Object-oriented ontology

tical or theoretical action.[8] Furthering this idea, Harman contends that when objects withdraw in this way,
they distance themselves from other objects, as well as
humans.[9] Resisting pragmatic interpretations of Heideggers thought, then, Harman is able to propose an
object-oriented account of metaphysical substances.

Object-oriented ontology (OOO) is a metaphysical

movement that rejects the privileging of human existence
over the existence of nonhuman objects.[1] Specically,
object-oriented ontology opposes the anthropocentrism
of Immanuel Kants Copernican Revolution, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and,
in turn, become products of human cognition.[2] In contrast to Kants view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that objects exist independently of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations
with humans or other objects.[3] Thus, for object-oriented
ontologists, all relations, including those between nonhumans, distort their related objects in the same basic manner as human consciousness and exist on an equal footing
with one another.[4]

Following the publication of Harmans early work, several scholars from varying elds began employing objectoriented principles in their own work. After encountering speculative realism in the blogosphere, Collin College philosophy instructor Levi Bryant proposed a volume of collected essays on the topic. Called The Speculative Turn, the project involved Harman and Nick Srnicek as co-editors. While completing the compilation,
Bryant began what he describes as a very intense philoObject-oriented ontology is often viewed as a subset of sophical email exchange with Harman, over the course
speculative realism, a contemporary school of thought of which Bryant became convinced of the credibility of
that criticizes the post-Kantian reduction of philosophical object-oriented thought.[10]
enquiry to a correlation between thought and being, such Other advocates for object-oriented ontology include litthat the reality of anything outside of this correlation is erature and ecology scholar Timothy Morton and video
unknowable.[5] Object-oriented ontology predates specu- game designer Ian Bogost. Morton became active in the
lative realism, however, and makes distinct claims about
movement after his book Ecology Without Nature was
the nature and equality of object relations to which not favorably compared to some aspects of object-oriented
all speculative realists agree. The term object-oriented
philosophy.[11] Bogost, on the other hand, had read Harphilosophy was ocially coined by Graham Harman, mans Tool-Being while nishing his doctoral dissertation
the movements founder, in his 1999 doctoral dissertation
at UCLA and subsequently applied object-oriented ideas
Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects.[6] Since to gaming, media, and technology studies.[12]
then, a number of theorists working in a variety of disciplines have adapted Harmans ideas, including philosophy professor Levi Bryant, literature and ecology scholar
Timothy Morton, video game designer Ian Bogost, and 2 Basic principles
medievalists Jerey Jerome Cohen and Eileen Joy. In
2009, Bryant rephrased Harmans original designation as While object-oriented philosophers reach dierent conobject-oriented ontology, giving the movement its cur- clusions, they share common precepts, including a crirent name.
tique of anthropocentrism and correlationism, a rejection
of philosophies that undermine or overmine objects,
preservation of nitude and withdrawal.

Founding of the movement

2.1 Anthrodecentrism

The term object-oriented philosophy was formally

coined by speculative philosopher Graham Harman in his
1999 doctoral dissertation Tool-Being: Elements in a
Theory of Objects (later revised and published as ToolBeing: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects), though
he had considered delivering an object-oriented talk at the
University of Toronto a year earlier, in 1998.[7] For Harman, Heideggerian Zuhandenheit, or readiness-to-hand,
refers to the withdrawal of objects from human perception into a reality that cannot be manifested by prac-

The rejection of post-Kantian privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. Beginning
with Kants Copernican revolution, modern philosophers began articulating a transcendental anthropocentrism, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind
of the subject and, in turn, become products of human
cognition.[2] In contrast to Kants view, object-oriented
philosophers maintain that objects exist independently of
human perception, and that nonhuman object relations
1

distort their related objects in the same fundamental manner as human consciousness. Thus, all object relations,
human and nonhuman, are said to exist on equal ontological footing with one another.[4]

2.2

Rejection of undermining and overmining

Object-oriented thought holds that there are two principal strategies for devaluing the philosophical import of
objects.[15] First, one can undermine objects by claiming that they are an eect or manifestation of a deeper,
underlying substance or force.[16] Second, one can overmine objects by either an idealism which holds that there
is nothing beneath what appears in the mind, or as in social constructionism, by positing no independent reality
outside of language, discourse or power.[17][18] Objectoriented philosophy rejects both undermining and overmining.

2.4

Accordingly, objects cannot be exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects in theory or practice,
meaning that the reality of objects is always present-athand.[21] The retainment by an object of a reality in excess of any relation is known as withdrawal.

Critique of correlationism

Related to anthrodecentrism, object-oriented thinkers

problematize correlationism, which the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux denes as the idea according
to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other.[13] Because object-oriented
ontology is a realist philosophy, it stands in contradistinction to the anti-realist trajectory of correlationism,
which restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought by disavowing any reality
external to this correlation as inaccessible, and, in this
way, fails to escape the ontological reication of human
experience.[14]

2.3

METAPHYSICS OF GRAHAM HARMAN

Preservation of nitude

3 Metaphysics of Graham Harman

In Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects,
Graham Harman interprets the tool-analysis contained in
Martin Heideggers Being and Time as inaugurating an
ontology of objects themselves, rather than the valorization of practical action or networks of signication.[22]
According to Harman, Heideggerian zuhandenheit, or
readiness-to-hand, indicates the withdrawal of objects
from both practical and theoretical action, such that objectcal reality cannot be exhausted by either practical usage or theoretical investigation.[23] Harman further contends that objects withdraw not just from human interaction, but also from other objects. He maintains:
If the human perception of a house or a tree
is forever haunted by some hidden surplus in
the things that never becomes present, the same
is true of the sheer causal interaction between
rocks or raindrops. Even inanimate things only
unlock each others realities to a minimal extent, reducing one another to caricatures...even
if rocks are not sentient creatures, they never
encounter one another in their deepest being,
but only as present-at-hand; it is only Heideggers confusion of two distinct senses of the asstructure that prevents this strange result from
being accepted.[24]
From this, Harman concludes that the primary site of
ontological investigation is objects and relations, instead
of the post-Kantian emphasis on the human-world correlate. Moreover, this holds true for all entities, be they
human, nonhuman, natural, or articial, leading to the
downplayment of dasein as an ontological priority. In its
place, Harman proposes a concept of substances that are
irreducible to both material particles and human perception, and exceed every relation into which they might
enter.[25]

Unlike other speculative realisms, object-oriented ontology maintains the concept of nitude, whereby relation
to an object cannot be translated into direct and complete knowledge of an object.[19] Since all object relations distort their related objects, every relation is said
to be an act of translation, with the caveat that no object can perfectly translate another object into its own
nomenclature.[20] Object-oriented ontology does not re- Coupling Heideggers tool-analysis with the phenomenostrict nitude to humanity, however, but extends it to all logical insights of Edmund Husserl, Harman introduces
objects as an inherent limitation of relationality.
two types of objects: real objects and sensual objects.
Real objects are objects that withdraw from all experience, whereas sensual objects are those that exist only in
2.5 Withdrawal
experience.[26] Additionally, Harman suggests two kinds
of qualities: sensual qualities, or those found in experiObject-oriented ontology holds that objects are indepen- ence, and real qualities, which are accessed through inteldent not only of other objects, but also from the quali- lectual probing.[27] Pairing sensual and real objects and
ties they animate at any specic spatiotemporal location. qualities yields the following framework:

3
Sensual Object/Sensual Qualities: Sensual ob- being contiguous to it. Connection conveys the vicarious
jects are present, but enmeshed within a mist of generation of intention by real objects indirectly encounaccidental features and proles.[28]
tering one another. Finally, no relation represents the typical condition of reality, since real objects are incapable
Sensual Object/Real Qualities: The structure of direct interaction and are limited in their causal inuof conscious phenomena are forged from eide- ence upon and relation to other objects.[35]
tic, or experientially interpretive, qualities intuited
intellectually.[29]
Real Object/Sensual Qualities: As in the tool- 4 Expansion
analysis, a withdrawn object is translated into
sensual apprehension via a surface accessed by Since its inception by Graham Harman in 1999, a numthought and/or action.[30]
ber of theorists working in a variety of disciplines have
adapted and expanded upon Harmans ideas, including
Real Object/Real Qualities:
This pairing
philosophy professor Levi Bryant, literature and ecology
grounds the capacity of real objects to dier from
scholar Timothy Morton, video game designer Ian Boone another, without collapsing into indenite
gost, and medievalists Jerey Jerome Cohen and Eileen
substrata.[31]
Joy.
To explain how withdrawn objects make contact with and
relate to one another, Harman submits the theory of vicarious causation, whereby two hypothetical entities meet
in the interior of a third entity, existing side-by-side until something occurs to prompt interaction.[32] Harman
compares this idea to the classical notion of formal causation, in which forms do not directly touch, but inuence one another in a common space from which all are
partly absent. Causation, says Harman, is always vicarious, asymmetrical, and buered:

4.1 Onticology (Bryant)

Like Harman, Levi Bryant opposes post-Kantian anthropocentrism and philosophies of access.[2] From Bryants
perspective, the Kantian contention that reality is accessible to human knowledge because it is structured by human cognition limits philosophy to a self-reexive analysis of the mechanisms and institutions though which cognition structures reality. He states:

'Vicarious means that objects confront one

another only by proxy, through sensual proles
found only on the interior of some other entity. 'Asymmetrical' means that the initial confrontation always unfolds between a real object and a sensual one. And 'buered' means
that [real objects] do not fuse into [sensual objects], nor [sensual objects] into their sensual
neighbors, since all are held at bay through unknown rewalls sustaining the privacy of each.
from the asymmetrical and buered inner life
of an object, vicarious connections arise occasionally...giving birth to new objects with their
own interior spaces.[33]

For, in eect, the Copernican Revolution

will reduce philosophical investigation to the
interrogation of a single relation: the humanworld gap. And indeed, in the reduction of
philosophy to the interrogation of this single
relation or gap, not only will there be excessive focus on how humans relate to the world
to the detriment of anything else, but this interrogation will be profoundly asymmetrical. For
the world or the object related to through the
agency of the human will becomes a mere prop
or vehicle for human cognition, language, and
intentions without contributing anything of its
own.[36]

Thus, causation entails the connection between a real object residing within the directionality of consciousness,
or a unied intention, with another real object residing
outside of the intention, where the intention itself is also
classied as a real object.[34] From here, Harman extrapolates ve types of relations between objects. Containment
describes a relation in which the intention contains both
the real object and sensual object. Contiguity connotes relations between sensual objects lying side-by-side within
an intention, not aecting one another, such that a sensual
objects bystanders can be rearranged without disrupting
the objects identity. Sincerity characterizes the absorption of a real object by a sensual object, in a manner that
takes seriously the sensual object without containing or

To counter the form of post-Kantian epistemology,

Bryant articulates an object-oriented philosophy called
'Onticology', grounded in three principles. First, the Ontic Principle states that there is no dierence that does not
make a dierence.[37] Following from the premises that
questions of dierence precede epistemological interrogation and that to be is to create dierences, this principle
posits that knowledge cannot be xed prior to engagement
with dierence.[38] And so, for Bryant, the thesis that
there is a thing-in-itself which we cannot know is untenable because it presupposes forms of being that make no
dierences. Similarly, concepts of dierence predicated
upon negationthat which objects are not or lack when
placed in comparison with one anotherare dismissed as

4
arising only from the perspective of consciousness, rather
than an ontological dierence that arms independent
being.[39] Second, the Principle of the Inhuman asserts
that the concept of dierence producing dierence is not
restricted to human, sociocultural, or epistemological domains, thereby marking the being of dierence as independent of knowledge and consciousness.[40] Humans exist as dierence-making beings among other dierencemaking beings, therefore, without holding any special position with respect to other dierences.[41] Third, the Ontological Principle maintains that if there is no dierence
that does not also make a dierence, then the making of
dierence is the minimal condition for the existence of
being. In Bryants words, if a dierence is made, then
the being is.[42] Bryant further contends that dierences
produced by an object can be inter-ontic (made with respect to another object) or intra-ontic (pertaining the internal constitution of the object).[43]
Since Onticology construes anything that produces differences as beingincluding ctions, signs, animals, and
plantsall being in the same sense real, albeit at dierent scales, it is what Manuel Delanda has called a at
ontology.[44] Within an onticological framework, objects are composed of dierences coalescing into a system that reproduces itself through time. Changes in the
identity of an object are not changes in substance (dened by Bryant as a particular state attained by dierence), however, but shifts in the qualities belonging to a
substance.[45] Qualities are the actualization of an objects
inhered capacities or abilities, known as an objects powers.[46] The actualization of an objects power into qualities or properties at a specic place and time is called local manifestation.[47] Importantly, the occurrence of local manifestations does not require observation. In this
way, qualities comprise actuality, referring to the actualization of an objects potential at a particular spatiotemporal location among a multitude of material dierences,
whereas powers constitute virtuality, or the potential retained by an object across time.[48] As objects are distinct from local manifestations and one another, referred
to as withdrawal, their being is dened by the relations
forming their internal structure, or endo-relations, and retained powers.[49] This withdrawn being is known as the
virtual proper being of an object and denotes its enduring, unied substantiality.[47] When relations external to
an object, or exo-relations, consistently induce the same
local manifestations to the extent that the actualization of
qualities tends toward stability (for example, the sky remaining blue because of the constancy of Rayleigh scattering on atmospheric particles), the set of relations forms
a regime of attraction.[50]

4 EXPANSION
an assemblage of objects; for example, a neutrino passing through solid matter without producing observable
eects.[52] Dark objects are objects that are so completely
withdrawn that they produce no local manifestations and
do not aect any other objects.[53] Rogue objects are not
chained to any given assemblage of objects, but instead
wander in and out of assemblages, modifying relations
within the assemblages into which they enter.[54] Political
protestors exemplify rogue objects by breaking with the
norms and relations of a dominant political assemblage
in order to forge new relations that challenge, change, or
cast o the prior assemblage.
Additionally, Bryant has proposed the concept of 'wilderness ontology' to explain the philosophical pluralization
of agency away from human privilege. For Bryant,
wilderness ontology alludes to the being of being, or common essence characteristic of all entities and their relations to one another.[55] Resisting the traditional notion
of wilderness that views civilization (the inside world
of social relations, language, and norms) as separate
from wilderness (the outside world of plants, animals,
and nature), wilderness ontology argues that wilderness
contains all forms of being, including civilization.[56] Accordingly, the practice of wilderness ontology involves
experiencing oneself as a being amongst, rather than
above, other beings. In generalizing the agential alterity
of being as a foundational ontological principle, Bryant
posits three theses:[57] rst, wilderness ontology signals
the absence of ontological hierarchy, such that all forms
of being exist on equal footing with one another. Second,
wilderness ontology rejects the topological bifurcation of
nature and culture into discrete domains, instead holding that cultural assemblages are only one possible set of
relations into which nonhuman entities may enter in the
wilderness. Third, wilderness ontology extends agency
to all entities, human and nonhuman, rather than casting
nonhuman entities as passive recipients of human meaning projection. Employing these theses, Bryant pluralizes
agential being beyond human nitude, contending that in
so doing, the intentionality of the nonhuman world may
be investigated without reference to human intent.[58]

4.2 Hyperobjects (Morton)

Timothy Morton, the Rita Shea Guey Chair professor in

English at Rice University, became involved with objectoriented ontology after his ecological writings were favorably compared with the movements ideas. In The Ecological Thought, Morton introduced the concept of hyperobjects to describe objects that are so massively distributed
in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal speciOnticology distinguishes between four dierent types
city, such as global warming, styrofoam, and radioacof objects: bright objects, dim objects, dark objects,
tive plutonium.[59] He has subsequently enumerated ve
and rogue objects. Bright objects are objects that
characteristics of hyperobjects:
strongly manifest themselves and heavily impact other objects, such as the ubiquity of cell phones in high-tech
1. Viscous: Hyperobjects adhere to any other object
cultures.[51] Dim objects lightly manifest themselves in
they touch, no matter how hard an object tries to

5
resist. In this way, hyperobjects overrule ironic distance, meaning that the more an object tries to resist
a hyperobject, the more glued to the hyperobject it
becomes.[60]

Bogost calls his approach alien phenomenology, with

the term alien designating the manner in which withdrawal accounts for the inviolability of objectal experience. From this perspective, an object may not recognize
the experience of other objects because objects relate to
2. Molten: Hyperobjects are so massive that they re- one another using metaphors of selfhood.[68]
fute the idea that spacetime is xed, concrete, and
Alien phenomenology is grounded in three modes of
consistent.[61]
practice. First, ontography entails the production of
3. Nonlocal: Hyperobjects are massively distributed works that reveal the existence and relation of objects.[69]
in time and space to the extent that their totality can- Second, metaphorism denotes the production of works
not be realized in any particular local manifestation. that speculate about the inner lives of objects, including
For example, global warming is a hyperobject that how objects translate the experience of other objects into
impacts meteorological conditions, such as tornado their own terms.[70] Third, carpentry indicates the creformation. According to Morton, though, objects ation of artifacts that illustrate the perspective of objects,
don't feel global warming, but instead experience or how objects construct their own worlds.[71] An examtornadoes as they cause damage in specic places. ple of carpentry in practice would Bogosts design of the
Thus, nonlocality describes the manner in which a Latour Litanizer, a digital program that generates Lahyperobject becomes more substantial than the lo- tour litanies (lists of heterogeneous and often counterincal manifestations they produce.[62]
tuitive objects that resist representative homogenization)
using the MediaWiki software platform.[72] By rapidly
4. Phased: Hyperobjects occupy a higher dimensional
dispersing a diverse array of results, the litanizer acts as
space than other entities can normally perceive.
a philosophical artifact that inhibits the reduction of the
Thus, hyperobjects appear to come and go in threebeing of listed items to a governing prototype or truth
dimensional space, but would appear dierently to
value.[73]
an observer with a higher multidimensional view.[61]
Bogost sometimes refers to his version of object-oriented
5. Interobjective: Hyperobjects are formed by rela- thought as a tiny ontology to emphasize his rejection of
tions between more than one object. Consequently, rigid ontological categorization of forms of being, includobjects are only able to perceive to the imprint, or ing distinctions between real and ctional objects.[74]
footprint, of a hyperobject upon other objects, revealed as information. For example, global warming
is formed by interactions between the Sun, fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide, among other objects. Yet, 5 Criticism
global warming is made apparent through emissions
levels, temperature changes, and ocean levels, makSome commentators contend that object-oriented ontoling it seem as if global warming is a product of sciogy degrades meaning by placing humans and objects on
entic models, rather than an object that predated
equal footing. Blogger and cosmotheandric philosopher
[63]
its own measurement.
Matthew David Segall has argued that object-oriented
philosophers should explore the theological and anthroAccording to Morton, hyperobjects not only become vis- pological implications of their ideas in order to avoid
ible during an age of ecological crisis, but alert humans slipping into the nihilism of some speculative realists,
to the ecological dilemmas dening the age in which they where human values are a uke in an uncaring and fundalive.[64] Additionally, the existential capacity of hyperob- mentally entropic universe..[75] Other critical commenjects to outlast a turn toward less materialistic cultural tators such as David Berry and Alexander Galloway have
values, coupled with the threat many such objects pose commented on the historical situatedness of an ontoltoward organic matter (what Morton calls a demonic in- ogy that mirrors computational processes and even the
version of the sacred substances of religion), gives them metaphors and language of computation.[76][77]
a potential spiritual quality, in which their treatment by
future societies may become indistinguishable from rev- Cultural critic Steven Shaviro has criticized objectoriented ontology as too dismissive of process philoserential care.[65]
ophy. According to Shaviro, the process philosophies
of Alfred North Whitehead, Gilbert Simondon, and
Gilles Deleuze account for how objects come into ex4.3 Alien phenomenology (Bogost)
istence and endure over time, in contrast to the view
Ian Bogost, a video game researcher at the Georgia Insti- that objects are already there taken by object-oriented
tute of Technology and founding partner of Persuasive approaches.[78] Shaviro also nds fault with Harmans asGames,[66] has articulated an applied object-oriented sertion that Whitehead, Simondon, and Iain Hamilton
ontology, concerned more with the being of specic ob- Grant undermine objects by positing objects as manifesjects than the exploration of foundational principles.[67] tations of a deeper, underlying substance, saying that the

REFERENCES

antecedence of these thinkers, particularly Grant and Simondon, includes the plurality of actually existing objects, rather than a single substance of which objects are
mere epiphenomena.[79]

Latour, Bruno (1988). Science in Action: How

to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.
Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno (1999). Pandoras Hope: Essays on

the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University
Press.

Key texts
Bennett, Jane (2010). Vibrant matter: a political
ecology of things. Durham, North Carolina: Duke
University Press. ISBN 9780822346197.
Bogost, Ian (2012). Alien Phenomenology, or What
Its Like to Be a Thing. University of Minnesota
Press.
Bogost, Ian (2006). Unit Operations: An Approach
to Videogame Criticism. MIT Press.
Bogost, Ian (2011). How to Do Things with
Videogames. University of Minnesota Press.
Braver, Lee (2007). A Thing of This World: A
History of Continental Anti-Realism. Northwestern
University Press.
Bryant, Levi (2011). The Democracy of Objects.
Open Humanities Press.
Bryant, Levi (2014). Onto-Cartographies: An Ontology of Machines and Media. Edinburgh University
Press.
Bryant, Levi; Srnicek, Nick; Harman, Graham
(2011). The Speculative Turn. re.press.
Ennis, Paul (2010). Post-Continental Voices: Selected Interviews. Zero Books.
Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger
and the Metaphysics of Objects. Open Court.
Harman, Graham (2005). Guerilla Metaphysics:
Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things. Open
Court.
Harman, Graham (2009). Prince of Networks:
Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. re.press.
Harman, Graham (2010). Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures. Zero Books.

Latour, Bruno (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno (2004). Politics of Nature: How to

Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Harvard University Press.
Meillassoux, Quentin (2008). After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. Continuum.
Morton, Timothy (2010). The Ecological Thought.
Harvard University Press.
Morton, Timothy (2013). Realist Magic. Open Humanities Press.
Morton, Timothy (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy
and Ecology after the End of the World. University
of Minnesota Press.

7 References
[1] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the
Metaphysics of Objects. Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 2.
ISBN 978-0-8126-9444-4.
[2] Bryant, Levi. OnticologyA Manifesto for ObjectOriented Ontology, Part 1. Larval Subjects. Retrieved
9 September 2011.
[3] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the
Metaphysics of Objects. Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 16.
ISBN 978-0-8126-9444-4.
[4] Harman, Graham (2005). Guerrilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things. Peru, Illinois:
Open Court. p. 1. ISBN 0-8126-9456-2.
[5] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011).
The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 8. ISBN 978-09806683-4-6.

Harman, Graham (2011). The Quadruple Object.

Zero Books.

[6] Harman, Graham. Brief SR/OOO Tutorial. ObjectOriented Philosophy. Retrieved 23 September 2011.

Harman, Graham (2011). Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making. Edinburgh University Press.

[7] Ibid.

Harman, Graham (2011). The Prince and the Wolf:

Latour and Harman at the LSE. Zero Books.
Harman, Graham (2013). Bells and Whistles: More
Speculative Realism. Zero Books.

[8] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the

Metaphysics of Objects. Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 1.
ISBN 978-0812694444.
[9] Ibid. p. 2.
[10] Ibid.

[11] Gratton, Peter. Tim Morton: The Interview. Philosophy

in a Time of Error. Retrieved 23 September 2011.
[12] Ennis, Paul (2010). Post-Continental Voices. United
Kingdom: Zero Books. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-84694-385-0.
[13] Meillassoux, Quentin (2008). After Finitude. New York,
New York: Continuum. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4411-7383-6.

[38] ibid. p. 264.

[39] ibid. p. 266.
[40] ibid. p. 267.
[41] ibid. p. 268.
[42] ibid. p. 269.

[14] Coeld, Kris. Interview: Graham Harman. Fractured

Politics. Retrieved 23 September 2011.

[43] ibid. p. 269.

[15] Harman, Graham (2011). The Quadruple Object. United

Kingdom: Zero Books. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84694-700-1.

[44] Delanda, Manuel (2002). Intensive Science & Virtual Philosophy. New York: Continuum. p. 41. ISBN 0-82647932-4.

[16] Ibid. pp. 810.

[17] Ibid. pp. 1012.
[18] http://dar.aucegypt.edu/handle/10526/3466
[19] Harman, Graham (2011). Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-7486-4080-5.
[20] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011).
The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 275. ISBN 9780-9806683-4-6.
[21] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the
Metaphysics of Objects. Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 1.
ISBN 0-8126-9456-2.
[22] Ibid. p. 1.
[23] Ibid. pp. 12.
[24] Ibid. p. 2.
[25] Ibid. pp. 23.
[26] Harman, Graham (2011). The Quadruple Object. United
Kingdom: Zero Books. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-84694-700-1.
[27] Ibid. p. 49.
[28] Ibid. pp. 4950.

[45] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011).

The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 271. ISBN 9780-9806683-4-6.
[46] Bryant, Levi. Objects and Powers.
September 2011.

Retrieved 10

[47] Bryant, Levi. The Mug Blues. Retrieved 10 September

2011.
[48] Bryant, Levi. Potentiality and Onticology. Retrieved 10
September 2011.
[49] Bryant, Levi. A Lexicon of Onticology. Retrieved 10
September 2011.
[50] Bryant, Levi. Regimes of Attraction. Retrieved 10
September 2011.
[51] Coeld, Kris. Interview: Levi Bryant. Retrieved 10
September 2011.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Bryant, Levi. Dark Objects. Retrieved 10 September
2011.
[54] Bryant, Levi. Rogue Objects. Retrieved 10 September
2011.
[55] Jeery, Celina (2011). Preternatural. Brooklyn, New
York: Punctum Books. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-105-24502-2.

[29] Ibid. p. 50.

[56] Ibid. p. 20.
[30] Ibid. p. 50.
[57] Ibid. p. 22.
[31] Ibid. p. 50.
[32] Harman, Graham (2 August 2007). On Vicarious Causation. Collapse 2: 187221.
[33] Ibid. pp. 200201.
[34] Ibid. p. 198.
[35] Ibid. pp. 199200.
[36] ibid.
[37] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011).
The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 263. ISBN 9780-9806683-4-6.

[58] Ibid. p. 24.

[59] Morton, Timothy (2010). The Ecological Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 130.
ISBN 0-674-04920-9.
[60] Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects are Viscous. Ecology
Without Nature. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
[61] Coeld, Kris. Interview: Timothy Morton. Fractured
Politics. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
[62] Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects are Nonlocal. Ecology
Without Nature.
[63] Ibid.

[64] Morton, Timothy (2011). Sublime Objects. Speculations II: 207227. Retrieved 2014-05-18.
[65] Morton, Timothy (2010). The Ecological Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp.
131132. ISBN 0-674-04920-9.

EXTERNAL LINKS

8.2 Journals
Collapse - published by Urbanomic
continent. - edited by Jamie Allen, Paul Boshears,
and Nico Jenkins

[66] Georgia Tech Homepage. Faculty Page. Georgia Tech

Digital Lounge. Retrieved 15 September 2011.

O-Zone: A Journal of Object-Oriented Studies edited by Levi Bryant and Eileen Joy

[67] Coeld, Kris. Interview: Ian Bogost. Fractured Politics. Retrieved 15 September 2011.

Speculations - edited by Paul Ennis, Michael Austin,

Fabio Gironi, Thomas Gokey, and Robert Jackson

[68] Gratton, Peter. Ian Bogost: The Interview. Philosophy

in a Time of Error. Retrieved 15 September 2011.

Thinking Nature - edited by Timothy Morton and

Ben Woodward

[69] Bogost, Ian. Latour Litanizer. Ian Bogost Blog.

[70] Bogost, Ian. Alien Phenomenology. Ian Bogost Blog.
Retrieved 15 September 2011.
[71] Bogost, Ian (2012). Alien Phenomenology. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Open Humanities Press. p. 90.

8.3 Presses
Open Humanities Press - Ann Arbor, Michigan
punctum books - Brooklyn, New York

[72] Ibid. p. 93.

re.press - Victoria, Australia

[73] Bryant, Levi. Latour Litanizer. Larval Subjects. Retrieved 16 September 2011.

Zero Books - United Kingdom

[74] Coeld, Kris. Interview: Ian Bogost. Fractured Politics. Retrieved 16 September 2011.
[75] Segall, Matthew David. Cosmos, Anthropos, and Theos
in Harman, Teilhard, and Whitehead. Footnotes to Plato.
Retrieved 16 September 2011.
[76] Berry, David Michael. Critical Theory and the Digital.
Critical Theory and the Digital. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

8.4 Lectures/Tutorials
Speculative realism/object-oriented ontology tutorial - by Graham Harman
History of object-oriented ontology and speculative
realism - video lecture by Graham Harman
Onticology Manifesto, Part 1 - by Levi Bryant

[77] Galloway, Alexander R. A response to Graham Harmans

Marginalia on Radical Thinking"". An und fr sich. Retrieved 1 July 2012.

Onticology Manifesto, Part 2 - by Levi Bryant

[78] Shaviro, Steven. Processes and Powers. The Pinocchio

Theory. Retrieved 16 September 2011.

Dawn of the hyperobjects - video lecture by Timothy

Morton

[79] Ibid.

UCLA 'OOO' Symposium - featuring lectures by

Levi Bryant, Graham Harman, Nathan Brown, and
Ian Bogost

External links

8.1

Blogs

Object-Oriented Philosophy - Graham Harman

Larval Subjects - Levi Bryant
Ecology Without Nature - Timothy Morton
Ian Bogost - Ian Bogost
In the Middle - Jerey Jerome Cohen, Jonathan Hsy,
Eileen Joy, Karl Steel, and Mary Kate Hurley

A Lexicon of Onticology - by Levi Bryant

Feeling Stone - audio lecture by Jerey Jerome Cohen

Incubus-Demons, Magic, and the Spaces Between
the Moon and the Earth - audio lecture by Jerey
Jerome Cohen with response from Ben Woodard
Aristotle With a Twist - audio lecture by Graham
Harman with response from Patricia Clough
Kitchen Shakespeare - audio lecture by Julian Yates
with response from Liza Blake
Neroplatonism - audio lecture by Scott Wilson

8.5

Selected Interviews

Towards a Speculative Realist/OOO Literary Criticism audio lecture on a possible SR/OOO literary
criticism by Eileen Joy
More Notes Toward an SR/OOO Literary Criticism
Twitter University lecture on SR/OOO literary criticism by Eileen Joy

8.5

Selected Interviews

Philosophy in a Time of Error - Interview with Levi

Bryant
Philosophy in a Time of Error - Interview with Ian
Bogost
Philosophy in a Time of Error - Interview with Jane
Bennett

10

9 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1

Text

Object-oriented ontology Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology?oldid=628032939 Contributors: Ijon, Nihiltres, Bhny, Frap, OSborn, Hu12, Gregbard, Andyjsmith, Seaphoto, Mesnenor, Magioladitis, Dwatson888, Snowded, Ydnahij, Beeblebrox, Sustainablefutures2015, Hasteur, Adynatoniac, Protoblast, XLinkBot, Download, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Omnipaedista, RjwilmsiBot,
Bollyje, Gary Dee, ClueBot NG, Chriscoast, Helpful Pixie Bot, Footnotes2plato, LadyDiotima, Sordini2, Fracpol, BattyBot, OOOisthenewcorrelationism, Mogism, Cerabot, The Vintage Feminist, MrLukeDevlin, Jakec, Star767, MadScientistX11, Vivaortega and Anonymous: 26

9.2

Images

File:Ambox_content.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.png License: ? Contributors:

Derived from Image:Information icon.svg Original artist:
El T (original icon); David Levy (modied design); Penubag (modied color)
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: ? Contributors: The Tango! Desktop
Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: ? Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007

9.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0