Listen
See this imageHumankind: Solidarity with Nonhuman People Hardcover – August 22, 2017
by Timothy Morton (Author)
4.7 out of 5 stars 45 ratings
A radical call for solidarity between humans and non-humans
What is it that makes humans human?
As science and technology challenge the boundaries between life and non-life, between organic and inorganic, this ancient question is more timely than ever.
Acclaimed object-oriented philosopher Timothy Morton invites us to consider this philosophical issue as eminently political.
In our relationship with nonhumans, we decide the fate of our humanity.
Becoming human, claims Morton, actually means creating a network of kindness and solidarity with nonhuman beings, in the name of a broader understanding of reality that both includes and overcomes the notion of species.
Negotiating the politics of humanity is the first crucial step in reclaiming the upper scales of ecological coexistence and resisting corporations like Monsanto and the technophilic billionaires who would rob us of our kinship with people beyond our species.
=====
Editorial Reviews
Review
“I have been reading Timothy Morton’s books for a while and I like them a lot.”
—Björk
“Considered by many to be among the top philosophers in the world, especially among those tackling issues related to human effects on our environment, Morton herein provides an important, spirited, and sometimes frenetic analysis of the foundational assumptions of Marxism and other -isms with regard to nature and culture.”
—Jeff Vandermeer, author of The Southern Reach trilogy, The Millions
“A very good introduction to what Theory (capital T) might have to say about climate change and species die-off.”
—Ted Hamlton, Los Angeles Review of Books
“A great work of cognitive mapping, both exciting and useful.”
—Kim Stanley Robinson, author of The Mars Trilogy (in praise of Hyperobjects)
“His book exemplifies the ‘serious’ humanities scholarship he makes a plea for. My head’s still spinning.”
—Noel Castree, Times Higher Education (in praise of The Ecological Thought)
“Sassy, brilliant, a genuine engagement with and of thought, this work tunes us to a thrilling, endorphinating way of thinking: my drug of choice.”
—Avitall Ronell, New York University (in praise of Nothing: Three Inquiries in Buddhism)
“Timothy Morton is a master of philosophical enigma. In Dark Ecology, he treats us to an obscure ecognosis, the essentially unsolvable riddle of ecological being. Prepare to be endarkened!”
—Michael Marder, author of The Philosopher’s Plant (in praise of Dark Ecology)
“A poetic tour de force that is both academically and philosophically rigorous.”
—Steven Umbrello, Journal of Critical Realism
“Drawing from the Buddhist understandings of emptiness and form, Morton develops a version of ‘object oriented ontology’ that seeks connection and particularity without essences, fully formed identities, or wholes.”
—Whitney A Bauman, Religious Studies Review
About the Author
Timothy Morton is Rita Shea Guffey Chair in English at Rice University. He is the author of
=====
Editorial Reviews
Review
“I have been reading Timothy Morton’s books for a while and I like them a lot.”
—Björk
“Considered by many to be among the top philosophers in the world, especially among those tackling issues related to human effects on our environment, Morton herein provides an important, spirited, and sometimes frenetic analysis of the foundational assumptions of Marxism and other -isms with regard to nature and culture.”
—Jeff Vandermeer, author of The Southern Reach trilogy, The Millions
“A very good introduction to what Theory (capital T) might have to say about climate change and species die-off.”
—Ted Hamlton, Los Angeles Review of Books
“A great work of cognitive mapping, both exciting and useful.”
—Kim Stanley Robinson, author of The Mars Trilogy (in praise of Hyperobjects)
“His book exemplifies the ‘serious’ humanities scholarship he makes a plea for. My head’s still spinning.”
—Noel Castree, Times Higher Education (in praise of The Ecological Thought)
“Sassy, brilliant, a genuine engagement with and of thought, this work tunes us to a thrilling, endorphinating way of thinking: my drug of choice.”
—Avitall Ronell, New York University (in praise of Nothing: Three Inquiries in Buddhism)
“Timothy Morton is a master of philosophical enigma. In Dark Ecology, he treats us to an obscure ecognosis, the essentially unsolvable riddle of ecological being. Prepare to be endarkened!”
—Michael Marder, author of The Philosopher’s Plant (in praise of Dark Ecology)
“A poetic tour de force that is both academically and philosophically rigorous.”
—Steven Umbrello, Journal of Critical Realism
“Drawing from the Buddhist understandings of emptiness and form, Morton develops a version of ‘object oriented ontology’ that seeks connection and particularity without essences, fully formed identities, or wholes.”
—Whitney A Bauman, Religious Studies Review
About the Author
Timothy Morton is Rita Shea Guffey Chair in English at Rice University. He is the author of
- Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence;
- Nothing: Three Inquiries in Buddhism;
- Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World;
- The Ecological Thought; and Ecology without Nature.
Product details
Publisher : Verso (August 22, 2017)
Language : English
Hardcover : 224 pages
Customer reviews
4.7 out of 5 stars
Christine M. Skolnik
5.0 out of 5 stars Humankind Rocks!Reviewed in the United States on September 10, 2017
Verified Purchase
In his characteristically eccentric and predictably enthralling new book, Humankind, Timothy Morton argues that Marxism has erred in excluding nonhumans from “social space,” but is capable of correcting its course because of its commitment to solidarity. The exclusion of nonhumans is a bug, rather than a feature of Marxist thought. Capitalism, based on property ownership and various forms of slavery, conversely, is necessarily exclusive and hierarchical.[i] Resources, including humans and nonhumans, are subordinated to the transcendent value of capital, and human beings, in effect, develop kinship bonds with capital rather than human and nonhuman beings. Folding anarchy back into Marxism, Morton argues that solidarity with nonhuman beings simply effaces our ties to consumer capitalism (“Kindness,” 2300 – 2313). Though Morton criticizes the New Left’s focus on identity politics for reproducing essential difference and thus undermining solidarity, his vision is certainly a boon for the Left (“Things in Common,” 207-261). I’m not quite sure if Morton’s radical reconfiguration of social space is Marxism as we know it, or as it was conceived, but Humankind might encourage intellectuals to trade their chains for an optimistic New New Left. Humans and nonhumans in solidarity, willing Trump’s last tweet.
One of Morton’s most radical concepts is the symbiotic real. I say it’s radical not because symbiosis is new, but because Morton presents non-hierarchical symbiosis as an integral feature of political life. When we become aware of the symbiotic real, solidarity is no longer a value, choice, or decision. It simply is, and any social, economic, or political theory that externalizes nonhuman beings is recognized as inoperable—an insolvent fantasy (“Things in Common,” 66 – 87). Another important element of Morton’s project here, and I think it’s his most significant one to date, is interrogating life, categorically. “Life” based on substance ontology, and specious distinctions between its various forms, is antithetical to life (“Life,” 807). Rather than subordinating life to the “agrologistic” principles of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, that create mutually exclusive categories of life and non-life, and identify life with autonomous being, Morton rediscovers and celebrates life as quivering, shimmering, spectral (“Life,” 770, 776, 846, 850, 860). He sings of life forms that overflow their boundaries, downward and upward. Human beings, composed of myriad nonhuman beings, and haunted by what have heretofore been considered inanimate objects; nonhuman beings composed of what have heretofore been considered inanimate objects, and haunted by human beings. “[T]he intrinsic shimmering of being” (“Life,” 860).
Subscendence is the most theoretically important concept of the book, and possibly the most important piece of Humankind’s political argument. Under the sign of subscendence, Morton illustrates that wholes are smaller and more fragile than the sum of their parts (“Subscendence,” 1767 – 1794). And this applies to menacing hyperobjects such as neoliberalism. Though we imagine it as Cthulu, Morton suggests neoliberalism may be ontologically small and easy to subvert. It pervades social space, but it cannot contain or rule its parts. Our fear and cynicism is based on an assumption that neoliberalism is a transcendent whole, but solidarity with human and nonhumnan beings can help us dismantle it. Locally unplugging from fossil fuel energy grids seems trivial, until we rediscover solidarity and begin to replicate such local forms of resistance (“Subscendence,” 1726 – 1828).
Subscendence replaces mastery. Because parts exceed wholes, and because all objects withdraw, increasing knowledge does not result in mastery. The more objects and levels of objects we discover, the more objects withdraw. And this includes our knowledge of ourselves. The more we know about ourselves the more we perceive our withdrawl. “You are a haunted house” (“Subscendence,” 1965). The dream of access to the thing itself is replaced by a real feeling of being followed or watched. Intimacy is paranoia, and truth is being haunted (“Subscendence,” 1912; “Kindness,” 2649)
Humankind, like human beings, is “a fuzzy, subscendent whole that includes and implies other lifeforms, as a part of the also subscendent symbiotic real” (“Subscendence,” 2013). This quote reminds us not to reify the symbiotic real—it’s not a new transcendent whole, God or Gaia. Just as humankind is haunted by the inhuman, so the symbiotic real is haunted by spectral beings in a spectral dimension (“Specters,” 1198; “Kindness,” 2274).
Another of the book's powerful and utterly persuasive concepts is “The Severing,” a “traumatic fissure” between the “human-correlated world” and the “ecological symbiosis of human and nonhuman parts of the biosphere” (“Things in Common,” 272). Solidarity is the “default affective environment,” but anthropocentrism suppresses solidarity between humans and nonhumans, and erects boundaries between humans (“Things in Common,” 296 – 299). The effects of this intergenerational trauma are widespread, resulting in a desert landscape “from which meaning and connection have evaporated” (“Things in Common,” 312, 355). This results in alienation, not from some transcendent presence but from “an inconsistent spectral essence we are calling humankind,” as well as the spectrality of nonhuman beings (“Species,” 2197-2201). “What capitalism distorts is not an underlying substantial Nature or Humanity, but rather the ‘paranormal’ energies of production” (“Species” 2204).
Ultimately, Morton argues that solidarity is kindness, and kindness is an unconscious aspect of ourselves, which we share with nonhumans (“Kindness,” 2283- 2306). Acknowledgement, awareness, and fascination are all aesthetic and ethical/political acts of solidarity (“Kindness,” 2296 – 2368). And since our origins lie in the symbiotic real, these “styles” of being also belong to nonhumans (“Kindness,” 2294, 2453, 2835). Indeed, recent animal behavior studies suggest that solidarity is inherited from nonhumans (“Kindness,” 2860). Morton ends by queering the active and passive categories, and “veering” love toward the environment (“Kindness,” 2963, 3119). Solidarity requires nonhumans because we are inseparable from the symbiotic real (“Kindness,” 3123 – 3127). We are them. “Solidarity just is solidarity with nonhumans.”
[i] “Things in Common,” 416, 430. All in-text references are to chapter titles and locations.
See complete review at Environmental Critique.
22 people found this helpful
===============================
Walter Lerchner
5.0 out of 5 stars Speculative Realism at it's bestReviewed in the United States on August 27, 2020
Verified Purchase
With language reminiscent of Douglas Hofstadter combined with the sharp wit reminding of Richard Dawkins building on the penetrating logical clarity of Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology, Morton somehow finds the contradictory space between certainty and non-existence where life exists. Building on the tensions of Marx and Nitsche, Heidegger and Kant he arrives at a new ecology of the Symbiotic Real - humans and non-human objects including molecules, ideologies and societies, co-existing as part of symbiotic hyperobjects. Ideas that might just save us all, or at minimum shine light on our path towards dissolution.
2 people found this helpful
Richmond
5.0 out of 5 stars greatReviewed in the United States on September 29, 2018
Verified Purchase
great
One person found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
Nicholas J. Perry-Guetti
3.0 out of 5 stars A Former Realist Returns to Idealism; a Postmodern Liberal Restructures MarxismReviewed in the United States on February 23, 2018
I avoided reviewing this book for a long time after reading it, as I have very mixed opinions of it. On one hand, I think that both the writing and many of the ideas expressed thereby are excellent, as Morton's writing (technically and stylistically) always is. I agree wholeheartedly with the most appreciative critics' reviews of the *content* of the book, to which I have nothing to add: in terms of text, Morton has always been a superb ecocritic and a compelling philosopher, and his writing has an allure that is impossible to overstate.
Philosophy, however is not just about content. It is also about context, sincerity and integrity. Up until now, Morton has championed the idea of "ecology without Nature", in which true ecological thinking dispenses with the Western myth of Nature as a given, reified object, and he has used as a reference the new philosophy movement of Object Oriented Ontology, a very interesting and endlessly applicable turn towards realism pioneered by Graham Harman, to support his rejection of Nature in favor of a non-holistic approach to ecological communities as dynamic multiplicities.
In the last several years, Morton has become so associated with Object-Oriented Realism that he is considered one of its central figures. It was therefore with great disappointment that I read, in *Humankind*, Morton establishing a singular entity––the "Symbiotic Real"––as the sum total of all ecological relationships. The Symbiotic Real is Nature by another name, pure and simple, and although Morton goes to great lengths to explain that this is an "implosive" rather than an "explosive" holism, it is yet a reified object "over there" that we are all "part" of. This represents not only a rebranding of what he once considered a very bad idea (a sort of "new and improved" version of the very mechanistic, agrilogistical monadism he simultaneously decries––quite rightly, I believe), but also a sharply pronounced turn away from Speculative Realism to an identifiably idealistic way of thinking. Instead of the indefinite regress of beings so magically evoked in the object-oriented realist Graham Harman's philosophy (and Tim Morton's earlier work!), we now have a definite, easily knowable end-point for thinking ecology...the very picture of what Morton has elsewhere derisively called "the easy-think substance". It is, indeed, far too easy an answer to qualify as Object-Oriented Speculative Realism, in which the Real (Symbiotic or otherwise) is simply not directly knowable, as nothing we can know about it is ever really IT, and each revelation is only a prelude to the next stage of our search. This idealist turn represents OOO very badly, and should not in my opinion be taken as typical of the movement. This inconsistency is also not very representative of good philosophy in general, sacrificing rigorous experimental thinking for the sake of attractive, shining truths that are easy to digest.
Familiarity with Morton's blog and general online presence, outside of his books, also reveals another significant disconnect: this time a political rather than a philosophical one. Although he is a more than qualified Romanticism scholar (Romanticism, that is, in the sense of Jane Austen, Wordsworth, Da Quincy, Shelley, Coleridge, etc.), a startlingly innovative eco-critic (I strongly advise you to read Dark Ecology), and a peerless writer of alluring prose, one thing he is probably least qualified to attempt is the restructuring of Marxism he undertakes in this book. An outspoken centrist liberal Democrat who denounces with bitter ridicule such excessively radical figures as Bernie Sanders (in all seriousness, Sanders is no farther to the left than an old-school New Deal Democrat) for drawing votes away from candidates he considers more sensible, it is impossible to understand what Tim Morton could possibly have the right to recommend for the development of socialism, or indeed what *interest* he might have in even a modified form of Marxism. The compelling sociopolitical and human-ecological propositions he makes in the book would actually stand quite well without any mention of Marx at all, though this might require a longer book as the easy reference to the historical figure would necessitate more in-depth explanation, of which Morton would be easily capable.
And kindness, one would think, requires *no* explanation at all, and Humankind certainly centers around the theme of kindness. Again, however, Morton's presence online, outside of his own literature, reveals a level of intellectual combativeness at least as strident as the examples of it he often decries, both in this book and elsewhere. His appeal to kindness is touchingly eloquent and well-made; it is, however, the man's *words* that should inspire our course, rather than the man himself.
Mixed feelings indeed. The writing and *most* of the ecological ideas I loved as much as anything Morton has ever written before...probably better, actually. The misrepresentation of OOO philosophy and the playing fast-and-loose with Marxism is, I believe, unworthy of him, and of more serious philosophers and Marxist theorists, though I admit I certainly have no more familiarity with the latter than Morton does. Will I still read his soon to be published next book? You bet I will; I just hope its doubtless beautiful writing style will be better matched by an integrity of content and a consistency with the author's true gifts, because in Humankind, Morton goes very eloquently––and unfortunately––astray.
31 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
Dan Schellenberg
5.0 out of 5 stars IncredibleReviewed in the United States on September 20, 2017
Verified Purchase
Fantastic book and fantastic service
2 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
LJS
3.0 out of 5 stars Good stuff, if only I knew what it meantReviewed in the United Kingdom on June 23, 2018
Verified Purchase
impenetrable. I'm certainly not claiming to be a genius, but I do have a couple of masters' degrees and I couldn't work out what Morton is getting at. Its an interesting read - if you want to google every other sentence, but he assumes such a vast amount of previous reading that it must be impenetrable to anyone without a phd in the subject. Tim, once you've figured out what all this means, do you think you could write us plebs a pamphlet? Cheers,
9 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Duncan Spence
5.0 out of 5 stars The best reading of Marx(ism) since Harry CleaverReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 12, 2020
Verified Purchase
Professor Morton's unusual style puts some people off. Which is a pity because what he writes "shows his working" as it used be said. He writes not only his thinking but the thinking of his thinking. According to Nietzsche this was one of the great dangers faced by philosophers trying to write, Morton knows this, he is conscious of writing in a way very different from the philosophers in Nietzsche's sights. This book is a marvellous tour round every issue faced by radicals.be they activists or intellectuals. Like all of Morton's work, this is a book about how to think differently.
3 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Laura
5.0 out of 5 stars Very insightfulReviewed in the United Kingdom on October 27, 2020
Verified Purchase
Helped me get the A I needed plus it was an insanely interesting read.
Report abuse
François Truyts
5.0 out of 5 stars Very, very interestingReviewed in the United Kingdom on January 15, 2020
Verified Purchase
Existential paradigm shift
Report abuse
4tt3nt4t
5.0 out of 5 stars I'm no academic though I do enjoy reading similar textsReviewed in the United Kingdom on September 6, 2017
Verified Purchase
Well, I'm no academic though I do enjoy reading similar texts. I was blown away by his common sense & choice of actors.
Report abuse
See all reviews
Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People
by
Timothy Morton
3.71 · Rating details · 273 ratings · 34 reviews
A radical call for solidarity between humans and non-humans
What is it that makes humans human? As science and technology challenge the boundaries between life and non-life, between organic and inorganic, this ancient question is more timely than ever. Acclaimed object-oriented philosopher Timothy Morton invites us to consider this philosophical issue as eminently political. In our relationship with nonhumans, we decide the fate of our humanity. Becoming human, claims Morton, actually means creating a network of kindness and solidarity with nonhuman beings, in the name of a broader understanding of reality that both includes and overcomes the notion of species. Negotiating the politics of humanity is the first crucial step in reclaiming the upper scales of ecological coexistence and resisting corporations like Monsanto and the technophilic billionaires who would rob us of our kinship with people beyond our species. (less)
GET A COPY
Kobo
Online Stores ▾
Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 224 pages
Published July 4th 2017 by Verso
Original Title
Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People
ISBN
1786631326 (ISBN13: 9781786631329)
Edition Language
English
Other Editions (10)
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine...Less DetailEdit Details
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about Humankind
Be the first to ask a question about Humankind
LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
Average rating3.71 ·
Rating details
· 273 ratings · 34 reviews
More filters
|
Sort order
Sejin, start your review of Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People
Write a review
Oct 01, 2017Nick rated it it was ok
Stylistically designed to mask a lack of novel ideas or interesting synthesis of existing knowledge. Smug and obfuscatory language is knowingly used to couch a series of ideas the author seems to beleive are evident in their assertion without recourse to real world context or evidence (evidence? Reductionist!), interjected with non-sequiturs and cringe worthy folksiness. At least I was able to scrape the bibliography for interesting references, references this text puts a fog in front of rather than shines a light on. (less)
flag13 likes · Like · see review
Sep 06, 2017Andy rated it it was amazing
Reading this book was like having the conversation that comes at the end of the film "Her," but where I, the reader, realize that Tim, with Alan Watts/Buddhist flavors, has achieved like a quantum capacity beyond my capacity to imagine.
BUT, unlike in "Her," I didn't feel narcissistic and depressed to witness this leap that left me limning my limits. Because things flicker and I still see some of them. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · comment · see review
Oct 18, 20175 Track rated it it was amazing
Shelves: go-read-this-now
Bear with Morton as he states his position & defines his terms. It's slow & careful going. Plow ahead if you are uncertain, backtrack as needed—or don't, & count on your capacity to integrate knowledge while you are doing other things. Read it before you go to sleep, & dream about the concepts in the form of relations between your pickup truck & your apartment, city streets & inclement weather, music & food.
It should not be 'radical' to think that we might consider 'non-humans' in our worldview, in our day-to-day & moment-to-moment. That it IS radical should give anyone pause for thought.*
What is more interesting here is the idea that in defining our selves as 'human'—as opposed to everything else, as opposed to 'nature'—we have set in motion a long-running machine which intends to destroy meaning, context, interconnectedness, if it has to destroy the world to do so.
*(or thoughtful paws) (less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 10, 2020Perry rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Shelves: philosophy-lit-theory
It took me two tries, but I finally managed to finish this book, and it was, to say the least, frustrating.
The goal of the book is to imagine a Marxism that includes nonhumans. This is very theoretical, and Morton passes through ontology, metaphysics, sociology, and so on to make his point. However, what this practically means (and this is the unfortunate bit) remains to be explained. Although by no means does this invalidate the book, the word "veganism" does not appear, and to my knowledge "vegetarianism" appears only once -- despite the fact that the predominant way in which humans interact with some of the most abundant life-forms on the planet is by killing them and eating them or using the byproducts for other purposes. You would think this would be at least addressed. But, and I do understand this, this is a book about philosophy and as such it is heavy on theory. It is a playful journey through the history of ideas. But the problem with speculative realism (and OOO or object-oriented ontology, the scene/school with which Morton is most closely associated) is that it does't change anything about how one interfaces with the world. It is a shuffling around of the categories of being "behind the scenes".
There are a handful of interesting concepts in this book, and though Morton's method of philosophy is irreverent and sloppy, a few shining bits of insight break through. Let's start with those.
First, there is the concept of what Morton classifies as the "correlationist" world view. To paraphrase Kant, there is truly a world out there, but all that we (we being humans, and often humans of a specific caste) can access is data about that world. There is a gap, and so one restricts the definition of "world" to be the sphere accessed by humans. Morton imagines a slider between the "correlator" and "correlatee". What is necessary, then, is to turn the slider towards letting the thing-in-itself assert itself. Of course, any "access mode" we have is incomplete, and we cannot escape the prison of our perception, so this doesn't much change how we think about nonhumans. But downstream of this ontology (which is related to animism or First Peoples religion) one can imagine a world in which the agency of nonhumans is treated with more reverence. An intriguing idea, and one I agree with.
Next, there is the "Severing", a moment (but really a process located everywhere in space and time-- what Morton calls a hyperobject) at which humans walled off the nonhuman concomitant with the Neolithic revolution. Morton asserts that a truly staggering amount of Western cultural perceptions is a consequence of the trauma of this event. While I don't really buy this, it is true that exclusionary societal structures necessarily entail violence, and that speciesism and racism can both be seen as mirroring the cloistering-in of humanity away from nature that is the Severing. At the very least, it is true that in "taming nature", there is a violent exclusion going on, one which certainly has higher order effects.
Morton critiques teleology in a number of guises, and this is where things start to get sloppy. A number of terms are defined as being "the same", as the group of "things Morton doesn't like" grows like a game of Katamari Damacy. There is Hegel's Geist, "explosive holism" (the belief that the whole is greater [in what sense? Keep wondering!] than the sum of its parts), agrilogistics, western patriarchy, Mesopotamian utilitarianism, and so on. For the record, I more or less agree with this critique, but the connections drawn between all these subtly different concepts are not at all well-justified. In its stead, Morton posits a theory of "implosive holism", or "subscendence", the belief that the whole is "less than the sum of its parts". Again, it's a bit of a mystery what more than/less than mean exactly (Morton says "has more qualities than", which doesn't clear much up) but the attractiveness of the idea survives. Instead of thinking of each individual as subservient to capitalism, the human species, the planet etc, we turn this upside down and say that the individual is more than a component of a whole. This is subtly different than neoliberal individualism (there is no society), since instead, individual and society are placed on more or less equally footing. There is some dodgy mathematics here where Morton argues that a forest is "ontologically smaller" (there is no such thing) than its trees because a forest is one thing, and each tree is one thing. It's not nearly as original an idea as Morton seems to think it is, nor does this theory make neoliberalism or capitalism less powerful and dominant, but it is an appealing idea. I'm not willing to go to bat for Morton, though, when he insists that "cynical reason" is all that is behind the belief that capitalism is more powerful than any of us.
One of the ways in which teleology is self-destructive is that in an "explosive holist" framework, quantity of life is more important than quality of life, which is ultimately how the proliferation of life becomes a death drive. We see this confirmed in climate change. The problem is that the concept of life is not so stark. This is where Morton introduces (or parlays Derrida's concept of) spectrality, which is unfortunately very muddy.
Spectrality is a "shimmering" an "X-quality", and a superpower. It is the paradox that something is exactly what it is, yet not exactly what it appears. At the same time it is the potentiality of the future, "givenness", the curiosity of ennui, the uncanny, and more. At the very least, I agree with Morton that humans are haunted. By the weight of dead traditions, the potentiality of the future, and the halo of nonhuman entities with which we are independent in the "symbiotic real". Solidarity is, for Morton, recognizing this spectrality. Recognizing our interdependence with nonhumans is part of this.
Most of the book meditates on these ideas and a few more. There is also a fascinating and utterly unnecessary analysis of the Christopher Nolan movie Interstellar. The ideas double back on themselves, and at some points one wonders if one has accidentally jumped backwards a few chapters. You haven't, it's just that the structure of this book is not exactly linear. It's more of an improvised homily than anything.
But its maddening structure is not the worst part of this book. In fact, at times I found the structure to be quite beautiful, as there is a poetic interconnectedness to it all. A total lack of direction combined with the almost imperceptible feeling of progress -- it was almost dreamlike at times.
The style of Morton's prose -- which blends high culture, with low culture, abstract philosophy-jargon with slang and breezy conversation -- is not that fresh or new anymore. At times it is genuinely exciting, and there are nuggets of profundity in this book, as you would find in any two hundred page work of philosophy. But Timothy Morton is not Nietzsche. Most of the time, however, it is cheeky to the point of irritating, especially when it is totally opaque. This is especially maddening when the book takes a turn for the New Age, as Morton recklessly flirts with exponents, quantum physics, Möbius strips, the continuum hypothesis (which one of you told him about the continuum hypothesis?!) and other quantum spirituality Deepak Chopra clichés, never making it totally clear how serious he intends these metaphors to be.
It's not that the writing style is obfuscating here -- that would imply there is something to be obfuscated. Instead, Morton seems content to half-commit to half-positing a half-idea, and let you do the rest of the work for him. Among some of the most irritating Zen koans here:
"X just is Y" (usually not given with any serious explanation)
"X is retweeting Y" (Kant retweeting Hegel....it just makes one cringe a bit, doesn't it?)
“Greater than” must mean “having more qualities than.” “More real than” must mean “having more essence than.”(Dodgy ontology and metaphysics)
"X is the cool kids version of Y"
"X is cheap" (Probably the most maddening of them all, as the central thesis of the book is that 'solidarity is cheap', but it unclear whether cheap means abundant, easy to access, easy to cultivate, or something else entirely)
"An idea exists in the same way as a quasar" (Yet more dodgy metaphysics)
"X is a twelve inch remix of Y"
"X exists in the VIP lounges of agricultural-age religions"
While Humankind does occasionally reach the exalted key of joyful, playful philosophical theorizing, its flimsy foundations, sloppy methodology, and tendencies towards philistinic pseudo-profundity ultimately render the whole book more of a gesture towards a theory of solidarity with nonhumans than what it could have been, a thought-provoking and thorough manifesto. There is enough philosophy in here to keep the curious reader entertained (and it is probably worth skimming the bibliography just for culture -- Morton is nothing if not a skilled name-dropper), and equally enough sketchiness to keep a disciplined and clear thinker agitated. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · see review
Jul 12, 2018Bruce rated it really liked it
As a representative of OOO- Object Oriented Ontology- Timothy Morton rejects "Correlationalism" which is the tendency for Philosophy to persistently have only two options - Is reality a construct of the human mind? or is the human mind the product of physical substantial objectivity? A third consideration is a de-anthropocentric approach where all objects, from the smallest particles to the great galaxies and ourselves have a mutual referential interplay. That is to say my perception of the flower is of no less or of more importance than the flowers' perception of me. Whether connected to the above or not, he also dismisses what he calls "hyperobjects" - not too dissimilar to the post modern dismissal of the meta-narrative. A hyperobject is any whole that is considered to be greater than the sum of its parts - "Nature" being one. Timothy's argument is that these two perceptions limit the contribution we can have towards ecology. Only as we truly relate to objects and participate from a bottom up rather than a top down approach can we make a positive contribution. There is much more to this book and apologies for any misrepresentation(s) I may have made. I read it a couple of months ago.
My personal interest is from a theistic perspective. Timothy quite clearly dismisses the idea of God as just one more hyperobject. I think (at least my idea of) God can cope with that. For me the greatness of God does not consist in bigness but in how small God can become yet remain God. I believe fully in the bottom up idea - hence the incarnation.
The deanthropocentrism is also containable within my theology. While I still believe that man is created in God's image I do believe that religious man has falsely interpreted this to mean that humankind is more important - more valuable - and the rest of creation is a mere commodity to that end. But if we take the words of Christ who said "let him who is the greatest become the least - become the servant of all" seriously, then the closer we are to God's image the least we become. The outcome should be that complexity carries with it responsibility and this in Christian terms means to become a humble servant of creation - to care selflessly for all objects.
I understand the god that Timothy is dismissing but there are different ways to view God that actually affirm his concerns and contribute to his aims in this book.
That whole is not greater than the sum of its parts is an oversimplification although I believe that what Timothy is saying "What if we consider the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts". That said I would say that the whole does not needto be greater than the sum of its parts but it can be. Take England football team last night each individual player was brilliant but as a team they just didn't work well. On other occasions the team worked well and produced something that exceeded the sum of the individuals. So that would need looking into (Perhaps he did - sorry if that's the case)
At the end of the book I became aware of the significance of the title "Humankind" (Trudeaux would be impressed!) and the meaning implied by the word "kind" as in kinship as in mutual reciprocal participation in this thing we call life illiciting respect and compassion.
I've missed loads out and made considerable highlights which I will have to go back to but for all its complexity and quirky terms, whatever the motive, I have come away enlightened, informed and thinking in more depth, my part in the cosmos and my faith in God. For that I am grateful :) (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Mar 17, 2019Owen Moorhead rated it it was ok
I considered awarding this an extra star for chutzpah, but I couldn't do it.
This is a book that defines "spectre", "rock", and "solidarity", but neglects to explain a sentence like, "In the world of macro-Hegel, the Slinky is implausibly capable of going upstairs." At one point, I forgot what page I was on and skipped ahead fifty pages or so without realizing it. Now that I've finished, I'm still not sure if I actually read the whole book. It's a mess.
I should add that I am sympathetic to many of the arguments made by Morton in this book, so I was rooting for him.
But it's just such a bewildering barrage of references, "cool professor"-speak ("Micro-Hegel is generally awesome", "Infrasound is a Tolstoy novel about mountains, oceans, and deserts", etc.), and then at the end there's an extended exegesis of "Interstellar" that is totally incomprehensible. That was really the final nail in the coffin of the book for me, because I don't care what Tim Morton says, that movie was terrible.
I picked up this book because I was interested in a book about "Solidarity with Non-Human People." Maybe I'm a dummy. This book is about many things, but perhaps least of all "solidarity with non-human people." Rarely have I felt so keenly the truth of the old saw about judging books by their covers.
Having read one other of his books ("Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence"--again, great title), I am beginning to suspect that he has a hat full of cool book titles and subtitles and chooses them at random whenever he finishes a new one.
I'll probably keep reading his books, though. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 04, 2019b rated it it was amazing
Shelves: non-fiction, theory
I’ve read a lot of Morton, and probably with the huge mistake of not totally immersing myself in Graham Harman and the other OOO-types in advance. I might actually hate Morton, but also find myself bursting out in laughter when he writes things like “again I must be the devil,” because I think he somehow knows how much I hate him, and I realize now that a lot of what he is doing is “playing.” I’m sure some folks have spent careers trying to “debug” Marxism, and done so a lot less successfully than Morton does (or doesn’t? It doesn’t seem like he’s quite all the way there in this, but it was still nice following his ideas in this book, particularly as it reads more coherently than Dark Ecology did). Morton cuts to the chase when necessary, makes the best of a discipline obsessed with jargon by making his own candied-buzzwords (his are always the sweetest), and by pointing out some things that we really need to remember when we “do theory,” most importantly, that dumb questions are really important, maybe most important. I can see the appeal for those who love him, and I can see how folks who are tangled up in the wires of obfuscation and purity-politics and finding truth in one clear philosophical line are completely flabbergasted by Morton’s appeal. Not sure I can recommend it, but if any of this sounds appealing, why don’t you give it a go? (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jan 09, 2018M rated it it was amazing
Shelves: anthropocene, favorite, sociology, non-fiction, recommended
Perforated, fuzzy, broken & spectral: that’s how the arguments of this book are, making its way through continental philosophy and Marxism to insert non-humans, only to argue, ultimately, that there’s no such thing as solidarity without non-humans anyway. Reading it is a game: annoying, because you don’t know the rules, but nonetheless, fascinating. Morton keeps being in conversation with this, and that, from critical theorists to pop icons, jumping and jumping, unable to be grasped, constantly unfollowing himself from the reader’s understanding. But for all that it tortured me with, I loved it. I both believe it and not believe it. It makes such great arguments: adding non-humans to marxist theory, ontologically unpinning species (and thus race, and racism, too), accepting the fuzziness of the world (its spectral x-being), but also its toughness (it’s object oriented, not socially constructed), strongly in favor of an implosive holism (one that isn’t a whole greater than the sum of its parts, but less – subscendence), and pushing (rocking) against anthropocentrism. But also, it’s not very serious, it’s rather playful, which is, maybe, the point, or part of it, anyway. Is it like this so it cannot be contradicted? Maybe. Morton would love that, getting into a space into which contradictions are possible, and present – an excluded middle. Getting us into a loop, or brain-fucked, or preferably both, but in a beautiful, disgusting kind of way.
<< Love is not straight, because reality is not straight. Everywhere, there are curves and bends, things veer. Per-ver-sion. En-vir-onment. These terms come from the verb „to veer”. To veer, to swerve toward: am I choosing to do so or am I being pulled? Free will is overrated. I do not make decisions outside the Universe and then plunge in, like an Olympic diver. I am already in. >>
(less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jul 13, 2019Juan Pablo rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
I believe the role of philosophy has always been to question, to reflect, to envision all possibilities and the possibilities of those possibilities. To embrace and accept paradoxes and that nothing is certain or “written in stone”.
We live on an age where nothing is valid if it’s not “scientifically” proven. We also live on an age where we accumulate massive evidence of what fits our prejudice.
I felt that this work humbles ya down to where philosophy should. It points out how anthropocentrism clouds our vision in a new and fresh way. Even pointing out how philosophy can also be biased by our anthropocentrism and even envisioning anthropocentrism is in itself anthropogenic because we can never escape our “human” point of view. But like I said before. Philosophy should embrace paradoxes. It’s is its job.
I believe that philosophy is not out there to show us the answers, but to ask questions. Questions that disrupt our certainties and truths not validate them.
I’ve seen people slam this book because it has “over the top” or “pretentious” language to “say what has already been said” and that it provides no evidence of what it implies. Well. Sorry to disappoint you guys, this book is not a scientific paper. It embraces the philosophical paradox that what it implies might not be 100% true or factual but makes the observation that paradoxes are ok. We don’t need to fix on a law of non-contradiction. It’s a book about the paradox of acceptors anthropocentrism exists while looking at it through an anthropocentric lens.
It’s ok to accept paradoxes. That’s philosophy’s role. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Familiarity with Morton's blog and general online presence, outside of his books, also reveals another significant disconnect: this time a political rather than a philosophical one. Although he is a more than qualified Romanticism scholar (Romanticism, that is, in the sense of Jane Austen, Wordsworth, Da Quincy, Shelley, Coleridge, etc.), a startlingly innovative eco-critic (I strongly advise you to read Dark Ecology), and a peerless writer of alluring prose, one thing he is probably least qualified to attempt is the restructuring of Marxism he undertakes in this book. An outspoken centrist liberal Democrat who denounces with bitter ridicule such excessively radical figures as Bernie Sanders (in all seriousness, Sanders is no farther to the left than an old-school New Deal Democrat) for drawing votes away from candidates he considers more sensible, it is impossible to understand what Tim Morton could possibly have the right to recommend for the development of socialism, or indeed what *interest* he might have in even a modified form of Marxism. The compelling sociopolitical and human-ecological propositions he makes in the book would actually stand quite well without any mention of Marx at all, though this might require a longer book as the easy reference to the historical figure would necessitate more in-depth explanation, of which Morton would be easily capable.
And kindness, one would think, requires *no* explanation at all, and Humankind certainly centers around the theme of kindness. Again, however, Morton's presence online, outside of his own literature, reveals a level of intellectual combativeness at least as strident as the examples of it he often decries, both in this book and elsewhere. His appeal to kindness is touchingly eloquent and well-made; it is, however, the man's *words* that should inspire our course, rather than the man himself.
Mixed feelings indeed. The writing and *most* of the ecological ideas I loved as much as anything Morton has ever written before...probably better, actually. The misrepresentation of OOO philosophy and the playing fast-and-loose with Marxism is, I believe, unworthy of him, and of more serious philosophers and Marxist theorists, though I admit I certainly have no more familiarity with the latter than Morton does. Will I still read his soon to be published next book? You bet I will; I just hope its doubtless beautiful writing style will be better matched by an integrity of content and a consistency with the author's true gifts, because in Humankind, Morton goes very eloquently––and unfortunately––astray.
31 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
Dan Schellenberg
5.0 out of 5 stars IncredibleReviewed in the United States on September 20, 2017
Verified Purchase
Fantastic book and fantastic service
2 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport abuse
See all reviews
Top reviews from other countries
LJS
3.0 out of 5 stars Good stuff, if only I knew what it meantReviewed in the United Kingdom on June 23, 2018
Verified Purchase
impenetrable. I'm certainly not claiming to be a genius, but I do have a couple of masters' degrees and I couldn't work out what Morton is getting at. Its an interesting read - if you want to google every other sentence, but he assumes such a vast amount of previous reading that it must be impenetrable to anyone without a phd in the subject. Tim, once you've figured out what all this means, do you think you could write us plebs a pamphlet? Cheers,
9 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Duncan Spence
5.0 out of 5 stars The best reading of Marx(ism) since Harry CleaverReviewed in the United Kingdom on February 12, 2020
Verified Purchase
Professor Morton's unusual style puts some people off. Which is a pity because what he writes "shows his working" as it used be said. He writes not only his thinking but the thinking of his thinking. According to Nietzsche this was one of the great dangers faced by philosophers trying to write, Morton knows this, he is conscious of writing in a way very different from the philosophers in Nietzsche's sights. This book is a marvellous tour round every issue faced by radicals.be they activists or intellectuals. Like all of Morton's work, this is a book about how to think differently.
3 people found this helpfulReport abuse
Laura
5.0 out of 5 stars Very insightfulReviewed in the United Kingdom on October 27, 2020
Verified Purchase
Helped me get the A I needed plus it was an insanely interesting read.
Report abuse
François Truyts
5.0 out of 5 stars Very, very interestingReviewed in the United Kingdom on January 15, 2020
Verified Purchase
Existential paradigm shift
Report abuse
4tt3nt4t
5.0 out of 5 stars I'm no academic though I do enjoy reading similar textsReviewed in the United Kingdom on September 6, 2017
Verified Purchase
Well, I'm no academic though I do enjoy reading similar texts. I was blown away by his common sense & choice of actors.
Report abuse
See all reviews
Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People
by
Timothy Morton
3.71 · Rating details · 273 ratings · 34 reviews
A radical call for solidarity between humans and non-humans
What is it that makes humans human? As science and technology challenge the boundaries between life and non-life, between organic and inorganic, this ancient question is more timely than ever. Acclaimed object-oriented philosopher Timothy Morton invites us to consider this philosophical issue as eminently political. In our relationship with nonhumans, we decide the fate of our humanity. Becoming human, claims Morton, actually means creating a network of kindness and solidarity with nonhuman beings, in the name of a broader understanding of reality that both includes and overcomes the notion of species. Negotiating the politics of humanity is the first crucial step in reclaiming the upper scales of ecological coexistence and resisting corporations like Monsanto and the technophilic billionaires who would rob us of our kinship with people beyond our species. (less)
GET A COPY
Kobo
Online Stores ▾
Book Links ▾
Hardcover, 224 pages
Published July 4th 2017 by Verso
Original Title
Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People
ISBN
1786631326 (ISBN13: 9781786631329)
Edition Language
English
Other Editions (10)
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine...Less DetailEdit Details
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about Humankind
Be the first to ask a question about Humankind
LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
Average rating3.71 ·
Rating details
· 273 ratings · 34 reviews
More filters
|
Sort order
Sejin, start your review of Humankind: Solidarity with Non-Human People
Write a review
Oct 01, 2017Nick rated it it was ok
Stylistically designed to mask a lack of novel ideas or interesting synthesis of existing knowledge. Smug and obfuscatory language is knowingly used to couch a series of ideas the author seems to beleive are evident in their assertion without recourse to real world context or evidence (evidence? Reductionist!), interjected with non-sequiturs and cringe worthy folksiness. At least I was able to scrape the bibliography for interesting references, references this text puts a fog in front of rather than shines a light on. (less)
flag13 likes · Like · see review
Sep 06, 2017Andy rated it it was amazing
Reading this book was like having the conversation that comes at the end of the film "Her," but where I, the reader, realize that Tim, with Alan Watts/Buddhist flavors, has achieved like a quantum capacity beyond my capacity to imagine.
BUT, unlike in "Her," I didn't feel narcissistic and depressed to witness this leap that left me limning my limits. Because things flicker and I still see some of them. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · comment · see review
Oct 18, 20175 Track rated it it was amazing
Shelves: go-read-this-now
Bear with Morton as he states his position & defines his terms. It's slow & careful going. Plow ahead if you are uncertain, backtrack as needed—or don't, & count on your capacity to integrate knowledge while you are doing other things. Read it before you go to sleep, & dream about the concepts in the form of relations between your pickup truck & your apartment, city streets & inclement weather, music & food.
It should not be 'radical' to think that we might consider 'non-humans' in our worldview, in our day-to-day & moment-to-moment. That it IS radical should give anyone pause for thought.*
What is more interesting here is the idea that in defining our selves as 'human'—as opposed to everything else, as opposed to 'nature'—we have set in motion a long-running machine which intends to destroy meaning, context, interconnectedness, if it has to destroy the world to do so.
*(or thoughtful paws) (less)
flag7 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 10, 2020Perry rated it it was ok · review of another edition
Shelves: philosophy-lit-theory
It took me two tries, but I finally managed to finish this book, and it was, to say the least, frustrating.
The goal of the book is to imagine a Marxism that includes nonhumans. This is very theoretical, and Morton passes through ontology, metaphysics, sociology, and so on to make his point. However, what this practically means (and this is the unfortunate bit) remains to be explained. Although by no means does this invalidate the book, the word "veganism" does not appear, and to my knowledge "vegetarianism" appears only once -- despite the fact that the predominant way in which humans interact with some of the most abundant life-forms on the planet is by killing them and eating them or using the byproducts for other purposes. You would think this would be at least addressed. But, and I do understand this, this is a book about philosophy and as such it is heavy on theory. It is a playful journey through the history of ideas. But the problem with speculative realism (and OOO or object-oriented ontology, the scene/school with which Morton is most closely associated) is that it does't change anything about how one interfaces with the world. It is a shuffling around of the categories of being "behind the scenes".
There are a handful of interesting concepts in this book, and though Morton's method of philosophy is irreverent and sloppy, a few shining bits of insight break through. Let's start with those.
First, there is the concept of what Morton classifies as the "correlationist" world view. To paraphrase Kant, there is truly a world out there, but all that we (we being humans, and often humans of a specific caste) can access is data about that world. There is a gap, and so one restricts the definition of "world" to be the sphere accessed by humans. Morton imagines a slider between the "correlator" and "correlatee". What is necessary, then, is to turn the slider towards letting the thing-in-itself assert itself. Of course, any "access mode" we have is incomplete, and we cannot escape the prison of our perception, so this doesn't much change how we think about nonhumans. But downstream of this ontology (which is related to animism or First Peoples religion) one can imagine a world in which the agency of nonhumans is treated with more reverence. An intriguing idea, and one I agree with.
Next, there is the "Severing", a moment (but really a process located everywhere in space and time-- what Morton calls a hyperobject) at which humans walled off the nonhuman concomitant with the Neolithic revolution. Morton asserts that a truly staggering amount of Western cultural perceptions is a consequence of the trauma of this event. While I don't really buy this, it is true that exclusionary societal structures necessarily entail violence, and that speciesism and racism can both be seen as mirroring the cloistering-in of humanity away from nature that is the Severing. At the very least, it is true that in "taming nature", there is a violent exclusion going on, one which certainly has higher order effects.
Morton critiques teleology in a number of guises, and this is where things start to get sloppy. A number of terms are defined as being "the same", as the group of "things Morton doesn't like" grows like a game of Katamari Damacy. There is Hegel's Geist, "explosive holism" (the belief that the whole is greater [in what sense? Keep wondering!] than the sum of its parts), agrilogistics, western patriarchy, Mesopotamian utilitarianism, and so on. For the record, I more or less agree with this critique, but the connections drawn between all these subtly different concepts are not at all well-justified. In its stead, Morton posits a theory of "implosive holism", or "subscendence", the belief that the whole is "less than the sum of its parts". Again, it's a bit of a mystery what more than/less than mean exactly (Morton says "has more qualities than", which doesn't clear much up) but the attractiveness of the idea survives. Instead of thinking of each individual as subservient to capitalism, the human species, the planet etc, we turn this upside down and say that the individual is more than a component of a whole. This is subtly different than neoliberal individualism (there is no society), since instead, individual and society are placed on more or less equally footing. There is some dodgy mathematics here where Morton argues that a forest is "ontologically smaller" (there is no such thing) than its trees because a forest is one thing, and each tree is one thing. It's not nearly as original an idea as Morton seems to think it is, nor does this theory make neoliberalism or capitalism less powerful and dominant, but it is an appealing idea. I'm not willing to go to bat for Morton, though, when he insists that "cynical reason" is all that is behind the belief that capitalism is more powerful than any of us.
One of the ways in which teleology is self-destructive is that in an "explosive holist" framework, quantity of life is more important than quality of life, which is ultimately how the proliferation of life becomes a death drive. We see this confirmed in climate change. The problem is that the concept of life is not so stark. This is where Morton introduces (or parlays Derrida's concept of) spectrality, which is unfortunately very muddy.
Spectrality is a "shimmering" an "X-quality", and a superpower. It is the paradox that something is exactly what it is, yet not exactly what it appears. At the same time it is the potentiality of the future, "givenness", the curiosity of ennui, the uncanny, and more. At the very least, I agree with Morton that humans are haunted. By the weight of dead traditions, the potentiality of the future, and the halo of nonhuman entities with which we are independent in the "symbiotic real". Solidarity is, for Morton, recognizing this spectrality. Recognizing our interdependence with nonhumans is part of this.
Most of the book meditates on these ideas and a few more. There is also a fascinating and utterly unnecessary analysis of the Christopher Nolan movie Interstellar. The ideas double back on themselves, and at some points one wonders if one has accidentally jumped backwards a few chapters. You haven't, it's just that the structure of this book is not exactly linear. It's more of an improvised homily than anything.
But its maddening structure is not the worst part of this book. In fact, at times I found the structure to be quite beautiful, as there is a poetic interconnectedness to it all. A total lack of direction combined with the almost imperceptible feeling of progress -- it was almost dreamlike at times.
The style of Morton's prose -- which blends high culture, with low culture, abstract philosophy-jargon with slang and breezy conversation -- is not that fresh or new anymore. At times it is genuinely exciting, and there are nuggets of profundity in this book, as you would find in any two hundred page work of philosophy. But Timothy Morton is not Nietzsche. Most of the time, however, it is cheeky to the point of irritating, especially when it is totally opaque. This is especially maddening when the book takes a turn for the New Age, as Morton recklessly flirts with exponents, quantum physics, Möbius strips, the continuum hypothesis (which one of you told him about the continuum hypothesis?!) and other quantum spirituality Deepak Chopra clichés, never making it totally clear how serious he intends these metaphors to be.
It's not that the writing style is obfuscating here -- that would imply there is something to be obfuscated. Instead, Morton seems content to half-commit to half-positing a half-idea, and let you do the rest of the work for him. Among some of the most irritating Zen koans here:
"X just is Y" (usually not given with any serious explanation)
"X is retweeting Y" (Kant retweeting Hegel....it just makes one cringe a bit, doesn't it?)
“Greater than” must mean “having more qualities than.” “More real than” must mean “having more essence than.”(Dodgy ontology and metaphysics)
"X is the cool kids version of Y"
"X is cheap" (Probably the most maddening of them all, as the central thesis of the book is that 'solidarity is cheap', but it unclear whether cheap means abundant, easy to access, easy to cultivate, or something else entirely)
"An idea exists in the same way as a quasar" (Yet more dodgy metaphysics)
"X is a twelve inch remix of Y"
"X exists in the VIP lounges of agricultural-age religions"
While Humankind does occasionally reach the exalted key of joyful, playful philosophical theorizing, its flimsy foundations, sloppy methodology, and tendencies towards philistinic pseudo-profundity ultimately render the whole book more of a gesture towards a theory of solidarity with nonhumans than what it could have been, a thought-provoking and thorough manifesto. There is enough philosophy in here to keep the curious reader entertained (and it is probably worth skimming the bibliography just for culture -- Morton is nothing if not a skilled name-dropper), and equally enough sketchiness to keep a disciplined and clear thinker agitated. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · see review
Jul 12, 2018Bruce rated it really liked it
As a representative of OOO- Object Oriented Ontology- Timothy Morton rejects "Correlationalism" which is the tendency for Philosophy to persistently have only two options - Is reality a construct of the human mind? or is the human mind the product of physical substantial objectivity? A third consideration is a de-anthropocentric approach where all objects, from the smallest particles to the great galaxies and ourselves have a mutual referential interplay. That is to say my perception of the flower is of no less or of more importance than the flowers' perception of me. Whether connected to the above or not, he also dismisses what he calls "hyperobjects" - not too dissimilar to the post modern dismissal of the meta-narrative. A hyperobject is any whole that is considered to be greater than the sum of its parts - "Nature" being one. Timothy's argument is that these two perceptions limit the contribution we can have towards ecology. Only as we truly relate to objects and participate from a bottom up rather than a top down approach can we make a positive contribution. There is much more to this book and apologies for any misrepresentation(s) I may have made. I read it a couple of months ago.
My personal interest is from a theistic perspective. Timothy quite clearly dismisses the idea of God as just one more hyperobject. I think (at least my idea of) God can cope with that. For me the greatness of God does not consist in bigness but in how small God can become yet remain God. I believe fully in the bottom up idea - hence the incarnation.
The deanthropocentrism is also containable within my theology. While I still believe that man is created in God's image I do believe that religious man has falsely interpreted this to mean that humankind is more important - more valuable - and the rest of creation is a mere commodity to that end. But if we take the words of Christ who said "let him who is the greatest become the least - become the servant of all" seriously, then the closer we are to God's image the least we become. The outcome should be that complexity carries with it responsibility and this in Christian terms means to become a humble servant of creation - to care selflessly for all objects.
I understand the god that Timothy is dismissing but there are different ways to view God that actually affirm his concerns and contribute to his aims in this book.
That whole is not greater than the sum of its parts is an oversimplification although I believe that what Timothy is saying "What if we consider the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts". That said I would say that the whole does not needto be greater than the sum of its parts but it can be. Take England football team last night each individual player was brilliant but as a team they just didn't work well. On other occasions the team worked well and produced something that exceeded the sum of the individuals. So that would need looking into (Perhaps he did - sorry if that's the case)
At the end of the book I became aware of the significance of the title "Humankind" (Trudeaux would be impressed!) and the meaning implied by the word "kind" as in kinship as in mutual reciprocal participation in this thing we call life illiciting respect and compassion.
I've missed loads out and made considerable highlights which I will have to go back to but for all its complexity and quirky terms, whatever the motive, I have come away enlightened, informed and thinking in more depth, my part in the cosmos and my faith in God. For that I am grateful :) (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Mar 17, 2019Owen Moorhead rated it it was ok
I considered awarding this an extra star for chutzpah, but I couldn't do it.
This is a book that defines "spectre", "rock", and "solidarity", but neglects to explain a sentence like, "In the world of macro-Hegel, the Slinky is implausibly capable of going upstairs." At one point, I forgot what page I was on and skipped ahead fifty pages or so without realizing it. Now that I've finished, I'm still not sure if I actually read the whole book. It's a mess.
I should add that I am sympathetic to many of the arguments made by Morton in this book, so I was rooting for him.
But it's just such a bewildering barrage of references, "cool professor"-speak ("Micro-Hegel is generally awesome", "Infrasound is a Tolstoy novel about mountains, oceans, and deserts", etc.), and then at the end there's an extended exegesis of "Interstellar" that is totally incomprehensible. That was really the final nail in the coffin of the book for me, because I don't care what Tim Morton says, that movie was terrible.
I picked up this book because I was interested in a book about "Solidarity with Non-Human People." Maybe I'm a dummy. This book is about many things, but perhaps least of all "solidarity with non-human people." Rarely have I felt so keenly the truth of the old saw about judging books by their covers.
Having read one other of his books ("Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence"--again, great title), I am beginning to suspect that he has a hat full of cool book titles and subtitles and chooses them at random whenever he finishes a new one.
I'll probably keep reading his books, though. (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Apr 04, 2019b rated it it was amazing
Shelves: non-fiction, theory
I’ve read a lot of Morton, and probably with the huge mistake of not totally immersing myself in Graham Harman and the other OOO-types in advance. I might actually hate Morton, but also find myself bursting out in laughter when he writes things like “again I must be the devil,” because I think he somehow knows how much I hate him, and I realize now that a lot of what he is doing is “playing.” I’m sure some folks have spent careers trying to “debug” Marxism, and done so a lot less successfully than Morton does (or doesn’t? It doesn’t seem like he’s quite all the way there in this, but it was still nice following his ideas in this book, particularly as it reads more coherently than Dark Ecology did). Morton cuts to the chase when necessary, makes the best of a discipline obsessed with jargon by making his own candied-buzzwords (his are always the sweetest), and by pointing out some things that we really need to remember when we “do theory,” most importantly, that dumb questions are really important, maybe most important. I can see the appeal for those who love him, and I can see how folks who are tangled up in the wires of obfuscation and purity-politics and finding truth in one clear philosophical line are completely flabbergasted by Morton’s appeal. Not sure I can recommend it, but if any of this sounds appealing, why don’t you give it a go? (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jan 09, 2018M rated it it was amazing
Shelves: anthropocene, favorite, sociology, non-fiction, recommended
Perforated, fuzzy, broken & spectral: that’s how the arguments of this book are, making its way through continental philosophy and Marxism to insert non-humans, only to argue, ultimately, that there’s no such thing as solidarity without non-humans anyway. Reading it is a game: annoying, because you don’t know the rules, but nonetheless, fascinating. Morton keeps being in conversation with this, and that, from critical theorists to pop icons, jumping and jumping, unable to be grasped, constantly unfollowing himself from the reader’s understanding. But for all that it tortured me with, I loved it. I both believe it and not believe it. It makes such great arguments: adding non-humans to marxist theory, ontologically unpinning species (and thus race, and racism, too), accepting the fuzziness of the world (its spectral x-being), but also its toughness (it’s object oriented, not socially constructed), strongly in favor of an implosive holism (one that isn’t a whole greater than the sum of its parts, but less – subscendence), and pushing (rocking) against anthropocentrism. But also, it’s not very serious, it’s rather playful, which is, maybe, the point, or part of it, anyway. Is it like this so it cannot be contradicted? Maybe. Morton would love that, getting into a space into which contradictions are possible, and present – an excluded middle. Getting us into a loop, or brain-fucked, or preferably both, but in a beautiful, disgusting kind of way.
<< Love is not straight, because reality is not straight. Everywhere, there are curves and bends, things veer. Per-ver-sion. En-vir-onment. These terms come from the verb „to veer”. To veer, to swerve toward: am I choosing to do so or am I being pulled? Free will is overrated. I do not make decisions outside the Universe and then plunge in, like an Olympic diver. I am already in. >>
(less)
flag3 likes · Like · comment · see review
Jul 13, 2019Juan Pablo rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
I believe the role of philosophy has always been to question, to reflect, to envision all possibilities and the possibilities of those possibilities. To embrace and accept paradoxes and that nothing is certain or “written in stone”.
We live on an age where nothing is valid if it’s not “scientifically” proven. We also live on an age where we accumulate massive evidence of what fits our prejudice.
I felt that this work humbles ya down to where philosophy should. It points out how anthropocentrism clouds our vision in a new and fresh way. Even pointing out how philosophy can also be biased by our anthropocentrism and even envisioning anthropocentrism is in itself anthropogenic because we can never escape our “human” point of view. But like I said before. Philosophy should embrace paradoxes. It’s is its job.
I believe that philosophy is not out there to show us the answers, but to ask questions. Questions that disrupt our certainties and truths not validate them.
I’ve seen people slam this book because it has “over the top” or “pretentious” language to “say what has already been said” and that it provides no evidence of what it implies. Well. Sorry to disappoint you guys, this book is not a scientific paper. It embraces the philosophical paradox that what it implies might not be 100% true or factual but makes the observation that paradoxes are ok. We don’t need to fix on a law of non-contradiction. It’s a book about the paradox of acceptors anthropocentrism exists while looking at it through an anthropocentric lens.
It’s ok to accept paradoxes. That’s philosophy’s role. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
