Reply: cause and object (or object as cause)

I am beginning to understanding what you are saying. But this does not mean I agree.

It is possible to locate or identify a particular way of knowing which can be generalized to certain characteristics. It is possible to do this in the context of causality.

The question that is primary to knowledge is not what is doing the knowledge; It is not necessary for a cause of knowing, or an ability of knowing, to fall into any Particular category, even while we might be able to identify characteristics of the category.

The question of “what is knowing”, “what is doing the knowing”, “how does knowing occur” And similar as such constructions are not required to reduce to a “knower”. Philosophically speaking, there is no necessity between relations of terms. The conjugates of terms themselves do not necessarily relate; they do not have to relate. Just because someone might know something, does not necessarily connote or refer to that which is doing the knowing. Conjugates of terms do not have to relate to one another; they can and they do often exist together in a causal relation, but it is not necessary that they occur in that way. This is the same for all terms. For example; There is no necessary relationship between a brick and the process of solar fusion. Likewise, there is no necessary relation between known, knowing, knowledge Or any conjugates which extend through the various languages.

Yet, there is a relationship which is well known and discussed often.  A valid way of explaining what appears to be a discrepancy in the category of knowledge is to refer to causality. In this case where there is a relationship of discursive conjugates, as well as a relationship between a brick and nuclear fusion, The mode of causality is called efficient. This is the mode of causality which is most common to what we can further categorize, albeit ironically, as a Modern understanding, a modern way of knowing.And we are able to see the operation of this kind of Ideological fixation and it’s more religious term, Modernity. This more Is causality Of effect, of, as the Oxford English dictionary define, “an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change”. Modern knowledge is based, or allows implicit understanding through the efficient cause. In general, modern philosophy functions as though the efficient cause is the fundamental, the most basic, and true manner –the only proper way– of understanding anything that can arise in the universe or as the universe and still be sensible. This is so much the case that to even speak of other types of causes, other modes by which knowledge can be affirmed validly, Efficiency will more regularly and commonly be assumed, As well, q any argumentation which appears in discourse will be taken in the context of the efficient cause And argued accordingly towards ontological surety. It is within this efficient cause that the problems of materialism, empiricism, idealism, etc. are argued.

*

The philosophy of Graham Harman that we know of as Object Oriented Ontology, on the other hand, Is specifically rooted in what Aristotle calls the formal cause. As we find when we read his works, his concern is not material, but rather substanceAs these designations are consistent with Aristotle discussions from +\-2500 years ago.

There are some inconsistencies here with definitions pertaining to Aristotle. Firstly, formal cause is temporality. It would seem that you or Harman is stretching the meaning to meaning only “change without time”. A possibly perhaps in the mind. Secondly, in Aristotle, again, substance is a material particular. It may be stretched again to the essence of the matter (hylomorphism) but the basis of essence is from the particular for Aristotle. Thirdly, I think you are referring to “categories”, not substance. The inclusion (or non-differentiation) of qualities, relations, etc, for Harman is the flat ontological position. This is clear from OOO being rooted in the formal cause as atemporal object.

The main problem that at least continental philosophers have been dealing with since the designation of the two schools– that is, the analytical and the continental schools which arose in the early 20th Century As a way to try and discern what was happening in philosophy at the time– Is the problem that is most poignantly noticed and discussed in the latter 20th century philosophers such as Badiou, Laruelle, and Zizek. To put a name to it, the salient question is, what is happening that a discussion of true things is not recognized and indeed discounted? The solution that Graham Harman stumbled upon and indeed I noticed right here, is that modern philosophy is rooted in the efficient cause as the source of all things. The issue that is noticed through the 20th century and dealt with in various ways, even as they may not have recognized with the basic issue has been the past 150 years, is that some people are speaking from a different causal orientation. In particular, Harman put a finger on it by talking about objects from the standpoint of form. Hence, my discussion concerns what I call the two routes, which is really a notice upon philosophy which identifies two modes Arising simultaneously, but which are not recognized as such. As some authors of notice, the reason for this is because Modern effieicncy is the standard by which people communicate reality. If someone is not speaking from this standard, if someone is not conveying knowledge in the efficient sense then they are not understood and indeed Perpetually brought into the fence, to defend its structure of cause against the efficient cause. But we know from 2500 years ago that the causes, the different causal foundations, do not argue into one another. But each argue onto themselves toward their own causal basis. Because current knowledge of the human being in the universe is based in efficiency, in the efficient cause, in the determination and manipulation of material, all discussions must (according the the dictates of modern logic of ideas, what we call ideology) reduce to the basic understanding of agency.

I do not see the problem with modern philosophy as being rooted in efficient cause AS the problem. To deal with particulars as particulars is perfectly fine. Limited, yes. Localised, yes. But equally we must deal with universals as universals without the illusion that it has any particular reality, only reality in the mind. If OOO or non-philosophies are useful at all as a philosophy remains to be seen. Root to many of the problems is efficient-based. No amount of mind-objections will help stop another Jacob Blake from occurring. We cannot deal with the physical reality in the mind alone. The physical reality remains to be there whether you choose to know it or not.

7 thoughts on “Reply: cause and object (or object as cause)

  1. I am not concerned about yours or Harman’s judgments but the potential for abuse with an infinite potential model of thought. In fact, infinite possibilities is how we have many of the wonderful things. It is that which makes us human. Two-routes or a double edged sword. The responsibility is with the individual always. What is going on in America right now is, I believe, a symptom of the belief in (or abuse of) infinite potential.

    Like

  2. I fully understand what you’re saying. And you have understood my intentions of the title. I will stay with efficient cause philosophy. Not that I don’t see where you are and Harman are coming from but that I find not a solution but problem with the approach.

    There is potential danger with an unlimited potential model of philosophy. I believe that such an approach leads to abuse. Not saying you or Harman but this kind of thinking is how, say, Trump or the gun lobby goes about making decisions.

    Like

  3. And, just the fact that you subtitle your response with “object as Cozz” shows that you were thinking through the efficient cars, as if there is no other way to think. As if all Cozzo formations, all reasoning, must reduce to the efficient cars. That is the point that I’m making in my post. That it is an incorrect appraisal of what is happening.Indeed I even go so far as to point out three philosophers that are addressing the same issue that I am addressing. But yet you continue to draw that reasoning back into the efficient cars. Instead of seeing the problem inherent in the presentation. It appears as if you are caught in your own thoughtful consideration of things. And you’re not able to consider that perhaps the very way, the very manner that you’re viewing the situation is limited. As I suggest, limited in the ideal that the efficient cars is the only way to discern The truth of things.

    I am not making arguments about what Aristotle is saying. I am using Aristotle as an example of a person who has come across different ways of being. Not different ways of knowing necessarily. But actually different ways of coming across coming upon the universe.

    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