The fact is, Aristotle can be viewed as the first object-oriented philosopher. The pre-Socratics are underminers. Either they reduce the vilified mid-sized objects to tinier physical elements such as water, air, or atoms (thus paving the way for mainstream materialist reductionism) or they reduce them to the lump-like apeiron (thus paving the way for today’s fashionable philosophies of the “pre-individual”).
Plato, in turn, can be viewed as the first “overminer,” reducing objects upward to the in-principle knowable eidei that inhere in base matter.
I think we do share a big soft spot for Plato mind you, maybe for different reasons. I like his relentless though nowadays downplayed spirituality and I like how he thinks about hidden unspeakable things and demonic forces.
Here's Levi's post that sparked this, based in turn on Adam Robbert.
1 comment:
I had a similar reaction while recently re-reading Nic. Ethics, at the passage in IX.7 (1168a) where Aristotle says that the handiwork is in a sense the "maker" of its maker (a pretty Latourian comment!). Given that he makes this aside in the context of his ethical philosophy, it may not be a stretch (strangely enough) to use Aristotle as a jumping off point for an OO ethics.
Post a Comment