i do not think he's remotely worth the hype, this OOO stuff is worse even than physicalism.
Yes, that was my first (second, and third) reaction, as well. I agree with you that you can't purge the world of a conscious observer and still have a world in any meaningful sense of that term.
So, there's the continuous whole at one end (metaphysics), and the rich, meaningful human world of objects at the other (phenomenology). A generous interpretation of OOO could see it as marking out a space in between these extremes where some interesting insights might be on offer. (Tim Morton's notion of hyper-objects comes to mind here. Another is the flexible definition of 'object' as a balance between under- and over-mining). I think this is the basic premise underneath OOO, which isn't so crazy.
Of course, you're right that Harman's claim is definitely stronger than this. His appeal to a mysterious, Kantian thing-in-itself is particularly unappealing. I'll never be a OOOer, but I think there might still be something of value here.
This comment is really helpful. Can you recommend any books or philosophers that discuss objects as structural entities, please?
I sort of makes me think of the idea that external reality is a single unity and our minds constitute it into separate things, objects, space, time ect.
@@bellyspecial9152 Absolutely! And I totally agree with you.
My thinking on this was influenced the most by the mathematician Henri Poincare. He has 3 excellent volumes on the foundations of Science which are quite philosophically rich. In particular, there is a section titled "Objectivity of Science" from his book "The Value of Science" where he discusses the reason for the structural nature of anything objective. I'll quote the key passage:
"... External objects, for instance, for which the word object was invented, are really objects and not fleeting and fugitive appearances, because they are not only groups of sensations, but groups cemented by a constant bond. It is this bond, and this bond alone, which is the object in itself, and this bond is a relation.
Therefore, when we ask what is the objective value of science, that does not mean: Does science teach us the true nature of things? but it means: Does it teach us the true relations of things ?"
(This by the way pre-dated the whole contemporary revival of structural realism in philosophy of science by 100 years)
But the whole of Poincare's works in all three books are astonishingly accessible and rich, I recommend them strongly particularly if you're interested in the foundations of physics.
Another figure who made similar points around the same time was Enrst Mach, especially in his work on "The Analysis of Sensations".
The roots however of all these insights come from Kant, who's great central realisation in this respect was that space and time are not features of an external reality but are brought by the subject as a means of synthesizing sensations into a coherent experience. The clearest exposition of Kant's views can be found in his "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics" which is an excellent book.
And indeed, as you say, the picture that this all leads to is that the world behind our representation is an intangible and indivisible whole, since it does not posses a spatial or temporal character, as Schopenhauer and others have made clear.
Concerning contemporary philosophers, "structural realism" has gained popularity, but they tend to affirm that in some sense there is at least a structural independent reality, and avoid accepting that space and time are ideal. The confused conception of spacetime in general relativity to some degree licenses their ignorance.
@@roygbiv176 I didn't know that about Poincare. Once I realised physics couldn't explain (or even really describe) reality, I found myself less and less interested in it.
I would also highly recommend Gilbert Simondon's _Individuation in Light of Notions of Form and Information._ He specifically argues that relation has the same status as being and connects this to individuation, or what we are calling the object.
I am also just about to start _Helgoland_ by physicist Carlo Rovelli, a book I bought solely because he makes the same claim. I don't know if it's any good yet, but it appears to be in the same vein of thought.
would you consider doing a series on the Fragmentation of Being by Kris McDaniel?
Hi Oscar. That does look like an interesting read. I do have a few other books I want to make videos on first, so I really can't promise anything as major as a TH-cam series, but I will definitely keep it in mind. My reading list is also pretty solidly stacked, but I'm always looking out for good philosophy books.
The book / author sounds a bit deranged.
He conflates the modern clown-world version of science with the principle of science.
A flat ontology is nonsensical: One-to-many relationships exist in reality.
The one-to-many relationship is a kind of "basic unit of structure". It denotes and necessarily implies structure.
Yes, Harman turned out to be a bit of a disappointment, and the articles I've read since in which OOO comes in for some scrutiny haven't changed my mind.
Re: flat ontology. If you have the time, take a look at Tristan Garcia, _Form and Object,_ before you dismiss this. Speculative realism hasn't impressed me much, and although Garcia appears to nominally fall into this category, the differences between him and other more 'conventional' spec realists make him much more compelling.
i dont understand your comment: does a flat ontology preclude relationships and structure? i dont think it does... Maybe i dont understand what a "one-to-many relationship" is
@@brubrusuryoutube
Some objects are derived from more fundamental ones. Not everything can be on the same ontological level.
One cause can have many effects. One parent can have many children. etc. Hierarchy is natural...
TBF, I've not read the book. Maybe he makes it make sense somehow... I don't know.
speculative is the understatement, but it is important work and it is important for AI philosophers
Been reading this book and finding it interesting but not fully convinced by it. looking forward to hearing your thoughts as it may help my thinking too. Thanks for doing these videos :) I'm also interested in Burno Latour's book We Have Never Been Modern (1991), be very keen to hear your thought on this work.
Your first sentence precisely sums up my thoughts, as well. At the moment, I think I like it, but maybe for diff reasons than Harman does! We'll see what happens as the series progresses.
Taking a break from finishing Levinas?
Never. I had a little free-time this week and finished getting my head around Harman's book, so I thought I'd slip this in at the same time. Editing Levinas 13 right now. On track to wrap him up in two more weeks, concluding with #15.
@@absurdbeing2219 re: my comment on your first video -- could you cover the preface?
@@PhilPhysics That's a reasonable request. I totally skipped it in my summary as well. Back to the drawing board...
@@absurdbeing2219 thank you! 😍🥰🥰
first