Common Knowledge

Symposium: Anthropological Philosophy

THE TROUBLE WITH ONTOLOGICAL LIBERALISM

Louis Morelle

Markus Gabriel’s twin books, Why the World Does Not Exist (2013) and Fields of Sense (2015), have been advertised as seeking to dissolve rote problems by inno- vative means and thereby making a bold departure from academic philosophy.1 What Gabriel actually delivers is a defense of a rather classical form of human- ism, by means of a position that, for all its apparent audacity, is best understood as a continuation of the historically disparate but coherent line of thought known as philosophical pluralism. The line came to prominence with William James,2 and it has experienced various later incarnations, notably Hilary Putnam’s internal realism and Nelson Goodman’s ontological pluralism.3 A look at this tradition cer- tainly helps in understanding Gabriel, but it is within continental metaphysics —

The author has translated and modified this text from an 2. See Jean Wahl, The Pluralist Philosophies of England and earlier version that appeared in French in the journal Cri- America, trans. Fred Rothwell (London: Open Court, tique (no. 821, October 2015). The author wishes to thank 1925). Jeffrey Perl for his extensive revisions and corrections of 3. Despite striking conceptual similarities between them the English version. (interweaving of semantics with ontology, indetermina- 1. Markus Gabriel, Why the World Does Not Exist (Cam- tion of criteria for individuating worlds/fields of sense), bridge: Polity, 2015), translation of Warum es die Welt nicht Gabriel denies affinity with Goodman (while claiming gibt (Berlin: Ullstein, 2013); Gabriel, Fields of Sense: A New to inherit from Putnam), on the grounds of Goodman’s Realist Ontology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, irrealism, from which he wants to distance himself. See 2015), translation of Sinn und Existenz: Eine realistische Gabriel, Fields of Sense, 16, 146. Ontologie (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2015).

Common Knowledge 22:3 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-3622316 © 2016 by Duke University Press

453

Published by Duke University Press all it a renewal since there have always been meta been always have there since it arenewal all 4. 5. 5, 2016). April (accessed www.raphaelmilliere.com/pdf/milliere- Today Tomorrow,” and “Metaphysics Millière, Raphaël Materialism,” and Realism and Its Metaphysics’ ‘New the on Reflections Philosophy: Speculative Century “Twenty-First zynski, Niemoc Leon see point, this On discussed. are opments - devel recent when obscured frequently is that continuity a to attest they sense, orthodox most or strictest the in d Ber Nicolas Breton, Stanislas as Wahl, Jean such figures, mentioned less as well as Badiou, and Deleuze, rington), Cor Robert Buchler, Justus Hartshorne, (Charles school process- the and Whitehead Bergson, dition: tra “continental” the in builders system and physicians Media, 2014).Media, Noumenon’s New Clothes iaev, and Étienne Souriau. While not all metaphysicians metaphysicians all not While Souriau. Étienne iaev, and

COMMON KNOWLEDGE 454 I c P eter Wolfendale, Object- Wolfendale, eter 9, no. 2 (2013): no. 9, 13 History and Cosmos on the continental side, of Gilles Deleuze and Alain Badiou. Alain and Deleuze side, of Gilles continental on the of W. aisle, side of the V. and, Quine analytical on the wake, the in decades the marked has that of metaphysics reevaluation general the with tandem in circles philosophical into back crept atrend as liberalism ontological program, of its criticism Russell’sscathing Bertrand following status marginal to a Confined (notably, Husserl’s). Edmund of antireductionism sorts other and metaphysics dogmatic traditional both from distinct Meinong, identity it who gave an Alexius el’s stance. el’s Gabri describes aptly most which ofchapter, notion “ontological liberalism,” the Peter Wolfendale’s Object- book remarkable “new realism” and “flat ontology,” as realism,” headings such under decade, “speculative past the in renewal strong a experienced has that field amorphous and a more controversial object- Clothes New regard to their properties. their to regard tive achieve to is liberal ontological of the ambition contrary The standards. explanatory proper meeting entities to exclusively of existence ascription the ing restrain to dedicated is which “ontological conservatism,” termed be might ogy of ontol type of this adversary Occam’s as razor. natural The known principle the rejecting thereby of objects, range possible greatest the to existence extend to is forms, more its radical in liberalism, of ontological aim The for existence. qualify to serve usually that or substantiality of materiality criteria monsense that com the do not fit objects) or fictional social, (for mental, example, those including of objects, range on awide status ontological apositive confer to aims exhaustiveness, that is, to provide a complete catalog of existents without without of existents acomplete provide to catalog is, that exhaustiveness, To further narrow the scope of analysis, one can find valuable help in valuable in help find one can of analysis, scope the narrow To further ­o (Falmouth, UK: Urbanomic Urbanomic UK: (Falmouth, riented philosophy and its variants, and which analyzes, in its central central its in analyzes, which and variants, its and philosophy riented 5 , which builds an extremely detailed case against Graham Harman’s Harman’s Graham against case detailed extremely an builds , which That term designates, broadly, any philosophical enterprise that that enterprise broadly, philosophical any designates, term That ­O riented Philosophy: The Philosophy: riented

— ­ metaphysics.pdf metaphysics.pdf Published by Duke University Press

t hat Gabriel’s at most home. be to work seems ­p hilosophy hilosophy

–

3 Common Knowledge 6 1; and 1; and Historically, ontological liberalism emerges with with emerges liberalism ontological Historically, - - - - ­ 7. pluralism. for justification possible one as seen be can alism liber that say briefly me let effort, present ofmy limits the beyond well stretch would relation ofthis account proper a while ofpluralism; forms various the and liberalism between relation complex the mention also Ishould social. or mental usually ofobjects, classes ofcertain autonomy the of account limited to a confined are likewise which tionism, antireduc of forms modest more the from and entities), mathematical (typically, objects of abstract existence the only defends which Platonism, ontological from guished 6. Fields of Sense of Fields in Meinongianism on touches Gabriel (although essay present of the purview of the outside unfortunately are ofliberalism versions Meinongian These 5, 2016].) April [accessed /On_Modal_Meinongianism Modal Meinongianism,” www.academia.edu/17059266 2015 Giraud’s “On Thibaut paper also (See Berto. cesco Fran and Priest, Graham Zalta, Edward Parsons, ence

I C n this context, ontological liberalism should be distin be should liberalism ontological context, n this ontemporary Meinongians include, notably, Ter notably, include, Meinongians ontemporary ­O riented Philosophy: The Noumenon’s Philosophy: The Noumenon’s riented 7 Ontological liber Ontological 4 , 179). , descrip ------

as symptomatic. Since Gabriel’s twin books were not when Object- yet published books Gabriel’s Since twin symptomatic. as on Gabriel’s writings problems, focusing conceptual and methodological of those presentation acondensed point, astarting as Wolfendale’s criticism and analysis with Gabriel’s. intent my here provide, to is Thus, than more nuanced accounts in obscure tend remain to which such, as liberalism of ontological those clearly and Object druple Qua The book his (in objects of substantial defense Harman’s Graham including umbrella, expansive its under programs intellectual diverse apparently locate to side, it now is possible continental at on the least that, burgeoned so has alism burgh University Press. University burgh Edin by published and Harman by edited Realism), lative (Specu series abook share liberals ontological that noted 2013). be Press, It should University Harvard MA: bridge, of the Moderns Anthropology Latour, Bruno and 2014); Press, University Edinburgh (Edinburgh: Ohm Things on A Treatise (Alresford, Object Quadruple The Harman, raham Object: and Form 2011); Garcia, Books, Tristan Zero UK: 8. of a “World of worlds.”dismissal Goodman’s Badiou’s with with and not” is One watchword league “The same the in is nihilism, metametaphysical calls what Gabriel epitomizes which slogan, all- of any a denial statement is the level, basic most the On world not the exist? does that say to it does mean What An OntologicalBubble EndinginaMetaphysical Crash share. they that commitments conceptual those address to is aim my since projects, authors’ these between differences important evidently on the necessary strictly is more than not insist what follows). will account my add Ishould that piece Wolfendale’s to in companion book his to references frequent my (hence O does not exist, therefore everything therefore exist, not does the enthymeme: liberal hence the real, as of recognition susceptible entities of types of number unlimited an affirm to headlong driven is liberal ontological to exist, what signification can the word existence can what signification exist, to said is everything problematic: if intrinsically is task This unit. individual this of consistent, and exhaustive both aconception, elaborate to is liberalism logical of onto task of main ontology, the unit and basic the is thing) or the object the of Existence of Modes into Inquiry An (in moderns of the anthropology Latour’s philosophical

riented Philosophy riented G becomes clear: the flaws of Gabriel’s of flaws see to the enable us project clear: becomes Sense of Fields Why the World Does Not Exist the World Not Exist Does of Why value the that setting wider this It in is ). 8 Form and Object and Form (in ontology Garcia’s), Tristan formal An Inquiry into Modes of Existence: An An Existence: of Modes into Inquiry An , trans. Jon Cogburn and Mark Allan Allan Mark and Jon Cogburn , trans. appeared, my text can also be read as asupplement read as be or short also can text my appeared, , trans. Catherine Porter (Cam Porter Catherine , trans. Published by Duke University Press does 9 Common Knowledge From this refusal of absolute totalization, the the of absolute totalization, refusal From this . 10 ­e ncompassing totality. This philosophical philosophical This totality. ncompassing In liberalism, the individual (alternatively, individual the liberalism, In - - - 67; Graham Harman, Tool- Harman, Graham 67; 9. and and physics of Objects 10. 2011), Press, 6. chap. Universities Open MI: Arbor,

F have? Gabriel, Gabriel,

4 Form and Object and Form Garcia, see declarations, similar or (Ann (Ann Objects of Democracy The Bryant, R. Levi ; and

— Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why

a (Chicago: Open Court, 2004), chaps. 3 chaps. 2004), Court, Open (Chicago: nd if everything is is nd everything if ), and Bruno Bruno and ), ­B eing: Heidegger, and the Meta the and Heidegger, eing: world - - ­

, 79. , - , Morelle • Anthropological Philosophy 455 phy cannot be accomplished here, so I will simply point to to point simply Iwill so here, accomplished be cannot phy philoso overarching ofLatour’s reconstruction a detailed commitments, of these some unearth to possible remains “infra- an them terming technical, purely as commitments his characterize to heprefers character, experimental this ruin would stance philosophical astrong since mental; Inquiry in implicit largely remains principles, general beyond ontology, full 14. 13. Not Exist 12. examination. own its requires that one avalid certainly is pluralism Latour’s Sense of Fields tence (Gabriel, conception adverbial his ( Latour’s to 135) close fairly is 11. 15.

COMMON KNOWLEDGE 456

Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Latour, Latour, T Garcia, Garcia, , chap. 2); the question of an underlying monism in in monism underlying ofan 2); question , chap. the ­l anguage” (as opposed to a metalanguage). While it it While ametalanguage). to (as opposed anguage” 80 , Form and Object and Form Inquiry into Modes of Existence of Modes into Inquiry

– Fields of Sense of Fields Fields of Sense of Fields

81. universe is the universe?” the is universe the in “Where rooftops, the from here employed shouting before of existence world. notion the the Clearly, some precision in we need elucidate to with thing not is a world, short, the in object: it not is an that say to is world not exist does context”) a in in a field“being is, sense” of (that as “appearance existence of definition his leads him to adopt a form of adopt to apophatism. a form leads him structural), and manifest (both properties of its all exceeds of things being inner an ontological “site,” cannot be said to exist. to “site,” ontological said be an cannot lacks thus and “field agiven sense”) of (in locally not appear does that anything could interact. of things kinds different the which through medium ametaphysical as totality, world the as positing dowould entail to so concept’s For the usage. in him, tion of dose varia aregulated would permit that “adverbial” conceptan of existence things them it is call to of what use athing, equally is conceivable. is state solitary formal, pure, its to absolute of “de- point an reaching devise to precisely is project of his crux the since liberals, ontological the of being definition minimal the most finding to committed is liberalism it espouses, that equality multiplicity of concrete beings. concrete of multiplicity actual the to attention our redirecting and unreachable, and ineffable is which , which he intends as partially experi partially as intends he , which We are now at the heart of the problem: in order to realize the ontological ontological the problem: orderWe realize of to in the now heart at are the Why the World Does Does World the Why , 88; Gabriel, , 140. , , 5. ,

— Inquiry into Modes of Exis of Modes into Inquiry

a d 14 efinition that renders existence necessarily local andcontextual. local necessarily existence that renders efinition 11 Latour advocates abandoning the absolutist search for Being, for Being, search absolutist the abandoning advocates Latour Having swept away this intermediary position, he states that that he states position, intermediary away this swept Having that is possible. On this front, Garcia is the most explicit of of explicit most the is Garcia front, this On possible. is that Published by Duke University Press , 162. Latour’s 13 Common Knowledge - - - , 15 Harman’s philosophy of objects, in which the the which in of objects, philosophy Harman’s ­d

— etermination,” where every existent is reduced reduced is existent where every etermination,” Turn? Bruno Latour’s Latour’s Turn? Bruno “A Metaphysical Maniglier, Patrice see ontology, Latour’s on more For thinking. his on Whitehead of influence the Radical Philosophy Radical forme- d’existence modes les .com/article/a- existence.org/does- - 17. 16. machine.” metaphysical abigger with machine “a metaphysical counters and positions oretical metathe crucial most ofhis some explains view,” Latour World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why Gabriel, also See acontext’.” in ‘being of version technical a just is sense’ of a field in . . . ‘Appearance sense. of a field in be to something for case each in it is whatever for in stand the just is of‘appearance’ notion .The sense. of afield in appear objects or object some that fact the be ­h

t ave- he poorest, flattest definition ofbeing definition flattest he poorest,

Gabriel, Gabriel, Wolfendale, Wolfendale, 16 ­a - Gabriel’s own minimalism depends on on depends Gabriel’s minimalism own ­s ystem/ (accessed July 25, 2016); in this “inter 25, July 2016); this (accessed in ystem/ Fields of Sense of Fields 12 ­m In this context, to say that the the that say to context, this In Object- etaphysical- 187 (2014): www.radicalphilosophy ? For his part, Gabriel refuses refuses Gabriel ? For part, his ­an- , 65. , An Inquiry into Modes of Existence of Modes into Inquiry An ­inquiry- ­ retd Philosophy Oriented , 158: “I understand existence to to existence , 158: understand “I ­t - ­t ­e urn. See also “ also See urn. lle un système?,” modesof un lle ­into- ­modes- 66 , L’Enquête sur of- ­

–

73. ­ existence

— that that

b 17 y y ,” ,” - - -

- Fields of Sense: A New Realist Ontol Realist ANew Sense: of of Fields review Norris, min Benja part. Gabriel’s on ofdefinition lack puzzling” least Sense of ofFields review his In relation. functional specific actually any to than rather sense” of “field and of“object” tion” ( one “functional” is a unit individual the of definition his a concept . . . , it is essentially malleable.” a concept . . . , it essentially is not generally just “is applications, its in multiple being existence, that admission fulfilled. never be will that promise asolemn repeating endlessly mere to reduced allusion, is way, liberalism ontological satisfying any in being generic or define its describe Unable to it recognition. beyond it stretching by undermine that applications specific to contentany all) at having of virtue (by definition restrictive implicitly an from doomed shift to unstable, equally is unit ontological basic the as vidual actual only its is words, is an element common (in different versions) to all four philosophies. four versions) all to different element (in an is common which things, words and between distinction ontological the of abolishing effect acollateral as perhaps, understood, better is and such as nowhereis advertised nal consistency.nal incapableinter of by design, is, that concept of a reach infinite potentially the to alluding by only exists”) (“everything tautology beyond reach can and instance, particular any the of needs to according redefinitions, and of extensions possible is their fundamentally negative fundamentally their is (de- definitions these ning - Exist Not Does World the ofWhy review his (see sense of fields his characterize to of vision field ofthe metaphor the on heavily relies Gabriel observes, Nef Frédéric As 19. 266 18. ofnotion sense). his (for fields of(for context andsense)connotation of notions the the onizes of modes speech plurality Latour, on the allusion; cal of poeti practice on the content; Harman, and form between distinction on the relies elements. Garcia or linguistic dependent on semiotic heavily is ontology each that striking of It being. indeed is traits fundamental as presented are then which features, discursive of reification the from resulting as ultimately, stood, 20. Fields of Sense of Fields ­ne ­ constructionnisme-

f/. [accessed July 25, 2016]) While Gabriel claims that that claims Gabriel 25, July f/. 2016]) While [accessed

– Gabriel, Gabriel, Wolfendale, Wolfendale, Wolfendale, Wolfendale,

70. a www.francoisloth.com/markus-gabriel- at But, as Wolfendale observes, what the various concepts of being underpin of being concepts various what the Wolfendale as But, observes, The indetermination, on both its theoretical and semantic sides, of the con of sides, the semantic and theoretical its on both indetermination, The under be can of concept liberalism’s of being nature equivocal atThe best , Benjamin Norris remarks on this “in the very very the “in this on remarks Norris , Benjamin 20 Fields of Sense of Fields , 165), he refers as well to an “interdefini an to well , 165), as refers he Object- O 18 21 bject- We can only be thankful for Gabriel’s candor when reading his his for Gabriel’s when reading candor thankful be We only can sans- ­ The promotion of a semantic category to an ontological status status ontological an to category of promotion a semantic The , 192. , retd Philosophy ­Oriented ­ retd Philosophy Oriented ­monde- content. Moreover, or indi object concept of the the Published by Duke University Press ­d etermination, alteration, excess, contextuality) share share contextuality) excess, alteration, etermination, lanalyse- ­ character. They aim to provide an indefinite series series indefinite an provide to aim They character. Common Knowledge ­ de- 267 , 256 , frederic ­ ou- ­

– –

69. 58, 19 ­le - - - Its theoretical versatility, in other other in versatility, theoretical Its

ogy Existence of Modes into Inquiry Latour, see choice, this On existence.” of “modes on settling before ofveridiction,” “regimes to ofenunciation” “regimes from moving ontology, to 21. nal aesthetics as first philosophy. first as aesthetics of adoption his (88) and objects thinking for designators ofrigid use pivotal his by undermined strongly is claim this but oflanguage, inadequacy the on strongly insists (see Wolfendale, Harman 22. - at www.bruno online available 1998 and in published l’énonciation,” de philosophie “Petite period, middle of his ­l atour.fr/node/187 (accessed July 25, July 2016). (accessed atour.fr/node/187 36, 2(2015): no. 493-96.

Graduate Faculty Philosophy Jour Philosophy Faculty Graduate Gabriel, Markus , by

S L ee, for instance, Garcia, Garcia, instance, for ee, atour has progressively shifted from semantics semantics from shifted progressively has atour , 20

–

—

2 2. On Latour’s evolution, see a central text text acentral see evolution, Latour’s 2. On

a nd Gabriel weap nd Gabriel 22 Object- Form and Object and Form retd Philosophy ­ Oriented ------

43 , , 327) 327) ,

–

46. 46.

- • Morelle Anthropological Philosophy 457 O 25. ofmetaphysics. critique Heideggerian ofthe much inherits liberalism ontological that clear it becomes where 24. it.” under falling everything by way same the just in ated instanti is that sense of afield in ofappearance property is noa priorisimply There sense. of afield it is as insofar just sense of afield in appear to object, an it is as insofar just object, an for it is ofwhat question the to answer an 23. O of themes and loose arguments (see Wolfendale, Object- Wolfendale, (see arguments loose and of themes mélange unrecognizable an into ofmetaphysics practice theoretical ofthe adilution at best, is, confusion ological method this sense, precritical) even (and traditional its in metaphysics practicing as himself regards Harman While arguments. metaphysical apriori and of phenomenology hybrid peculiar Harman’s from results that impasse cal into an anthropological, and therefore largely descriptive, descriptive, largely therefore and anthropological, an into vocabulary ofmetaphysical insertion the as described be can metaphysics” “empirical Latour’s man’s arguments). riented Philosophy riented riented Philosophyriented COMMON KNOWLEDGE 458

Gabriel, Gabriel, S T ee Wolfendale, Object- Wolfendale, ee his expression is used by Wolfendale ( Wolfendale by used is expression his F ields of Sense of ields Harman erects a strange introspective metaphysics introspective a strange erects Harman philosophy, while minded empirically power of an descriptive the promoting Latour author, to author from with varies sidelines relegated is the to metaphysics nents want to arrive somewhere less frustrating than tautology or apophatism. tautology than frustrating somewhere less arrive to want nents propo its if liberalism for ontological block a stumbling certainly is ofcept being it might unduly exclude some things from existence. from exclude some things it unduly might that for fear illegitimate, be to ontology), understood is descriptive apurely to (as of opposed metaphysics task central the is which existents, between relations of workings theexact of specification any exist, to on what it means restriction abide any cannot liberalism ontological Since such. as of metaphysics devaluation the is, more even that problematic, is deadlock of this implication immediate The brilliance; still, the performance is, irreducibly, arbitrary. is, performance the still, brilliance; (its “world”)(its else of everything limitation as aconcept of “thing” under equated is sible entity pos every part, “formal” this In ascesis. aconceptual realize and limits own its test to meant is thought which one in exercise, Hadot’s aspiritual Pierre in sense, Form and Object and Form Garcia’s in clearest perhaps is that metaphysics, of traditional those to alternative insights, new deficitwhen formulating to comes it amethodological is attempts lems, such as those concerning temporality. concerning those as such lems, prob perennial to ad hoc solutions introducing preferences, own his to according world the reconstructs book’s half, second the in then, world out Garcia of joint, put the thoroughly thereby and point breaking their to liberalism of ontological , chap. 2, for a detailed analysis ofHar analysis 2, adetailed for , chap. , 104) to describe the methodologi the , 104) describe to But how, Gabriel would respond to this assessment by asking, could such such could asking, by assessment But how, this to would respond Gabriel , 192: “There is no such thing as as thing nosuch , 192: is “There retd Philosophy Oriented ­

—

a . The first half of the book is intended as an intellectual or even, even, or intellectual an intendedas is book the of half first . The s a limit, as a solitary being. Having pressed the predicaments predicaments the pressed Having being. asolitary as s alimit, Published by Duke University Press 218 , Object- Common Knowledge

–

2 2, - - - - ­ ­ Scheer, 2014).Scheer, Kacem, Belhaj Mehdi to afterword rémission,” et “Critique his See overcoming. an than rather aradicalization is this but liberalism, cal of ontologi form other any than further goes his that 27. issue. this on light shed may and of intensity concept of the elaboration an to devoted is press, to goes article this after published be will which intense Vie La book, next Garcia’s mysterious. somewhat book, the of architecture the within is, justification its temporality: on chapter the in of“intensity” concept the 26. 25, July 2016). (accessed savoirs.ens.fr/expose.php?id=1858 2014 in at presented l’anthropologie,” pour utile théorique “L’ontologie. Une construction Gille, Baptiste and 67; 2011), Books, Zero UK: (Alresford, LSE the at Harman and Wolf: the Latour and Prince The Erdélyi, Peter and Harman, Graham Latour, Bruno see question, jure facto/de de the On metaphysics. with associated usually jure de the for of anthropology facto de the substitutes which approach,

I Garcia, Garcia, t is therefore possible to agree with Garcia’s claim claim Garcia’s with agree to possible therefore t is 26 Form and Object and Form No one would doubt this book’s No one would doubt this . 25 Common to all of these of these all to Common 24 (Paris: Léo Léo (Paris: tragédie la de Algèbre The manner in which which in manner The 27 , 182. See his introduction of of , 182. introduction his See 23 - - - - ,

order not to disturb other approaches, whether religious, artistic, or affective. artistic, religious, whether approaches, other order not disturb to themselves meaningless and unaskable. and meaningless themselves answers systematic professes access. It is, rather, the scientistic, materialist, or naturalist philosopher or naturalist materialist, scientistic, rather, It the is, access. professes liberalism ontological which to universe multifarious of the slice atiny just with deal sciences the liberal’s adversary: the who is scientist it not is the perspective, From of object. this types of these each to proper reference domains the between separation astrict we need maintain to electron, or an Mount Vesuvius with we want Goethe’swe Faust want a show show television famous the like Metaphysics, but arbitrary? anything be exercise an sciences, or social natural of the those to explanations alternative proposing would require however, castle, this of Storming being. taxonomies of hierarchical bastion last the be to seems which naturalism, now need confront to liberals ontological such, as of metaphysics shackles the from of success, criteria own their by us, freed Having The Circumventing of Naturalism declare nothing but its inability to saying anything about anything. anything saying to but inability its nothing declare to aposition in philosophy leaves sort of this humility epistemic and Ontological stance. aesthetic relegated apurely to thus is and mere its presence beyond ity multiplic of this understanding further any from off himself cut having plicity, multi their all in beings rhapsodize, celebrate, to even left is philosopher The context: “Everything exists, but in different fields of sense. Nothing co- fields Nothing sense. of different but in exists, “Everything context: proper its in located is once each evaporates of things kinds of different properties the between disparity conceivableany horse since Pegasus), flying mythical the and Seabiscuit (say, racehorse historic the of things kinds of different coexistence 33. Ontology, Causality Ontology, Realist in physics Magic: Objects, quantum on digressions his in Morton Timothy notably results, disastrous duced pro have sciences, empirical to regard with Harman’s 30. Gabriel, 29. Sense of Fields instance, for See, books. Gabriel’s see Wolfendale, Object- Wolfendale, see 32. 31. he reference to Seinfeld to reference he 28. nyone who insists on the global validity of the sciences’ truth truth sciences’ of the validity global on the nyone who insists

Gabriel, Gabriel, O Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, S T ome, following a rather imprudent suggestion of suggestion imprudent a rather following ome, n the pitfalls of epistemic and ontological humility, humility, ontological and ofepistemic pitfalls n the Seinfeld Fields of Sense of Fields 33 so liberals need, rather, to contain the reach of scientific propositions in in propositions of reach scientific the rather, need, contain to liberals so Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why Fields of Sense of Fields , is literally about nothing, literally , is (Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Humanities Open MI: Arbor, (Ann , 187. , ­ retd Philosophy Oriented

— , 178. , what is the world? and what does the world world? the mean? what the does what is and ’s title character to be regarded as existing on equal terms terms on equal existing as regarded be to ’s character title is a recurring feature of feature arecurring is Published by Duke University Press , 50 375 , 50 , Common Knowledge

–

–

5

–

51. 1. See also also 1. See

, 187. , 76. 28 29 because the questions to which it wants it wants which to questions the because There is no problem with positing the the positing no is problem There with - reduced to it or rejected as false or meaningless.” or false as it rejected or to reduced 34. criticism. of literary questions in intervening while epistemology, of merits the on argumentation to himself restricting and all- and preeminent is physics, system, on that maintains who ist - physical or materialist monopolistic the is adversary cal 35. anti- being from far pluralist, 1978), “The 4: Hackett, IN: lis, 62 ofOOO,” Parrhesia Nadir “The book: ofMorton’s 2013). Brown’s review Press, Nathan (See

–

7 N Gabriel, Gabriel, ­s 1.) Harman himself has remained more prudent, prudent, more remained has himself 1.) Harman - typi His value. full at sciences the accepts cientific, (Indianapo Ways Worldmaking of Goodman, elson ­i nclusive, such that every other must eventually be be eventually must other every that such nclusive, Fields of Sense of Fields c ­ laims. 32 , 128. , 35 ­e

— xists.” Hence Hence

a re in re in 34

— If If 30 31 - -

, no. 17, no. [2013]:

- Morelle • Anthropological Philosophy 459 38. meaning of naturalism meaning 40. 39. 37. ofscience. sociology the in work extensive chaps. 3 chaps. in (as presented position That Opinion of the Also Am “I D ning Harman, raham Plan and Environment Destroyed,” Be Must Materialism 36. ence, see Wolfendale, Object- Wolfendale, see ence, COMMON KNOWLEDGE 460

Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, O G n the progressive dilution, after Quine’s day, of the day, ofthe Quine’s after dilution, progressive n the : 28, 5(2010): no. Space and 772 Society and 4) is certainly the most nuanced, given his his given nuanced, most the certainly 4) is Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why Fields of Sense of Fields Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why duced by the sciences, because they deal with a specific fieldsense of aspecific with deal they because sciences, the by duced position. liberal of the interpretation severe most the forward who puts Gabriel it is here again destroyed,” be though must materialism that “opinion Harman’s sions of empirical sciences. ofsions empirical conclu to, the contradiction in or compatible, merely be to not directly claiming position any to physicalism ahard-line from everything embraces and vague naturalism term of the relevance, the or even use, the question to It legitimate is limitations. beyond this definition would be tantamount to a category mistake. category to a tantamount be would definition this beyond extension where any and practice professional their in physicists by studied being is thatwhich than as no more defined are physics by described objects the which in version of knowledge tautological strangely the than other about knowledge, “fields to sense,”even of impossible Gabriel’s becomes it undifferentiated with domains those identifying by on) so that, and but ones, rather psychological for beings mental statements, for biological beings (living of application domain knowledge- notis that air.Theinto problem melts statements scientific to attached truth general to theclaim speaking, ontologically footing, equal an are on fields ever,sense of all if How science. of natural claims the to harmless is liberalism ontological Gabriel, general imperative to refuse any attempt at unification or synthesis. or at attempt unification any refuse to imperative general a no content than has other of knowledge conception his one, so negative purely by them as being instances of mathematical equations.” of mathematical instances being as them by spatio- being of there conditions material/energetic the into inquiry other or any ics of phys proposition true any with conflict in or be to by,supported support, to be to supposed is book this in “Nothing over it: or fieldis regulative fact sense of the “universe” the - sci with compatibility a mere into Gabriel insists that he has no problem with the statements routinely pro routinely statements the no problem he has with that insists Gabriel It is here that Gabriel’s quarrel with naturalism reaches its most obvious obvious most its reaches naturalism with Gabriel’sIt here is that quarrel ­t , 105. , Inquiry into Modes of Existence of Modes into Inquiry emporal objects, things, or events of any kind whose nature is described described is nature whose kind of any or events things, objects, emporal ­ retd Philosophy Oriented (as the late Hilary Putnam did, for instance) by arguing that it overly is that arguing by for instance) did, Putnam (as late Hilary the 37 hereas ontology cannot privilege or acknowledge that any any that or acknowledge privilege cannot ontology hereas —

w Published by Duke University Press 24 , 110 ,

–

– 9 ­b

–

25. 0. Latour’s 0. Latour’s 310 ,

11. ased truth truth ased Common Knowledge 40

–

14. But, just as Gabriel’s understanding of being is a a is of being Gabriel’s as just But, understanding - , ogy that lead to metaphysical (hyper- metaphysical to lead that ogy - ontol in positions criticize to able being in at least sists con has view the power explanatory The here. claim tory explana a substantial as count would what on it depends field? Well, a particular within appear to is exist to that insight the on based claim explanatory asubstantial make to right any up giving Iam that mean not this does “But 41. ( discourse” scientific or philosophy of regions specific in Fields of Sense of Fields ­ c laims cannot be restricted to a particular aparticular to restricted be cannot laims

T his aspect of his position Gabriel regards as a virtue: a virtue: as regards Gabriel position of his aspect his , 192). , 38 Thus, according to to according Thus, ­s ubstantial) claims claims ubstantial) 39 41 And since since And

—

t hat of talk talk 36 ------specific field of sense in order to establish an illusory peace. illusory an establish in order to fieldsense of specific a to confined is each conflict, accounts two When principles. apriori on purely conceivable distinction any able is reify to Gabriel void, as explanatory an only ever- ontological restraint leads to explanatory indifference. explanatory leads to restraint ontological to resistance any that but it suggests sure, be to extreme, is sion of antinaturalism and inert matter. inert and beings from nonliving them thatseparate would beings living to proper ficity tion. produc of knowledge domains between of articulation question the way any in raise he cannot conditions, negative but these anything contribute he can which are to not topics fields sense of between interaction the of and individuation the 44. 43. 42. supplementof deficiencies older, the can that more modest a kind of realism, akind is liberalism ontological words, other In outlooks. moreby conservative excluded are that or religious, social, fictional, whether entities, for all positively account to ability an prize: invaluable an as offers what liberalism secure to paid be to price the is ambition explanatory general and metaphysics both Abjuring A Very Relative Realism defend. to wants seemingly it that realities various the between difference any to up ends blind liberalism heterogeneity, ontological fundamental of reality’s name the in limitation any that rejects ontology inflationist on an grounded antireductionism an As tion. of Gabriel’s posi weakness central the is accounts theoretical discordant between actually actually are they standpoint, logical onto our from that, say we can being, aliving and aheap of particles between conceptual purely the given that, he states instead basis; or atheoretical empirical an on either inadequate is for instance) physical, the to mental (from the identifying the thing explained with the concept. the with explained thing the identifying to amounts aconcept using athing explain to that claim losophy nothing” to reducible is thing “no aformal- from writing Garcia, strange form in the work of Harman ( ofHarman work the in form strange a takes reduction toward aversion The ones. ontological become differences verbal purely that natural it is ones, cal - ontologi into categories semantic turned has one When

Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, G 42 , 73 ­a abriel, abriel, The impossibility, even unthinkability, of any real contradiction existing existing contradiction real of any unthinkability, even impossibility, The djustable, has no way out of this problem of unfalsifiability. Gabriel’s ver problem of unfalsifiability. no out way of has this djustable, Take one of Gabriel’s examples own

–

7 8) and Gabriel ( Gabriel 8) and Fields of Sense of Fields F Fields of Sense of Fields ields of Sense of ields 43 Gabriel does not claim that such and such a kind of reduction of reduction akind such and such that not claim does Gabriel , chap. 1. , chap. 243 , Fields of Sense of Fields , 36, 142

–

44. Published by Duke University Press ­o 46 ntological viewpoint, viewpoint, ntological ( Liberalism, since its ontological framing of issues is is of issues framing ontological its since Liberalism, Form and Object and Form Object-

–

4 , 157), they where 3. Similarly, for for 3. Similarly, Common Knowledge ­ retd Phi Oriented distinct. , 8). 8). ,

— 44 -

t he issue of whether there is aspeci is there of whether he issue The ontological radicalism yields yields radicalism ontological The appeal to “emergence” ( “emergence” to appeal ( of“levels” cept rates on this point. point. this on rates 47. ( take” 45. 46. Sense of Fields (Gabriel, carnivals Rhenish in seen be can they that but exist not do sense, Inquisition’s the in witches,

I N I Fields of Sense of Fields n reading , 67); I can personally testify in the latter case, at least. case, latter the in testify personally , 67); Ican am thinking of Latour’s notion of the “category mis “category of the notion of Latour’s thinking am ef Inquiry into Modes of Existence of Modes into Inquiry 47

’ elabo Exist Not Does World the ofWhy s review 45 chap. 8), and Garcia’s Garcia’s Quadruple 8), Object, and chap. Form and Object and Form difference difference , one learns, for instance, that that instance, for learns, , one , 48), Harman’s con Harman’s , 48), 118 , - - - - -

–

19). - - - Morelle • Anthropological Philosophy 461 The Gay Science Gay The Nietzsche, see comparison, ( reality and ance appear between distinction any refusing simultaneously ( antirealism tivist 50. Sense of Fields 49. results). convincing more with (but Idealism German in roots its has Gabriel’s, like which, of noillusions,” “principle the of 2014), he writes where Press, University Edinburgh (Edinburgh: Thinkers Contemporary with positions Dialogues these of alism: version modest more a find can ne Adventures Johnston’s in Transcendental Adrian in Materi 48. COMMON KNOWLEDGE 462

G O Gabriel, Gabriel, abriel attacks Nietzsche as the epitome ofconstruc epitome the as Nietzsche attacks abriel , 81. , Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why us, by repeated incantation, that his “fields of sense” are, by contrast, “objective.” contrast, by “fields are, sense” of his that incantation, repeated by us, rather, reassure to He wants, mind). human or up the made by projected entirely as (reality constructivism to he ascribes that metaphysics idealist the attacking much to more do not than amount realism to aspirations Gabriel’ssense, lofty he seeks. he that ontology pluralist amenable the to able of construction generate to aplane is Gabriel level that on that malleable so is of meaning generation the because and is only it theterm, Frege defines “sense,” to appeal by Gottlob as obtained is level ontological the to jump This units. ontological fundamental as advertised Gabriel’s presented: have are quasi- fields I already sense of that approach ontology to reifying the by obtained is psychologism radical and themselves).in things as thelegitimacy same with being, cific spe own their have such as representations that it Wolfendale (theas claim calls realism, noetic or and representations) mere to constructions irreducible selves, them in things are there that (the claim realism namely, commonsense realism, of strands discrete two combining by works ontology” “new The realist realisms. to us to green of looking property the it has that say to is which green, looks atree that We know us. to way can acertain in appear themselves in things that us tell themselves, in things by produced are they as insofar appearances, that stating to down comes Gabriel, to according themselves, in things know to indeed, realism: noetic by entailed however, claims dependent on the entirely is realism; content of commonsense conceptual The liberals. ontological other the by mobilized rhetoric being same the with it, he describes as constructivism ern Gabriel’spostmod and position between line a sharp draws inclusion, its by thus, and of notion existence of the interpretation a“robust” it as provides strand, cial norist nor constructivist. reductionist, neither foundational is that philosophy yet realist apluralist produce to intended Fields of Sense of Fields Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why The only significant difference between Gabriel’s version of noetic realism Gabriel’s realism between version of noetic difference significant only The Commonsense realism is here, from a rhetorical standpoint, the most cru most the standpoint, arhetorical here, from is realism Commonsense 51 From this perspective, however, his realism is no different from the the from no is different however, realism his perspective, From this , 168; for an illuminating illuminating , 168; an for Published by Duke University Press , 6; Gabriel, Gabriel, , 6; , §§54, 57). , 39), while , 39), while Common Knowledge - - - 2; 2; ( relations intentional ontologizes ( tool ontological a primary as (NET) network of the mode the establishing by ontology pluralist liberal, into sociology 1952), 56 Blackwell, Basil (Oxford: Black Max and Geach Peter ed. Frege Gottlob of Writing Philosophical the from Translations 51. losophie contemporaine Fo Thomas- Isabelle by book excellent the see philosophy, contemporary in ofrealism aporias the On one. rhetorical a being difference main the with making, ofworld theory Goodman’s to close extremely is Gabriel again, Here Object- giel, giel,

G Inquiry into Modes of Existence of Modes into Inquiry ottlob Frege, “On Sense and Reference” (1892), Reference” and in Sense “On Frege, ottlob Le lieu de l’universel. Impasses du réalisme dans la phi la dans réalisme du Impasses l’universel. de lieu Le ­ retd Philosophy Oriented

–

7 8. Latour shifted away from actor- from away shifted 8. Latour (Paris: Seuil, 2015). Seuil, (Paris: 135 , ­l inguistic “contexts” “contexts” inguistic

–

62). , chap. 2), while Harman Harman 2),, chap. while Quadruple Object, chap. Object, Quadruple 48 This alliance is is alliance This . 49 But in this this But in ­n etwork etwork 50 ------, ­ sense). of infinity unthinkable the (as of away expressing experience religious of the legitimacy conditional for the and sciences autonomy social for the of the case welcome his he makes that context that It in is of naturalism. ravages nihilistic supposedly the world” “life against of the defense rigid) (slightly his is point at this that actively deters conceptual engagement. conceptual deters actively that of realness” of a “feeling simulation a theoretical no more than allow gestures philosophical these as realism, of their validity the establish to do nothing can of entities lists Harman’s and of reach Garcia, encyclopedic of vast Latour, the fine- the use, ordinary of its contexts concrete and practices the by supplied meaning the beyond concept of reality the to substance incapable of giving structurally being liberalism Ontological striking. is fruits theoretical limited extremely its and enterprise ontological tious ambi incredibly an between contrast the Overall, Feuerbach,wig for instance. Lud and Dilthey of Wilhelm works the in made, more persuasively found, be our access has already been reified. been already has access our ontology, of his trait essential an as things: to access of our nature the ated with problems associ philosophical of the all stroke, asingle in dissolves, He thus things. to connection order direct celebrate to in our of meaning experience human spontaneous the within himself places Gabriel foundationalism, and cism skepti both rejecting 2009). in published Simultaneously (both Laughter and ness, Mad Mythology, Slavoj Žižek) (with Antike and der in Idealismus und Skeptizismus minds. human of nor individual aproduct construction neither asocial is reality that acknowledgment abstract and aminimal to amounts of realism kind His mirrors. of smoke and amatter be to then, appears, ontology through strategy exit The procedure. of signifying kind acertain from indistinguishable employs being that he of reality meaning the denounces, he outspokenly that constructivism 53. 25, July 2016).(accessed 52. warrant every diluting by only works that antinaturalism an and cept of being, unchecked appeal to ontology offers. ontology to appeal unchecked an that solutions easy of the advantage takes of notion access very of the missal dis his in Gabriel Putnam, version) Hilary Gabriel’s to and extreme out links with is not Benoist contextualism (whose as do Jocelyn stance, deflationist and .bruno- at www online available Manifesto’,” at a ‘Compositionist Existence of Modes into see of construction; notion of the analysis useful

Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, Gabriel, We can trace the origins of this version of realism to Gabriel’s earlier books, Gabriel’s to books, versionearlier of realism of this origins the We trace can If ontological liberalism offers an ersatz realism, an undifferentiated con undifferentiated an realism, ersatz an offers liberalism ontological If ­latour.fr/sites/default/files/120- 55 52 None of these arguments is original, however, and many of them can can however, of them many and original, is arguments None of these Fields of Sense of Fields F ields of Sense of ields , chap. 6, and his essay “An Attempt Attempt “An essay his 6, and , chap. , 14. , 100. Latour provides a more a more provides , 100. Latour Published by Duke University Press ­NLH- Common Knowledge 53 finalpdf.pdf ­finalpdf.pdf 54 Rather than take a strenuously pragmatist pragmatist astrenuously take than Rather ­g Gabriel’s accomplishment substantial only Inquiry Inquiry rained socioanthropological descriptions descriptions socioanthropological rained 56

54. 55. 37 2004), Press, University Harvard without Ontology Ethics his see vention, 56. 268.

Gabriel, Gabriel, F F or Harman’s lists, see Object- see lists, Harman’s or or Hilary Putnam’s definition of existence as con as existence of definition Putnam’s Hilary or Why the World Does Not Exist Not Does World the Why ­ retd Philosophy Oriented

–

4 3, 56. (Cambridge, MA: MA: (Cambridge, ------, 142, 178., 142, , 162, 162, ,

- Morelle • Anthropological Philosophy 463 cally cautious in his deployment of these connotations. ofthese deployment his in cautious cally - methodologi most the be to appears Garcia opponents. their to referring are liberals ontological where contexts in Latour) (Harman, police” “epistemology or (Gabriel), anarchism” “metaphysical Bryant), (Levi ofthings” racy democ “the like phrases across or stumbles one economic so, and even cal; ontological between analogy he - metaphori entirely not if largely is liberalism political 57. COMMON KNOWLEDGE 464

T liberty and license, between formal and real equality. real and formal between license, and liberty between confusion is a liberalism flaw of central the Thus, applicability. unlimited enables vacuity conceptual such that grounds on the program, of their features positive as flaws present these (and above all) Gabriel liberals the for explanation, is still rife with thought- with rife still is ontology possible test Object and Garcia’s Form resolution. find may controversies which through forms crete con to attention our turns productively enterprise, his to internal issues sophical does not success. leaddoes toward and what does aconsiderable to extent shown have put it), liberals the Guattari (as and Deleuze =MONISM” PLURALISM seek: we all formula magical “the to not attained has liberalism ontological defenders. ledWhile its has liberalism which to deadlocks the from learned much be to is There invaluable. are ures, fail their and successes their both in these, like experiments conceptual radical project. unsustainable an be to proven itself has liberalism ontological as Heidegger, such Kant. ultimately, and Yet, Frege, figures of canonical pretations inter original truly are there Gabriel’s; in both, in totality, and of constitution and case, Harman’s in substance, and of mereology, causality, discussions stimulating and relation).are There of theobject concepts them, among man’s (first philosophy of Har concepts central the nomenology, epistemology, and undermines ontology phe and metaphysics between of lines blurring the by caused confusion the hand, other the On engaging. at most its of philosophy hallmark the is which topics, a of being forms multifarious the among relations trace to effort creative and Latour’s interest. a considerable retain to Latour’s Garcia’s as manage and works theoretician, each in inherent qualities real the however, notshould prevent us, recognizing from bello’s bello’s Earth: Artificial Grant’s an On Hamilton Iain as enterprises metaphysical overtly Such alteration. of process endless its in nature, proteiform toward and such as of plurality tion celebra abstract liberals’ the some look to away from leading is successors its and nd his concept of “diplomacy,” while failing to address the most pressing philo pressing most the concept of address to “diplomacy,”nd his failing while is awe-inspiring in the rigor with which it argues, in its first half, for the flatthe for half, first its in it argues, which with rigor the in awe-inspiring is By exploring theoretical possibilities to their furthermost implications, implications, furthermost their to possibilities theoretical By exploring Métaphysiques cosmomorphes: La fin du monde humain and, recently, Pierre Monte recently, Pierre Schelling and, after Nature Philosophies of is an impressive feat, a thoughtful a thoughtful feat, impressive an is Existence of Modes into Inquiry Published by Duke University Press

—

a nd its second half, while unable to reach the same heights, heights, same the reach to unable while half, second nd its ­p rovoking examinations of an extremely wide range of of range wide extremely of an examinations rovoking Common Knowledge 58 The recent renewal of interest in Naturphilosophie in of interest recent renewal The - 1993), 20. Press, ofMinnesota University (1980; repr., Minneapolis: Schizophrenia and Capitalism teaus: 58.

G A Thousand Pla AThousand Guattari, Félix and Deleuze illes 57 This philosophical impasse proclaim, rather than than rather proclaim, , trans. Brian Massumi Massumi Brian , trans.

— ------

antidote to the aporias of ontological liberalism, it might be a fruitful alternative. afruitful it be might liberalism, of ontological aporias the to antidote an but as full, out in carried be can program their whether seen be to It remains human end of “the the world of such, the as nonexistence the On an Artificial Earth: Philoso Earth: Artificial an On Grant, Hamilton ain 59. specifically inhuman nature, in search of the ontological structure of things. of structure the ontological of search in nature, inhuman specifically delve deeply into philosophers these anthropologists, by concept of nature the of reframing current the and sciences, empirical the metaphysics, by supplied (Dijon: Presses du Reel, 2015). Reel, du Presses (Dijon: humain monde du fin La cosmomorphes: Métaphysiques Montebello, Pierre 2006); Continuum, (London: Schelling after Nature of phies

I Published by Duke University Press Common Knowledge - (1975; repr., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981). Press, ofChicago (1975; University repr., Chicago: Culture of 2013); Invention Wagner, Roy The Press, and sota Minne of University Minneapolis: repr., (2009; Skafish Cannibal Metaphysics Castro, de Viveiros 2013); Press, Eduardo of Chicago University Chicago: Attachment of Forms 60.

S Beyond Nature and Culture: Culture: and Nature Beyond Descola, Philippe ee world.” , trans. Janet Lloyd (2006; repr., (2006; Lloyd Janet , trans. 59 With tools tools With 60

, trans. Peter , trans.

- • Morelle Anthropological Philosophy 465