kvond’s reply

No point keeping a discussion going about old issues, but I was impressed by the tone of kvond’s response on another blog:

“Now, I have been accused of being mean spirited in comparing Harman’s SR confabulation of a movement to a Ponzi scheme, or some of the least desirable aspects of Capitalism. I’m sorry if I see conceptual connections here. I find in Harman’s theory of allure AND Latour’s trials of strength definite issues of social and ethical importance, significance which points directly to the social importance of philosophy itself.

I don’t begrudge that Harman philosophize and speculate all over the place. I do think though that the kinds of things is advocates both in terms of a methodology of how to philosophize, the manner of his propogation of his ideas, and the substance of relations he claims to be the kinds of things that deserved to be critiqued and possibly checked.

I’m glad he wishes me well, I wish him well too.”

I do wish him well, and in fact it’s impressive how he’s carved out an intellectual life outside the box as his biographical data indicates. That’s extremely difficult to do without institutional support. We need more of that: alternative intellectual careers.