Shaviro has an excellent post up reflecting on the recent debates between Ivakhiv, Vitale, Harman, and I and why he hasn’t been participating in them. In part, he points out that we’re covering ground we’ve already covered numerous times. I agree. We’re reiterating arguments over and over again for over a year now. It’s become like a Hegelian bad infinity or a non-Nietzchean eternal return. In part, Steven talks about how he just doesn’t like framing things negatively. He’d rather discuss what he’s for in his philosophy rather than what he’s against or why he thinks another philosophy is batshit crazy insane. He also points out that he finds it far more interesting to read developments in another philosophy suchnas Morton on hyperobjects or my discussion of techno-objects last night.

Proposals like this seldom work, but given that we are all on very friendly terms, maybe just this once, in the entire history of the blogosphere, such a proposal will work. I would like to propose a general cease fire on the relations/objects debates between one another. We’ve all made our arguments and are just repeating ourselves at this point. I am not, of course, suggesting that we cease talking about relations and objects. That would be impossible. I am suggesting, for example, that any time I find myself inclined to write a post like Adrian doesn’t properly take into account the role of objects, or Chris hasn’t arrived at the standpoint of flat ontology, I resist the urge to write such a post and that others do the same. The arguments have been made, we know where we stand, and things are becoming a bit time consuming and nasty at this point.

About these ads