However, where the anti-realist epistemologists and the realist ontologists part ways is with respect to the thesis that questions of our access to beings is sufficient to determine what beings are. For the object-oriented ontologist, over and above questions of how we know objects there remains an important and crucial question of what it means for a being to be. This question, following Roy Bhaskar, is not, for the realist ontologist, exhausted by how we know. Likewise, while the object-oriented ontologist readily acknowledges the limitations of our knowledge, the fact that we must engage in inquiry to know any particular type of object, and so on, the realist ontologist rejects the thesis that the differences discovered in and through inquiry belong to the domain of outputs alone. Rather, the realist ontologist begins from the premise that these differences cannot be restricted to outputs alone, but rather that there must be something about the inputs, about the world that produces these differences, that is mind-independent.From this post.
There’s something beautiful and inspiring about using the limits of our knowledge as aids in seeing just how unlimited objects are. We are limited observers, there’s whole worlds we don’t have access to (yet?). What object-oriented approaches do, to my mind, is successfully knock us off our pedestals. It’s a humbling move, but one that feels more honest. And one that opens up whole new possibilities, and seems full of hope. Harman’s writing in particular helps restore wonder to the world by admitting there are interactions we’re not privy to, and what we see is just a slice, but that slice is not ALL THERE IS.
