sorry, but…

Was just reading more about object-oriented programming, and the parallels seem plenty apt to me. Terms can be borrowed freely across disciplines with slight changes of meaning. This happens constantly across the spectrum of human knowledge.

Anyway:

1. It doesn’t matter, because there are plenty of other names that can be used. And more importantly,

2. It doesn’t matter unless people have such strong preconceived notions of what object-oriented programming means that they end up confused by the ways in which “object-oriented philosophy” might depart from those preconceptions. That is simply not the case with the vast majority of my readership and planned additional readership. The term is effective not only because it’s provocative, but also because people immediately know what it means in a philosophical context as soon as they hear it. It means that individual entities will again play a key role in philosophy that they lost long ago in favor of the human-world correlate.