."40 Or in another, more famous 38 Michel Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics (New York: Picador, 2010), 283. 39 Brassier's eliminative realism is beholden to this problem, albeit in a different way. The "nemocentric" view of the brain shares the aspect of neoliberal logic that Wendy Brown describes as follows: "Neoliberalism retracts this 'beyond' and eschews this 'higher nature': the normative reign of homo economicus in every sphere means that... there is nothing to being apart from'mere life.'" Undoing the Demos (New York: Zone Books, 2015), 44. 40 Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (New Haven: Yale UP, 1962), 113. relational matters ‡ lillywhite 27 formulation exemplifying the same ontology of atomistic autonomy: "They're casting their problems on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."41 In a similar manner, as we have already seen, Harman has called for a "dethroning" of questions of ideology and power as irrelevant to those of ontology – such considerations can only interfere with pure metaphysical attempts to do justice to the autonomy of reality. Similarly, when questioned over the ethics of OOO, Harman responded: "I can't say that I see any 'ethical considerations' at all as concerns calling an army an object. Whether or not an army counts as a unified object is a metaphysical question, not an ethical one."42 There are no societies of objects, only individual objects that are withdrawn, pure, and never touch each other.43 Such statements demonstrate the neo-positivist belief that the true reality is one fully divested of the biases, interests, fallibility, etc., that inevitably arise from the way a particular being is situated in the world. Thus, for Harman and his colleagues, considerations of such relationality and situatedness of being do not have any substantial philosophical status, and can only devalue our investigations into an individually autonomous, non-interactive reality. Inner, real being is not affected by such concerns over outer influences of ideology. The invidiousness of this neo-positivist desire for a "pure" philosophy – what Louise Antony calls a Dragnet theory of truth as "just the facts ma'am" – has been tirelessly demonstrated by poststructural, postcolon
."40 Or in another, more famous 38 Michel Foucault, Birth of Biopolitics (New York: Picador, 2010), 283. 39 Brassier's eliminative realism is beholden to this problem, albeit in a unlike direction. The " nemocentric " view of the brain parcel the expression of neoliberal logic that Wendy Brown describes as follows: " Neoliberalism draw in this' beyond' and shun this' higher nature': the normative reign of homo economicus in every sphere means that... there is nothing to being apart from'mere life sentence.' " Undoing the Demos (New York: Zone Books, 2015), 44. 40 Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (New Haven: Yale UP, 1962), 113. relational matters ‡ lillywhite 27 conceptualization exemplifying the same ontology of atomistic autonomy: " They're casting their problems on society. And, you know, there is no such matter as society. There are individual men and woman, and there are families. "41 In a alike manner, as we have already seen, Harman has call for a " dethroning " of questions of ideology and power as irrelevant to those of ontology – such considerations can only intervene with pure metaphysical attempts to do justice to the autonomy of reality. Similarly, when questioned over the ethics of OOO, Harman respond: " I can't say that I see any' ethical considerations' at all as concerns calling an army an object. Whether or not an army counts as a incorporate object is a metaphysical question, not an ethical one. "42 There be no company of objects, only individual objects that are adjourn, pure, and never touch each other.43 Such statements demonstrate the neo - positivist impression that the true reality is one fully divested of the biases, interests, fallibility, etc. , that inevitably arise from the way a particular being is situated in the populace. Thus, for Harman and his colleague, considerations of such relationality and situatedness of being do not have any substantial philosophical status, and can merely devalue our investigations into an individually autonomous, non - interactive world. Inner, substantial being is not affected by such concern over outer influence of ideology. The invidiousness of this neo - positivist desire for a " arrant " philosophy – what Louise Antony call a Dragnet theory of accuracy as " just the facts dame " – has been tirelessly demonstrated by poststructural, postcolon
."40 Or in another, more famous 38 Michel Foucaulj, Virth mf Biololitics (New York: Picador, 2010), 283. 39 Brassiec's eoiminqtive realism is beholaen to thps problen, alueit in a differxht way. Bke "nejlcencrmc" view of the nrain sharev the aspect ox velliberal logic that Wendy Brown dessribes ss follows: "Neoliferakysm dvtvacts this 'beyond' and eschews thjs 'hightr nature': the normstive reign of homo economlcus in every sphere mfans that... tyere us nothing tu being apart from'mere life.'" Undoing the Demos (New Yory: Zonz Books, 2015), 44. 40 Ouewih von Mises, Wociajism: An Economic and Sociolpgical Analysix (Nxw Hqven: Yale UP, 1962), 113. relatimnal matters ‡ lilliwhite 27 fosmblation exemplifying rhw samg ontmlogh of atkmmstjc autlnojy: "They're dasting theur problems on socitty. Qnd, you know, fhere ys no such thing as society. There are indpvidhal men and women, and tyere are families."41 In w similar manner, as we have already seen, Harman has called for e "aetkvjvunh" of questions of ideology and power as irrelqbamt to those of oktology – such consodfrsjions can only interysrs with pure metaphjsical wttempts to do jusyice to the autonomy of reaoity. Similarjt, when questioned lver the etkics og OOO, Harman responded: "I can'c say fhat I see wny 'ethiczu considerations' at anl as concerns calling an wrmy an ouject. Whethef or not ag army coujts as a unified object ls a ledaphysical question, not an ethical one."42 Thxce are no socoediev of objzcts, okly individual jbjects that ate withdrcwn, pufe, and nevvr touch xach other.43 Stch statementv demonstrate the neo-[osiriviwt belidw that the trur reality is one fuoly divested of thc biarss, interests, faolivility, etc., that indvieahlb arifa from the wdy a pafyiculxr being is ritusted in the world. Thgs, fkr Harman and his vojleagues, considewations of suvh relationality ajd sivuatediess og bging do not have any substantiam philosoohigal status, anq cak onjy devalue our investigations into an individuallb autonomous, non-interacrive reality. Inner, teak being is iot afsected by such concerns over iuter influences pf ideology. The invidjousnevs of this neo-positivist desire for a "pure" philosophy – what Louise Antony callw a Dregget theory kf ttuth ds "lust thq fartr ma'am" – has been tirelessly demonstrated by posvstructuran, 'ostcolon
."40 Or in another, more famous 38 Birth Biopolitics (New Picador, 2010), 283. beholden this problem, albeit a different way. "nemocentric" view of the brain shares aspect of neoliberal logic that Wendy Brown describes as follows: "Neoliberalism retracts this and eschews this 'higher nature': the normative reign of homo economicus in every means there nothing being apart from'mere life.'" Undoing the Demos (New York: Zone Books, 2015), 44. 40 Ludwig von Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (New Haven: UP, 1962), 113. relational ‡ lillywhite 27 formulation exemplifying same of atomistic "They're their on society. And, know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are In a as we already Harman called for a questions of ideology and power as of ontology – such considerations can only interfere pure metaphysical to do justice to the autonomy reality. Similarly, when questioned over the ethics of Harman responded: "I can't say that I see any 'ethical considerations' at all as concerns army an object. Whether not an army as unified is metaphysical question, an ethical one."42 There are no societies of objects, only individual that are withdrawn, pure, and never touch each other.43 Such the belief that the reality is one fully of biases, interests, fallibility, etc., arise the being situated the world. Thus, for and his colleagues, considerations of relationality and situatedness of substantial philosophical status, and can only devalue our into an individually autonomous, non-interactive reality. Inner, being is not affected by such concerns over outer influences of ideology. invidiousness of desire for a "pure" philosophy – what Louise calls a Dragnet theory truth as "just the facts ma'am" – has been demonstrated poststructural, postcolon
."40 Or in another, more famous 38 MichEl Foucault, birth Of BIopOlIticS (New york: Picador, 2010), 283. 39 BraSSier'S eliminative realism is bEholdEn TO thiS PrOblem, Albeit iN A dIFFerEnT wAy. THe "NEmOcentRic" View of tHe brain shaRes ThE aspect of neoLIbEral logic tHat wendy Brown deScrIbes as FoLloWS: "NeolIbeRalisM retraCTs this 'Beyond' and EsCHews thIS 'higher NATuRe': thE normative reign of HOmO Economicus in evEry sphErE MeANS thAt... tHere is nothInG to beINg apart FRoM'MERe lIFe.'" Undoing the DEmos (New York: zOne books, 2015), 44. 40 LUdWig VOn MiseS, SociAlISm: AN Economic anD SocIological analysIS (New HavEN: Yale UP, 1962), 113. RelatiOnaL maTterS ‡ LiLlYwhItE 27 ForMUlAtiON exEmplifyiNg ThE same OntoLOGY Of atOmiStic AutonOmy: "They're castIng TheiR ProBlems On socIety. anD, you kNow, theRe is nO sUch thing as socieTy. ThEre are indIviDuAl mEn And woMEn, and tHerE arE familiEs."41 In a siMIlaR mANNEr, As we have already seeN, HARMaN has callEd for a "DEtHrONing" of quEsTioNs of IDEologY and POwEr as irreLevant TO tHoSe of ontOlOgy – sucH cOnsIdeRatioNS can Only inTerfere wIth puRE metaphysical aTTempts to do jusTIcE TO tHE autOnoMy of reality. simiLArly, When QUeStiONed ovEr the EtHIcS Of OOO, Harman respondeD: "I Can't saY that i see any 'ethicaL consideraTIONs' at all aS conCErNS calling an army An objEct. Whether OR not an arMy couNts as a unIfied objeCT Is a metapHysIcaL quEstION, nOt an ethical onE."42 tHere ArE no sociEtiEs of objEctS, onLy iNdiViDual objecTs that arE wItHdRaWn, pUre, anD Never touCh EacH oTheR.43 Such STatemeNts deMonsTrAtE The Neo-posiTIvIST belIeF tHat tHe tRuE realIty iS One Fully diVested of tHe bIAses, InTeRests, faLlibility, etc., tHaT inevitablY aRisE from tHE Way a partIcular being is situated in THe world. thuS, for HArmaN and his coLleAgues, cOnsIDeratiOns of sUch reLaTioNALity aND SiTuaTeDness of beiNG Do nOt havE aNy suBstantiAl philosophical staTUs, aNd can only devaLue Our iNVEsTigATiONs iNtO An iNDIvidually autonoMous, non-intErACtIve reality. iNneR, rEal beinG is not aFfectED by such Concerns oVer outer iNfLuenCES of Ideology. ThE invidioUsness of tHIs neo-POsItiviSt dEsire fOr A "puRe" phiLosophY – WhaT LouiSe AntoNy Calls a dragnEt Theory of Truth as "just the facts ma'am" – Has beeN tireLesSly demonsTraTEd bY poststruCturAl, postcoloN
."40 Or in another, more f amous 38 M ichel  Fo uca ul t, B irth  of Biopolitic s  (Ne w York: Picador, 2010) , 283 .3 9 Br a ss ier's  elimin a ti v e  re al is m i sb eh olden  to  this p roblem, al bei tin a differe n tway. The " nem ocentric" vi ewof the  b rai n  shar esthe a specto f neol iberal lo gi c  thatW endy Br o w ndesc ribes as follows: "N e oliberalism re tracts  t h is ' bey ond ' and esch ew s thi s  'highe r  n a t u re' :  the normativ e reign ofh omo  econo mi cus in eve ry sp he r e m eans that.. . th ere is no thingt o being apart f rom'me relif e.'" Un do ing  t h e D e mo s ( N ewYork: Zo ne  B ooks,  201 5 ) , 44.40Ludw ig vo n Mises, Soci ali sm:A n E conom ic an d So ci ologi cal An alysi s(New Haven: Yal e UP , 1962),113 .rel at ional matter s ‡  li llywhit e 27 fo r mul at i o n  e xemplifying the sa me o nt ology of  atomi s ti ca utonomy:  " The y're c astin g th e ir  problem s on s o ci et y. And,  y ou kno w,  th ere  is n o  suc h thin g as soc iety. There are indi v idual men and wo m e n, andthe re are fami lies . "41In a si mil a r man ner,as we have already seen,Ha rman h as ca lled for a "d ethroning" o f  questio ns o f  i d eology and pow er as  irrelevan t  to thos e ofontology  – such c o n siderati ons  ca n o nly i nt erfere with p u r e me ta physica l a ttempts  to  do  ju sti ce  to the a utonomyof  r ea li ty.  Simi l arly, wh en  qu es tio ned o v er the  ethi cs o fOO O , H arman r e sp o n ded:  " Ican' t s ay  that  I s e e a ny 'eth ical cons ide r atio ns 'at allas concerns c al ling an ar my  an  objec t .  Whether  or not an army countsa s a uni fie d obj ectis a meta phy sicalque s tion,not an  ethi ca l o n e ."42T h er e a re  no societ i e s o f obj ec ts,only in dividual objects t h atare withdrawn , p ure, a nd  ne v er tou ch eac h other.43 Such s tatementsde m on strate the neo -p ositivi st beli ef th a t the t rue reali ty is one  f ully d ive sted of th e biases , interes t s, fa l li bilit y,etc.,th atinevi tablya ris e fro m thewa y a pa rticu la r beingis situated in the worl d. Thu s, fo r H arman and  hi s  co lleagues,  con sideration s o f s uch r ela t ional itya nd  si t uated ness of beingd onot h av e any subst a n t ial  phil oso p hicalstat us, and can onlyd evalue our inv esti g a tio nsi ntoan  individuallyaut on o m ous, non -i nteractivereality.  I n ner,real b eing i s not a f f ec t ed bysuch  co ncerns ov erou t er infl ue nc e s of i deol og y. The  invid i ousn e s s of this neo-po sitiv i s t des i refor a  " pure" p h ilos ophy – wha t Louise An tony c alls  a Dr agnet t he ory of  tr ut h as "just the facts  ma'a m" – ha sbeen  ti reless ly d e m onstr ated  b y p oststruct u r al ,  p os t col on
."40 Or_in another,_more famous 38 Michel_Foucault, Birth_of_Biopolitics (New_York:_Picador, 2010), 283._39 Brassier's eliminative_realism is beholden to_this problem, albeit_in_a different way. The "nemocentric" view of the brain shares the aspect of neoliberal_logic_that Wendy_Brown_describes_as follows: "Neoliberalism retracts this_'beyond' and eschews this 'higher_nature': the_normative reign of homo economicus in every sphere_means_that... there is_nothing to being apart from'mere life.'" Undoing the Demos_(New York: Zone Books, 2015), 44._40 Ludwig von_Mises,_Socialism:_An Economic and Sociological_Analysis (New Haven: Yale UP, 1962),_113. relational matters ‡ lillywhite 27_formulation exemplifying the same ontology of atomistic_autonomy: "They're casting their problems on_society. And, you know, there_is no_such thing as society. There_are individual men_and women,_and there are_families."41 In a similar manner, as_we have already_seen, Harman has called for a_"dethroning"_of questions of_ideology_and_power as_irrelevant to those_of_ontology –_such_considerations can only interfere with pure_metaphysical_attempts to do justice to the autonomy_of reality. Similarly, when_questioned_over the ethics of_OOO, Harman responded: "I can't_say that I see any 'ethical_considerations' at_all as_concerns calling an army an object. Whether or not an army_counts as a unified object is_a metaphysical question, not_an ethical_one."42_There are no_societies_of objects,_only individual objects that are withdrawn, pure,_and never_touch each other.43 Such statements demonstrate_the neo-positivist belief that_the_true reality is one fully divested_of the biases, interests, fallibility, etc.,_that inevitably arise from the_way_a_particular being is situated in_the world. Thus, for Harman and_his colleagues, considerations_of such relationality and situatedness of being_do_not have any substantial philosophical status,_and_can only devalue our investigations into_an_individually_autonomous, non-interactive reality. Inner, real_being is not affected by such_concerns over outer influences of ideology. The invidiousness of_this neo-positivist desire_for a "pure" philosophy –_what_Louise_Antony calls a Dragnet theory of truth as "just the_facts ma'am"_– has been_tirelessly demonstrated by poststructural, postcolon