one point about Foster’s article

I’ll focus on just one point of disagreement I have with Foster’s article on me and Latour.

Several times, there are variations of this sort of claim:

“The  force  of  Harman’s  comments  on  plasma  is  that, on  pain  of self-contradiction, Latour must have a metaphysics, despite any apparent protestations to the contrary. Harman’s hope is that object-oriented philosophy provides Latour with all the metaphysics he needs.”

This isn’t true. Never have I said anything of this sort– that Latour needs a metaphysics and I’m willing to provide it for him.

What I’ve said instead is:

*Latour has a very original metaphysics.

*My metaphysics differs from Latour’s in a number of ways.

It’s true that Latour does sometimes claim that he’s not interested in providing metaphysical principles, but that’s a lot less important than the fact that his books are filled with metaphysics of one sort or another.