archive › vicarious causation
Harman’s Commodification of Paper Writing
Kvond offers another pointed critique of Harman’s work, reflecting on some past remarks written by Harman on the now-deleted version of his old blog in light of the recent discussion of the “deferral of debt” in Harman’s work. Carl, over at Dead Voles, cited some hilarious quotes, the best of which I think is definitely this:
Always good to bring an older classic thinker into the mix. My choice in this case is Giordano Bruno, who has so much in common with Grant. A critical analysis of Bruno’s Cause, Principle, and Unity would work perfectly here. Put it on the smaller bookshelf where I keep books currently in use for projects, where I will see it each day as a reminder to reread it when I have the time.
Instead of going off on my own commentary, I want to just quote Kvond’s comment on this, since anything I have to say in response would be largely derivative of what he has said:
The blog is now deleted…but at least this past discussion over at Dead Voles points us in the direction of much of Harman’s “allure” thinking about what makes good philosophy. In this his theory of causation and his methodology coincide. Personally I find this production-line thinking combined with Harman’s “shock value” and “great idea” esteem to be antithetical to what philosophy should be about, and carries with it some substantive comparisons to Capitalist Speculative Bubble debt deferral. As such it draws our attention to the problems with the underlying theory itself, and the values that underwrite or inspire it. This is only to say that both his thinking and his methods should be shown in a more socially critical light, a light that ultimately goes to the question of cause and to the purpose of philosophy itself. Is philosophy ever anything more than “black box” making as Harman claims?