Object-oriented philosophy and the comprehension of scientific realities

• Paloma García Díaz ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad de Granada

     Universidad de Granada

     Granada, España

     
• Localización: Athenea Digital: revista de pensamiento e investigación social, ISSN-e 1578-8946, Vol. 11, Nº. 1, 2011 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Diásporas y transiciones en la Teoría del Actor-Red), págs. 225-238
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.5565/rev/athenead/v11n1.829
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Filosofía orientada a los objetos y la comprensión de las realidades científicas
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo  1    2    3  
• Resumen
  • español

    En este ensayo reflexiono sobre el primer tratado consagrado a la metafísica de Bruno Latour, la obra de Graham Harman Prince of Networks. Explico cómo Harman pone de relieve las raíces y principios de la filosofía orientada a los objetos latouriana. Asimismo, analizo cómo Harman habla de la concepción ontológica de Latour desde un nuevo modelo de ocasionalismo secular y desde una nueva forma de realismo, el relacionismo. Sin embargo, Harman no sólo defiende con entusiasmo la metafísica de Latour. Este filósofo compara su posición metafísica, comprometida con una teoría cuádruple, con la teoría simple de la realidad latouriana. Asimismo, evalúo la revisión que Harman realiza de la obra de Latour y defiendo que algunos problemas del filósofo francés se comprenden mejor si son explicados desde la filosofía de la ciencia. Abordo brevemente esta tarea en lo que atañe a la concepción del ocasionalismo de Latour.

  • English

    In this essay I focus on Graham Harman's Prince of Networks, the first treatise entirely devoted to address the metaphysics of Bruno Latour. I explain how Harman highlights the philosophical roots and principles of latourian object-oriented philosophy. Furthermore, I analyze how Harman emphasizes both a new secular occasionalism as well Latour's conception of reality featured as relationism. Besides, I also stress that Harman does not only defend the philosophy of Latour enthusiastically. This philosopher compares his own metaphysical commitments and his fourfold theory of reality to the one-fold theory found at Latour's philosophy. Finally, I assess Harman's review of Bruno Latour's work and I argue that some problems within Latour's conception of reality are better understood when they happen to be explained in terms of the philosophy of science. I tackle briefly this task in what concerns the very comprehension of Latour's occasionalism.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Bloor, David (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Boghossian, Paul (2006). Fear of Knowledge. Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gal, Ofer (2002). Constructivism for Philosophers (Be it a Remark on Realism). Perspectives on Science, 10(4), 523-548.
  • Giere, Ronald (2004). How Models Are Used to Represent Reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 742-52.
  • Haraway, Donna (1996). Modest Witness: Feminist Diffractions in Science Studies. En Peter Galison y David. J. Stump (Eds.), The Disunity of...
  • Harding, Sandra (1995). Strong Objectivity: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese. 104, 331-349.
  • Harman, Graham (2009). Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: Re-press.
  • Hesse, Mary (1980). Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton: Harvester Press.
  • Knorr-Cetina, Karin (1985). Germ Warfare. Social Studies of Science. 15(3), 577-585.
  • Latour, Bruno (1983). Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World. En Karin Knorr-Cetina y Michel Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives...
  • Latour, Bruno (1984/2001). Pasteur: guerre et paix des microbes suivi de Irréductions. Paris: La Découverte.
  • Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action. How to Follow Scientist and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard...
  • Latour, Bruno (1990). Postmodern? No, Simply Amodern! Steps Toward an Anthropology of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,...
  • Latour, Bruno (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Découverte.
  • Latour, Bruno (1992). Aramis ou l´amour des techniques. Paris: La Découverte.
  • Latour, Bruno (1999a). For David Bloor... and Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor’s “Anti-Latour”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science....
  • Latour, Bruno (1999b). Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, Bruno (1999c/2004). Politiques de la nature. Comment faire rentrer les sciences en démocratie. Paris: La Découverte.
  • Latour, Bruno (2003). Is Re-modernization Occurring – And If so, How to Prove It? Theory, Culture & Society, 20(2), 35-48.
  • Latour, Bruno (2004a). Le rappel de la modernité approches anthropologiques. ethnographiques.org, (6), Extraído el 20 de mayo de 2006, de...
  • Latour, Bruno (2004b). Whose Cosmos, Which Cosmopolitics? Comments on the Peace Terms of Ulrich Beck. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 450-462.
  • Latour, Bruno (2005a). Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, Bruno (2005b). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public. En Bruno Latour y Peter Weibel (Eds.), Making Things...
  • Longino, Helen E. (1990). Science and Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Newton-Smith, William H. (1981). The rationality of Science. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Proctor, Robert N. (1991). Value-free science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Sokal, Alan & Bricmont, Jean (1998). Intellectual impostures. London: Profile Books.