Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Analog Ends of Science: Investigating the Analogy of the Laws of Nature Through Object-Oriented Ontology and Ontogenetic Naturalism.Micah Tewers - 2024 - Open Philosophy 7 (1):187-221.
    This article investigates the analogy of the “laws of nature” through Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and Gilbert Simondon’s ontogenetic naturalism (ON). Both thinkers challenge the literalist interpretation of scientific knowledge by emphasizing the indirect nature of relation and the primacy of the autonomy of discrete beings over pre-established physical laws. Harman’s OOO defends this autonomy as the irreducible independence of objects from their relations, while Simondon focuses on the modulation of information in shaping the laws of nature through individuation. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Editorial for the Topical Issue “Object-Oriented Ontology and Its Critics III”.Graham Harman - 2021 - Open Philosophy 4 (1):347-352.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Vagueness, Identity, and the Dangers of a General Metaphysics in Archaeology.Artur Ribeiro - 2021 - Open Philosophy 4 (1):20-35.
    Archaeology is currently bound to a series of metaphysical principles, one of which claims that reality is composed of a series of discrete objects. These discrete objects are fundamental metaphysical entities in archaeological science and posthumanist/new Materialist approaches and can be posited, assembled, counted, and consequently included in quantitative models (e.g. Big Data, Bayesian models) or network models (e.g. Actor-Network Theory). The work by Sørensen and Marila shows that archaeological reality is not that discrete, that some objects cannot be easily (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • That Raw and Ancient Cold: On Graham Harman’s Recasting of Archaeology.Tim Flohr Sørensen - 2021 - Open Philosophy 4 (1):1-19.
    This is a comment to Graham Harman’s 2019 response to an article by Þóra Pétursdóttir and Bjørnar Olsen (2018) in which they propose that a materially grounded, archaeological perspective might complement Harman’s historical approach in Immaterialism (2016). Harman responds that his book is indeed already more archaeological than historical, stipulating that history is the study of media with a high density of information, whereas archaeology studies media with a low density of information. History, Harman holds, ends up in too much (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation