What do you think?
Rate this book
The Democracy of Objects
Since Kant, philosophy has been obsessed with epistemological questions pertaining to the relationship between mind and world and human access to objects. In The Democracy of Objects, Bryant proposes that we break with this tradition and once again initiate the project of ontology as first philosophy. Drawing on the object-oriented ontology of Graham Harman, as well as the thought of Roy Bhaskar, Gilles Deleuze, Niklas Luhman, Aristotle, Jacques Lacan, Bruno Latour and the developmental systems theorists, Bryant develops a realist ontology that he calls “onticology”. This ontology argues that being is composed entirely of objects, properties, and relations such that subjects themselves are a variant of objects. Drawing on the work of the systems theorists and cyberneticians, Bryant argues that objects are dynamic systems that relate to the world under conditions of operational closure. In this way, he is able to integrate the most vital discoveries of the anti-realists within a realist ontology that does justice to both the material and cultural. Onticology proposes a flat ontology where objects of all sorts and at different scales equally exist without being reducible to other objects and where there are no transcendent entities such as eternal essences outside of dynamic interactions among objects.
ull text available here:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/...
ull text available here:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/...
ebook
First published January 1, 2011
58 people are currently reading
647 people want to read
About the author
Levi Bryant
11 books28 followersLevi Bryant, born Paul Reginald Bryant, is a Professor of Philosophy at Collin College in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. Bryant has also written extensively about post-structural and cultural theory, including the work of Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Rancière, and Slavoj Žižek.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 22, 2012
My initial penetration into the fields of Speculative Realism and Object Oriented Ontology, DoO is a clear, concise, and determined attempt to bypass the epistemological problem of access to objects (the ways in which our knowledge claims about the 'world out there' are limited by our senses/perceptions, leaving us with only what the 'world out there is for us'.), to get to real discussions about reality as it is for itself.
The text seems to seek to deanthropocentrize ontology, repositioning the Subject as just another type of Object, and according all objects their proper due as actors in Latourian networks of relation. This restores the "natural" world to a thing of more than just symbolic value, and allows us to think of materials in ways that fall outside the symbolic order, which can be useful for dealing with non-social material problems such as climate change, chemical pollution, and contamination of the global food supply by GMO: objects and materials persist and cause effect, whether they are properly identified or not.
I am not, and probablky couldn't, do the text justice in explanation, and it contains so many novel and interesting ideas.
The main challenge of the book for me has been reconciling Bryant's clarity of thought with the spread of jargony terms that get used to explain the concepts. In the end, however frustrating for me this may be, it is excusable, as he is both a student of Lacanian psychoanalysis and continental philosophy, both of which (in my experience) have tendencies to run towards language usage the lay person will find obscure or difficult.
Totally worth multiple reads.
The text seems to seek to deanthropocentrize ontology, repositioning the Subject as just another type of Object, and according all objects their proper due as actors in Latourian networks of relation. This restores the "natural" world to a thing of more than just symbolic value, and allows us to think of materials in ways that fall outside the symbolic order, which can be useful for dealing with non-social material problems such as climate change, chemical pollution, and contamination of the global food supply by GMO: objects and materials persist and cause effect, whether they are properly identified or not.
I am not, and probablky couldn't, do the text justice in explanation, and it contains so many novel and interesting ideas.
The main challenge of the book for me has been reconciling Bryant's clarity of thought with the spread of jargony terms that get used to explain the concepts. In the end, however frustrating for me this may be, it is excusable, as he is both a student of Lacanian psychoanalysis and continental philosophy, both of which (in my experience) have tendencies to run towards language usage the lay person will find obscure or difficult.
Totally worth multiple reads.
July 25, 2012
Bryant presents his case for an object-oriented ontology (OOO), something that treats all objects as things that exist in their own right, without implying that everything exists in the same manner. Above all else, it's a very articulate account, wherein Bryant never hesitates to give a full explanation for a concept that may seem to require a bit of extra space. The introduction argues the need for an object-oriented approach, saying that the common structures of phenomenology aren't really about ontology, but epistemology, that the discussion of what exists has been buried in the discussion of what we can know to exist and perceive (and if that seems immediately plain to you, you've got a good OOO start.) In the first chapter, he builds on Roy Bhaskar's transcendental realism, which he uses to start his basic structure of objects. Chapter two starts with Aritotle's notion of substance to explain what constitutes an object, and how to talk about what makes it unique. Chapter 3 borrows from Deleuze, and emphasizes the difference between what we can perceive about an object and what it is, differentiating between the virtual and the actual. Chapter four takes up Luhmann's system theory to start to discuss how objects relate to each other. Chapter five furthers the discussion, to describe how objects fit within concepts of constraint, and time. And the last chapter demonstrates the use of his theory, expanding on the withdrawal of objects with Lacanian sexuation. As you may have guessed from this description, it's an intensely interdisciplinary book, but that's the point; Bryant wants an ontology that can applied in just such a general manner,something that gets beyond the anthropocentric philosophies we have now to something that can look more at the relations of things. I don't entirely buy his theory--after all's said and done, I'm reminded of the saying "everything looks like a nail if you're a hammer." Only in Bryant's case, everything looks like an object. It's just a little too totalizing a philosophy for my tastes. But I fully admire the way Bryant went about arguing his points, and disseminating some extremely complicated philosophical concepts in the process.
April 25, 2012
I'm a newcomer to 'Speculative Realism' and to Object Oriented Ontology as well, and I found this book to be one of the clearest pieces so far in the canon, and to be one of the most engaging.
Bryant find his way out of what is being termed the 'Correlationist Circle' - that is, thought that can't separate questions/investigations about the world and being into two different categories; they always correlate - by posing what he terms to be a "Transcendental Realist" question. Traditionally, Kant's transcendental question could be posed as "What are the limits to our knowledge about the world?" It's a transcendental question because it investigates the conditions of our knowledge, and its possibility, before asking about how we know a thing. Similarly, the 'Transcendental Realist' question is "How must the world be structured for science to be possible?" This question leads down a realist path, showing how (ontologically, not epistemologically) objects must confront each other, even in the absence of conscious being's presence to witness the confrontation - a thesis that is in the background of many of the book's claims.
From there we get wonderful and fascinating investigations into how objects are never the sum of the networks they're embedded into, and how in this infinite withdrawal, objects still interact, but always in an act of 'translation', so that the acts are never fully understood on a one-to-one basis. We get meditations on Deleuze and Lacan, on Whitehead and Harman, and into a whole serious of intellectual jumping-off-points. This makes the book rather comprehensive, at least for only being three hundred or so pages - at least more comprehensive than most Object Oriented books have been thus far.
This book is clear and engaging; it shows how Speculative Realism can be something new and fascinating for philosophy. Though it may have its problems (what piece of philosophy doesn't?), it at least makes good headway into reinvigorating a sense of wonder in the philosophical project - an end that makes the book worth a read in-itself.
Bryant find his way out of what is being termed the 'Correlationist Circle' - that is, thought that can't separate questions/investigations about the world and being into two different categories; they always correlate - by posing what he terms to be a "Transcendental Realist" question. Traditionally, Kant's transcendental question could be posed as "What are the limits to our knowledge about the world?" It's a transcendental question because it investigates the conditions of our knowledge, and its possibility, before asking about how we know a thing. Similarly, the 'Transcendental Realist' question is "How must the world be structured for science to be possible?" This question leads down a realist path, showing how (ontologically, not epistemologically) objects must confront each other, even in the absence of conscious being's presence to witness the confrontation - a thesis that is in the background of many of the book's claims.
From there we get wonderful and fascinating investigations into how objects are never the sum of the networks they're embedded into, and how in this infinite withdrawal, objects still interact, but always in an act of 'translation', so that the acts are never fully understood on a one-to-one basis. We get meditations on Deleuze and Lacan, on Whitehead and Harman, and into a whole serious of intellectual jumping-off-points. This makes the book rather comprehensive, at least for only being three hundred or so pages - at least more comprehensive than most Object Oriented books have been thus far.
This book is clear and engaging; it shows how Speculative Realism can be something new and fascinating for philosophy. Though it may have its problems (what piece of philosophy doesn't?), it at least makes good headway into reinvigorating a sense of wonder in the philosophical project - an end that makes the book worth a read in-itself.
April 12, 2024
The guy doesn't understand half of the philosophical ideas he's supporting, and most of the ones he's critiquing.
December 21, 2018
This only gets three stars because I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I think it will be quite useful for me in the future, in some ways. On the other, I don't know how successfully it walks the line between accessibility and subtlety/academicness/too lazy to come up with word to say what I mean. It felt really redundant and simplistic to me in some parts, and then in the last chapter he expected me to have the patience to walk through a series of expressions in symbolic logic, which I don't actually have any practice in yet. I feel like I'm probably his ideal audience - not a real philosopher, but trying to catch up on cool ideas - but I think he should have maybe had more conceptual complexity and less formal rambliness (? again, too lazy for better words). I am glad to have read this, and expect to use it in the future, but I am very very ready to put it back on the bookshelf and pick something up which has a better idea of what it's trying to be.
February 10, 2022
3.5/5
Creo que la onticología de Bryant, presentada en este libro, es superior a la OOO de Harman. Pero el libro es algo desparejo, a veces los conceptos son introducidos sin la suficiente explicación o el autor se detiene demasiado en cuestiones que no parecen relacionadas al resto del texto.
A diferencia de, imagino, la mayoría de lectores, me gustaron sobre todo los capítulos sobre Lacan. Creo que el eclecticismo de Bryant y, sobre todo, su idea de no renunciar a todos los desarrollos de la filosofía continental del último medio siglo sino incorporarlos en un proyecto teórico mayor merece respeto. Muchas veces parece que los "nuevos realismos" se parecen bastante a los viejos (véase Ferraris). No es el caso de este libro.
Creo que la onticología de Bryant, presentada en este libro, es superior a la OOO de Harman. Pero el libro es algo desparejo, a veces los conceptos son introducidos sin la suficiente explicación o el autor se detiene demasiado en cuestiones que no parecen relacionadas al resto del texto.
A diferencia de, imagino, la mayoría de lectores, me gustaron sobre todo los capítulos sobre Lacan. Creo que el eclecticismo de Bryant y, sobre todo, su idea de no renunciar a todos los desarrollos de la filosofía continental del último medio siglo sino incorporarlos en un proyecto teórico mayor merece respeto. Muchas veces parece que los "nuevos realismos" se parecen bastante a los viejos (véase Ferraris). No es el caso de este libro.
November 21, 2022
Quite illuminating perspective
Setting down in the middle of constructivist approaches in academia and more realist approaches at work. I found this work very helpful to make way with Latourian perspectives for my thesis. I appreciate the treatment of information as perturbations, no so sure about the graphics of sexuation, but in all a great survey of ideas!
Setting down in the middle of constructivist approaches in academia and more realist approaches at work. I found this work very helpful to make way with Latourian perspectives for my thesis. I appreciate the treatment of information as perturbations, no so sure about the graphics of sexuation, but in all a great survey of ideas!
July 8, 2019
I've always wanted to see the world for how it is, you know, not how it gets translated by my mind, but the real "stuff" of the planet and beyond, without all the distinctions and possessiveness I place on it. To resolve this conundrum, some philosophers have done away with an actual physical world entirely. Some scientists speculate that we occupy some kind of hologramatic state that emanates from some ultimately unrelatable substance, then some shamanic traditions report that this substance is ultimately knowable and can be manipulated. This stuff goes on and on in every direction. But it's nice to have a "home team," or "home ontology" - a means approaching the relations between entities that I can take refuge in when i'm tired. It seems like neuroscience adds a strong third-person account to the pile of possible world-as-such theories, but, reader, i have the same hope for you as i do for me. Keep it simple. I just want you to live and not be overwhelmed by your own experience to the point of madness. I want you to find something that brings peace to your mind so that when you look at a beautiful tree, that relation between you and the tree isn't shattered by a thousand questions related to where the two of you are, what proximity is or what ethics are appropriate in that moment. I like object-oriented ontology as a starting point for its way of analysis and how it settles these questions rather than ripping open even more uncertainty. Using it to analyse art is a good place to start. Using it as a way of seeing against how authors write their novels or history books, for example, is an interesting way of using object-oriented ontology. Read the manifestos of the Kurdish Workers' Party founder Abdullah Öcalan and you will see that he has a political view of objects and their relations that will resonate with you through this view. So Bryant's ideas, his onticology, will only become more important over time, I hope, and have its day as a mainstream view of being.
If Graham Harman makes you wonder what OOO is even for, Bryant is your guy. He does the best he can to make this stuff pragmatic. Its a work in progress, but this book is an excellent jumping off point. Yes, start here! And if it's not for you, well, the text still has value for the reader who is interested in understanding how ontologies work, as in, how they are produced or arrived at. It's fun!
If Graham Harman makes you wonder what OOO is even for, Bryant is your guy. He does the best he can to make this stuff pragmatic. Its a work in progress, but this book is an excellent jumping off point. Yes, start here! And if it's not for you, well, the text still has value for the reader who is interested in understanding how ontologies work, as in, how they are produced or arrived at. It's fun!
February 23, 2019
Really a 4.5 but I can't gush about some of the subsections as I'm not deep enough into metaphysics to really get the parts of it that do not have immediate naturalist or political ramifications.
Bryant continues being the most interesting thinker in speculative realism and OOO. We have a very convincing case here for not just the OOO view, but the relevance of this view in the light of living in an era of climate change and political breakdown.
Bryant continues being the most interesting thinker in speculative realism and OOO. We have a very convincing case here for not just the OOO view, but the relevance of this view in the light of living in an era of climate change and political breakdown.
Want to read
February 12, 2013This may be too heavily philosophical for me, but I'm giving it a try. I'm very interested in this Object Oriented Ontology stuff....
March 3, 2013
Haven't read that poorly written prose for a while. The introduction and the first chapter were enough.
July 22, 2013
Essential reading
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews