Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access June 15, 2019

The Problem of Causality in Object-Oriented Ontology

C.J. Davies
From the journal Open Philosophy

Abstract

Object-oriented ontologists understand relations of cause and effect to be sensory or aesthetic in nature, not involving direct interaction between objects. Four major arguments are used to defend an indirect view of causation: 1) that there are analogies between perception and causation, 2) that the indirect view can account for cases of causation which a direct view cannot, 3) an Occasionalist argument that direct interaction would make causation impossible, and 4) that the view simply fits better with object-oriented ontology’s own premises. However, each argument is fallacious or otherwise unconvincing. The first affirms the consequent. The second fails because the relevant cases can easily be accounted for with a direct view. The third makes false assumptions about the relation between parts and wholes. And the fourth can also be used to argue against object-oriented ontology. Many of these problems can be traced to the methodological aspects of object-oriented ontology and might be avoided by emphasizing the role of non-argumentative justification in metaphysics.

References

Betsky, Aaron. “The Triple O Play.” Architect. 18 October 2017. Accessed March 4, 2019. https://www.architectmagazine.com/design/the-triple-o-play_o.Search in Google Scholar

Bryant, Levi R. The Democracy of Objects. London: Open Humanities Press, 2011.10.3998/ohp.9750134.0001.001Search in Google Scholar

Cogburn, Jon. “Aesthetics as First Philosophy: Sense-Making after Speculative Realism.” Unpublished draft. Accessed 20 April 2019. https://www.academia.edu/22685785/Aesthetics_as_First_Philosophy_Sense_Making_After_Speculative_Realism.Search in Google Scholar

Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. What is Philosophy?, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.Search in Google Scholar

Eastham, Ben. “OOO! The Return to Objects.” Elephant, vol. 31 (2018). Accessed February 7, 2019. https://elephant.art/returnof-objects/.Search in Google Scholar

Ennis, Paul J. “Interview with Ian Bogost” in Post-Continental Voices: Selected Interviews. Alresford: Zero Books, 2010, 48-63.Search in Google Scholar

Harman, Graham. Circus Philosophicus. London: Zero Books, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

Harman, Graham. Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory. Malden: Polity, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Harman, Graham. Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything. London: Pelican, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

Harman, Graham. The Quadruple Object. Alresford: Zero Books, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

Harman, Graham. Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures. Alresford: Zero Books, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

Morton, Timothy. Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality. London: Open Humanities Press, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

Nagarjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, trans. Jay L. Garfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. Words and Life, ed. James Conant. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.Search in Google Scholar

Rowe, William L. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 4, (1979), 335-341.Search in Google Scholar

Schaffer, Jonathan. “Monism: The Priority of the Whole.” Philosophical Review, vol. 119, no. 1, (2010), 31-76.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-03-21
Accepted: 2019-05-28
Published Online: 2019-06-15

© 2019 C.J. Davies et al., published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Scroll Up Arrow