|
MAIN PAGE
> Back to contents
Philosophy and Culture
Reference:
Vetushinskiy A.S.
On the way to symmetry: how did the ontology become flat
// Philosophy and Culture.
2016. № 12.
P. 1625-1630.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2016.12.20796 URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=20796
На пути к симметрии: как онтология стала плоской
Vetushinskiy Aleksandr Sergeevich
Post-graduate student, the department of Ontology and Theory of Cognition, Faculty of Philosophy of the M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University
119991, Russia, Moscow, Lomonosovsky Prospekt 27, building #4, office G-324
|
a.vetushinskiy@gmail.com
|
|
 |
Other publications by this author
|
|
|
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2016.12.20796
Received:
20-10-2016
Published:
22-01-2017
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:
ontology, flat ontology, object-oriented ontology, speculative realism, correlationism, being, beings, object, symmetry, asymmetry
References
1. DeLanda M. Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London, NY, 2002. 252 p.
2. Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, 2011. 440 p.
3. Kharman G. Chetveroyakii ob''ekt: Metafizika veshchei posle Khaideggera. Perm', 2015. 152 s.
4. Harman G. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne, 2009. 258 p.
5. Latur B. Kogda veshchi dayut otpor: vozmozhnyi vklad «issledovanii nauki» v obshchestvennye nauki // Sotsiologiya veshchei. Sbornik statei. M., 2006. 392 s.
6. Lo Dzh. Posle metoda: besporyadok i sotsial'naya nauka. M., 2015. 352 s.
7. Mol A. Mnozhestvennoe telo // Sotsiologiya vlasti. №1. 2015. S. 232-247.
8. Bogost I. Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing. Minneapolis, London, 2012. 168 p.
9. Bryant L. Onto-Cartography. An Ontology of Machines and Media. Edinburgh, 2014. 300 p.
10. Morton T. Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, Causality. Ann Arbor, 2013. 232 p.
11. Yaspers K. Vvedenie v filosofiyu. Mn., 2000. 192 s.
12. Bogost Ya. Bardak v videoigrakh // Logos. №1 (103). 2015. S. 79-99.
13. Morton T. Ekologiya bez prirody // Khudozhestvennyi zhurnal. 2016. №96. S. 22-31.
14. Braint L. Na puti k okonchatel'nomu osvobozhdeniyu ob''ekta ot sub''ekta // Logos. №4 (100). 2014. S. 275-292.
15. Latur B. Ob interob''ektivnosti // Sotsiologiya veshchei. Sbornik statei. M., 2006. 392 s.
Link to this article
You can simply select and copy link from below text field.
|
|
