Abstract
AbstractIn hisPrince of Networks, Graham Harman reconstructs Latourian critique of concepts of potentiality and virtuality with which he claims to agree. This seems striking because Latour’s arguments seem to be exactly those Harman rejects in his other writings as overmining. Furthermore, this critique of potentiality and virtuality creates a dividing line between Harman and Bryant’sDemocracy of Objects, where the concept of virtual plays a central role. In this article, I will explore this debate, focusing on how the concept of virtuality works in the context of the ontological realism that Object-Oriented Ontology is. To do this, I will first present Bryant’s notion of virtuality focusing on the problem of the individuality of the object. Then I will explore Latourian–Harmanian arguments against virtuality and show that the main issue Harman has with virtuality has to do with the agency of objects. Therefore, I claim that the main dividing line between Bryant’s and Harman’s versions of Object-Oriented Ontology is the difference between the two notions of agency.
Highlights
In his Prince of Networks, Graham Harman reconstructs Latourian critique of concepts of potentiality and virtuality with which he claims to agree
I will explore Latourian–Harmanian arguments against virtuality and show that the main issue Harman has with virtuality has to do with the agency of objects
I will focus on the debate on virtuality in the context of Object-Oriented Ontology, with two key figures in this debate being Graham Harman and Levi Bryant
Summary
Let us start with the briefest possible introduction to Object-Oriented Ontology (I will further use the abbreviation OOO). [...] I encounter the cotton ball in one way, the fire encounters it in another, the boll weevil in still another” This means that while objects are the sources of determination in the world, so are other objects. The true encounters between the objects always entail a certain entanglement of the two sources of determination Another way to put this would be to say that does OOO not return to some version of “myth of the given” , but rather claims that there is no “pure given” in any encounter between any two objects. According to Harman, “OOO’s commitment to the mutual darkness of the objects is what enables it to resist some of the fashionable holistic philosophies of our time” This is the case, because the withdrawal of the real object ensures that it is always more than its sensual manifestation, which consists of relations. Like the many hells of Buddhist lore. each of these engines is a realm unto itself”
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.
