@alexandra de leon: fantastic reply! A revolution in the footnotes indeed! I came here thinking that "Humankind" could be on my 2018 reading list -- now I've got works by Todd, Vivero de Castros and Santos-Granero jumping the queue. thank you.

There will always be work that has come before, some ideas infiltrate our spheres without being linked to the people who have first expressed them. but this happens naturally and I don't see why there is anything wrong with popularising the more obscure parts of politics and philosophy...

quite respectfully, nothing happens "naturally". nature itself, as Morton has said in the past, isn't real. or rather, there it nothing natural about Nature any longer, if there ever was to begin with.

Gregory Whitmore "Humankind" by?

How so? Just out of interest. I used to study Eagleton, especially his book ideology.

Yes, exactly what I was asking myself. And surely, a more faithful representation of the phrase's intention.

i guess im asking randomly but does anybody know a method to get back into an Instagram account? I was stupid forgot my password. I would appreciate any tricks you can offer me.

@David Mark Instablaster ;)

@Jon Russell I really appreciate your reply. I found the site through google and im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.

@Jon Russell it worked and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy! Thank you so much you saved my ass !

@David Mark glad I could help xD

@@DM-ks1pj the Heidegger is the ontology. Object oriented ontology was developed by Graham Harman from Heidegger's analysis of "tool being" in being and time. Idk about the buddhism part. Pantheism maybe, but that is in no way synonymous with buddhism

@Space Monkey Alfred north Whitehead

@Space Monkey but yeah, you're right.

I hope you're not a comedian because that last line was seriously not funny. Hold on, I think... I'm... giggling (?)

The first time he is stating what he thinks. The second time he is talking about the IDEA that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. I don't understand why you seem so angry.

And this is what you ask after going through the entire interview?

Einstein also (apparently) said "If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize." Your comment says more about you than about Morton.

This makes absolutely no sense

You seem to be trying to get at something which I think I know, I just don't know what it is specifically. I would agree that hierarchies are needed in a society that is larger than a tribe, that is why I believe that the State is important, but I don't really see how this connects to personality differences. A state is ignorant of personalities and by extension Law should also remain ignorant of personalities. A differentiated hierarchy is by no means simply a difference in personalities and a hypothetical hierarchy based on personality differences is not why rule is established, hierarchy is not simply rule. This is fallacious and historically inaccurate. "precluding the egalitarian democracy which grounds Anarchism and modern Marxism" This is just false. There's potentiality in Marx, hence why he believes that human knowledge and its productive forces remain repressed (alienated) in a capitalist society and only with a communist society will we enter into what he called the kingdom (or reign) of freedom for leveling the material conditions of humanity. "As for the political differences required of human governance, the Hindu caste system gives a powerful hint! However, Morton remains utterly confused because of his belief in Big Bang creationism" Lmao. I love this, it sounds so crazy, but it would seem that you believe the Big Bang seems to provide some sort of ontological equality instead of the ontological grounding of difference you seem to long for above, and you consider this a confusion of some sorts. I agree that the Big Bang is itself a crazy proposal which physicists still can't explain in best terms, but non the less I believe that we should follow scientists here on these sort of developments. Labelling the Big Bang "creationism" is not really a term that supports the idea of his being confused. And returning to the grounding of difference in ontology topic, of course you don't provide an argument on why this arises. I would suppose that the notion of multiplicity could serve this well and is functioning at a certain level. And again, even entertaining the idea of ontological grounding of difference wouldn't imply at all a certain "o-d therefore personality difference - therefore hierarchy" talk about a huge non sequitur and poor grasp of the notion of " the ontological grounding of difference". And if any, the Hindu caste system would be a very poor example, there are many Indians, specially the so called untouchables (the non-humans), those who are at the end of the caste (out of the cupola), and they are the main ones challenging and denouncing the inequalities and oppression they experience. This fact just serves the idea that no social or political system is without a certain level of instability and challenging, class conflict here again is the Real (in the lacanian sense) of politics. The "excess" is not something you give its place in society, but it is at the very core of the structure which challenges the structure. The Hindu caste system is not a future model of stability, but could be a future model of class politics. I would suggest that next time you should at least develop your arguments minimally instead of jumping around, this style implies schizophrenia or non philosophical training.

Thanks for contributing to nothing