I think some of us here are curious to know
more about how you position yourself in light
of not characterising yourself in the humanist
tradition, how you see yourself in light of
the more recent popularity of post-humanist
theory, new materialism's object-oriented
ontology.
This is a nice problem because I am of course,
although I appreciate some of them.
They are not stupid, by far not.
But I think that precisely, and that's my
big, I had a couple of debates with the new
star of this orientation, Graham Harman, and
so on.
They are for me way too, in some sense, even
if they are against this centred-on-subjectivity
humanism.
But nonetheless I think, this dimension that
I was talking about, the dimension of this
radical negativity, zero, potential destruction,
death drive, disappears there.
Their world is a world of objects.
So, my, when I had the debate with Graham
Harman, and he claims subject is just one
among objects, maybe more powerful but nonetheless,
and so on.
I claim no, subject is not this.
It's not that I think subject is an all-powerful
entity, mega-object, no, subject is some,
almost nothing.
A vanishing entity, pure appearance and so
on.
But it's not, subject is not an object like
others.
And this is why also the Freudian unconscious
is not an objective determination of my being.
So, but I've written a lot about it, this
settling the accounts with, with this new
object-oriented ontology and so on and so
on.
You know because, sorry, just this, because
I think that I am here, I agree with them,
with object-oriented ontologists, that we
should somehow get over the standard Kantian
transcendental horizon.
But for me what they do is simply a massive
return to old realist ontology.
And for me this is way too arrogant.
I am not ready to do that step.
