At the time I'm writing this, there are three similar replies that use an argument along the lines of "you can simply ignore Latour if you don't like his work".
I'm just replying to the first comment.
Unfortunately this argument is not correct. Many, many, people have read Latour, and he has influenced a lot of thought. Ignoring Latour would imply that you'd have to ignore quite a few other people as well, and that is near impossible.
Ironically, it is Latour who writes about the connectedness of things in his "actor-network theory".
Even more ironically, Latour tried to improve mutual understanding in his "Inquiry Into Modes of Existence" project, but apparently it is not that easy.
It might be interesting to hear out the criticisms against Latour's way of reasoning, instead of dismissing it.
> It might be interesting to hear out the criticisms against Latour's way of reasoning, instead of dismissing it.
I’m not sure you read my post, it sounds like you just assumed its contents, which was not in fact about being free to ignore Latour, but about being free to critique him with or without an understanding of what he’s trying to say.
If you read it you’d know that of course I’d be happy to hear out the criticisms against Latour’s reasoning, but they’ll be much more powerful if they come with an understanding of what he’s trying to say in the first place.
Unfortunately this argument is not correct. Many, many, people have read Latour, and he has influenced a lot of thought. Ignoring Latour would imply that you'd have to ignore quite a few other people as well, and that is near impossible.
Ironically, it is Latour who writes about the connectedness of things in his "actor-network theory".
Even more ironically, Latour tried to improve mutual understanding in his "Inquiry Into Modes of Existence" project, but apparently it is not that easy.
It might be interesting to hear out the criticisms against Latour's way of reasoning, instead of dismissing it.