Abstract
Abstract Object-oriented ontologists understand relations of cause and effect to be sensory or aesthetic in nature, not involving direct interaction between objects. Four major arguments are used to defend an indirect view of causation: 1) that there are analogies between perception and causation, 2) that the indirect view can account for cases of causation which a direct view cannot, 3) an Occasionalist argument that direct interaction would make causation impossible, and 4) that the view simply fits better with object-oriented ontology’s own premises. However, each argument is fallacious or otherwise unconvincing. The first affirms the consequent. The second fails because the relevant cases can easily be accounted for with a direct view. The third makes false assumptions about the relation between parts and wholes. And the fourth can also be used to argue against object-oriented ontology. Many of these problems can be traced to the methodological aspects of object-oriented ontology and might be avoided by emphasizing the role of non-argumentative justification in metaphysics.
Highlights
Objects and argumentsObject-oriented ontology (OOO from here on) is an influential part of the turn toward constructive metaphysical theorizing in recent European and European-influenced philosophy, impacting visual art,[1] architecture,[2] and even video game design.[3]
Four major arguments are used to defend an indirect view of causation: 1) that there are analogies between perception and causation, 2) that the indirect view can account for cases of causation which a direct view cannot, 3) an Occasionalist argument that direct interaction would make causation impossible, and 4) that the view fits better with object-oriented ontology’s own premises
The fourth can be used to argue against object-oriented ontology
Summary
Object-oriented ontology (OOO from here on) is an influential part of the turn toward constructive metaphysical theorizing in recent European and European-influenced philosophy, impacting visual art,[1] architecture,[2] and even video game design.[3]. A straightforward logical evaluation of the arguments given by OOO seems in order whatever non-argumentative modes of philosophizing are paired with them. The result of such an evaluation is that Harman’s and Morton’s arguments fail to show that OOO’s view of causation is true or superior to a commonsense picture of causation. At best, they prove the truism that, when two things interact causally, not all of their properties are relevant to the interaction. I suggest that it must be the non-argumentative modes of philosophizing that bear the greatest weight of justification for OOO
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
