Talk:Speculative realism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notability[edit]

I added the notability tag because I'd like to see more third party sources asserting that this is a significant concept. Cjs2111 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

- This is an attack on a controversial but important philosophical current. The many books published on the topic are surely sufficient for notability. Likewise, the importance should be elevated. --Quinn d (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Basis for the concept is that it's referred to in several other articles. See "Ray Brassier", "Graham Harman", "Quentin Meillassoux". If those are worthy of inclusion based on third-party references, then so should be the group to which they belong. Try googling "speculative realism" and see what comes up, or try the authors.FreddieSpell (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As a student of continental philosophy, I just want to say this is a significant subject which is causing much buzz in this work - it seems to represent a very radical turn. To remove it from wikipedia would be a huge mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.46.177 (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


This page was vandalised, but I've corrected it. Someone added derisive comments in brackets, criticisms by a non-existent thinker, and references to two further obviously non-existent thinkers. The user account doesn't appear to exist any more though --62.56.71.33 (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added substantially to the page, including a working bibliography (though it should be noted that the literature on SR and by those within the movement is growing rapidly, with several books set to appear over the next year or two). I believe the literature produced by the four core members of the movement is enough to show its significance and am therefore going to remove the notability tag. It shows that this is a significant trend in contemporary philosophy and certainly worthy of its own page. Zorio (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph on Meillassoux is quite well-articulated, but the second paragraph strikes me as a little biased. Meillassoux definitely argues that we should take Hume's problem of induction seriously, but I wouldn't call this a return to Hume (Hume, like Kant, sought a way to get beyond the problem of induction, but Meillassoux wants to make this problem the central fact of his philosophy). Also, it is a bit misleading to say that Meillassoux rejects physical laws - this is liable to be misinterpreted. Meillassoux doesn't deny that our observable universe is organized in a certain way that has been amply studied and well-characterized by science. What he rejects is the assertion that these apparent physical laws must necessarily remain as they are, or that there must be a necessary cause if they are to change at some point (which would merely imply another "higher level" set of physical laws). He sees such an assertion as unjustified on the basis of non-contradictory reason.129.64.222.92 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I should have clarified M's position on physical laws. I have attempted to correct this. I still think M's general project remains very Humean however and have left that line. I see Meillassoux as essentially making similar claims as Kant did on Hume or Hegel did on Kant, that is, showing how the former didn't quite go far enough. This is why it is a "return" to Hume, in the same way that Hegel was doing a "return to Kant." I take this to be the point of M's emphasis on "the Humean a priori" over the Kantian for instance. Much of the fourth chapter of AF follows this logic, that the position of absolute contingency follows from the Humean problem of causality, that there is no logical reason to suppose things are not radically contingent and that, in fact, reason tells us (following Hume) that "the same cause may actually bring about 'a hundred different events' (and even many more)" (AF 90). I would appreciate some clarification however if you feel this is a mistake. Zorio (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I like that it is now qualified as a rejection of the "necessity" of physical laws - I think that has less room for misinterpretation. And perhaps you are right about calling it a return to Hume - I'd like to hear what others think on this. 129.64.198.37 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

I know nothing about speculative realism, and the first sentence, telling me where the term derives from, is useless. The first sentence should tell me, as succinctly and clearly as possible, what speculative realism is. — Hugh 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added this: "Speculative Realism is an emerging movement in contemporary philosophy which defines itself loosely in its stance of metaphysical realism against the dominant forms of post-Kantian philosophy or what it terms correlationism." How does this sound to you? Zorio (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks! :) — Hugh 03:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

I have made an effort to clean up the few references in-text, adding a proper reference section to the article. I have also added a couple of references to the sections on Speculative Materialism and Transcendental Nihilism. It would be great if others could expand the article in this fashion, adding quotes with proper references or simply citing the relevant sections and adding them to the reference section. I think we have a great start to this article, but need to clean it up and further conform it to Wikipedia standards, which means references! — Zorio (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

- I'm removing the warning against self-published references, since there is no evidence of this, and there is no discussion on the talk page. --Quinn d (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits[edit]

There is no reason nor evidence to suggest that speculative realism is defunct; the tone of previous versions has been pejorative and dismissive. Evidence to the contrary? EastCoast1111 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the dig at Graham Harman and his blog is not relevant, and comments such as "Unfortunately, nothing really came out of it as the movement was dead before anyone could really figure out what exactly was this peculiar "speculative realism" philosophy." are not NPOV. EastCoast1111 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyclonopedia[edit]

should any referance be made to Cyclonopedia and its connection to Speculative realism ? Krbrowning (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be great if someone could write something about Reza and Cyclonopedia. I still haven't had a chance to read the book and would greatly appreciate some outside contributions here! Zorio (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Suitability of "Controversy regarding the existence of a speculative realist 'movement'" section[edit]

While Brassier's comments are properly cited (in Kronos publication), the section is unnecessarily controversial. The interview with Brassier had little to do with the term "speculative realism", and there is no reason to suppose that Brassier was doing anything other than all philosophers who are labeled (c.f., Foucault's dismissal of being called a structuralist, and then later a post-structuralist, post-modernist, etc.). The movement clearly exists (see activity on the web for evidence), even if the main proponents dismiss it. This section could be collapsed into a sentence in the Internet section, noting that Brassier dismisses the term, but that considerable writing on the Internet uses the term. --Quinn d (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)