Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

Vetushinskiy A.S. On the way to symmetry: how did the ontology become flat

Abstract: The author refers to the new ontologies that attained the name of “flat”, among which are the ontologies of Latur, Deslandes, Harman, Bogost, Bryant, Morton, and others. However, the author believes that it is not enough to just describe the peculiarities of this new type on ontologies (which have already been done by the representatives themselves), but also demonstrate why and in what ways the non-flat ontology transformed into the flat, in other words, how the flat ontology fits the general philosophical context.  The author suggest examining the flat ontology as one of the four basic ontological schematisms, which are the four different versions of the answer to the question “what is?” As a result, the author determines that the flat ontology emerged due to the denial of the assumptions that lie in the foundation of the three ontological schematisms (Parmenidean, ascent, Democritus’ descent, Kant’s medium that sets up and down). As demonstrated by the author, all of these schematisms originated from the clear in one or another way vertical. The refusal of it became the cause that the new ontology holds just the horizontal.


Keywords:

object, beings, being, correlationism, speculative realism, object-oriented ontology, flat ontology, ontology, symmetry, asymmetry


This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article

This article written in Russian. You can find original text of the article here .
References
1. Latur B. Ob interob'ektivnosti // Sotsiologiya veshchey. Sbornik statey. M., 2006. 392 s.
2. Braynt L. Na puti k okonchatel'nomu osvobozhdeniyu ob'ekta ot sub'ekta // Logos. ¹4 (100). 2014. S. 275-292.
3. Yaspers K. Vvedenie v filosofiyu. Mn., 2000. 192 s.
4. Bogost Ya. Bardak v videoigrakh // Logos. ¹1 (103). 2015. S. 79-99.
5. Morton T. Ekologiya bez prirody // Khudozhestvennyy zhurnal. 2016. ¹96. S. 22-31.
6. Morton T. Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality. Ann Arbor, 2013. 232 p.
7. Bogost I. Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis, London, 2012. 168 p.
8. Bryant L. Onto-Cartography. An Ontology of Machines and Media. Edinburgh, 2014. 300 p.
9. Lo Dzh. Posle metoda: besporyadok i sotsial'naya nauka. M., 2015. 352 s.
10. Mol A. Mnozhestvennoe telo // Sotsiologiya vlasti. ¹1. 2015. S. 232-247.
11. Latur B. Kogda veshchi dayut otpor: vozmozhnyy vklad «issledovaniy nauki» v obshchestvennye nauki // Sotsiologiya veshchey. Sbornik statey. M., 2006. 392 s.
12. Harman G. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne, 2009. 258 p.
13. Kharman G. Chetveroyakiy ob'ekt: Metafizika veshchey posle Khaydeggera. Perm', 2015. 152 s.
14. Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, 2011. 440 p.
15. DeLanda M. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London, NY, 2002. 252 p.