OOO

[The Wizard Joseph]

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

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!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You're lucky you're already dead

WHO OPENED THE FUCKING BOX? 

[minuspace]

I found this online as a good stepping stone:

Ontology 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.

[axod]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[axod]

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:)