kritik av aktualismen
"There is nothing on earth but the actual if we push Whitehead's principle a bit further than Whitehead did (by dumping the 'eternal objects'), and I gladly join Latour in doing so. There is nothing wrong with 'actualism'."
(Prince of networks s.130)
"There is a tendency today in nearly all the sciences towards "actuality" theories. But, if analyzed carefully, such theories will necessarily yield potential elements. In all things there are capacities for further development and evolution, forces and aptitudes which come to be utilized little by little. In scholastic terminology these are now real, but not actual. They exist only as potentiae, which, to manifest themselves, await the proper actualization."
-wikipedia, actus et potentia
Den aktualism som beskrivs i Stanfords encyclopedia of philosophy tycks vara en ganska mjuk aktualism som bara vänder sej emot långtgående potentialism med hela alternativa världar. Icke desto mindre tycks även en sån svag aktualism ha påtagliga problem.
Ju bättre fungerande någon aktualism tycks vara, desto mer smygpotentialistisk tycks den vara.
Harmans tillbakadragna substanser tycks inte vara mycket mer än ren potentialitet. vilket kanske kan förklara att han tycker sej klara sej bra utan Whiteheads eternal objects, som fungerar som potentialiteter för whitehead.
Potentialiteter kan även ha något att göra med Harmans "dormant objects".
Latours aktualism tycks framförallt handla om att all förändring kostar. En aktant äger ingen automatisk tillgång till något annat tillstånd än det aktuella, utan att förhandla med andra aktanter. Annorlunda uttryckt finns potentialiteterna för Latour i relationerna. Men de finns.
"The unreal is more powerful than the real, because nothing is as perfect as you can imagine it. because its only intangible ideas, concepts, beliefs, fantasies that last. stone crumbles. wood rots. people, well, they die. but things as fragile as a thought, a dream, a legend, they can go on and on."
- Chuck Palahniuk
andra bloggar om
filosofi, aktualism, OOO, Whitehead, Harman,
Actualism is the major site where the ontology I propose (onticology) and the ontology Graham proposes diverge. I argue that all objects are replete with potentialities and only ever actualize or manifest a subset of their powers, whereas Harman argues that all objects are thoroughly actual. Where Latour (and I assume Graham) argue that the concept of potentiality is the original sin of philosophy, I believe that actualism is the root metaphysical assumption from whence philosophy’s problems arise.
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/regimes-of-attraction/