> 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.
Two things seem odd about this: (1) why the taxonomy of types, identities, if the real concern is kinds of arguments? Why nouns and not adjectives? (2) Why create this architecture of identity for arguments that you are not ignoring? Why not just ignore? Seems very odd and defensive to me.
> Is this argument wrong? If
> so, why? Does it misidentify,
Less interested in accuracy than in the need to identify in the first place.
> I have to say, this "speculative realism is a brand" thing seems like a
> rather superficial criticism to me.
You might be right. Perhaps I'm too reactive to the naming of a school and then it's subsequent outlining (how often does LS write things like "Realists believe X"?) and too quickly leap toward skepticism.
On the other hand, I thought I was pretty clear that only two of the participants are treating it like a brand. The others, I think, are interested in inquiry and engagement, in creating concepts and being open to criticism. I also said that it's more akin to territory than brand. For instance, here's something Harman wrote:
"[T]he standard modus operandi of trolls is to try to enter and corrupt thriving networks. The multifariousness of networks means there are always weak points that allow them to succeed, but also means that networks have no essential center and therefore can recover fairly quickly by rerouting their damaged electrical lines. This sometimes involves a few sacrifices, but ultimately it leads to a stronger network."
This is almost exactly the philosophy of nations: we're all citizens, some weaker than others, dying for your country to make it stronger, etc. I've only skimmed Harman's book on Latour and networks, so I may have missed something, but I saw nothing there that indicates that networks are much different than nation-states, with their need to define borders and protect sovereignty. So here his behavior is consistent with his philosophy, which is not a good thing.