A recent post at object-oriented philosophy puts the case for naiveté.  It seems that naiveté forms part of the method of an ‘object-oriented philosophy’.  This makes a comparison with Deleuze’s methodological naiveté interesting.  Deleuze’s philosophy of difference called for naiveté because difference was considered to be real rather than a structural, textual or linguistic difference that defers or masks any direct grasp of the real.  Differential Ideas are realised in sensatio...

A recent post at object-oriented philosophy puts the case for naiveté.  It seems that naiveté forms part of the method of an ‘object-oriented philosophy’.  This makes a comparison with Deleuze’s methodological naiveté interesting.  Deleuze’s philosophy of difference called for naiveté because difference was considered to be real rather than a structural, textual or linguistic difference that defers or masks any direct grasp of the real.  Differential Ideas are realised in sensatio...