Anyone interested in Object-Oriented Ontology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology
I don't know enough to have a well considered opinion about this, but it looks good on the surface. Is "There Is A Moon" in the same general vein, or am I getting the whole thing wrong.
I found this online as a good stepping stone:
QuoteOntology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology ("OOO" for short) puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally—plumbers, DVD players, cotton, bonobos, sandstone, and Harry Potter, for example. In particular, OOO rejects the claims that human experience rests at the center of philosophy, and that things can be understood by how they appear to us. In place of science alone, OOO uses speculation to characterize how objects exist and interact.
I think the point is that humans prescribe values, narratives/histories, and uses to objects. But how is the nature of objects if it were to step outside human value systems? How do these objects relate to each other with all things being equal? (Of course we can never step outside our nervous system, so all of this would be speculative debate).
This is philosophy, right?
yeah, this is a newer branch of philosophy. I'm not terribly familiar with it, but I'd like to learn more and it seems fairly Erisian, since it places all things on equal footing. There is no object that is more valuable than any other object. It posits that humans are objects too, just like windows, dolls, space dust, sound, dogs, fire, and barstools.
It is a realist philosophy - it assumes that this reality we inhabit is concrete and acts in certain laws; i.e. you throw a barstool at me, and it does hurt.
But if all of humanity went extinct, what would happen to the barstool? Would it still remain a "barstool" after humanity? OOO says it's only a barstool in relationship to us, but outside of ourselves what is it? What exactly is the barstool made of? We can say it is an assemblage of dead pine tree cells, but what are those pine tree cells made? Is the gunk underneath the barstool also part of the barstool? Could an object be more than what it is made of? What is the barstool's relationship to other non-human objects?
These are just a few questions~ many more further down the rabbit hole I suppose
seems like schrodinger (or his cat) might have something to say about it
Quote from: rong on August 08, 2016, 10:18:55 AM
seems like schrodinger (or his cat) might have something to say about it
Remember that Schrodinger put forth the cat analogy as a way of pointing out that quantum theory was garbage because a cat that's both alive and dead is insane what is wrong with you people.
I don't think it's as insane or mysterious as anything "quanta".
It's merely posing the question "What is X?" and asking that we refrain from applying a hierarchy of human values.
There was some subjectivist stuff posted a while back which generated this rant:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=37764.0
Am I right in thinking this is a similar thing, or is OOO navel gazing in a completely different and equally obnoxious way?
Quote from: CBXTN on August 08, 2016, 06:24:25 AM
yeah, this is a newer branch of philosophy. I'm not terribly familiar with it, but I'd like to learn more and it seems fairly Erisian, since it places all things on equal footing. There is no object that is more valuable than any other object. It posits that humans are objects too, just like windows, dolls, space dust, sound, dogs, fire, and barstools.
Yeah, that's called speculative reality. I already have the news to tell me I dont' exist as a person.
This is exactly the sort of navel-gazing that makes everyone laugh at philosophers.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2016, 04:01:04 PM
Quote from: CBXTN on August 08, 2016, 06:24:25 AM
yeah, this is a newer branch of philosophy. I'm not terribly familiar with it, but I'd like to learn more and it seems fairly Erisian, since it places all things on equal footing. There is no object that is more valuable than any other object. It posits that humans are objects too, just like windows, dolls, space dust, sound, dogs, fire, and barstools.
Yeah, that's called speculative reality. I already have the news to tell me I dont' exist as a person.
This is exactly the sort of navel-gazing that makes everyone laugh at philosophers.
I don't think it is one of those anti-realist philosophies that state "we don't exist as a person", or "the universe only exists in the mind".
_
Rather, it's a type of thinking which says you are a person who exists - your body exists, your mind exists, the computer in front of you exists, the barstool exists, etc.
But your personhood is no more important than any other object in a universe of objects. I suppose we could assume we are more important than other objects; we could apply our own set of values to objects, decree some events as right and others as bad (a mega-huge comet hitting the earth is usually assumed to be bad). But if we did that, it wouldn't be Object-Oriented thinking - it would be human oriented thinking.
And so, OOO is a type of lens to explore how things operate, setting aside human-oriented ontology as much as possible.
OOO is also very malleable, as long as it always posits all things as equal.
To begin a more concrete subject for debate;
Last night I was reading how someone was describing environments and ecologies as objects; "Global warming is an example of what Timothy Morton calls "hyperobjects"—entities of such vast temporal and spatial dimensions that they defeat traditional ideas about what a thing is in the first place. "
Here's outline for what constitutes a "hyperobject":
They are "nonlocal": they do not manifest at a specific time and place but rather are stretched out in such a way as to challenge the idea that a thing must occupy a specific place and time.
Hyperobjects have a time-scale so different from current human ones that they force us to drop the idea of time as a neutral container.
Hyperobjects are unavailable to direct human perception. Computational prosthetics are required even to think them (mapping global warming requires huge amounts of computing speed, for instance).
Hyperobjects exist "interobjectively," which is to say that they consist, of, yet are not reducible to, interactions between a large number of entities.
Essentially; Instead of inhabiting a world, we find ourselves on the insides of a number of hyperobjects.
**
It makes me curious how this type of viewpoint would challenge our anthropocentric view of the world that has dominated the West since at least the Greeks. The "Privileged Transcendental Sphere" of philosophy doesn't protect us from Ultra-violet rays or rising sea levels. The physical world is a vast system of objects operating beyond common human perception, but we humans are always trying to inject our own values into it; Ultimately, things like "Environmentalism" isn't any more natural than "Industrialism" - they are both objects working within a complex system beyond human control. I'm skeptical of Big Data and the Silicon Valley apostles who preach about the saving powers of Information.
Instead, I think such a viewpoint encourages us to be more humble about our places in this existence and among each other, to be more understanding of things we disagree with, and to restore a sense of awe about the world. Ultimately we have very little control in the grand schema of hyperobjects.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 08, 2016, 11:34:30 AM
There was some subjectivist stuff posted a while back which generated this rant:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=37764.0
Am I right in thinking this is a similar thing, or is OOO navel gazing in a completely different and equally obnoxious way?
yes, there is a moon, and it exists :P
OOO isn't any of that privileged transcendental "navel gazing", as you all call it hahah
Quote from: CBXTN on August 08, 2016, 06:56:54 PM
But your personhood is no more important than any other object in a universe of objects.
That's what I said. It is the idea that we are basically a smear of infection on a rock orbiting a sun, and that's the only part that matters about us.
It is not a philosophy that improves anything at all. It is nihilism in a funny dress. It appeals to people who are afraid of being alive.
It seems to me that using "object" to describe things that are not objects is less of a philosophy and more of a crime against language.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 08, 2016, 10:31:52 AM
Quote from: rong on August 08, 2016, 10:18:55 AM
seems like schrodinger (or his cat) might have something to say about it
Remember that Schrodinger put forth the cat analogy as a way of pointing out that quantum theory was garbage because a cat that's both alive and dead is insane what is wrong with you people.
Really? I was not aware of that, dude
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 08, 2016, 10:31:52 AM
Quote from: rong on August 08, 2016, 10:18:55 AM
seems like schrodinger (or his cat) might have something to say about it
Remember that Schrodinger put forth the cat analogy as a way of pointing out that quantum theory was garbage because a cat that's both alive and dead is insane what is wrong with you people.
Except that he managed to trash his own argument. :lulz:
If the math says it is, it is. So the cat is both alive and dead, and the universe doesn't have to decide until you open the box.
Because God
cheats. He DOES roll dice, and they're loaded.
Or, the cat is either alive or dead in this universe, and our math isn't good enough yet. So you have to go look. That is to say,
SHUT UP AND GO OUTSIDE.
Quote from: LMNO on August 09, 2016, 05:38:13 AM
Or, the cat is either alive or dead in this universe, and our math isn't good enough yet. So you have to go look. That is to say,
SHUT UP AND GO OUTSIDE.
No, you don't look, so kitty lives forever. Maybe.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2016, 09:43:40 PM
Quote from: CBXTN on August 08, 2016, 06:56:54 PM
But your personhood is no more important than any other object in a universe of objects.
That's what I said. It is the idea that we are basically a smear of infection on a rock orbiting a sun, and that's the only part that matters about us.
It is not a philosophy that improves anything at all. It is nihilism in a funny dress. It appeals to people who are afraid of being alive.
That's quite a fast assumption, haha. Did the reflection regarding "hyperobjects" not appeal to you?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 08, 2016, 10:00:39 PM
It seems to me that using "object" to describe things that are not objects is less of a philosophy and more of a crime against language.
I'd be happy to test this idea, if you are willing.
but first, what exactly is not an object according to you?
Objection!
Quote from: CBXTN on August 09, 2016, 06:52:16 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 08, 2016, 10:00:39 PM
It seems to me that using "object" to describe things that are not objects is less of a philosophy and more of a crime against language.
I'd be happy to test this idea, if you are willing.
but first, what exactly is not an object according to you?
A thing that I cannot conceive of anything punching is not an object to me. The exception to this being "object" as used in programming language, which is "a thing that I can punch with code."
So, to me, the sun is an object because I can picture Galactus punching it. An atom is an object because I can picture a nanobot punching it. Global warming is not an object because not even Captain Planet can punch it.
Global warming is a class model, its not an object in the sense that the class Environment does not contain an object Global warming, however it has a shit load of inheritance from lots of other functional-Ohmygodthisisstupid.
Quote from: CBXTN on August 09, 2016, 06:49:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 08, 2016, 09:43:40 PM
Quote from: CBXTN on August 08, 2016, 06:56:54 PM
But your personhood is no more important than any other object in a universe of objects.
That's what I said. It is the idea that we are basically a smear of infection on a rock orbiting a sun, and that's the only part that matters about us.
It is not a philosophy that improves anything at all. It is nihilism in a funny dress. It appeals to people who are afraid of being alive.
That's quite a fast assumption, haha. Did the reflection regarding "hyperobjects" not appeal to you?
Nope.
get detaled entries stull b stoopid
It seems to me like this whole thing is what happens when you actually hit a philosophy student with The Barstool and they just philosophy harder about the stool's equality or some shit.
My inner daemon be like, "Eat 2 dozen oranges and call me in the morning to describe your resulting paradigm."
I don't personally recommend that you listen to my inner daemon tho.
He's a asshole.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on August 11, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
It seems to me like this whole thing is what happens when you actually hit a philosophy student with The Barstool and they just philosophy harder about the stool's equality or some shit.
My inner daemon be like, "Eat 2 dozen oranges and call me in the morning to describe your resulting paradigm."
I don't personally recommend that you listen to my inner daemon tho.
He's a asshole.
This is why when you beat philosophy majors, you have to beat them to death.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 11, 2016, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on August 11, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
It seems to me like this whole thing is what happens when you actually hit a philosophy student with The Barstool and they just philosophy harder about the stool's equality or some shit.
My inner daemon be like, "Eat 2 dozen oranges and call me in the morning to describe your resulting paradigm."
I don't personally recommend that you listen to my inner daemon tho.
He's a asshole.
This is why when you beat philosophy majors, you have to beat them to death.
According to Zeno, you can only beat him half to death.
AHAHAHAHAHASORRYSORRYSORRY
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 11, 2016, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 11, 2016, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on August 11, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
It seems to me like this whole thing is what happens when you actually hit a philosophy student with The Barstool and they just philosophy harder about the stool's equality or some shit.
My inner daemon be like, "Eat 2 dozen oranges and call me in the morning to describe your resulting paradigm."
I don't personally recommend that you listen to my inner daemon tho.
He's a asshole.
This is why when you beat philosophy majors, you have to beat them to death.
According to Zeno, you can only beat him half to death.
AHAHAHAHAHASORRYSORRYSORRY
You're lucky you're already dead and I'm lazy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 11, 2016, 07:52:39 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 11, 2016, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on August 11, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
It seems to me like this whole thing is what happens when you actually hit a philosophy student with The Barstool and they just philosophy harder about the stool's equality or some shit.
My inner daemon be like, "Eat 2 dozen oranges and call me in the morning to describe your resulting paradigm."
I don't personally recommend that you listen to my inner daemon tho.
He's a asshole.
This is why when you beat philosophy majors, you have to beat them to death.
According to Zeno, you can only beat him half to death.
AHAHAHAHAHASORRYSORRYSORRY
:lulz: :lulz: :pax:
Not sure if right emote, but it feels right!
So... I guess we just need an object demonstration. It HAS to be voluntary or it's just murder. Any takers? Can I get even a little Bushido for the truth here or something? First student to volunteer graduates from student to Serious Philosopher posthumously!
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on August 11, 2016, 08:07:38 PM
You're lucky you're already dead
WHO OPENED THE FUCKING BOX? :rogpipe:
Quote from: CBXTN on August 08, 2016, 05:30:25 AM
I found this online as a good stepping stone:
QuoteOntology is the philosophical study of existence. Object-oriented ontology ("OOO" for short) puts things at the center of this study. Its proponents contend that nothing has special status, but that everything exists equally—plumbers, DVD players, cotton, bonobos, sandstone, and Harry Potter, for example. In particular, OOO rejects the claims that human experience rests at the center of philosophy, and that things can be understood by how they appear to us. In place of science alone, OOO uses speculation to characterize how objects exist and interact.
I think the point is that humans prescribe values, narratives/histories, and uses to objects. But how is the nature of objects if it were to step outside human value systems? How do these objects relate to each other with all things being equal? (Of course we can never step outside our nervous system, so all of this would be speculative debate).
The only half-truth in OOO is that nothing
does indeed have special status, over and against their inability to make of it the absence of an intentional object.
Instead of intelectually abstracting objects from the system of relations that informs them, objects are most themselves when we engage them directly in the context for which they already reveal themselves, transparently.
Quote from: axod on September 05, 2016, 09:32:37 PM
Instead of intelectually abstracting objects from the system of relations that informs them, objects are most themselves when we engage them directly in the context for which they already reveal themselves, transparently.
It ruins the effect.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2016, 02:33:59 AM
Quote from: axod on September 05, 2016, 09:32:37 PM
Instead of intelectually abstracting objects from the system of relations that informs them, objects are most themselves when we engage them directly in the context for which they already reveal themselves, transparently.
It ruins the effect.
True, I can confirm the criticism by how obstinately that word passed spell-check:)