Abstract
This paper explores the status of relations in object-oriented ontology (OOO). On the one hand, objects often seem to get the upper hand, since what an object is cannot be reduced to the sum total of its (external) relations. On the other hand, there cannot be a hierarchy between object and relations, since we would then be talking about a vertical ontology, and what OOO advocates is a flat ontology. Relations must have the same ontological status as objects, due to the flatness of reality. Furthermore, relations already play a role in the things themselves in terms of an internal relationality. What an object is cannot be separated from where it is. In other words, the object is its where. While internal relations seem to work at the central core of objects, external relations pose the greatest problem. If objects are destructible, we have to re-evaluate the status of external relations. While OOO is still to develop a fully-fledged theory of destructibility or death, I suggest that Kierkegaard’s notion of finitude can provide a fruitful trajectory. With Kierkegaard, I argue that death cannot merely be located within an object but concerns the radical outside which brings the status of external relationality to the fore.
Highlights
This paper aims to show that object-oriented ontology (OOO) is a topos-oriented ontology (TOO), a term which incorporates the Greek term for “place” [τόπος]
What role does relationality play in OOO? In a de-hierarchized, flat ontological landscape of objects, relations are one among other such objects
Two different models arose from this point of departure: a model advocating independency (Harman), and another defending interdependency (Heidegger)
Summary
This paper aims to show that object-oriented ontology (OOO) is a topos-oriented ontology (TOO), a term which incorporates the Greek term for “place” [τόπος]. My aim is to explore the basic pillar at the heart of this new tradition: the fact that objects are not identical to their relations. I outline two different versions of flat ontology: Heidegger’s topology of Being (TB), and Harman’s ontology of objects. While the former relies on a model of inter-dependency, the latter advocates independency. These two models are in constant negotiation with one another in the different versions of OOO, and will provide the background for the discussions that follow
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call