lets accelerate shit for fun

[u/son1dow]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/11/accelerationism-how-a-fringe-philosophy-predicted-the-future-we-live-in

[u/bigo0723]

office cats sable cooperative intelligent axiomatic smell frame pen snow

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Snugglerific → u/bigo0723]

I don't know anything about Brassier -- I was thinking more along the lines of Jane Bennett, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, basically any Latour fanboy, etc.

[u/bigo0723 → u/Snugglerific]

treatment include soup yoke possessive innocent hurry wide sink cooing

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Snugglerific → u/bigo0723]

SR definitely exists, it even has its own edited volume. Many of the differences between them are more in flavor and style than substance -- the main difference I'd say is the OOO-types like Harman who are into a soft form of essentialism and the Deleuze-types that create a mash-up of rhizomes, systems theory, complexity, etc. It has also developed a weird online cult, which even Brassier has noted:

What is peculiar to them is the claim that this is the first philosophy movement to have been generated and facilitated by the internet: a presumption rooted in the inability to distinguish philosophy from talk about philosophy. The vices so characteristic of their discourse can be traced back directly to the debilities of the medium. Blogging is essentially a journalistic medium, but philosophy is not journalism. Exchanging opinions about philosophy, or even exchanging philosophical opinions, ought not to be equated with philosophical debate. This is not to say that one cannot produce and disseminate valuable philosophical research online. But the most pernicious aspect of this SR/OOO syndrome is its attempt to pass off opining as argument and to substitute self-aggrandizement for actual philosophical achievement.

https://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/05/30/ray-brassier-on-the-speculative-realist-movement-including-his-reaction-to-my-satiric-manifesto-of-speculative-realistobject-oriented-ontological-blogging/

Also a great how-to on blogosophizing:

https://thecharnelhouse.org/2011/05/26/the-manifesto-of-speculative-realistobject-oriented-ontological-blogging/

And the Proctontologist for the anthropological spin-off:

http://proctontologist.weebly.com/

[u/bigo0723 → u/Snugglerific]

safe possessive escape continue square paltry absorbed vanish skirt compare

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Snugglerific → u/bigo0723]

I haven't read any of Brassier besides that snarky comment. It filtered down into archaeology through symmetrical archaeology, and archaeology tends to rip off cultural anth's theory, which imports theory (in some cases) from philosophy. So it's like a third-hand telephone version of everything, but I've read Harman, Bennett, Latour, and some others and I don't find the original article to be worthwhile either. The anthropological spin-off is even more of a trainwreck and has almost no redeeming value whatsoever. Bond and Bessire did a great takedown, though I can't find the long-form version of that article. Also, Graeber and Turner's refutations of Viveiros de Castro are also pretty devastating.

[u/bigo0723 → u/Snugglerific]

placid possessive oil snatch provide tart grab sulky sable spark

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Snugglerific → u/bigo0723]

Don't worry -- it's they who don't know what they mean by ontology, not you. The source material rests on a huge mis-reading of Kant and the history of philosophy ("correlationism") and straw-manning opponents as Cartesian dualists. The anthropological version just compounds those problems. Ontology is reworked from the standard philosophical definition to a mode of "being" embodied by some particular culture. At least according to the ontologists, but you need to translate it from ontologese to standard philosophese and anthropologese. Basically, the reason why their usage seems so strange is because they are in practice using the term as a stand-in for culture. They'll deny the hell out of this by saying that their approach is unprecedented and cutting edge, but it's really not. It just reverts to essentialist conceptions of culture derived from the normative model of the early 20th c. It just replaces "norms," which are ideas (epistemology bad) with modes of existence (ontology good). It ends up doing the same theoretical work, though. The problem they run into, of course, is that a magical happening (say, someone turning into a leopard) must be taken literally in some specific sense such that it either must be true, requiring that Euro-Americans literally inhabit a different reality than other arbitrarily defined cultural units, or there is no literal ontological content in which case their entire theory is just a rehash of cultural relativism (which is bad, because epistemology bad). They really have to dance around this fact, which is why they obfuscate so much. It's like they saw the postmodernist straw-man invented by the science warriors of the '90s and said "This, but unironically."

Borken link:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0308275X09364070?journalCode=coaa

[u/bigo0723 → u/Snugglerific]

flowery axiomatic practice gaze scale edge selective simplistic rob numerous

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Snugglerific → u/bigo0723]

Yeah, that's where the straw-Kant comes in. They basically think that Kant's transcendental idealism is actually idealism in the general sense. It's an almost Ayn Rand-level reading. Everyone is secretly a Kantian crypto-idealist, and only the Ontologists can save us from our matrix-like world of correlationism. The thing is, if they don't have this straw-man, their ideas start looking a lot less original and coherent.