Speculative Realism
Discussion
Speculative Realism and the Blockchain
Sasha Shilina:
"Speculative realism is a movement in contemporary Continental-inspired philosophy that emerged in the early XXI century, challenging traditional philosophical assumptions and the dominant trends in Continental philosophy, as well as exploring ontological questions about the nature of reality. Speculative realism takes its name from a conference held at Goldsmiths College, University of London in April 2007.
Speculative realism broadly positions itself as a proponent of metaphysical realism, contrasting with what it perceives as the prevailing trends of post-Kantian philosophy, which it refers to as “correlationism”, which the French philosopher and one of four main contributors, Quentin Meillassoux (2008) define as “the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other”.
Speculative realists, who often disagree with each other on basic philosophical issues, are united by criticism of the philosophy of human finitude, a tradition dating back to Immanuel Kant. What unites the movement’s four main contributors Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, Iain Hamilton Grant, and Graham Harman is an attempt to overcome both “correlationism” and privileged “philosophies of access” — philosophies that privilege the human being over other entities.
While speculative realism and blockchain may not have direct connections, we can examine potential parallels and implications when considering their intersection.
At first glance, what unites these phenomena is their non-anthropocentric respective. Speculative realism encourages a shift away from anthropocentric views and explores the existence and agency of non-human entities. It criticizes correlationism and related philosophies. For speculative realists, both ideas represent forms of anthropocentrism. Similarly, blockchain technology is a technology that operates on machines and decentralized networks that prioritize the collective validation and verification of transactions, reducing reliance on human authorities. This decentralization aligns with the non-anthropocentric perspectives of speculative realism, emphasizing the importance of non-human actors and distributed agency.
Speculative realism acknowledges the radical contingency and uncertainty of the world. Similarly, blockchain embraces the concept of distributed consensus, where multiple participants validate and agree upon the state of the ledger. The decentralized nature of blockchain introduces an element of contingency and unpredictability, as the consensus process involves negotiation and continuous adaptation. On the other hand, it can be quite predictable because consensus rules are transparent.
As for epistemological considerations, speculative realism engages with questions of knowledge, perception, and reality. Blockchain, with its transparent and auditable ledger, can contribute to the epistemological exploration of trust and verification in digital environments. The immutability and transparency of blockchain records offer new possibilities for understanding and evaluating the provenance and authenticity of information.
Finally, speculative realism and blockchain may have parallels while considering decentralized governance and trust. Speculative realism challenges traditional notions of authority and hierarchical structures. Blockchain technology, by enabling decentralized governance models and eliminating the need for intermediaries, aligns with the ethos of non-hierarchical and distributed power structures. The self-executing smart contracts and DAOs built on blockchain can provide new avenues for exploring alternative modes of governance and trust."
Object-oriented ontology (OOO)
Sasha Shilina:
Object-oriented ontology (OOO), a branch of speculative realism, is a philosophical movement that emphasizes the existence and interactions of objects as independent entities with their own reality, regardless of human perception. The term “object-oriented philosophy” was coined by Graham Harman, the movement’s founder, in his doctoral dissertation “Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects” (1999). In 2009, Levi Bryant rephrased Harman’s original designation as “object-oriented ontology”, giving the movement its current name.
One way in which OOO may intersect with blockchain is through the concept of distributed agency. In the context of blockchain, this refers to the ways in which digital objects, such as smart contracts and decentralized networks, can act autonomously and make decisions without human intervention.
From an OOO perspective, blockchain can be seen as a network of objects that interact and affect each other within a decentralized system. Each block in the blockchain can be understood as an object that contains information about a specific transaction or data entry. These objects exist independently and interact through the process of validation and consensus within the blockchain network.
OOO also emphasizes the idea that objects have their own intrinsic properties and qualities, which can be extended to the blockchain. In a blockchain system, each object (block) contains a unique set of data and cryptographic signatures that make it distinct from others. This uniqueness and individuality align with the OOO notion that objects have their own reality and qualities.
Additionally, OOO posits that objects are withdrawn from direct access and can only be perceived through their interactions with other objects. Similarly, in blockchain, the information is immutable and can only be accessed and verified through the consensus of the network participants. This decentralized nature of blockchain aligns with the OOO idea that objects interact with each other without the need for a human observer.
American philosopher Graham Harman is a central figure in OOO. While Harman’s philosophy does not directly address blockchain technology, we can explore some possible connections and considerations between OOO and blockchain.
One way to approach this connection is through the lens of how blockchain technology operates. Blockchain’s decentralized nature aligns with Harman’s emphasis on the autonomous existence of objects and their interactions without the need for human intervention.
From an OOO perspective, one can argue that blockchain technology treats digital assets or transactions as discrete objects with their own reality. Each block in the blockchain can be seen as an object that interacts with other objects through the process of validation and verification. These objects, in the form of transactions or data entries, exist independently and are connected through their interactions within the blockchain system.
Furthermore, blockchain technology can be seen as providing a platform for a multiplicity of objects to interact and affect each other without privileging anyone. The consensus mechanisms used in blockchain systems involve the participation and agreement of multiple nodes or participants. This decentralized consensus aligns with Harman’s idea of a network of objects, where no single object holds a privileged position or complete knowledge of the whole system.
The second central figure of OOO is the American philosopher Levi Bryant. His own version of object-oriented thought, called ‘onticology’ (2011), disprivileges human experience from a central position in metaphysical inquiry while holding that objects are always split between two domains — virtuality and actuality. For Bryant, virtuality refers to the powers and potential of any given object, whereas actuality designates the qualities manifested by the actualization of an object’s potential at any given point in time. Here we can refer to the Web3 concept of the metaverse. Later Bryant, concerned with the doctrine of withdrawal and the non-relationism of object-oriented philosophy, departed from the OOO movement and developed a machine-oriented ontology that argues being is composed entirely of machines or processes.
English philosopher Timothy Morton, a prominent OOO thinker, also has written extensively about the relationship between humans and non-human objects. In his book, “Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World” (2013), he suggests that we need new ways of thinking about human relationships with technology in order to address the ecological crises facing our planet. Morton’s use of the term ‘hyperobjects’ was inspired by Björk’s 1996 single ‘Hyperballad’, although the term ‘Hyper-objects’ (denoting n-dimensional non-local entities) has also been used in computer science since 1967. Morton employed the term to describe objects that are so massively distributed in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal specificity. In the context of blockchain, we may see blockchains as distributed networks that in the case of PoW heavily affect our environment. On the other hand, blockchain technology has the potential to intersect with ecological concerns and contribute to sustainability efforts in various ways, including the tracking of carbon footprints, or environmental data management, to name a few.
However, it is important to note that Harman, Bryant, and Morton themselves have not explicitly discussed or applied his philosophy to the blockchain. While connections can be drawn between OOO and blockchain concepts, these connections should be understood as speculative and interpretive."
More information
- Speculative Materialism and its relation to the blockchain.