Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono) by Peter Wolfendale (PDF)

Description

A remarkably clear explication of the tenets of Object-Oriented Philosophy and an acute critique of the movement’s ramifications for philosophy today.How does the patience and rigour of philosophical explanation fare when confronted with an irrepressible desire to commune with the object and to escape the subjective perplexities of reference, meaning, and sense?Moving beyond the hype and the inflated claims made for “Object-Oriented” thought, Peter Wolfendale considers its emergence in the light of the intertwined legacies of twentieth-century analytic and Continental traditions.Both a remarkably clear explication of the tenets of OOP and an acute critique of the movement’s ramifications for philosophy today, Object-Oriented Philosophy is a major engagement with one of the most prevalent trends in recent philosophy.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review Object Oriented Ontology is the last chapter in the interminable saga of the struggle between realism and transcendentalism. It attempts to undo the transcendental turn and resuscitate the precritical notion of reality in which humans are not subjects but one among many actants. What Peter Wolfendale does in his detailed and forceful analysis is what Kant did to Swedenborg: to dispel the mist of vibrant (spiritualized) materiality. What Voltaire said about god should be repeated about this book: if it didn’t exist, we would have to invent it. Slavoj Zizek –Slavoj Zizek Review The man is relentless.―Graham Harman About the Author Peter Wolfendale is an independent philosopher from the Northeast of England. Read more

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Does the Wolf-man strike down OOO/OOP, leaving Harman to bleed out, in one fell swoop? Not quite. Does it do a good job at poking several holes in the philosophy. I think so. To mixed effect, at least. Some stronger than others; the possible-future is entertaining, but the least of problems presented (apart from things of a personal nature).I think, on its own, what I’ve stated so far would engender a 4 star rating. So why 5 stars? The Wolf-man does a bangup job of detailing the actual underpinnings and assumptions of OOO/OOP. If you want a ‘systematization,’ this is it. He makes the connections that Harman doesn’t quite give you in lectures and the books I’ve read. I *do* think that Harman glosses over a lot. Perhaps not to the extent that the Wolf-man thinks of perhaps what could be characterized as ‘bad faith hand waving,’ whereas I am of the belief that Harman just expects you to have read/know things more than he should. Maybe I am being too charitable, who knows.A fun read, and an interesting one, too. Gives you more food for thought with connections to other thoughts. It’s worth a buy if you’re into the subjects. Nice job, Wolf-man.

⭐i realized i dont want to read this after it arrived

⭐I rate this book 4 stars with the hope that it will be purchased and read with care by those sympathetic and unsympathetic to object-oriented philosophy. Although it will most likely do little to dissuade the former and its direct engagements and critique of OOP will add little to the opinions of the latter (other than a rigorous formulation of the problems we [yes I include myself on this “side”] already know to be the case) it is worth a read. In particular, the highly technical chapter 3.4 “What are objects Anyway: On Ontological Liberalism” and 3.5 “What is Metaphysics Anyway?” are both interesting in their own light. Additionally, chapter 4.2 “The Horrors of the Future” is quite entertaining (my favorite moment being the hypothetical 2023 APA panel composed “entirely of inanimate objects” of which “the ensuing audience discussion unanimously agrees that the contribution of a small half-eaten pot of jam […] is the highlight of the event”[392]).I won’t give the book a full review, but I do encourage you to read it if you are interested in questions regarding what philosophy can do and how it should go about doing what it can.I eagerly await Harman’s response to the devastating critiques contained herein. Hopefully the final object in the conversation will be a waving white flag of concession.

⭐Wolfendale has provided an excellent service here in patiently and quite generously expounding (steel-manning) the ideas of OOO and then one by one showing them to be utterly vacuous. He won’t get any credit for it, and I suspect the likes of Timothy Morton will simply psychologize it away under the heading of ‘resentiment’ – Wolfendale is, after all, obscure, and unlikely to be shuttling around the world on various junkets and hobnobbing with conceptual artists and celebrities. Perhaps his ferocious critique is inspired by simple envy? Who cares – it’s correct. Those sympathetic to OOO should note that Wolfendale’s critique comes from a basically analytic perspective, and shouldn’t be lumped in with the various pseudo-left, academic ‘radical’ jibes at OOO, which are even worse than OOO itself.

⭐The difference between the two philosophers becomes clear pretty quickly, but then the author dangles it, veiled and arrogantly IMPLIED, for 300+ tedious pages of praise for the cliches of modern of philosophy since Kant: the problem of access to anything + a hint that perhaps we humans construct everything else just by thinking it up on the spot.Wolfendale seems to half-heartedly (and almost just performatively) commit to a vague neo-idealist position, but gives himself permission to abandon that position if he can attack the ontology from the opposite angle. I’ve never read a work of philosophy which left its own methodology implicit (i.e. hidden, unclear) for longer than this one.The core difference between the authors is this:- Wolfendale thinks epistemology MUST be the starting point of philosophy, and claims Kant’s objection to metaphysics — and yet vaguely claims “science” has the right to these claims (but on what epistemological ground, we never learn). He critiques Harman for starting with this “paradoxical, ambiguous, and hole-riddled holism” of individual objects instead of first passing through Kant’s objection to metaphysics. But this willfully, for 400+ pages, avoids that:- Harman builds his speculative metaphysics on Kant’s unknowable thing-in-itself and simply takes this metaphysical ignorance BEHIND our veils of knowledge – not metaphysical KNOWLEDGE itself – to be the bedrock of his ontology. Wolfendale never addresses this problem head on, but annoyingly insisting that “this isn’t permitted!” By who? You? Make the case then, for Christ’s sake.To sum up —Accusing another author of not passing through your own invisible and unformulated “gauntlet of reason” is hardly something any professional academic should be given praise for.Lastly, the author seems to have a personal vendetta against the other which is ‘handled by this book’. HahaYou can’t make this up. I felt embarrassed reading it.

Keywords

Free Download Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono) in PDF format
Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono) PDF Free Download
Download Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono) 2019 PDF Free
Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono) 2019 PDF Free Download
Download Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono) PDF
Free Download Ebook Object-Oriented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s New Clothes (Urbanomic / Mono)