Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been working on an OOO k, and there's a couple things i'd like help with. 

 

1. what's the best way to answer "objects can't think/feel" type args? I've cut a few cards for this, but i'd like to see what you all have to say. 

 

2. what do people commonly say in the 2AC against this arg? i have looked at a few 2ac blocks in the college wiki.

 

3. Can i run Sa 04 as an impact calc framing arg? I use this as a block add-on for a few kritiks when i hit policy affs so that they can't get their aff impacts, can this work with OOO as well without tension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't know much about 2 or 3 but from my experience reading about anti-anthro arguments, i would have to say something like...

1. turn-- arguments like this are inherently anthropocentric-- attempting to say that only humans can feel and think automatically place humans as above those who cannot feel or think-- this is literally what we are kritiking

(post 100 woo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert on OOO but I believe I understand the basic idea and I definitely understand anthro and other related args so here's what I would say:

 

1. This is non-falsifiable - there's no way to prove that other objects have conciousness or not - we should default to the assumption that they do because that's the best way to position ourselves - it's also inherently anthro as lexeous says

         - even then thinking/feeling are probably things we value due to the fact that they are human, this idea of thinking/feeling is irrelevant

 

3. The answer would probably be yes - I don't think the two positions are inherently contradictory, and the idea that we're able to predict what happens in the future might also link to the kritik regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. what's the best way to answer "objects can't think/feel" type args? I've cut a few cards for this, but i'd like to see what you all have to say. 

You could argue that humans aren't conscious or sentient any more than animals or rocks are. All is physics so conceiving everything as equally conscious is perfectly warranted. (This argument is fallacious because some types of physics make patterns that refer to themselves, these are the kind that we think of as conscious, read or skim Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter if you want to develop a good theory of mind.)

 

You could also argue that thinking and feeling aren't morally relevant things, this argument is even stronger in my view. I think even reading anthropocentrism arguments against it gives them too much credit because that concedes those things are or ought to be valued by humans in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the second arg, that sounds like a good way to go. 

All is physics so conceiving everything as equally conscious is perfectly warranted. (This argument is fallacious because some types of physics make patterns that refer to themselves, these are the kind that we think of as conscious, read or skim Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter if you want to develop a good theory of mind.)

Could you sort of explain this? What part of physics says that everything is equally conscious? (even if it's fallacious)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you sort of explain this? What part of physics says that everything is equally conscious? (even if it's fallacious)

Not so much that everything is equally conscious as that consciousness is a label that doesn't mean anything. Ask your opponent to prove that people are sentient, and they'll probably appeal to Descartes' dualistic "I think therefore I am". That argument takes a lot of flak from a lot of people, so you'll win the debate handily in many cases provided you do your research and have a reasonable judge. Humans are just very complicated piles of atoms, and they don't have free will or magic objective knowledge or anything like that, which is what people are often implicitly referring to when they talk about the idea of consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you go further, you should first be explicit about what you are running. There is a difference between OOO and Introna-esque kritiks and I've seen a huge conflation between the two and some fundamental misunderstandings of both. This critique is NOT conventional anthro nor Intronas argument, Bryant's argument is about social constructivist approaches to sociological paradigms and frameworks. Intronas argument is about unconditional obligations to the other, except his definition includes inanimate objects. While there is common ground between the Ks, there are different ways of running it and each one is contentious with the other. Deleuze, which can be the basis for some OOO Ks, would have heavy problems with the idea of flinging oneself to the terror of the Other (if you're trapped in the dream of the Other, you're fucked). Onticology, non human ecology, OOO, all refer to a very specific process, and even the authors within these disciplines have seperate ideas as to what it means. It's by no means just anthro, I ran mine as a racism and capitalism impacts.

 

Thus the relevance of the first question depends on the flavor. Introna answers it pretty well in one of the initial cards of DMLs K. For Bryant, that entirely misses the point of the kritik and should be evident.

 

People don't say anything in the 2AC for this arg, I've only gotten to run mine a few times and it's usually generic K stuff or answers that aren't relevant. It's a very new argument that doesn't fit a mold yet. I have a compilation of the College answers to anything Bryant or OOO, however, if you want a reference.

 

I don't know Sa 4 off the top of my head and I'm on my phone (is it an anti blackness card?), so you'll have to be more specific than that.

 

I can explain more when I'm not on my phone, but you shouldn't run arguments because you saw them once in a v debate or heard this in a thread. I know it's probably not what you want to hear, but every week I see you asking about a different K. While it's definitely feasible to run a wide plethora of Ks (I broke 8 new Ks during states and went for the new ones almost every 2NR, but then again I went against teams that didnt have much to answer with), which isn't to sound like a self righteous douche (maybe a little...) but I cut most of these Ks by myself (either in full or combined with previously cut cards) or at least have the backing enough to run them. My suggestion is slow down, this is a very new K, it doesn't have a lot of the answers you want from us and probably doesn't have that generic file that gives you a basis, and it doesn't help to jump from asking about one K and then asking about this next thread. Only my 2 cents on the issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you go further, you should first be explicit about what you are running. There is a difference between OOO and Introna-esque kritiks and I've seen a huge conflation between the two and some fundamental misunderstandings of both. This critique is NOT conventional anthro nor Intronas argument, Bryant's argument is about social constructivist approaches to sociological paradigms and frameworks. Intronas argument is about unconditional obligations to the other, except his definition includes inanimate objects. While there is common ground between the Ks, there are different ways of running it and each one is contentious with the other. Deleuze, which can be the basis for some OOO Ks, would have heavy problems with the idea of flinging oneself to the terror of the Other (if you're trapped in the dream of the Other, you're fucked). Onticology, non human ecology, OOO, all refer to a very specific process, and even the authors within these disciplines have seperate ideas as to what it means. It's by no means just anthro, I ran mine as a racism and capitalism impacts.

 

Thus the relevance of the first question depends on the flavor. Introna answers it pretty well in one of the initial cards of DMLs K. For Bryant, that entirely misses the point of the kritik and should be evident.

 

People don't say anything in the 2AC for this arg, I've only gotten to run mine a few times and it's usually generic K stuff or answers that aren't relevant. It's a very new argument that doesn't fit a mold yet. I have a compilation of the College answers to anything Bryant or OOO, however, if you want a reference.

 

I don't know Sa 4 off the top of my head and I'm on my phone (is it an anti blackness card?), so you'll have to be more specific than that.

 

I can explain more when I'm not on my phone, but you shouldn't run arguments because you saw them once in a v debate or heard this in a thread. I know it's probably not what you want to hear, but every week I see you asking about a different K. While it's definitely feasible to run a wide plethora of Ks (I broke 8 new Ks during states and went for the new ones almost every 2NR, but then again I went against teams that didnt have much to answer with), which isn't to sound like a self righteous douche (maybe a little...) but I cut most of these Ks by myself (either in full or combined with previously cut cards) or at least have the backing enough to run them. My suggestion is slow down, this is a very new K, it doesn't have a lot of the answers you want from us and probably doesn't have that generic file that gives you a basis, and it doesn't help to jump from asking about one K and then asking about this next thread. Only my 2 cents on the issue.

sa 04 is an indict of linear predictions.

 

And i def understand that it's different from Introna, i dont have any misconceptions about the two. 

 

I've been cutting a file and reading this lit, and i've put in quite a bit of work. I get that i need to slow down, and i'd like to be focusing on this for a lot of next year. I've seen one file, but i've changed most of it and really only used it for some of the AT section. I've been looking at the answers in Needs More Consult Japan's file and writing up answers, as well as looking at 2ac cites from the college wiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the typical link story on OOO? I feel like what Bryant talks about is completely different than the arguments about using things as tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my link is not using things as tools, i misunderstood that in my vdebate with miro. the link can vary greatly, a good example tho is vs. Byrd's graffiti aff.. the link was that they only regarded objects as valuable when human expression and creativity had been infused with them. that was in the block, this was in McClatchy's 1nc:

 

 

For the aff, the World is a textual object full of signifiers, narratives and discourses- this creates a focus on how the human subject relates to the world and renders the object invisible

Bryant 11

(Professor of Philosophy at Collin College 2011 Levi Democracy of Objects http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/9750134.0001.001/1:4/--democracy-of-objects?rgn=div1;view=fulltext)

Apart from the fact that I believe these propositions to be ontologically true, the broader strategic import of the concept of flat ontology is to diminish the obsessive focus on the human, subjective and the cultural within social, political, cultural theory and philosophy. In particular, my ambition is to diminish an almost exclusive focus on propositions, representations, norms, signs, narratives, discourses, and so on, so as to cultivate a greater appreciation for nonhuman actors such as animate and inanimate natural entities, technologies, and such. To be clear, in seeking to diminish a focus on these sorts of actors, my aim is not to exclude these sorts of actors. Rather, I seek both to synthesize divergent trends within contemporary Continental social, political, cultural, and philosophical thought and broaden the field of inquiry available to these discourses and debates. Within the framework of contemporary Continental thought, it would not be too far off the mark to say that there are two highly different cultures. Within the one culture, we have a focus on lived experience, text, discourse, signifiers, signs, representation, and meaning. This is a form of inquiry dominated by figures such as the various phenomenologists, Derrida, Lacan, Žižek, and Foucault, for example. Here there is very little in the way of a discussion of the role played by nonhuman actors in collectives involving human beings. Rather, nonhuman entities are treated as screens upon which humans project their intentions, meanings, signs, and discourses, rather than as genuine actors in their own right. They are instead passive matter awaiting formatting by humans. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the typical link story on OOO? I feel like what Bryant talks about is completely different than the arguments about using things as tools.

No one claimed that using things as tools is the link, it was just misunderstood that way. The link is always relating objects back to humans, not relating objects to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer it with process metaphysics; it's the direct impact turn.

 

They say existence is objects, individual from each other: isolated in time and space.

 

Process Metaphysics say that existence is connected; we are breathing air that is part of a greater system of the universe.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer it with process metaphysics; it's the direct impact turn.

 

They say existence is objects, individual from each other: isolated in time and space.

 

Process Metaphysics say that existence is connected; we are breathing air that is part of a greater system of the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

so proud :''')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one claimed that using things as tools is the link, it was just misunderstood that way. The link is always relating objects back to humans, not relating objects to each other.

I don't think that relating objects back to humans is the link either though. The claims "you perceive objects as tools" and "you understand objects in terms of their relationship to humans" are both very similar, and I think both are misinterpretations. Bryant says it's bad to consider reality as solely constituted by the cognitive constraints of humans. But that position is entirely open to allowing the "permutation" of considering some reality in relation to humans while also understanding that reality exists externally. Proceeding from an acknowledgement that knowledge is necessarily subjective doesn't seem to preclude the idea that we can interact with the unknown or unexperienced in the future or that we unknowingly have in the past. So I don't understand how his views have utility in the debate sphere. (It's not that I'm trying to argue against his views - I just don't think they were ever intended to be applied in the way that they are.)

 

I think that Bryant's real argument would only apply to a very small number of potential affirmatives, which is why I'm interested in clarifying the link story here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been working on an OOO k, and there's a couple things i'd like help with. 

 

1. what's the best way to answer "objects can't think/feel" type args? I've cut a few cards for this, but i'd like to see what you all have to say. 

Objects act on humans in the same way humans act on objects. Thinking and feeling aren't relevant because your K argues identity is relational. Objects cause humans to respond, just like humans cause humans to respond. 

 

2. what do people commonly say in the 2AC against this arg? i have looked at a few 2ac blocks in the college wiki.

No idea. I'd probably perm it if it hit me. Probably varies if its a K aff or a policy aff.

 

3. Can i run Sa 04 as an impact calc framing arg? I use this as a block add-on for a few kritiks when i hit policy affs so that they can't get their aff impacts, can this work with OOO as well without tension?

What's the card say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer it with process metaphysics; it's the direct impact turn.

 

They say existence is objects, individual from each other: isolated in time and space.

 

Process Metaphysics say that existence is connected; we are breathing air that is part of a greater system of the universe.

This is the opposite of what Object Oriented Ontology says. Look it up on wikipedia, and look up Agent Network theory. It's all about recognizing that everything is connected, as opposed to the object just being connected to the user.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OOO view of causation and interconnectedness is really confusing.

 

 To explain how withdrawn objects make contact with and relate to one another, Harman submits the theory of vicarious causation, whereby two hypothetical entities meet in the interior of a third entity, existing side-by-side until something occurs to prompt interaction.[32] Harman compares this idea to the classical notion of formal causation, in which forms do not directly touch, but influence one another in a common space "from which all are partly absent." Causation, says Harman, is always vicarious, asymmetrical, and buffered:

Thus, causation entails the connection between a real object residing within the directionality of consciousness, or a unified "intention," with another real object residing outside of the intention, where the intention itself is also classified as a real object.[34] From here, Harman extrapolates five types of relations between objects. Containment describes a relation in which the intention "contains" both the real object and sensual object. Contiguity connotes relations between sensual objects lying side-by-side within an intention, not affecting one another, such that a sensual object's bystanders can be rearranged without disrupting the object's identity. Sincerity characterizes the absorption of a real object by a sensual object, in a manner that "takes seriously" the sensual object without containing or being contiguous to it. Connection conveys the vicarious generation of intention by real objects indirectly encountering one another. Finally, no relationrepresents the typical condition of reality, since real objects are incapable of direct interaction and are limited in their causal influence upon and relation to other objects.[35]


'Vicarious' means that objects confront one another only by proxy, through sensual profiles found only on the interior of some other entity. 'Asymmetrical' means that the initial confrontation always unfolds between a real object and a sensual one. And 'buffered' means that [real objects] do not fuse into [sensual objects], nor [sensual objects] into their sensual neighbors, since all are held at bay through unknown firewalls sustaining the privacy of each. from the asymmetrical and buffered inner life of an object, vicarious connections arise occasionally...giving birth to new objects with their own interior spaces.[33]

 

I don't know why you think that ANT is the same thing as OOO. I typed ANT OOO into google and the first result was http://anthem-group.net/2010/09/29/ant-vs-ooo/ which lists four points on which they disagree, summarized by Harman himself. Part of the problem is that OOO is a label that's used to refer to many different beliefs. I think Harman's initial work was probably so confusing that many philosophers read it in different ways and called their interpretations and additions to the philosophy OOO when they're really something different.

I think ANT makes more sense than OOO because I think talking of reality beyond human experience is impossible and useless. As Arendt says:
 

 The goal of modern science, which eventually and quite literally has led us to the moon, is no longer “to augment and order†human experiences (as Niels Bohr,5 still tied to a vocabulary that his own work has helped to make obsolete, described it); it is much rather to discover what lies behind natural phenomena as they reveal themselves to the senses and the mind of man. Had the scientist reflected upon the nature of the human sensory and mental apparatus, had he raised questions such as What is the nature of man and what should be his stature? What is the goal of science and why does man pursue knowledge? or even What is life and what distinguishes human from animal life?, he would never have arrived where modern science stands today. The answers to these questions would have acted as definitions and hence as limitations of his efforts. In the words of Niels Bohr, “Only by renouncing an explanation of life in the ordinary sense do we gain a possibility of taking into account its characteristics.â€6 That the question proposed here makes no sense to the scientist qua scientist is no argument against it. The question challenges the layman and the humanist to judge what the scientist is doing because it concerns all men, and this debate must of course be joined by the scientists themselves insofar as they are fellow citizens. But all answers given in this debate, whether they come from laymen or philosophers or scientists, are non-scientific (although not anti-scientific); they can never be demonstrably true or false. Their truth resembles rather the validity of agreements than the compelling validity of scientific statements. Even when the answers are given by philosophers whose way of life is solitude, they are arrived at by an exchange of opinions among many men, most of whom may no longer be among the living. Such truth can never command general agreement, but it frequently outlasts the compellingly and demonstrably true statements of the sciences which, especially in recent times, have the uncomfortable inclination never to stay put, although at any given moment they are, and must be, valid for all. In other words, notions such as life, or man, or science, or knowledge are pre-scientific by definition, and the question is whether or not the actual development of science which has led to the conquest of terrestrial space and to the invasion of the space of the universe has changed these notions to such an extent that they no longer make sense. For the point of the matter is, of course, that modern science—no matter what its origins and original goals—has changed and reconstructed the world we live in so radically that it could be argued that the layman and the humanist, still trusting their common sense and communicating in everyday language, are out of touch with reality; that they understand only what appears but not what is behind appearances (as though trying to understand a tree without taking the roots into account); and that their questions and anxieties are simply caused by ignorance and therefore are irrelevant. How can anyone doubt that a science enabling man to conquer space and go to the moon has increased his stature? This sort of bypassing the question would be very tempting indeed if it were true that we have come to live in a world that only the scientists “understand.†They would then be in a position of the “few†whose superior knowledge entitles them to rule the “many,†namely, all non-scientists, laymen from the scientist’s point of view—be they humanists, scholars, or philosophers—all those, in short, who raise pre-scientific questions because of ignorance. This division between the scientist and the layman, however, is very far from the truth. The fact is not merely that the scientist spends more than half of his life in the same world of sense perception, of common sense, and of everyday language as his fellow citizens, but that he has come in his own privileged field of activity to a point where the naïve questions and anxieties of the layman have made themselves felt very forcefully, albeit in a different manner. The scientist has not only left behind the layman with his limited understanding; he has left behind a part of himself and his own power of understanding, which is still human understanding when he goes to work in the laboratory and begins to communicate in mathematical language. Max Planck was right, and the miracle of modern science is indeed that this science could be purged “of all anthropomorphic elements†because the purging was done by men.7 The theoretical perplexities that have confronted the new non- anthropocentric and nongeocentric (or heliocentric) science because its data refuse to be ordered by any of the natural mental categories of the human brain are well enough known. In the words of Erwin Schrödinger, the new universe that we try to “conquer†is not only “practically inaccessible, but not even thinkable,†for “however we think it, it is wrong; not perhaps quite as meaningless as a ‘triangular circle,’ but much more so than a ‘winged lion.’â€8

 
I think there probably is a reality beyond human experience, but my name for that is just "the unknown" and it doesn't do much to impact my decisions because I make the best judgements I can with the way that reality presents itself to me. I think that OOO's basic argument is that "the map is not the territory", and I agree with that, but I also think that ANT can acknowledge that distinction while still being useful. ANT seems to be more pragmatic and about understanding things in relation to actual stuff, whereas OOO is very abstract and seems sort of useless. What's the usual impact to the OOO K?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually about to put out a Process K on Evazon. I'm by no means an expert in this, but here's my take.

 

Process philosophy is almost antithetical to OOO. The basis for OOO is the recognition that there are "objects" towards which all of existence refers, almost as with the Platonic forms. Instead of the human mind shaping the nature of the objects, it's the other way around. This is seen in one of the core tenants of OOO, that objects cannot be exhausted by human relations. (In fact, check out the section on Wikipedia on Withdrawal)

 

Process philosophers, on the other hand, have two problems with this. The thesis of process philosophy is the affirmation that the universe is composed of processes, and any notion of stability or identity is merely temporary, eventually giving way to change of some sort. Thus, in order to recognize an "object" in the first place, one needs to hold to static notions of being over becoming. Second, the direct statement that objects are never exhausted by human relations is a statement of their inability to be affected, necessarily cutting them off from the flow of becoming. (This may be the same argument just phrased differently)

 

Both critique the anthropocentric view of the world (though they don't have to be anthro Ks). OOO focuses on the notion that humans actively shape reality as substantial agents. Process philosophy argues that humans are merely one of many processes that come into and out of being.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a really long post explaining all the misconceptions about OOO being thrown around here (I have yet to see a steady understanding of it) but I lost that text so I'll say this; OOO is not saying "everything is connected", that's a a vague oversimplification that can either be a given obvious description or a mystification of what is being said here (one that Bryant would find ridiculous). The main tenet of OOO is a criticism of the Subject-Object view that shapes most metaphysics (this is more than a simple human standpoint issue), and that the relationships between the Objects are just as much as Objects and should be analyzed thusly.

 

For instance, in the gun control debate, people say shit like "guns don't kill people, people do", a actor-network approach (which is different, but a better method of analyzing social issues like this) would say this is a flawed statement because it assumes only the person has agency and the gun doesn't actively affect the person. A more OOO standpoint would be to understand that both objects exist separately, as a gun and as a human, but together they are a person with a gun; this is categorically different than both a gun or a person. That relationship forms a distinct actor with it's own ontical and ontological properties. Kevin Kuswa has a great article about this in the context of transportation infrastructure that I ran as an alt/framing argument. Viewing objects as separate, isolated entities masks the way actors' relations with one another actively shape their existence.

 

Thus my K was as a criticism of their method of policymaking, because this conceptual failure in terms of what is really 'there' and being constructed and interacted with creates highway systems that segregate populations by race and class and determine how populations interact with one another. Implicitly this solidifies biopolitical and racist power structures that cannot be addressed by traditional policies that fail to address the way geography and non-human actors shape human relations (for instance, civil rights bills that made schools equal in theory, but failed to account for the way white flight spatialized populations to perpetuate this inequality). This is both a more cohesive and more accurate interpretation that I feel has a better applicability to debate than whatever is being thrown around here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a really long post explaining all the misconceptions about OOO being thrown around here (I have yet to see a steady understanding of it) but I lost that text so I'll say this; OOO is not saying "everything is connected", that's a a vague oversimplification that can either be a given obvious description or a mystification of what is being said here (one that Bryant would find ridiculous). The main tenet of OOO is a criticism of the Subject-Object view that shapes most metaphysics (this is more than a simple human standpoint issue), and that the relationships between the Objects are just as much as Objects and should be analyzed thusly.

 

For instance, in the gun control debate, people say shit like "guns don't kill people, people do", a actor-network approach (which is different, but a better method of analyzing social issues like this) would say this is a flawed statement because it assumes only the person has agency and the gun doesn't actively affect the person. A more OOO standpoint would be to understand that both objects exist separately, as a gun and as a human, but together they are a person with a gun; this is categorically different than both a gun or a person. That relationship forms a distinct actor with it's own ontical and ontological properties. Kevin Kuswa has a great article about this in the context of transportation infrastructure that I ran as an alt/framing argument. Viewing objects as separate, isolated entities masks the way actors' relations with one another actively shape their existence.

Can you elaborate more on the link argument? I don't understand how affirmatives would end up defending a subject-object view of metaphysics.

 

Also, the statements "this is categorically different than both a gun or a person. That relationship forms a distinct actor with it's own ontical and ontological properties" and "viewing objects as isolated entities masks the way actors' relations with one another actively shape their existence" seem contradictory to me. You're perceiving OOO as understanding that objects aren't separate isolated entities, but in the article above Harman claims "no relation represents the typical condition of reality, since real objects are incapable of direct interaction and are limited in their causal influence upon and relation to other objects" and I don't know how that doesn't flatly contradict your belief. You're making claims about what OOO says, but you don't provide sources from OOOists and other people here have different interpretations, so I'm not sure why you want me to privilege yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject-object metaphysics is a separate argument I run against K affs mostly (although it can easily be ran against a policy affs), the argument I make in that post is about non-human ecology and the way the affirmative conceptually defines the entities it interacts with (which is similar, but slightly different at the same time). Read the Levi Bryant article titled "Paths" to understand the argument better, it's actually a pretty sweet card on the topic that was immensly useful to me on the aff and neg.

 

I mean I don't really understand why that makes a difference, Harman's point there is that the relations are formed perceptually rather than as material entities. I think the answer to the question you have is 'both', like it's perceptually incorrect to define two objects as completely isolated from each other but likewise flawed to define an object by it's relation from a specific standpoint (as in a road being something solely that humans drive on, probably not the best example but still). I think the problem you see with my interpretation is a lack of context; like if there's a gun sitting on a table than it is a gun, and if there is a person standing by the bus stop the gun probably hasn't affectively altered him/her/it. That description is referring to the objects not together and then together. The second point is about assuming objects are isolated entities when they are actively being produced through relations (the driver being uneffected by the highway, etc.). The point is that they exist in tandem. I mean I could cite some sources if you want but I already should've been spending this time studying for the SAT. I do know Latour essentially says every new relation is an object (Bryant's phrasing of it). It's a question of bringing into question traditional relations between objects seen as 'given' and recognizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...