I'm a philosophy student that tends to post about really serious things unseriously and about really unserious things seriously.

I was once described as a "beautiful, intelligent iguana".

5th February 2013

Post with 4 notes

I’ve been away from this blog for a while because basically I’m sick of all of you, a bit disgusted with humanity and academics at the moment, and have been busy as hell (more the third thing than the other two).

Levi Bryant really gets me.

Tagged: levi bryantspeculative realismonticologylarval subjectsphilosophyhatreddisgust

26th May 2012

Link reblogged from DROP OUT. HANG OUT. SPACE OUT. with 7 notes

Larval Subjects: Materialism, Form, and Purpose →

As I argued in an earlier post, all my materialism commits me to is the thesis that if something exists, it is material.  That’s it.  It doesn’t commit me to the thesis of reductionism or that the smallest units of matter are the really real things of the world.  H2O is a real entity in the world and while it cannot exist without hydrogen and oxygen, we have to observe H2O itself to discover what it’s powers are.  Signifying systems are, for me, real material beings in the world that have to be studied in their own terms.  While signifying systems can’t exist without electro-neural-chemical systems, we would learn next to nothing about a particular signifying system by studying neurology.  At most, we would learn about certain constraints on signifying systems by studying neurology, not how a particular signifying system is itself structured.  This is because neurological systems exist at a different level of scale and are composed of different types of elements.  Someone will say “but signifying systems are not like rocks!”, and they would be right.  But hurricanes aren’t like rocks either and no one doubts that they’re material phenomena.  Or maybe they do.  It would be peculiar if they did.

This is basically what I always considered materialism to be as well. Regardless, awesome post.

Tagged: onticologymaterialismLevi Bryant

8th May 2012

Quote reblogged from DROP OUT. HANG OUT. SPACE OUT. with 19 notes

I want to have my social constructivism and have my realism too. In fact, I want to go so far in my realism that I even count social constructions as real. They are all too real for those who live with their negative effects and like an ecosystem they regulate the possibilities of lives, our ability to respond to pressing problems like climate change, and the lives of countless nonhuman beings. However, recognizing that a theoretical framework is limited and that more theoretical work needs to be done broaching different domains of analysis does not leave the original theory unchanged.

Levi Bryant - Social Constructivism Again: What SR Means to Me (via dropouthangoutspaceout)

I saw this post earlier but wasn’t able to get to it. Need to do that.

But…Yes! This is exactly why I get so excited about SR and am slowly falling in philosophy-love with Bryant. So many people under the “speculative realism” tag don’t want to engage with politics (in the widest sense), because it has to deal with people, and SR is supposed to focus on objects only (even though political structures are objects for them, but whatever). Bryant realizes that the point of this branch of philosophy is to expand the possible realm of philosophy though - to talk about objects and humans (as objects). If all objects have the same ontological grounding (flat ontology), then this has extra-ontological consequences for things like politics, race, gender, etc. Bryant’s the only one I see engaging with this element of all these ontological propositions (and maybe Grosz? I saw her labeled under the SR header once, but I don’t know if that’s an accurate description of her philosophy. She is at least trying to be realist in some sense.)

Tagged: Levi BryantSocial ConstructivismOnticologyOOOSpeculative Realism