Graham Harman & Todd McGowan: Friendly Discussion/Debate (OOO vs Dialectics)
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- TREY’s book “Aphesis: The Impossibility of Subjectivity”: amzn.to/3hzxZAR
WE make at least 3 videos a week on Patreon discussing everything from philosophy, to theology, to biblical typology, to music, and to whatever else comes to my head. / telosbound
TELOSBOUND THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION: docs.google.com/document/d/1g...
THEOSBOUND: / theosbound
DISCORD: / discord
INSTAGRAM: / telosbound
ODYSSEY: odysee.com/@telosbound:c
GET The Philosopher's Notebook amzn.to/3h7Iyrn
HASHTAGS:
#philosophy #theology #metaphysics #ontology #orthodox #christianity #orthodoxchristianity #communion #church #jesus #christ #catholic #bible #hegel #negation #dialectics #epistemology #psychoanalysis #logic #ethics #theory #socialtheory #apologetics #God #aphesis #subjectivity #paradox #contradiction #reading #books #intellectual #politics #conservative #politicaltheory #sigma
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 Introduction
1:32 Harman's Opening Statement
20:22 McGowan's Opening Statement
29:05 Open Discussion
1:57:18 Harman's Closing Statement
2:01:07 McGowan's Closing Statement
2:02:50 Conclusion - Komedie
Thank you so much, Trey, for arranging this discussion: I was thrilled to have a chance to hear Dr. Harman and Dr. McGowan talk, and it was indeed a conversation of “good will.” This is a reason I have hope for the future of intellectual life: CZcams has opened doors which otherwise were closed, opportunities previously reserved for academic conferences. New mediums bring with them new possibilities for artistic and intellectual expression, and this is an example of what CZcams makes possible. It's wonderful.
The point that if things were not contradictory and totally self-relating, they wouldn’t be open to us, was beautiful, and I enjoyed hearing thoughts on how aesthetics could bring epistemology and ontology together-that was excellent. The points Dr. Harman made on “the reality of cultural differences” were great, and made me think of Dr. James Hunter and Dr. Peter Berger, who warned decades ago that if we didn’t take cultural differences seriously, we could end up unintentionally making authoritarianism appealing (as I fear indeed transpired). Difference must be taken seriously, but that means we must live with the risk and danger of ascribing to an essentialism which oppresses others. We must live with that risk and not fall into its temptation, but that is no easy endeavor.
I never spent a semester examining a mailbox, and now I’m wondering if my teachers deprived me of a great experience…hmmm… I am infinitely fascinated by the relation between ontology and epistemology, and I’m glad the conversation centered around that topic. “Truth organizes values,” as argued in “The Conflict of Mind,” which means in this context that labeling one thing as “truly” being “imaginary” and another “real” would constitute an evaluation. Determining ontology thus requires epistemology, and the epistemology we are capable of is relative to our ontology. If we are incapable of determining the real from the imagined “readily” or “at hand,” what kind of being must we be to be so limited? In this way, for me at least, the inability to divide epistemology and ontology brings us to Hegel’s Absolute Knowing.
As you noted very well, Trey, Absolute Knowing suggests a knowing of our limits, and for me that includes knowing that we cannot separate ontology and epistemology. If we are capable of x epistemology, then we must be beings who are capable of x epistemology, and thus x has ontological ramifications. At the same time, if we are y ontology, that shapes and influences what epistemologies we can entertain, and thus y has epistemological ramifications. Problematically though, that means we have a circular problem, for we need to understand our ontology before we can really understand our epistemology, but we cannot understand our ontology outside an epistemology. And this is a limit which Absolute Knowing takes seriously, but that leaves us with a question: What are we like ontologically to be unable to divide ontology and epistemology?
Absolute Knowing can be seen as partially at least the inability to “not” smuggle an epistemology into an ontology or an ontology into an epistemology, and, again, AK leaves us with the question of “What kind of beings are we then?” Is that a question which we are “limited” from answering? Yes? No? Partially? And so the joys of philosophy continue…Anyway, well done gentlemen! This was wonderful!
Absolute knowing is not just knowing one's limits, it is Absolute Knowing, period. It is the preserve of what people in the West would call "God." If there is no "God" (or Brahma, or Allah, Oneness, etc) then there is no Absolute, and thus no Absolute Knowing, by definition. This is because the Absolute cannot logically be a multiplicity. The proof of this is remarkable, and fairly simple, if you want a proof (you need to then accept the axioms of causality to accept the proof - some people do not accept basic causality principles) if you do not require a logical proof then all is good. You can find the proof as a variation on Avicenna's, brought up to speed with modern classical mathematical logic, in William Hatcher's _"Logic & Logos."_
@@Achrononmaster Thank you for your reply, and that’s a fair theological consideration: I meant Absolute Knowing only as Hegel meant it (or is taken to have meant it). I am not familiar with William Hatcher, but I like how you described him, so I’ll have to give him a look. I always appreciate being introduced to a new thinker, so thank you!
@@stephenlowy2818 Thank you, Stephen, for your comment and great question-I appreciate that greatly! Indeed, I don’t think the problem can be resolved in each other’s frame, but I do think it is possible to resolve the problem in a larger context. This is the hope of The True Isn’t the Rational trilogy, with Book I (The Conflict of Mind) being out but the other two still in the editing phrase. However, The Philosophy of Glimpses provides an overview of the trajectory of the project, and audio readings of that project can be found on my CZcams page under a playlist. No pressure at all to give any of that a look: I mainly just wanted to say that I completely agree with your analysis! I too am a fan of the collapse of the subject-object duality. I think that is very important.
Anyway, great speaking with you and may you have the most wonderful of days!
1:48:14 *Hegelianised Lacan* “My Lacan is a Hegelianised Lacan… because I take the line from the chapter in _Absolute Knowing_ that _“spirit knows both itself and it’s limit,”_ right. So then he has this great line, _”to know one’s limit is to know how to sacrifice oneself.”_ So there’s this real sense I think of knowing-that spirit/subjectivity comes to know it’s inability to know everything.”
2k subs, and these kind of guests, what a slapper my boi
I think McGowan’s point about identity - coming from Hegel’s identity being identity of identity and difference - in that objects are constantly altered, meaning that what defines an object is always interpreted by a subject, won the debate. Harman’s rebuttals only seemed to strengthen McGowan’s argument, in the way he interpreted historical events.
One of the best videos on CZcams. Thank you for this amazing contribution. You set this up so well and expertly guided the conversation along. Well done.
I really enjoyed that, thanks Trey for organizing and facilitating this discussion
This is so good. Im in love with Todd 😍😆 and appreciated this discussion a lot. Thanks for putting this together, amazing work.
I’m pretty sure McGowan’s response to the Civil War as “real object” basically buried ooo.
Half way, this is great. Two Titans. Tanking my time with this one and going back again for more like five course delicious meal served up by Telosbound. THANKS AGAIN
one of the greatest discussions i've seen in a while
Nice! Look forward to this.
Congratulations, on interviewing these men. Thank you.
back in the mid 2010s when I was writing my dissertation I would've given my partial object to see a discussion like this
I never read Kant as being opposed to what you call OOO. The noumena being unknowable is a kind of reflection principle (reflecting a quality - unknowability - of the Absolute, or for Kant that would be "God"). But Kant never said that the noumena being unknowable necessarily means there is no objective reality. He was just saying the Mind cannot penetrate it all, so has to construct It's own subjective reality. This is really a simple idea, and continental philosophers deliberately obscure it with metaphysical relativist nonsense.
Dammit, I didn’t know Todd taught at the University of Vermont! I was accepted there but couldn’t afford it, plus it was too far away. I kept having the thought lately, “wouldn’t it be great if I could go to the school Todd taught at??” UGH 😭🤡
Time also seemed to fly past for me as a viewer watching this, and I also had the advantage of being able to eat my breakfast during.
Wow just wow. Game changer
1:51:15 *reason in self-harm* “think of all these people who are voting for trump who are… it’s like destroying their self interest, right but they do it not only willingly but with absolute glee. […] all the people in these rural counties where they don’t have two nickels to rub together [appear to be voting against their interests].”
This reminds me of Zizek’s point in _Violence_ about self-destructiveness:
_“Is this sad fact that the opposition to the system cannot articulate itself in the guise of a realistic alternative, or at least a meaningful utopian project, but only as a meaningless outburst, not the strongest indictment of our predicament? […] violence and counter-violence are caught in a deadly vicious cycle, each generating the very opposite it tries to combat. Furthermore, what all three modes share, in spite of their fundamental differences, is the logic of a blind passage à l'acte: in all three cases, violence is an implicit admission of impotence.”_
As far as I understand Harmon, the whole idea of OOO is dependent on being able to differentiate between sensual and real objects. When asked to do this, he offers no substantial definition and instead says that all it would take is 20 well written pages to clarify it and persuade others. Without a robust explanation of this, I can’t even begin to understand why I should take anything else he says seriously. The inability to offer a clear definition just makes OOO full of the same contradiction he condemns Hegel for.
OOO disregards the role language plays in dividing the sensual from the real object - which ignores the real qualities of being human - I mean, that it subdues itself under it's own pretense of negating language without saying WHY it negates language so... uh... forcefully... no...with all of it's ontology
ya, so OOO negates language all the way down to it's ontology, but why? There's a reason why we dream when we sleep, because thought intervenes between the subject and it's subjective sensual experience - much in the same way that thought divides the object, but not totally the same, and its that uniquely subjective division that philosophy attempts to objectify - which Harman definitely does, but I think he misses a certain aspect of his own thought
Smoked mackerel
ooo baby
I admire the ingenuity of the debate: but I also wonder how we can concretely “translate” this into radical politics
larp
@@strain3652 wdym？
These two fellows should have a podcast together
How?
There was a fed back problem , maybe they should mute and listen the Doctor Harman
Harman is a metaphysician. Why the fuck does he ever even bother opening his mouth about politics? Does he understand that there's a rich, complicated tradition of political theory, history, economics, etc. that he would have to have actually read to say something interesting about it?
Does Harman receive funding from the WEF or black rock? I appreciate Harman as an ontologist but he’s clearly naive on the issue of Q.
He’s extremely naive outside of his ontological specialties
Every single political talking point he had was cringe
@@dissemination_1414 Agreed. It's pathetic how naive most intellectuals are when it comes to anything, such as "conspiracy theories," that exist outside their domain of specialty. Either they're genuinely stupid or being funded by these organizations.
9 yikes out of 10 here
TRVST THV PLVN! BQQM!!
Thank you!