Bruno Latour’s Ontology as Technologized Berkeleianism
https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-9-68-87
Abstract
In terms of subject-centered philosophy of existential realism, the article discusses the ontological theories of George Berkeley and Bruno Latour, outlining and clarifying the conceptual relationship between the two. This relationship manifests itself: (a) in the attention that both paid to the issue of discreteness/continuity of matter and the limitations of its divisibility, (b) in their shared inclination toward nominalism and methodological affinity for the complementarity principle, (c) in an increased attention to weaker bonds of a correlation (coordination) type rather than to strong bonds of determination type, (d) in linking the above orientations to the discussion of the ontological status of the subject, who first of all is human. G. Berkeley raises human subjectivity to a level that is as high as possible within the framework of religious idealistic philosophy. Such a position is achieved through several steps: through a postulate-based prohibition of infinite divisibility of matter and tabooing reduction of the macro-world to elements of the micro-world; through a sharp delimitation of the subject from everything the subject is not; through the hypothetical assumption of solipsism, which, in fact, always remains relative; through combining solipsistic nominalism and theistic realism based on the complementarity principle. However, B. Latour minimizes man’s personal agency. This paradigm is associated with a number of others: with the assumption of the infinite divisibility of matter, at least with reducing three dimensions to one, and macro-level to micro-level; with equalizing the subject and the non-subject, humans and non-humans; with his caution to an individual as an opponent of democracy; with combining scientist nominalism and technologism of the actant-rhizome network based on the complementarity principle. Latour’s claims to non-trivial materialism and realism, if he has them, are inconsistent. An existential realist is likely to define his ontology as technologically desubjectified Berkeleianism.
About the Author
Aleksey N. Fatenkov
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksey N. Fatenkov - D.Sc. in Philosophy, Professor, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod; Professor, Privolzhsky Research Medical University (Nizhny Novgorod)
References
1. Bammé A. (2008) Wissenschaft im Wandel: Bruno Latour als Symptom. Marburg: Metropolis (in German).
2. Berkeley G. (2000a) A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. In: Berkeley G. Works (pp. 115–213). Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).
3. Berkeley G. (2000b) Siris: A Chain of Philosophical Reflexions and Inquiries Concerning the Virtues of Tar Water. In: Berkeley G. Works (pp. 431–473). Moscow: Mysl’ (Russian translation).
4. Blok A. & Jensen T.E. (2011) Bruno Latour: Hybrid Thoughts in a Hybrid World. London: Routledge.
5. Harman G. (2009) Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: re.press.
6. Latour B. (1991) Nous n’avons jamais été modernes : Essais d’anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Découverte (Russian translation: Saint Petersburg: European University at Saint Petersburg Press, 2006).
7. Latour B. (1996) On Actor-Network Theory. A Few Clarifications Plus More than a Few Complications. Soziale Welt. Vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 369–381 (Russian translation: Logos. 2017. Vol. 27, no 1, pp. 173–200).
8. Latour B. (1999a) For David Bloor… and Beyond. Study in History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 113–129 (Russian translation: Logos. 2017. Vol. 27, no 1, pp. 135–162).
9. Latour B. (1999b) On Recalling ANT. The Sociological Review. Vol. 47, no. s1, pp. 15–25 (Russian translation: Logos. 2017. Vol. 27, no 1, pp. 201–216).
10. Latour B. (1999c) Politiques de la nature. Paris: La Découverte (Russian translation: Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2018).
11. Latour B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Russian translation: Moscow: HSE University Press, 2014).
12. Miller A.S. (2013) Speculative Grace: Bruno Latour and Object-Oriented Theology. New York: Fordham University Press.
13. Pisarev A., Astakhov S., & Gavrilenko S. (2017) Actor-Network Theory: An Unfinished Assemblage. Logos. 2017. Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1–40 (in Russian).
14. Schmidgen H. (2011) Bruno Latour zur Einführung. Berlin: Junius Verlag (in German).
Review
For citations:
Fatenkov A.N. Bruno Latour’s Ontology as Technologized Berkeleianism. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2019;62(9):68-87. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-9-68-87
Email this article 