Bruno Latour’s Ontology as Technologized Berkeleianism

Abstract

In terms of subject-centered philosophy of existential realism, the article discusses the ontological theories of George Berkeley and Bruno Latour, outlining and clarifying the conceptual relationship between the two. This relationship manifests itself: (a) in the attention that both paid to the issue of discreteness/continuity of matter and the limitations of its divisibility, (b) in their shared inclination toward nominalism and methodological affinity for the complementarity principle, (c) in an increased attention to weaker bonds of a correlation (coordination) type rather than to strong bonds of determination type, (d) in linking the above orientations to the discussion of the ontological status of the subject, who first of all is human. G. Berkeley raises human subjectivity to a level that is as high as possible within the framework of religious idealistic philosophy. Such a position is achieved through several steps: through a postulate-based prohibition of infinite divisibility of matter and tabooing reduction of the macro-world to elements of the micro-world; through a sharp delimitation of the subject from everything the subject is not; through the hypothetical assumption of solipsism, which, in fact, always remains relative; through combining solipsistic nominalism and theistic realism based on the complementarity principle. However, B. Latour minimizes man’s personal agency. This paradigm is associated with a number of others: with the assumption of the infinite divisibility of matter, at least with reducing three dimensions to one, and macro-level to micro-level; with equalizing the subject and the non-subject, humans and non-humans; with his caution to an individual as an opponent of democracy; with combining scientist nominalism and technologism of the actant-rhizome network based on the complementarity principle. Latour’s claims to non-trivial materialism and realism, if he has them, are inconsistent. An existential realist is likely to define his ontology as technologically desubjectified Berkeleianism.