Famous speculative realists associated with object-oriented ontology and the like:
Quentin Meillassoux, Graham Harman, Ray Brassier & Iain Hamilton Grant
I only know Meillassoux well enough from reading After Finitude. The vibe I get is that Brassier is interesting, Grant is fine, and Harman isn't so great, while Meillassoux is alright. Back in 2016 I really got excited about these guys and anti-correlationism, only to learn they're all basically correlationists themselves, or at least Harman and Meillassoux definitely are. Huge disappointment.
As far as I can tell "correlationism" signifies the view that knowledge does not consist in grasping the facts, but imposing the categories of our thought on them. So really moderate idealism, or a half-way between realism and idealism.
From what I read from Brassier he is a straightforward realist of the Anglo-American type and in fact he thinks that the physical sciences give a complete description of the facts as they are, unlike the humanities.
Secondary qualities are still part of the correlation between thought and being for him.
As far as I can tell "correlationism" signifies the view that knowledge does not consist in grasping the facts, but imposing the categories of our thought on them. So really moderate idealism, or a half-way between realism and idealism.
From what I read from Brassier he is a straightforward realist of the Anglo-American type and in fact he thinks that the physical sciences give a complete description of the facts as they are, unlike the humanities.
>From what I read from Brassier he is a straightforward realist of the Anglo-American type and in fact he thinks that the physical sciences give a complete description of the facts as they are, unlike the humanities.
Well from what I've heard he is into Wilfrid Sellars who has the same sort of sciency Anglo-american style as you described, but Sellars is a pretty strong correlationist (he's a neopragmatist) so I would worry quite a bit if Brassier follows his lead. And doesn't he also like Laruelle, who accuses philosophy of creating distinctions and takes nonphilosophy (which is nondualist) to be about as valid as an alternative? I'm not sure how realist Brassier would be if he follows these guys, but you tell me cause I haven't read Nihil Unbound yet (plan to, is it good?)
I have only read various articles by him, but I remember him describing mental phenomena in biological terms and saying explicitly that there is *nothing* more to them than that - in other words that they are reducible to brain states.
As for Sellars I always thought of him as a card carrying-realist who takes scientific theories to be descriptions of the world as it is, and not mere tools we can use to build houses or rockets.
I am thinking his stuff about Laruelle may be from a different period, as it doesn't fit in with Sellars, Churchland and co.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>saying explicitly that there is *nothing* more to them than that - in other words that they are reducible to brain states
Well Sellars would probably accept this (with one exception relating to color), since he was a physicalist and a nominalist. And the Churchlands definitely are physicalists and nominalists as well, and go further by eliminating, rather than reducing, the mental. However, both Sellars and the Churchlands are still neopragmatists, and not true realists. So when they make claims about the physical world one has to read that with a pragmatist accent. That means it's possible Brassier is the same, but I wouldn't know for now.
Isn't realism already debunked though?
No, anti-realism (+ deflationism about the realism/anti-realism debate) are just a perennial hot take much as nondualist monism and nihilism are. They don't debunk realism, this debate just keeps going on forever. But I for one side with some kind of realism.
phenomenology is the cringiest field made up by atheists in order to talk about consciousness and the senses.
You want to learn about consciousness you learn to meditate. But this requires to stop being a israelite worshiper and put on some work.
phenomenology Is literally thinking you're doing high level maths when all you do is watching youtube tutorials on how to count on your fingers.
Care to elaborate?
no
Kooks
I doubt these people studied phenomenology.
otherwise they would have looked in the mirror and understood horror of their hairstyles
And no. 2’s tie. So short. Goddamn.
Who are these people? What is phenomenology?
>Who are these people?
the based department (well at least 2 of them)
>What is phenomenology?
The cringe department (well except two of them at least)
Famous speculative realists associated with object-oriented ontology and the like:
Quentin Meillassoux, Graham Harman, Ray Brassier & Iain Hamilton Grant
quentin isnt a realist he is a materialist
Isn't realism already debunked though?
Brassier thought his way to schizophrenia
he seems fine
meillassoux on the other hand seems to have gone full schizo being unable to finish his god damn book
The sopranos
the speculatipranos
>associated with urbanomic
dropped
I only know Meillassoux well enough from reading After Finitude. The vibe I get is that Brassier is interesting, Grant is fine, and Harman isn't so great, while Meillassoux is alright. Back in 2016 I really got excited about these guys and anti-correlationism, only to learn they're all basically correlationists themselves, or at least Harman and Meillassoux definitely are. Huge disappointment.
As far as I can tell "correlationism" signifies the view that knowledge does not consist in grasping the facts, but imposing the categories of our thought on them. So really moderate idealism, or a half-way between realism and idealism.
From what I read from Brassier he is a straightforward realist of the Anglo-American type and in fact he thinks that the physical sciences give a complete description of the facts as they are, unlike the humanities.
how is meillasoux a correlationist?
Secondary qualities are still part of the correlation between thought and being for him.
>From what I read from Brassier he is a straightforward realist of the Anglo-American type and in fact he thinks that the physical sciences give a complete description of the facts as they are, unlike the humanities.
Well from what I've heard he is into Wilfrid Sellars who has the same sort of sciency Anglo-american style as you described, but Sellars is a pretty strong correlationist (he's a neopragmatist) so I would worry quite a bit if Brassier follows his lead. And doesn't he also like Laruelle, who accuses philosophy of creating distinctions and takes nonphilosophy (which is nondualist) to be about as valid as an alternative? I'm not sure how realist Brassier would be if he follows these guys, but you tell me cause I haven't read Nihil Unbound yet (plan to, is it good?)
I have only read various articles by him, but I remember him describing mental phenomena in biological terms and saying explicitly that there is *nothing* more to them than that - in other words that they are reducible to brain states.
As for Sellars I always thought of him as a card carrying-realist who takes scientific theories to be descriptions of the world as it is, and not mere tools we can use to build houses or rockets.
I am thinking his stuff about Laruelle may be from a different period, as it doesn't fit in with Sellars, Churchland and co.
>saying explicitly that there is *nothing* more to them than that - in other words that they are reducible to brain states
Well Sellars would probably accept this (with one exception relating to color), since he was a physicalist and a nominalist. And the Churchlands definitely are physicalists and nominalists as well, and go further by eliminating, rather than reducing, the mental. However, both Sellars and the Churchlands are still neopragmatists, and not true realists. So when they make claims about the physical world one has to read that with a pragmatist accent. That means it's possible Brassier is the same, but I wouldn't know for now.
No, anti-realism (+ deflationism about the realism/anti-realism debate) are just a perennial hot take much as nondualist monism and nihilism are. They don't debunk realism, this debate just keeps going on forever. But I for one side with some kind of realism.
phenomenology is the cringiest field made up by atheists in order to talk about consciousness and the senses.
You want to learn about consciousness you learn to meditate. But this requires to stop being a israelite worshiper and put on some work.
phenomenology Is literally thinking you're doing high level maths when all you do is watching youtube tutorials on how to count on your fingers.