playful reply to leon

Leon has been in dialogue recently with some others about the question of causality and the closure of nature. The heart of the issue seems to be whether or not a ‘closed system’ can account for change and, if not, whether some variants of OOO are put in the hot seat because of their adherence to a closed ontology. Since the word ‘nihilism’ was used in this context, let me ask:

Suppose God to be an object. What then?


About plasticbodies

Contemporary philosopher.
This entry was posted in Object-Oriented Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to playful reply to leon

  1. Leon says:

    I so wish I had time to respond to this. Swamped. With the move, my blogging addiction is suffering.


  2. Tim Morton says:

    I’m not convinced reality is a closed system. That would imply a top object—the system itself. Since there is no top object in OOO, Leon’s problem is easily discounted.

  3. Tim Morton says:

    I’m going to answer several questions like this in Realist Magic.

  4. plasticbodies says:

    That’s something I’m looking forward to, Tim. Can’t wait.

  5. Leon says:

    I think Tim and I are in agreement that nature is not an object. If there is no top (or bottom) object in OOO, then it cannot be a closed system. But this was my view all along. Tom, how do you consider OOO to be a closed ontology? Am I missing something?


  6. plasticbodies says:

    Oh, I didn’t mean to say definitively that OOO is or is not closed, any variant of it. If I did, I retract and remain neutral. However, whenever this discussion comes up I think about the notion of _involution_ that we find in Deleuze which, to my mind, is a way of thinking closure without sacrificing creativity and change. Perhaps Levi could say more here.

  7. Jason Hills says:


    As I speculated about closure, I will respond, as you have the hypothesis incorrect. I did not say that “reality” is closed, but I speculated the consequences of the causal closure of Peircean secondness (activity and existence). There are two other modalities of being that I did not presume were closed, and thus we could not say that being (reality) is closed. This is the short version, but it means that you misunderstand my hypothesis.

    The issue, as I discuss, is that there must be some kind of immanent “closure” to give order to the cosmos. Otherwise, we would have chaos. Please note that if you read my post and comments at it will explain more, including the mathematical concept of closure used. There is no “top object” in this kind of closure, but there is a boundary, and I meant to suggest the causal closure of secondness implied the closure of natural forces.

    Moreover, this really matters for the divine logos per theodicy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s