From Graham Harman’s blog:
Just picked up his Anti-Badiou. If I were to write a book called Anti-Laruelle, I would be treated by Laruelle’s tweep army like someone who drowns puppies and crushes kittens.
Considering that writing such a book would require Harman actually read and try to understand Laruelle, I think he’s safe from any attack by the United-without-Unity Tweep Army. Sad that this constitutes his response to a number of questions raised about his abominable review.
10 thoughts on “A Ridiculous Comment from Harman”
I have been haunting the object-oriented philosophy blogosphere for half a year, and have noted that there is a lot of such hostility. What is the context? What is the background and history that elicits these public throwdowns?
I’m sure Laruelle’s book will get a lot of push-back from Badiou partisans as well. What exactly is the point here? If you criticize a thinker, their followers will be inclined to disagree with you — it’s a pretty well-known tendency that’s hardly limited to Laruelle.
Someone needs to sit him down and teach him basic moral empathy. “You know how you feel when people are dismissive toward your important new philosophical movement — indeed, how it pisses you off if they’re even a little too insistent in their questions? Well….”
Presumably if Harman did drown puppies and crush kittens, the only people upset would be correlationists.
Daniel Silliman, in fairness, your comment says nothing to the implications of Harman’s metaphysical or moral arguments about the world.
Not to mention the fact that arguments of the form “well if I had said something like that, there would have been an uproar” should be dismissed on principle.
@robotsdancingalone, in fairness, I wasn’t being fair.
@Charles (Chip), how the f### did I get dragged into that? And, man, if you’re going to include me in your ultimatum to Graham Harman for no apparent reason, can you at least spell “Daniel” correctly?
I in no way endorse Chip’s comment. I’m actually going to take it down. The ad hominems are one thing, and I do think there are real reasons people are frustrated with Harman, but in the grand scheme of things its just not that important. So the comment goes over the line with the physical violence.
I don’t if Harman wrote a “Anti-Laruelle” it would cause much of an uproar. I’m very enthusiastic about Badou, but am going to heartily read Anti-Badiou simply because I know Laruelle is going to respect Badiou by virtue of taking his ideas seriously, if only to tear them apart. I don’t really see Harman doing the same thing, just writing flippant metaphilosophy that treats philosophers’ names as metonymy of various ideas. Its all very sloppy and not very serious that I can ever see. But I maintain OOO has grown popular because of this slackness, not in spite of it.
My fault on Chip’s comment — I just skimmed it and hit approve.
Comments are closed.