Object-oriented Ontology

Object-oriented Ontology (OOO) fundamentally challenges the idea that reality is only accessible or meaningful through human consciousness. It posits that objects have an existence independent of our perception or knowledge of them, meaning they are not merely constructs of our minds. This stance contrasts sharply with philosophical traditions that emphasize the role of the subject in shaping reality.

A core tenet of OOO is that all objects, whether they are atoms, humans, corporations, or galaxies, are equally real and possess their own unique being. This ontological egalitarianism disrupts traditional hierarchies that place humans or certain types of entities at the top of the ontological ladder. Each object withdraws from complete accessibility, holding back aspects of itself from all other objects.

OOO draws inspiration from various philosophical sources, including the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, the speculative realism of Quentin Meillassoux, and the actor-network theory of Bruno Latour. These influences contribute to OOO's emphasis on relations, processes, and the agency of non-human entities. The influence of Heidegger is also notable, particularly his concepts of "readiness-to-hand" and "present-at-hand" as ways objects can relate.

The term "object" in OOO is broadly defined, encompassing anything that can be said to exist, regardless of its physical or conceptual nature. This includes tangible things like rocks and trees, as well as intangible things like ideas, emotions, and social structures. The key is that each object has an independent reality and can interact with other objects.

One of the central concerns of OOO is the problem of access: how can one object relate to another if objects are fundamentally withdrawn from one another? OOO proposes that objects relate to each other through "vicarious causation," where objects interact indirectly through qualities or appearances rather than direct access to their essence. This ensures the autonomy and mystery of each object.

OOO has implications for various fields beyond philosophy, including art, architecture, ecology, and political theory. Its emphasis on the agency of non-human entities can inform ecological thinking by challenging anthropocentric views of nature. In architecture, it can lead to designs that consider the agency and needs of the materials and the environment.

Critics of OOO often question its assertion of the independent existence of objects, arguing that it leads to a form of metaphysical speculation that is untestable and ultimately unfounded. Others criticize its radical egalitarianism, suggesting that it overlooks the significant differences in power and influence between different types of objects. Despite these criticisms, OOO remains a vibrant and influential movement in contemporary philosophy.

The importance of OOO lies in its attempt to move beyond traditional philosophical dualisms, such as subject/object, mind/matter, and human/nature. By granting ontological status to all objects, OOO seeks to create a more inclusive and democratic understanding of reality. It encourages us to rethink our relationships with the world around us and to consider the perspectives and agency of non-human entities.