POSTSCRIPT: SPECULATIVE AUTOPSY RAY BRASSIER Nr;"5o..ISso>ot$pecUat....eRealisrnneedStotJeginbya...:uv theintermnent an::I p::,..1t1asst dab!l a OW< whe1har SpaaJenw Roobm r-.. eiusts. ThtsqueslO:ln comes fivetoo )'9111'5 lateto be�tul.an::loenetalylakeslheformota�t·dowrlrathl!f thanabonaf'Qe<µ;15ll0rl$pacula!JV8Rell�IS�thetopc ota1t1nvn;100okswoesa1armp lSWVfll'S1t�?"ess.an::lthe� ,.,iotali98s!onelortl"O:lmrgrmnogrllphlliserrtieddedn !he -oroillp::C:y o! -"'ftlllosophypul"O!ls. l! hasbeoome 8IOITT111d'orr..,l!rd"lnoc111"0.11"chooolo\IV.QB:V"l!Pl">l'.tho"'51.8 ll"IS.an::lewnhis!ory llhillse<ossadno!IOr\8lbcuOll>esw�h ,_,an::llS�!hecmU.,!hemaolctSl:u""1Clnr1thegrowrig cal!JlenT"'lh��o.Spoo.Je11110Rotillsrnis1he �olsowmlp;ostdoc1a"'l-sh!p'>Ollm"l"'1helkv!od Sl81esn...._1thesbeenrho...,bjBctoTsernesu••-lorga­ a1uwu.. 1 ....... we1asgrad.Jam1ho""""'Paus.Tt....q,1tu11 11"0STlll!"""1testsBh6adconcmror.;i1rotlroHd!han::lcisebl1Y 01Spoa.M1....eRoolisrn,11 hosl<ng!llrc<jpa!l!Ml !he"11.,smn::e· le!lttoa!ll'gt11111lf�lhonrrns1ornscr11.:s. Glal\lrm HorC1,,., min.·The 001 s101a 01 SpowlotMl Ramm'.., �A.JoJrr>OlolSpocWIMlRool<smrlJ(X>1.3),XI Has SpeclAa!Ml Realism passed the e)(JS!eoce test? Gfallam Harman has oerta1nly served as its 1ndefaugable mdwife. No dot.tit rmdesty forbade him lrom ment1011ng that he is OOIMlr$SO!llng edrtor of the 'thriving txxik series' he cites. and the self-vdunteered editor of the new SpeoJlative Real­ ism section of the popular PhilF'apets website.' His dBlm ab::>ut p::15tdoctoral fellowships ard semester-Ieng 1..11!\lefSl!y COIXSes 50\.llds i.i 1rrµessively academenote. flagging the 1nst11ut!C7\al recog11111on that is generally acceptedas the seal of ntellectual respectability. Yet here a note of cautlOn 1s n order. S1rc:e Ayn Rancfs ObjectMsm and L. Ron HOO­ bard"s Scentobgy havealso succeeded111 socu1rg toeholds 1n Amencanuniversity progrttmmes. Academicrecognt.on IS not CQn"1)el1rg by 1tsetr lllleSS 'M3 are tokl the names of the fellowshps and 1nst1tu110ns 1n question. Mo-eover. a sceptic m19ht be lorg1voo for queryirg the rehab1hty of e witness testifyingto Sperula11ve Reahsm"s 1ndub1tablee)(lstence from w11hln the pages of a pubhcet1on whose ortloal sU:imle •S "A ..lou'"nal of Spec:UatlVEI Realism·. And 1f existe-ice is to be maesured 1n terms of biogs. books. and Google hits. then SpeciJetM! ReahsmJags woefully ff!r behind Bigfoot.Yeti. and the Loch Ness Monster. all of whom havepassed Htirm1wfs "existence tes!" with flying cdours. Of course. no one has ever delllOCI the 1»11stence of tolk abcut SperulatrwRealism. To askwhether Sperulauve Realism deservesto betreated as a coheslVEI phllosophcel rmvement 1s not to denythe tl)(ISlence ol books. artides. anduniversity co.ssesthat do µit that. The real cvestlOrl is· Is this talk. and thecurrency of Harman"sSperulatllle Rea•sm b!"a"ld.' surtJc.ent lhet...n:i1Sno!"""""""<kylne<maprlOCl""'OI��-· rom.tu:a.......,satvramgnizod,,.,lhodolo;n,eyngnlor"""cnwtille o.mn;iUY<l.ghnror,,.,tcncUUl')(Coring"IJ'lClhcrwnoslorpl"Jlosojlt1• C81f:O!"lor1Sl'l<Opso-1mt!OO"telec:1""'p.bl<:onthe_.,...8'1811a1:18 op!Ol"IS-....,ero:our�cn!GSIGdperrru1.t11oons..IT!OO�-& ....... -.rc>1�woul::l1he""""'":;pe0.Jlet""r9!llism-ber...,..,..;.bul ti0g0woul::lbeO<llq"ledlo-pro,ectcnon�savens.80C>Offi pr1n'9dbl'•'-"'11'"1lnt:u"sol�WO.tepm.ISIC.�1S1"""11hllt :>rl'lpr1l01""5woul::l....,.e..-°"""'*'t"'Yab:iul-�ret\.ced to ,,....kelng �·But 11 woul::llwdlynwt"'. snat8tlanlcnwoul::I to JUS!lfy the clam ti;:it 1t Q.Jaiflesas a rti�osoptvcalysignificant movement? In order to a-iswer this QRStton.1t 1s necessafV to dsen�le l-i<wTna1's daims on behalf ol Spec'-'at1ve Real­ ism lrom thephdosoptucal daims of the v.:.ious thr*ers who are. now for better or wase. associated with this� mCMel'T'lerlt. ThedJSparate rtiilosophical tendencies that have beef1 <rc:u>ed tooether as Soeculat1ve Realism all emeroed from the Slt:d1sciploe known as 'Continental rtillosoptr/. It is prJTia"1ly trose interested1n the ContnentaltradmOfl-whose ni.nt>ersewe cenainlynot negligtile. sirce they o:mpnse schol · ws 'Mll1mg 1n such f'lek:ls as comparative literature. cwt theory. media and o...iltu"al studies. cwchitectll'e. and other hU0'9"Nties d1sophnes-whose interest has been piqued by SpecUat1..e Realism.The novelty attrtiutedto thelatter 1s taken to resde•n the W<f'l II suwise<ty challengesthe core tenets ol Cont1reital orthcdoxy. These tenets are encapsUated 1n the tEifm ·corre latlOOlsm·. ongnally caned by Guentn Meil!assoux in his book AftE!f' Fn1rude.! The reiec;tlOfl of co<relatton1sm IS supp:ised to be the corrmon denomnator binding 'Speci.Aa11ve Realists' togethel'.despite theirmany evidentd11lerences 1,.,.,.llbfbe-nto1,.,.worksorspao.Jo1M1r""*""'.indttsmp..C81oon �s...-.jorfaltme::!Mt,.,.m..rent��oftt·....,WOfl<s.olwr.;til """o:rnf'don1.('0n1,.,.,__.,...,...,,orot'!')cts:Qan1.6turl>.indRa:Xa Ft>losop;ry'"LB-y;r(.G.iiafTU\..-.JN.�l..:1$).ThsSpewiorM> r...,. ea--rti ""'*""1a>dMar,..olsmlMeb:un1<2011]. fl>-J>"<= 21.) WNio1""'9!,.,.�trllgllfdk:<!,.,.wor�orOwnlmMal�ardi...... -""Qin:. two ot ,,.,.supposed 'IOU'ldels' or Spe:Uat...., l?ealsm. I<XI rct sh.Ye 1-WmY>'s o:in-..00 ab:IY! t,.,. ""'""1Y 01 01,.,.,. ....;.ks""'"''"� b&ng,,.,,.ketedln:krths�.D"..tx.Jlhs-.... .,.o�Of"""<ty As1or'D"IOl>li<"dtho•ntulectuel�'.!hlst581ssl<bostlr>ltloPR...,.,..15..-.:I p..-n'*5ts..nolphkJsoplw's.&t1alongtt'-"°"lwrs3lltoc•rryOU1thls1eisl<. Hamarica;becrl!dtedw1tl\.,._,1ngamwg<1<We.ptoiosoplly·mi:;r.l<a!.-ig 3. Q.Med!tssw>c.Altwfnr<><»AnfssoyC<llhe Nflcess>ryoJ��n g<ll"CY.lr.R.Br-(LondonandNlrNYot�:Contn.un.2008) The questlOl"I then arising 15 whether antH:cxrelationism 1s indeed a sufhc1ent cond1t1on !or Speculative Realism. I do not think 1t can be. This is not to d1srnss the salience ol Mellassoul<"s d1ag1051s of correlatiornsm. A favouritep\oy among those who wish to rubbish Me1l�SSOOl< and Specula­ tive Realism rmre generally is to deny that there 1s any such thing as correlationism. or that 11 has ever been prevalent 1n Continental philosophy. This 1s plainly false. It is true that the term hasbeen rruch abused bythose who. following Harman. seeant1-correlationism as the defininglea1ure of Speculative Reabm. At its most eKtreme. this allows the accusation of "correla11onism" to become a way of caricaturing rival philo­ sq:ihical positions andshort-c1rcu1ting debate. I do not believe that correlallonism 1s the unm1t1gated "bad thing" which 1t seems to be for Harman(and to a lesser eKtent MedlassouK). and I have learned the imi:ortance of defending the "good". epistemic formulation of correlationismlrom its "bad".sceptical version.' Nevertheless. I stil th01k 1t patently false to deny that correlationism names a charactenst1c tenet of Continental philosophy. Correlationism 1n the "strong" versl0!1 targeted by Medlassoul< 1s simply the denal that 1t makes sense to postiJatethings-in-themselves and 11 is easyto findpassages by numerous Continentallum1nanes (not to mention analytic anti-realists) unequivocally proclairn1ng the r.onsensioahty ol the Kant.an on S/Ch' 4. Myr....-eiolllllke1lwsd'llncl""'v""'ted""fd"""""""'10IM<M•as••:•" "'Nin.IUrb:u"ld(Basirq;tol<e· �. 2007), whe<eI loo�"' oh 5 ln2006.whle�m11J>"9P"11"ett>a�nalman..isoipt!OfNth./�"'1. o..r,....,vea�all5101suchpawigo<Oladoclmo-nl"'1lftled"Co< reiot'°"""" Tt>l!Evdar.ce"ltleallSedq..olalonslromFichuo.Schellng.Hegel. Sc:l'>opeMa>e<. NimlSJ:t>ll.HuSS<H"l Heideqger, as- BS lrom Cer""P. Gluroe. Does this mean then that anyone w1ll1ng to countenMCe things-in-themselves counts as aSpeculatt\le Realist? Oe!l'ly not. II this were the case.Speculative Realism would count among its proponents analytic thnkers such as David Lewis. Michael Devitt. David Armstrong. Timothy W�l1amson. Theo­ dore Sider. and othern too numerous to mention_ Anti-cor­ relatiorusm 1s simply tootenuous a cntenon to be counted a sufflaent condition foc incluslOr'l under the bamer of Specu­ lative Realism. Might there be a more pos.t1ve criterion of inclusion? It 1s highly doubtful. Consider the philosophical d1r­ ferences between H!l'man's Object-Oriented Ontology. Gra"lt's neo-ideabst Naturephdosoi:fiy, Me1llassoux's speculatt\le mate riaism. and my own Sellarsian transcendentalnall.rahsm. The ftrst insists that o�y obfects exist. The second defends a dynamc ontology of powers. The third proposes that the Absolute1s not what 1s but wtiat couldbe. The last claimsthat th1rimg 1s errbedded in a nature to wtiich 1t IS logicaly(thoulji not causally) 1rreduc1ble. What 1s theor common feature? The !act that each stakes out a poSltion with regard to the in-1tselr? But so do the analyuc philosophers mentioned above. And the differences that prevent these analytic think ers lrom being grouped tcgether as proponents or a smgle school are surely as signihcll"lt as thosethat di111de the alleged orooonents al Soecula11ve Realism. Harman savs there are things-in-themselves but they can only be allUded to. not known. Grant and Me1lassoux deny that the 1n-1tselfC«lSISts ol things. b.Jt afflrm thought's purchase upon the Absolute I claim that we can know things-in-themselves. but not Gi:o:Jrnan. F\Jt.....-n. McOowel. a-dBIMdom. TllOSI! wflo Ille 10 .....1 that correl<na-smcloosno'aodhllSr-.evere"•UlOwoUddoweltoc:l"«lo.th<! throughcontact with the Absolute.since knowing takes time. What then i.nites us other than the sociobgical fact that our worktends to be dassirted as part ol the Continental trad1 !Ion.while that of Lewis. W1lhamson. Sider et al. 1s classified as ana\yt1c? It IS true that the philosophers taken to representSpecu­ lative Realism share an antipathy to a cena1n philosophical sensib1hty characteristic of post-Heideggenan Continental philosophy: the fet1sh1z1ng of fin1tude. voiced with a rnari­ neredp:irtentousness that is the unlortlX'late consequence ol anglophone wnters self-consciously apng transliterated Franco-Gerrnari.