One of the problematic consequences that follows from the hegemony that epistemology currently enjoys in philosophy is that it condemns philosophy to a thoroughly anthropocentric reference. Because the ontological question of substance is elided into the epistemological question of our knowledge of substance, all discussions of substance necessarily contain a human reference. The subtext or fine print surrounding our discussions of substance always contain reference to an implicit “for us”. This is true even of the anti-humanist structuralists and post-structuralists who purport to dispense with the subject in favor of various impersonal and anonymous social forces like language and structure that exceed the intentions of individuals. Here we still remain in the orbit of an anthropocentric universe insofar as society and culture are human phenomena, and all of being is subordinated to these forces. Being thereby reduced to what being is for us.
Levi Bryant - The Democracy of Objects
DROP OUT. HANG OUT. SPACE OUT.
Daniel Joseph. Sentimental, utopian and mutton-headed. Toronto PhD Student in Communication & Culture @ Ryerson/York.
Twitter
-
2012-02-03
-
doom-ebooks liked this
-
becoming-wave reblogged this from dropouthangoutspaceout
-
andrewfm said:
But it’s a total misnomer to call the anti-realist sophistry ‘epistemology!’ Almost every reputable philosopher who works specifically in that field accepts that in order to know something, that thing has to be true (which presupposes realism).
-
dropouthangoutspaceout posted this
-
