Abstract
This essay is part of an ongoing conversation between the authors about what happens to the university–what it is, what we do within it, and how–when we change where we stand and how we perceive reality. We draw primarily on three philosophers who see the world and reality differently: Graham Harman, Simone Weil, and Henri Bergson.
TD: The last time we met, we tried to articulate what the humanities are and why they are precious and precarious in the university and in the world.
SB: Perhaps the humanities can open up the world. Harman says that philosophy can open up the world, while the world is trying to open us up… Objects open up our being. As humans, we are fascinated with objects in the world around us–we are amazed by the unique shade of yellowness of a lemon, inspired by the air navigation of a goldsmith insect, or try to mirror the stillness and groundedness of a mountain. We are object-oriented beings. This is a different world from an anthropomorphic one where human magic or human ken can open up the world.
AG: Is it that humanities seem to approach the world through an ontology that is different from what is usually in the university–a focus on substance rather than function–on relations with things rather than the things themselves and what they do?
SB: It may be a reduction still to use relations to describe this world. For Harman, there is a withdrawal of things–the more we approach something, the more the object pulls away and becomes more alien, and we get more entangled with it–this challenges a typical ontology. This might be a little incoherent or illogical…
AG: Still, this incoherence points to a weirdness in the world and in reality, that there is an opacity in the relations between things.
SB: Things are different from each other, and cannot be reduced to the same ontology.
TD: Perhaps we are asking whether we need plural or more open ontologies than a more fixed or closed single ontology for the world?
TD: If we think from Bergson, the reality we rely on in the university does not capture reality, because it does not use real, lived, or felt time–in a living and constantly moving world. But to think inside a darker and murkier world, and to encounter things, rather than to know about them, means we have to break our intellectual habits—which is deeply uncomfortable as we have to be prepared to not know and to think by a new method.
SB: Even in the humanities, we fall into these habits, and can be focused on doing something “the right way,” narrowing what we do.
AG: A broadened ontology may give us space to do something more interesting. Sometimes we are bound to whether our methodology is correct or rigorous, limiting our freedom and creativity–a flat ontology from elsewhere, maintaining one picture of reality. Instead of trying to find a solution, we could stop looking and see what happens. The discomfort we feel is one of not knowing, but exploring still, bringing us closer to the arts and imagining other ways of seeing the world, other possible worlds.
SB: Perhaps a greater permeability of being and becoming, a more vulnerable ontology, might encourage more collaboration across disciplines, and open up the world or worlds from different dimensions. These worlds cannot be translated into each other or create a super-reality… But that’s the beauty of plural realities in the incoherence of Harmanian ontology.
SB: Perhaps the university could be a community of those with nothing in common, allowing entirely different worlds to be in the same constellation, and for us to travel between realms with different ontologies. Yes, it’s uncomfortable–to think back to Bergson–but maybe that’s what we have to do, and break our habit of enframing and creating fixed boundaries.
HN: If we do not break this habit–rather than thinking as academics, we become ideologues with fixed methodologies and ways of thinking. Yet we are limited beings, we cannot solve all the questions of the world, we cannot impose our own ontologies on other beings.
AG: Weil points us to such a mode or disposition–to frame our activities, the difficulty, and discomfort through attention or attentiveness–a quieter virtue, an ontological humility. She does not claim that our goal must be problem-solving, but speaks to us in the university who may have concern from the world, without being totally of the world. We need to “draw back before the object we are pursuing” (Weil, 2005, p. 232).
SB: Such a disposition may sit well within a university which is a world-oriented institution, resting on a plastic and open ontology. It wants to reply and become the world, not assimilate it into the narrow confines of the human mind. It is constantly tailoring its views, thinking, and concepts to the otherness and strangeness of the phenomenon studied. The university is a world-becoming.
Bergson, H. (1913). Creative evolution [Trans. A. Mitchell]. Henry Holt & Company.
Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Open Court
Weil, S. (1947/2005). “Attention and Will”, An Anthology. Penguin.
TD: The last time we met, we tried to articulate what the humanities are and why they are precious and precarious in the university and in the world.
SB: Perhaps the humanities can open up the world. Harman says that philosophy can open up the world, while the world is trying to open us up… Objects open up our being. As humans, we are fascinated with objects in the world around us–we are amazed by the unique shade of yellowness of a lemon, inspired by the air navigation of a goldsmith insect, or try to mirror the stillness and groundedness of a mountain. We are object-oriented beings. This is a different world from an anthropomorphic one where human magic or human ken can open up the world.
AG: Is it that humanities seem to approach the world through an ontology that is different from what is usually in the university–a focus on substance rather than function–on relations with things rather than the things themselves and what they do?
SB: It may be a reduction still to use relations to describe this world. For Harman, there is a withdrawal of things–the more we approach something, the more the object pulls away and becomes more alien, and we get more entangled with it–this challenges a typical ontology. This might be a little incoherent or illogical…
AG: Still, this incoherence points to a weirdness in the world and in reality, that there is an opacity in the relations between things.
SB: Things are different from each other, and cannot be reduced to the same ontology.
TD: Perhaps we are asking whether we need plural or more open ontologies than a more fixed or closed single ontology for the world?
TD: If we think from Bergson, the reality we rely on in the university does not capture reality, because it does not use real, lived, or felt time–in a living and constantly moving world. But to think inside a darker and murkier world, and to encounter things, rather than to know about them, means we have to break our intellectual habits—which is deeply uncomfortable as we have to be prepared to not know and to think by a new method.
SB: Even in the humanities, we fall into these habits, and can be focused on doing something “the right way,” narrowing what we do.
AG: A broadened ontology may give us space to do something more interesting. Sometimes we are bound to whether our methodology is correct or rigorous, limiting our freedom and creativity–a flat ontology from elsewhere, maintaining one picture of reality. Instead of trying to find a solution, we could stop looking and see what happens. The discomfort we feel is one of not knowing, but exploring still, bringing us closer to the arts and imagining other ways of seeing the world, other possible worlds.
SB: Perhaps a greater permeability of being and becoming, a more vulnerable ontology, might encourage more collaboration across disciplines, and open up the world or worlds from different dimensions. These worlds cannot be translated into each other or create a super-reality… But that’s the beauty of plural realities in the incoherence of Harmanian ontology.
SB: Perhaps the university could be a community of those with nothing in common, allowing entirely different worlds to be in the same constellation, and for us to travel between realms with different ontologies. Yes, it’s uncomfortable–to think back to Bergson–but maybe that’s what we have to do, and break our habit of enframing and creating fixed boundaries.
HN: If we do not break this habit–rather than thinking as academics, we become ideologues with fixed methodologies and ways of thinking. Yet we are limited beings, we cannot solve all the questions of the world, we cannot impose our own ontologies on other beings.
AG: Weil points us to such a mode or disposition–to frame our activities, the difficulty, and discomfort through attention or attentiveness–a quieter virtue, an ontological humility. She does not claim that our goal must be problem-solving, but speaks to us in the university who may have concern from the world, without being totally of the world. We need to “draw back before the object we are pursuing” (Weil, 2005, p. 232).
SB: Such a disposition may sit well within a university which is a world-oriented institution, resting on a plastic and open ontology. It wants to reply and become the world, not assimilate it into the narrow confines of the human mind. It is constantly tailoring its views, thinking, and concepts to the otherness and strangeness of the phenomenon studied. The university is a world-becoming.
Bergson, H. (1913). Creative evolution [Trans. A. Mitchell]. Henry Holt & Company.
Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Open Court
Weil, S. (1947/2005). “Attention and Will”, An Anthology. Penguin.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication date | Jun 2024 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2024 |
| Event | Higher Education Brought To Life: 6th Annual PaTHES Conference - Norwegian University of Science and Technology , Trondheim, Norway Duration: 11 Jun 2024 → 13 Jun 2024 Conference number: 6 https://www.ntnu.edu/ipl/higher-education-brought-to-life |
Conference
| Conference | Higher Education Brought To Life |
|---|---|
| Number | 6 |
| Location | Norwegian University of Science and Technology |
| Country/Territory | Norway |
| City | Trondheim |
| Period | 11/06/2024 → 13/06/2024 |
| Internet address |
Keywords
- Higer education
- University
- Philosophy
- Creativity
- Object-oriented ontology
- Posthumanities