No one in our circles really likes Aristotle anymore. He’s taken to be the synonym for all that is boring and “classical”. This attitude is a mistake. Yes, I know all about school texts and the rebellion of modern philosophy against them. But the intermittent moments when Aristotle enters philosophy have quite often been fertile moments, or even moments of renaissance. I’m reminded of this whenever I dip into Leibniz, and even whenever I dip into Zubíri (I say “even” only because he lacks Leibniz’s breadth of influence).
Gradually, a consensus has built up that individual substances are gauche, that essence is both gauche and oppressive, and so forth. …
In a sense, the whole object-oriented program can be described as a weirder version of Aristotle– weirder insofar as OOO’s substances are more elusive, and insofar as “objects” in my usage of the term are a far broader category than substances
I don’t know if Aristotle has ever left. I don’t mean this in the sense that Aristotle’s metaphysics informs all sorts of essentialism, etc., though this would be enough. I mean in the sense that politically, ethically, and yes metaphysically he’s still a constant touchstone. For example, is there anyone who does not take a lot away from the sixth book of the Ethics? Harman’s point is well taken, but some of those who would have done with Aristotle are getting him through some other set of figures (Arendt, Heidegger, and so on).