Alien Phenomenology or What It’s Like to Be a Thing

An ontographer is a person who describes beings and their nature and environment.

Opposite to Immanuel Kant’s argument in which objects (units) or things are dependent upon human recognition and exist within human thought, Ian Bogust in his book, Alien Phenomenology, argues object-oriented ontology. Bogust cites author Richard F. Kitchener's definition of "ontology" as "... the theory of the nature of existence, the ontography is its description." (Bogust, 36)

I believe more specifically, that Bogust argues that non-human objects do not only exist within the realm of human cognition. For a lack of better words, he argues the inherent equitability between all objects as they exist even outside of human cognition.   


In one prime example, Bogust discusses how photographer Stephen Shore's work would not be as dynamic without a realization and appreciation of the whole of the camera experience and its parts. (Bogust, 47) Shore's use of historical camera techniques and materials (plates) deserves a deeper appreciation of the use of "things" or "units"as part of the greater objective.
Questions:

• If a tree falls in the woods and a human is not there to hear it, did it make a sound or did it even fall? Why does Bogust care about the appreciation of things?

• Does it really matter to celebrate the mondane logistics associated with a non-human object?

• Why anthropomorphize animals and non-human objects? Is there anything in it for "them" or is it all for our human intentions/validation?