Ce Traité ne propose ni une phénoménologie des objets ni une analyse du concept de « chose », ni une pensée critique de la chosification ni une épistémologie du « découpage » de notre environnement par notre cognition.Ce Traité invite à prendre le large pour une tout autre aventure. Il suggère d’explorer d’abord notre monde comme s’il était vraiment plat, en lui ôtant toute intensité, toute valeur. Dans un second temps seulement, avec en poche la boussole de cette solitude ontologique radicale, cet ouvrage invite à retrouver la possibilité d’un univers, c’est-à-dire d’un ensemble de choses non plus seules, mais les unes dans les autres. Le désert théorique se transformera alors en encyclopédie luxuriante de nos objets contemporains, traversés d’ordres et de valeurs cosmologiques, biologiques, anthropologiques, artistiques, économiques ou sexuels.
I'd urge everyone to read it if you haven't already done so. I can't guarantee that you'd like it. He's writing with the simplicity of a Classical philosopher but this sophistication does not come from the structure of his sentences but his thought process. The main statement is simple. A thing is the difference between what comprehends it and what it comprehends (comprehension in its widest sense). What follows, however, is very sophisticated and thought-provoking. When I put Garcia, Morton, Bryant, Harman, DeLanda hand in hand in my mind, I arrive at a very fresh, somewhat deterministic and fatalistic at times, well hard to explain, but in overall a very wide, encompassing and inclusive perspective about life, the universe and everything. And yes, the answer is forty-two!
"I am in a city. I am in a society. I am in a culture. I am in atoms and molecules. I am in the perceptual field of someone who looks at me and who judges me. I am in my flesh. I am in evolution. I am in history. I am in a square metre. I am in unity. I am in baggy clothing. But I am not in myself."
A very rigorous and nearly analytic approach to finding, defining and situating things apart from us, and flying against the "flow" theorists such as Deleuze, Massumi and Latour to insist on the givenness of things out there. Fascinating, revealing, but not an easy read. Not as much fun I'd say as Deleuze & Co either, but important, ironically, in the necessary move from theory to things. Thinging. But likely will not finish it; it’s process is an incarnation of an analytic philosophy. It sits in a stack under the night table.