Graham Harman

Jacques Lacan’s Seminar I (1954) draws heavily on the distinction between “ideal ego” and “ego-ideal,” taken from Sigmund Freud’s 1914 work On Narcissism. Lacan identifies these phrases with his own Imaginary and Symbolic registers, which Jacques-Alain Miller understandably places at the center of Seminar I. Against one interpretation of Lacan, this article contends that the Imaginary and the Symbolic cannot generate the Real because they presuppose it. On the basis of Freud’s critique of Jung, a three-level model of our relation to objects is also developed: (1) literal/scientific, (2) aesthetic/performative/militant, and (3) unconscious.

Drawing on arguments from Bruno Latour and Levi R. Bryant, this article defends the claim that materialism comes in two different forms (found respectively in the hard sciences and in cultural studies), and that despite their ostensibly opposite views both commit the same philosophical error. Essentially, both forms of materialism confuse our ways of knowing things with the constitution of things in their own right. In closing, an analogous critique is applied to Immanuel Kant’s reasons for rejecting the ontological proof for the existence of God from St. Anselm.

This article develops the contrasts between Markus Gabriel’s Fields of Sense and Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO). The major differences are that OOO accepts the Kantian thing-in-itself, and is also more sympathetic to modes of access to reality other than knowledge: which Gabriel (following Frank Ramsey) dismisses as “whistling.” Nonetheless, OOO and Gabriel are united in accepting relatively flat ontologies, and in rejecting the view that either mathematics or natural science are privileged viewpoints when compared with aesthetics and other domains.

“Speculative Realism in Environmental Education and the Philosophy of Education” was a joint research symposium for the networks on Environmental and Sustainability Education (NW 30) and Philosophy of Education (NW 13), held at the European Conference of Education Research (ECER), 25 August, 2023, in Glasgow, Scotland. The symposium aimed to open up discussion on renewed interest in realisms in the field of philosophy, and what that might mean for education research and the field of environmental education research in particular. As backdrop, environmental education harbours strong democratic traditions as well as recognitions of relationships to a world that is composed by more than human positions and desires. The symposium then forms part of an ongoing discussion of how these positions are understood and intermingle in a rapidly changing world. The expectation of the event was to broaden discussion about the voices present in environmental education, human and otherwise, and sharpen engagement with established traditions within the field. In brief, three paper presentations and discussion by Graham Harman probed questions of: (a) the lightness and darkness of the objects of education, (b) who visibly desires which object in/as education, and (c) the risks of literalisms and correlationalisms in, for example, what is alluring to, and pursued by, educators. In other words, what we care about in and as environmental and sustainability education, what is perceived/treated as peculiar, and what is treated as normal and perverse to the realities of education in the Anthropocene, all matter to the work of speculative realism.

Cet article est une réponse à l’argument de Martin Orensanz selon lequel l’ontologie orientée objet devrait accepter l’existence de la matière en tant qu’objet à la fois sensuel et réel. Que la matière puisse exister en tant qu’objet sensuel, nous l’admettons d’emblée puisque « objet sensuel » est un terme si large que rien ne peut être exclu de cette dénomination. Ce n’est pourtant pas le cas, selon moi, des objets réels, qui doivent exister indépendamment de toute autre entité sus-ceptible de les rencontrer. Cela conduit à un débat sur le caractère transitif de la relation partie à tout, dans lequel Orensanz reprend un argument récent de Daniel Korman, tandis que je défends une position aristotélicienne amendée selon la-quelle seules les parties proximales d’un objet peuvent être considérées comme appartenant à cet objet au sens strict du terme.

The Graham Harman Reader is the essential compendium of shorter works by one of the most influential philosophers of the twenty-first century. The writings in this volume are split into seven chapters. The first concerns Harman's resistance to both downward and upward reductionism. The second chapter contains works that develop the specific fourfold structure of Object-Oriented Ontology. In the third, we find Harman's novel arguments for why causal relations between two entities can only be indirect. The fourth chapter discusses why aesthetics deserves to be called first philosophy. The fifth chapter contains Harman's underrated contributions to ethics and politics, and the sixth deals with epistemology, mind, and science. A concluding seventh chapter contains several previously unpublished writings not available anywhere else. Written in Harman's typical clear and witty style, the Reader is an essential resource for veteran readers of Harman and newcomers alike."-- Back cover.

This article discusses three recent philosophers who speak in different ways about the retroactive construction of reality by human knowledge. Bruno Latour unapologetically claims that the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II could not have died of tuberculosis, as determined by a team of French doctors in 1976, since this disease was not discovered until three thousand years after his death. Slavoj Žižek often makes comparable arguments, though his version of retroactivity draws on both psychoanalysis and dialectics in a way that is never the case for Latour. Yet in his 2012 book Less Than Nothing, Žižek takes the more prudent, realist-sounding line that changes in scientific theories do not change nature itself. The real novelty in retroactive theories is provided by Thomas Kuhn, who draws our attention to a grey temporal zone in scientific discovery in which it is impossible to pinpoint the exact date of any breakthrough. For Kuhn, this stems from a dualism found in reality itself: one between the fact “that” a thing exists and the determination of “what” its properties are. The tension between these two moments is responsible for much of the vagueness and drama surrounding any paradigm shift in the sciences and is closely related to at least one plausible theory of metaphor. In closing, three Hollywood films are cited as helpful examples for understanding the different ways in which a paradigm shift works its retroactive magic.

In the friendly dispute between the philosophers of science Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos, both authors proclaim their allegiance to fallibilism: a term first coined by Charles Sanders Peirce, though often associated more strongly with Karl Popper. Yet Lakatos charges that Feyerabend’s position amounts to scepticism rather than fallibilism, given that the latter accounts for theoretical change but not theoretical progress. Famously, progress for Lakatos occurs by way of a progressive research program, one that expands in scope over time, tackles an ever more challenging range of problems, and often yields surprising verifications of its theories. But fallibilism is cheap if it merely entails the truism that the scientific consensus of any given moment might turn out to be false. If we describe knowledge in terms of the ancient and still influential formula “justified true belief,” there is good reason to hold that neither justification nor truth are attainable goals, and that they cannot even be approached asymptotically (as in the very different proposals of Alvin Plantinga and Martin Heidegger). Contra Lakatos this is not grounds for scepticism, but for what I term “weird fallibilism,” using “weird” in a technical sense drawn from my book on the American horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. Weird fallibilism is characterized by two fundamental claims: (1) truth never corresponds to reality, and (2) objects never correspond to their own qualities, a point in direct conflict with the “bundle of qualities” theory of objects handed down from British Empiricism. On this basis, a modification of the “justified true belief” criterion for knowledge is briefly sketched.

"Speculative Realism in Environmental Education and the Philosophy of Education" was a joint research symposium for the networks on Environmental and Sustainability Education (NW 30) and Philosophy of Education (NW 13), held at the European Conference of Education Research (ECER), 25 August, 2023, in Glasgow, Scotland. The symposium aimed to open up discussion on renewed interest in realisms in the field of philosophy, and what that might mean for education research and the field of environmental education research in particular. As backdrop, environmental education harbours strong democratic traditions as well as recognitions of relationships to a world that is composed by more than human positions and desires. The symposium then forms part of an ongoing discussion of how these positions are understood and intermingle in a rapidly changing world. The expectation of the event was to broaden discussion about the voices present in environmental education, human and otherwise, and sharpen engagement with established traditions within the field. In brief, three paper presentations and discussion by Graham Harman probed questions of: (a) the lightness and darkness of the objects of education, (b) who visibly desires which object in/as education, and (c) the risks of literalisms and correlationalisms in, for example, what is alluring to, and pursued by, educators. In other words, what we care about in and as environmental and sustainability education, what is perceived/treated as peculiar, and what is treated as normal and perverse to the realities of education in the Anthropocene, all matter to the work of speculative realism.

An in-depth study of the emerging French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux In this expanded edition of his landmark 2011 work on Meillassoux, Graham Harman covers new materials not available to the Anglophone reader at the time of the first edition. Along with Meillassoux's startling book on Mallarmé's poem "Un coup de dés jamais n'abolira le hasard," Harman discusses several new English articles by Meillassoux, including his controversial April 2012 Berlin lecture and its critique of "subjectalism." Freshly called to a professorship at the Sorbonne, Meillassoux's star has continued to rise. This expanded edition of the only book on Meillassoux remains the best introduction to one of Europe's most promising thinkers.

This article is a response to Martin Orensanz’s argument that object-oriented ontology ought to accept the existence of matter as both a sensual and a real object. That matter can exist as a sensual object is a point immediately granted, since “sensual object” is such a broad term that nothing could be excluded from this designation. Yet I argue that this is not the case with respect to real objects, which must exist independently of any other entity that might encounter them. This leads to a related debate on whether parthood is transitive, in which Orensanz takes up a recent argument of Daniel Korman while I defend the modified Aristotelian position that only the proximate parts of an object can be said to belong to it in the strict sense.

Sober and Wilson argue that neither psychological evidence nor philosophical arguments provide grounds for rejecting psychological hedonism, but evolution by natural selection is unlikely to have led to such a single source of motivation. In order to turn their piecemeal discussion of into a serious argument, Sober and Wilson need a general procedure for mapping alternative accounts of motivation into egoistic hedonistic accounts. That is the only way to demonstrate that there will always be an available hedonistic account no matter what the psychological evidence. But such a general procedure, if available, must block their argument for . So, the more persuasive the case for , the less persuasive the case for.

Objects generate time; time does not generate or change objects. That is the central thesis of this book by the philosopher Graham Harman and the archaeologist Christopher Witmore, who defend radical positions in their respective fields. Against a current and pervasive conviction that reality consists of an unceasing flux-a view associated in philosophy with New Materialism-object-oriented ontology asserts that objects of all varieties are the bedrock of reality from which time emerges. And against the narrative convictions of time as the course of historical events, the objects and encounters associated with archaeology push back against the very temporal delimitations which defined the field and its objects ever since its professionalization in the nineteenth century. In a study ranging from the ruins of ancient Corinth, Mycenae, and Troy to debates over time from Aristotle and al-Ash'ari through Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead, the authors draw on alternative conceptions of time as retroactive, percolating, topological, cyclical, and generational, as consisting of countercurrents or of a surface tension between objects and their own qualities. Objects Untimely invites us to reconsider the modern notion of objects as inert matter serving as a receptacle for human categories"-

This article takes the stance that knowledge requires a commitment to literalism, defined as the Humean view that an object is nothing more than a bundle of qualities. But insofar as philosophy in its classical sense as philosophia must oppose all forms of literalism, philosophy cannot be a form of knowledge, and therefore cannot be viewed as continuous with science in any straightforward sense. Analogous cases are considered. A metaphor cannot be understood in literal terms, for the simple reason that metaphor enacts a rift between an object and its qualities rather than a bundled union. Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science gives us another case where the “that” and the “what” of a discovery such as oxygen are inevitably in conflict, casting doubt on whether science itself even has literal foundations. The article ends with some reflections on the differing attitudes required by the philosopher and the scientist.

Alain Badiou’s treatment of objects in Logics of Worlds is both rich and highly technical, though its terminological challenges are softened by his use of illuminating examples. This article takes a twofold approach to the topic. In a first sense, the theory of objects developed in Logics of Worlds by way of an imagined protest at the Place de la République in Paris exhibits two questionable aspects: (1) the notion that the object is a bundle of qualities (found proverbially in Hume, but also in Kant’s “transcendental object=X”), and (2) the ultimately idealist assumption of a possible isomorphy between appearance and reality. But in a second sense, Badiou’s transcendental account of worlds leads him to a fascinating theory of exemplary entities, one that is immune to the critiques of onto-theology made by Heidegger and Derrida. This can be found in his account of the “transcendental functor” in Alexander the Great’s decisive victory over Darius III at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 B.C.E.

This article contends that the central principle of modern philosophy is obscured by a side-debate between two opposed camps that are united in accepting a deeper flawed premise. Consider the powerful critiques of Kantian philosophy offered by Quentin Meillassoux and Bruno Latour, respectively. These two thinkers criticize Kant for opposite reasons: Meillassoux because Kant collapses thought and world into a permanent “correlate” without isolated terms, and Latour because Kant tries to purify thought and world from each other rather than realizing that they are always combined in “hybrid” form. What both critiques tacitly accept is the notion that “thought” and “world” are the two major poles of the universe. I claim that this stems from the post-Cartesian assumption that thought and world are the two basic kinds of things that exist. The name “onto-taxonomy” is introduced for this view.

Early in his 1993 book Tarrying with the Negative, Slavoj Žižek asks contemporary philosophy to “repeat the Kantian gesture.” The implication is that (much like Plato did with the Sophists) Kant accepted the critique of metaphysics made by David Hume, affirming it in an unexpected positive sense. The analogous gesture for a would-be Kant in our time would be to accept deconstruction’s insistence on the contingency of meaning while treating contingency not as a failing, but as the very stuff of truth itself. For Žižek this is precisely what Jacques Lacan has already done, and this makes Lacan the pivotal thinker of our era. Yet as we follow Žižek’s pursuit of this theme in his recent article “The Parallax of Ontology” (an extract from his book Sex and the Failed Absolute), we catch sight of a new direction in Žižek’s thinking. His previous model of parallax in terms of two separate and irreconcilable realities seems to shift toward a new emphasis on the differential becoming of the two, rather than their paradoxical co-existence.