In a sense that's true, but that objection seems a bit disingenuous. The whole point of the troll/grey vampire identification, it seems, is to provide an argument as to why certain criticisms _should_ be ignored, and to identify which criticisms these are. Is this argument wrong? If so, why? Does it misidentify, or not provide any substantive reasons for identifying, those criticisms which should be ignored? Is there a better way of identifying serious and non-serious criticism?
> Harman and Larval Subjects treat it like
> a brand. And like all intellectual property, it has to be defended,
> and they have both resorted to some really nasty behavior against
> people who have questioned them.
I have to say, this "speculative realism is a brand" thing seems like a rather superficial criticism to me. It's a self-confident philosophical movement with a name and a certain level of self-promotion, sure, but what does it actually have in common with capitalist practices of branding? Particularly in Harman's case, the focus on philosophy as presentation actually has deep roots in his ontology (in which the fundamental relationship between objects is one of "allure"); just calling this "branding" (without saying why this is a bad thing) seems like a way of avoiding genuine engagement with what he's saying.
I find Larval Subjects's style often annoying, too, especially when he's responding to critics; but even here, does his "nasty behavior" extend beyond a fairly harmless blogging vituperativeness?
-- Voyou <voyou1 at gmail.com>