워즈워스와 객체지향 존재론

Abstract

The rising theory of Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) has gained prominence in contemporary academic discourse, driven by a profound concern for addressing the global environmental crisis. At its core, OOO proposes a paradigm shift, advocating that individuals abandon their roles as subjects and instead assume the position of objects, akin to all other entities, including nature. This perspective contends that relinquishing the superiority of human subjects over nature is essential. Some critics further assert that, according to OOO, there exists a fundamental equality among all objects, blurring the distinction between natural and urban entities: a viewpoint that, they suppose, resonates with Wordsworth’s sentiments. William Wordsworth, renowned for his reverence for nature, shares some common ground with OOO. However, a crucial divergence emerges in their perspectives, primarily centered around the role of subjects. Wordsworth maintains that subjects cannot be entirely eliminated, as he underscores the significance of sensibility. To truly appreciate the value of nature, humans must become subjects endowed with the sensitivity to perceive nature’s dynamism actively. While OOO posits the equality of all objects, Wordsworth’s worldview contends that not all objects are equal: there is a hierarchy, with nature holding a special place. Wordsworth’s distinction lies in his preference for the objects of nature over those in industrialized cities. The crux of his argument is that not everyone can be a nature worshiper because not everyone possesses the same level of sensibility towards the natural world. When Wordsworth expresses his willingness to perish if his heart fails to leap upon seeing a rainbow, he is advocating for the subjective experience, emphasizing the importance of being a subject with the requisite sensibility to fully engage with the active forces of nature, rather than merely assuming the status of an object.