Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO)
Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO)
复制标题
面向对象本体（OOO）
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Harman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Harman
面向对象的本体论（OOO）是艺术和人文学科中的一个知识运动，与现象学和行动者网络理论（ANT）有一定的联系。这是一种批判现实主义的立场，经常与后现代主义和批判理论的现有潮流相矛盾。OOO最著名的思想是，对象从所有直接的人类和非人类接触中“退出”，因此事物之间的关系总是间接的，必须考虑而不是理所当然的。然而，更广泛地说，OOO是一种关于两种对象（真实的，感性的）和两种性质（真实的，感性的）的理论。真实的对象和性质不能直接被思想、感知、实际使用或甚至因果关系所接近，必须通过更多的暗示手段来接近。相比之下，感官对象和性质只为其他实体而存在，无论是人还是其他实体。每一种类型的对象都与两种形式的性质中的每一种有着复杂的关系，从而产生了四种基本的紧张关系，对这种紧张关系的分析是面向对象方法在各个领域的核心，而不仅仅是在文学领域。OOO文学理论对怪异有着特殊的偏爱：尤其是霍华德菲利普斯洛夫克拉夫特的著作，他的作品被带到两个关键的本体论紧张局势中。但丁和埃德加爱伦坡也是OOO的关键人物，因为他们的方式戏剧性地投资他们的人物和读者与对象的真诚关系。OOO与伊曼努尔·康德的形式主义美学的关系是矛盾的，因为康德因将审美对象与其周围环境切断而受到钦佩，但因其现代主义假设而受到挑战，即人类和非人类永远不能混合。
Object-oriented ontology (OOO) is an intellectual movement in the arts and humanities sharing certain affinities with both phenomenology and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). It is a philosophically realist position often at odds with existing currents in postmodernism and critical theory. The best-known idea of OOO is that objects “withdraw” from all direct human and non-human contact, so that relations between things are always indirect and must be accounted for rather than taken for granted. More broadly speaking, however, OOO is a theory of two kinds of objects (real, sensual) and two kinds of qualities (real, sensual). Real objects and qualities are not directly accessible to thought, perception, practical use, or even causal relation, and must be approached by more allusive means. Sensual objects and qualities, by contrast, exist only for some other entity, human or otherwise. Each type of object has troubled relations with each of the two forms of qualities, resulting in four basic tensions, the analysis of which is the heart of object-oriented method in every field and not just literature. OOO literary theory has a special fondness for the weird: especially the writings of Howard Phillips Lovecraft, whose work is taken to exemplify two of the key ontological tensions. Dante and Edgar Allan Poe are also key OOO figures, due to their manner of theatrically investing their characters and readers in sincere relations with objects. OOO’s relation with the formalist aesthetics of Immanuel Kant is ambivalent, since Kant is admired for cutting off the aesthetic object from its surroundings but challenged for his modernist assumption that the human and non-human must never be mixed.