Speculations is Out
The first issue of Speculations is finally out, available to download in a variety of formats on the website (and, as you can see in the picture above from Thomas’ blog, you can even order a printed copy). I think that, as a whole, it is a solid collection of articles, interviews and reviews, capable of offering a comprehensive introduction to/overview of speculative realism (and in my mind the primary aim of this first issue was precisely to offer such a primer for newcomers, by presenting a taste of a spectrum of SR themes and debates) and yet capable to offer also a more properly speculative edge, looking forward to possible evolutions of the movement.
Some acknowledgements are in order. My gratitude goes first to Paul Ennis, the one who first envisioned this journal and worked hard in order to make it a reality, not letting temporary setbacks or ‘political’ quibbles emerging along the way stop him. I hope that this can be the dawn of a journal capable of becoming a place of dialogue and speculations for years to come, a shared platform onto which many different individuals (and their theoretical positions) might converge. Thanks for letting me be part of it.
Secondly, my gratitude and admiration goes to Thomas Gokey, who spent the last two months single-handedly creating the graphic layout, editing all of our papers, arranging for the journal to be available in a variety of electronic and material formats and generally going above and beyond the call of duty in his role as copyeditor and designer.
Third, I would like to thank everyone that has been involved in Speculations: as I hint at in my article, one of the most exciting aspects of the SR scene is its collaborative nature developing through the internet: and I think that most of the people contributing at the creation of this issue never met in person. In his Editorial Introduction Paul indeed notes that
This is also, perhaps, the first time a journal can boast that each contributor is also a blogger. This is the reason why Speculations could only ever be an online, open-access journal.
Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who gave me precious advice for improving the structure of my article.
I believe that there is a lot of people out there interested in ‘speculative realism’. As I see it, this journal should represent an invitation to mutual exchange. I think it is important to highlight that in its being an ‘online project’ Speculations is surely unique, but is in no way exclusive. There is no entry fee, there is no card-carrying ‘speculative realist’, there is no club. The movement is loose enough to represent a field where converging interests meet, which should be further expanded to include other positions. Indeed, I would like to see more and more people still at the margins of the conversation (perhaps non-philosophers but into other disciplines) opening blogs, joining the debate and –why not?– submitting articles for the next issue.
[About that, some time ago Paul asked me if I would be interested in editing a future issue of Speculations. Thinking about it, I would like to deal with the interaction between SR and 'religion': I am sure a number of people would already be interested in writing about it, and it is a theme that --with the notable exception of Meillassoux (how very French of him)-- has been so far under-examined in the SR area. For now it is still a vague idea, I'll see how it will develop.]
For the time being, enjoy Speculations.
Fabio Cunctator
It will be interesting to see what kind of audience “Speculations” will find. I hope we can expand beyond the readymade network of bloggers who already engage with SR and, like you say, introduce new people to SR.
I’m also interested in your idea for an issue on religion and SR. The most interesting dynamic here is that there are a lot of theology/bible/religion people who are looking into SR (I’d count myself as one of these people as I have a background in theology and still have an amateur interest in it) but that much of SR itself is, I think, rather hostile to the idea of religion.
I think an interesting volume would be one dedicated to axiology since this seems to be the real sticky point for SR or the area where there is going to be the most resistance and require the most creativity. Religion would of course be a part of this, but so would ethics and politics and aesthetics and law. I think legal issues in particular would get interesting.
I think the jury is still out as to whether or not SR can create a fully adequately axiology. It wouldn’t surprise me if the answer is no. Levi I think has shown us what an OO ethics and politics might look like, but can it really account for all aspects of ethics and politics or just some of them? Harman has shown us what an OO aesthetics/rhetoric looks like, but there are real problems in art that I don’t think it can have anything to say. It might turn out that SR can add a lot, but it can’t cover everything and that it needs to be supplemented by a purely subject-based set of concepts that escape it’s realm. Then the question would be how those two relate to each other. Similar, I would guess, to the way science and religion are negotiating a kind of contradictory co-existed.
Thanks for this Fabio. I very much like your essay–one of the first to tackle the Pale Blue Dot (from someone who is not Carl Sagan…).
I’m working on an essay on Buddhism and OOO for Levi Bryant’s volume. I would be more than interested in the proposed issue on religion.
That sounds great: I’ve done some work on Buddhist philosophy myself and I always thought that SR would be a great partner for a cross-cultural metaphysical dialogue. However, I’m still trying to work through the more general problems of ‘comparative philosophy’ before tackling specific issues. I’ll be looking forward to read your essay!
I’m also excited to see SR/OOO explore Buddhist philosophy and religion in general.
I’ve been loosely drawing associations between OOO and Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka arguments on emptiness. The Shentong vs. Rangtong debate is particularly juicy (whether the ground of being is merely “other-empty” or also “self-empty”, whether it’s useful to draw a distinction between that which exists not at all vs. what exists relatively vs. what has positive real being).
Looking forward to these types of conversations.