“On Vicarious Causation”.

Graham Harman’s seminal piece on the displacing of human centrality to causality

Presently I am revisiting the nature of cause. Revisiting the fall into efficient cause and the repercussions of the relationship between truth and reality.

16 thoughts on ““On Vicarious Causation”.

  1. All and all, The editor said that it was an “above average” paper. But that he felt that it would contribute to counseling to the discipline, and was happy to publish it. So, I guess being my first paper, that’s pretty good compliment maybe.

    Like

  2. I Took some suggestions from a friend of mine and edited it for clarity. And I added subtitles at the suggestion of the editor for the journal. So I think it reads better.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I have moved to a “warts-and-all no-edit” policy once it is published. Mistakes (major and minor) are part life. To keep the conversation on track and integral (as in ‘integrity’) I feel this is the best way. To be forgiving of mistakes is one of life’s pleasures.

    Like

  4. I think you should re-read my essay that got published

    https://epublications.regis.edu/cftsr/

    Because maybe with this little bit of grounding and now that you have a more definite opinion on what he is saying and what he’s involved with, maybe you might have a better idea of what I’m saying also there.

    But so far as to answer your question about my work on religion: My work on religion explains, or could be used to explain what is going on between deLanda and Harmon, but really any philosophical dynamic in this sense. My work on religion moves to explain what is happening. It doesn’t really move to make particular arguments about what they are saying or about their arguments in specifically. But it moves to describe what is occurring in the debate, in the conversation.

    That is, it could be used that way

    Liked by 1 person

  5. So I am interested in how DeLanda brings realism into this scheme. I agree real objects should play a greater role. The casual dismissal (although it was well considered but ultimately by Harmon) is what I call (wait for it) prior convictions. There is left absolutely no room for real objects to enter Harmon’s philosophy even though he acknowledges the existence of real objects. This reversal of roles of mind-objects and thing-objects has its problems, many of which is explained away by a atemporality that might ultimately exist, a possibly he does not seem to consider.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Which book you’re talking about with de landa. ? I forget what it was called I remember when they published it but. I have not read very much on the other guy. I think I’ve read an essay by him but it didn’t really strike me that much but I wasn’t really investigating too deeply into the arguments against Harmon.

    Like

  7. Coming back to DeLanda, his partial backing down fro realism, in my opinion, is a mistake on DeLanda’s part (I have not read their book yet but I will). I think Harmon had out-argued DeLanda and that DeLanda has a case.

    Harmon’s case is built on shaky ground. Again this is what I have seen and what I need to argue.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s