I’m a big philosophy reader, and I often joke that I read mostly dead people. I’m trying to expand into more recent developments in phi, and I read a book last year that introduced (to me, at least) the idea of object-oriented ontology as the idea that the human-centered methods of understanding are only going to get us so far, and are actually contributing to certain distortions / myopias in our knowledge about the world. It reminds me a bit of Edward Sayed’s “Orientalism” but replacing the roles of occident and orient with human and nonhuman. I’m far from the brightest bulb on the string, so my understanding is very likely flawed. Can anyone recommend further reading on OOO and / or hyperobjects?
Regards,
John
Object Oriented Programming (OOP) has evolved over the years from an initial fascination with classifications, to favor shallow (sometimes non-existent) inheritance trees in favor of "composition" -- organizing objects into cooperating groups. The catch-phrase is "composition over inheritance". Or, alternatively, defining "has a" relationships over "is a" relationships. Far more useful.
I suspect this general characteristic carries over into ontological applications of object theory.
I think that the term "object-oriented" as it applies to philosophical OOO and / or hyperobjects is quite different than the term as applied to software engineering, though. However, Rudolph Carnap and perhaps other early-20th-century logical positivists did seem to describe their idea of the experiential world as a sort of metaphysical class factory. As far as I can tell from my limited reading*, though, LP and OOO are not in any meaningful way the same.
*having read 1 book on OOO and a few on LP