Object Oriented Ontology Quotes

Knowledge means rising above immediacy, beyond self, into the foreign and distant. The object of such knowledge is inherently vulnerable to scrutiny; the object is a ‘fact’ which, if it develops, changes, or otherwise transforms itself in the way that civilizations frequently do, nevertheless is fundamentally, even ontologically stable. To have such knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it.

... the Orientalist attitude in general [is profoundly anti-empirical]. It shares with magic and with mythology the self-containing, self-reinforcing character of a closed system, in which objects are what they are because they are what they are, for once, for all time, for ontological reasons that no empirical material can either dislodge or alter.

A higher understanding of human freedom, however, is inseparable from a definition of human nature. To be free is to be able to flourish as the kind of being one is, and so to attain the ontological good toward which one's nature is oriented; freedom is the unhindered realization of a complex nature in its proper end (natural and supernatural), and this is consummate liberty and happiness. The will that chooses poorly, then - through ignorance, maleficence, or corrupt desire - has not thereby become freer, but has further enslaved itself to those forces that prevent it from achieving its full expression. And it is this richer understanding of human freedom that provides us some analogy to the freedom of God. For God is infinite actuality, the source and end of all being, the eternally good, for whom mere arbitrary 'choice' - as among possibilities that somehow exceed his 'present' actuality - would be a deficiency, a limitation placed upon his infinite power to be God. His freedom is the impossibility of any force, pathos, or potentiality interrupting the perfection of his nature or hindering him in the realization of his own illimitable goodness, in himself and in his creatures. To be 'capable' of evil - to be able to do evil or to be affected by an encounter with it - would in fact be an incapacity in God; and to require evil to bring about his good ends would make him less than the God he is. The object of God's will is his own infinite goodness, and it is an object perfectly realized, and so he is FREE.

Hegel represents history as the self-realization of spirit (Geist) or God. The fundamental scheme of his theory is as follows. Spirit is self-creative energy imbued with a drive to become fully conscious of itself as spirit. Nature is spirit in its self-objectification in space; history is spirit in its self-objectification as culture—the succession of world-dominant civilizations from the ancient Orient to modern Europe. Spirit actualizes its nature as self-conscious being by the process of knowing. Through the mind of man, philosophical man in particular, the world achieves consciousness of itself as spirit. This process involves the repeated overcoming of spirit's alienation (Entfremdung) from itself, which takes place when spirit as the knowing mind confronts a world that appears, albeit falsely, as objective, i.e. as other than spirit. Knowing is recognition, whereby spirit destroys the illusory otherness of the objective world and recognizes it as actually subjective or selbstisch. The process terminates at the stage of "absolute knowledge," when spirit is finally and fully "at home with itself in its otherness," having recognized the whole of creation as spirit—Hegelianism itself being the scientific form of this ultimate self-knowledge on spirit's part.

What does it mean to say that a god exists or comes into existence? The question of ontology (what it means for something to exist) is important for understanding both theogony and cosmogony because we cannot productively talk about how something came into existence until we define in some way what it means to exist. In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name. So the Ritual of Amun from the second half of the second millennium identifies creation as beginning "when no god had come into being and no name had been invented for anything." The first god arises on his own from the primeval waters (separates himself from them) and then separates into millions. Out of this fairly restrictive sense of ontology emerges the oxymoron of nonexistent entities. Prior to creation there was a unity expressed by the statement that there were "not yet two things." The realm of the nonexistent remains not only at the boundaries but throughout the cosmos, and that realm can be encountered. The desert and the limitless waters are two examples. The gods exist on earth only through their functions. "On earth...the gods live only in images, in the king as an image of god, in cult images in the temples, and in sacred animals, plants and objects." ... Since their ontology was function oriented, a god who does not function or act fades into virtual nonexistence.

The goals of taking this insidious elision between the Oriental and the ornamental as the foundation for a yellow feminist theory are, therefore: (1) to detach us from the ideal of a natural and an agential personhood that invariably accompanies critiques of power and from which the Asiatic woman is already always foreclosed; (2) to take seriously what it means to live as an object, an aesthetic supplement; (3) to attend to peripheral and alternative modes of ontology and survival; (4) and finally, to contend that the discourse of Asiatic femininity—at once pervasive and marginal, enhancing and disparaging, dated and yet contemporary—is part of a much larger debate about beauty and violence, as well as about life and artificiality, nestled in the making of modern Euro-American personhood.

In Hegelian terms, this means that we are dealing with two In-itself: the way things are really (independently of us) in itself, and the way they appear to us to be in-itself—every appearance implies (or, rather, creates) its own in-itself, it conceals-and-indicates a dimension of substantial reality behind its veil, and, for Hegel, we pass from substance to subject when we realize that there is nothing behind the veil, just what we (the observing subjects) put (or, rather, projected) there. “Object-oriented-ontology” ignores this duality, it identifies these two in-itself; its “transcendence” (reality in itself) is therefore immanent, transcendentally constituted, i.e., what it conceives as the In-itself is subjectively constituted, it emerges within a given horizon of meaning.