Narrative Identity and Technologies of the Self: Ricoeur and Foucault in Dialogue

Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault are two of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, both concerned with how human beings understand and shape themselves. Yet their approaches diverge significantly. Ricoeur emphasizes narrative identity—the stories we tell to unify our lives—while Foucault analyzes technologies of the self, the practices and discourses by which subjects are formed. Comparing these two perspectives sheds light on the tension between coherence and fragmentation, freedom and power, in modern conceptions of the self.

Ricoeur: The Narrative Configuration of Identity

For Ricoeur, identity emerges through the act of storytelling. In Time and Narrative and Oneself as Another, he argues that we make sense of our lives by configuring events into coherent narratives. This narrative identity balances:

• Sameness (idem-identity): continuity across time.

• Selfhood (ipse-identity): the capacity to change, promise, and take responsibility.

Narrative identity provides both stability and openness. It is not a fixed essence but a dynamic process of interpretation, linking personal memory, ethical responsibility, and communal belonging.

Foucault: Technologies of the Self

Foucault approaches selfhood differently. In works like Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality, he shows how subjects are shaped by power relations and discursive practices. Later, he turns to technologies of the self—the ways individuals work upon themselves (through confession, self-examination, ascetic practices) to become certain kinds of subjects.

For Foucault, the self is not primarily a narrative agent but an effect of practices, norms, and power structures. Identity is neither continuous nor unified but contingent and historically constructed.

Points of Convergence

Despite their differences, Ricoeur and Foucault share some concerns:

• Self-formation: Both see the self as something we construct, not something given.

• Mediation: Ricoeur emphasizes texts and symbols, while Foucault emphasizes practices and discourses.

• Ethics: Each links selfhood to ethics—Ricoeur through responsibility and justice, Foucault through care of the self and resistance to domination.

Both offer resources for thinking about freedom: Ricoeur through narrative reconfiguration, Foucault through critical practices of self-transformation.

Points of Contrast

The contrasts, however, are stark:

• Continuity vs. Discontinuity: Ricoeur seeks coherence in narrative identity, while Foucault stresses the fractures imposed by power.

• Hermeneutics vs. Genealogy: Ricoeur interprets symbols and stories, Foucault excavates histories of discourse and discipline.

• Ethical Aim vs. Critical Resistance: Ricoeur’s formula—“the good life, with and for others, in just institutions”—posits a positive ethical horizon, while Foucault emphasizes critique, fluidity, and experimentation with ways of living.

Why the Comparison Matters

Placing Ricoeur and Foucault side by side highlights two competing visions of selfhood:

• A hermeneutical self that seeks coherence through narrative and responsibility.

• A genealogical self that resists unification, seeing identity as contingent and shaped by power.

In today’s debates—around digital identity, gender, memory, and politics—both perspectives remain vital. Ricoeur reminds us of the need for continuity and ethical responsibility, while Foucault reminds us to question the norms and discourses that shape who we are allowed to become.

Tension as Fertility

The dialogue between Ricoeur and Foucault is not about choosing one over the other but about holding their insights in tension. Narrative identity offers depth and coherence; technologies of the self reveal contingency and power. Together, they expand our understanding of selfhood in a complex and plural world.

How to Read Deconstructively: Strategies and Examples

To read deconstructively is to read otherwise - not in opposition to the text, but within its logic, attending to what it cannot quite contain, what it must repress to seem coherent. The goal is not to uncover a “hidden meaning” or impose a new interpretation, but to trace how the text undoes itself, often at the very points where it tries to be most certain.

Deconstruction is not a method, but it is not without method either. It involves a certain sensibility - a disposition toward inconsistency, instability, and excess in language. Reading deconstructively means watching a text perform more than it means to, even as it tries to assure you of what it means.

Step One: The First Reading – Structure and Argument

Begin by reading the text in the way it seems to ask to be read. Identify its explicit claims, its central oppositions, and the hierarchies it presupposes. This is what Derrida calls the “first reading” - a careful reconstruction of the text’s surface logic.

Ask:

• What is the main argument?

• What oppositions structure the text (e.g., truth/error, speech/writing, nature/culture)?

• Which terms or concepts are treated as stable, authoritative, or original?

This step requires generosity and rigor. You are not looking for errors. You are identifying how the text organizes its thought - how it holds itself together.

Step Two: The Second Reading – Fault Lines and Tensions

Now return to the text with fresh eyes. Look for inconsistencies, slippages, or excesses - moments when the language carries more than the argument accounts for, or contradicts its own claims.

Focus especially on:

• Undecidables: concepts that the text cannot define without contradiction (e.g., “justice,” “origin,” “truth”).

• Supplements: elements that seem to be external but are in fact necessary to the text’s coherence.

• Margins and metaphors: peripheral or rhetorical elements that disrupt the logical structure.

Ask:

• Does the text depend on what it excludes?

• Are the foundational concepts (e.g., presence, identity) stable, or do they collapse under scrutiny?

• Is a binary reversed or undermined by the text’s own logic?

This is not about finding contradictions for their own sake. It is about showing how the internal logic of the text produces effects it cannot control.

Example: Deconstructing “Nature” in a Philosophical Text

Imagine a text that claims humans are naturally rational and that reason distinguishes us from animals. In the first reading, you note that “reason” is aligned with humanity, culture, and autonomy, while “instinct” is linked to nature, animals, and determinism.

In the second reading, you examine the assumptions:

• How is “reason” defined?

• Is it possible to define “reason” without referencing “instinct”?

• Does the text rely on metaphors of animality to describe the failure of reason?

• Are there examples where humans behave “irrationally,” and how does the text handle that?

What emerges is a kind of dependency: “rationality” only has meaning against a backdrop of “irrationality,” and this boundary is porous. The text may try to maintain a clean line, but its language - and perhaps its examples - undermine that line from within.

The Role of Rhetoric and Style

Deconstruction takes language seriously - not just what a text says, but how it says it. Rhetorical figures, metaphors, tone, and structure are not ornaments; they are sites where meaning is produced and displaced. Often, metaphors carry the philosophical weight of a text—sometimes more than its logic.

To read deconstructively is to ask:

• What work is the metaphor doing?

• What assumptions does it conceal?

• Does it contradict or complicate the argument it supports?

For Derrida, a single metaphor—“foundation,” “mirror,” “voice”—can unravel a philosophical system when we follow its implications rigorously.

Reading with Responsibility

A deconstructive reading is not a free-for-all. It requires fidelity to the text - to its language, its claims, and its complexity. It is an act of close attention, not of casual skepticism. The goal is not to reduce the text to nonsense but to let it speak in ways it did not intend - to listen for what it had to exclude to sound coherent.

This is why Derrida often described his work as both strategic and ethical. It is strategic because it chooses its focus carefully - no reading can destabilize everything at once. It is ethical because it attends to what the text leaves out, marginalizes, or suppresses, and holds that exclusion up to view.

Beginning the Practice

Start small. Choose a paragraph, a sentence, even a single word. Read it once for argument, and again for tension. Ask: What is assumed here? What is at stake? What is excluded, and does it return?

Over time, you’ll develop an ear for slippages - a sensitivity to how language unravels even as it ties itself together. You’ll begin to see that texts are not just containers of meaning, but events of meaning, structured by difference, deferral, and excess.

To read deconstructively is not to master the text - but to let it show you what mastery cannot contain.

From Biography to Theory: Bourdieu’s “Miraculous Oblate”

Pierre Bourdieu was not only a brilliant theorist but also a product of the very social dynamics he spent his life analyzing. To understand his sociology, it helps to look at his trajectory—from rural roots to the pinnacle of French intellectual life. Bourdieu himself described his path as that of a “miraculous oblate”: someone who seemed destined for a modest life yet was drawn, almost by chance, into the elite world of academia. This tension between origin and destination shaped his thinking about social reproduction, cultural capital, and the invisible weight of habitus.

From Rural Béarn to Parisian Elites

Bourdieu was born in 1930 in Denguin, a small village in Béarn, southwest France. His father was a postal worker; his family background was far removed from the Parisian intellectual establishment. Yet Bourdieu excelled in school and won entry to the École Normale Supérieure (ENS), the most prestigious French institution for philosophy and letters. For a provincial boy, this was a seismic leap across class and cultural boundaries.

The Outsider Within

At ENS, Bourdieu encountered students from elite Parisian families who carried themselves with ease, wit, and cultural fluency. Though academically gifted, he felt out of place, marked by his rural accent, manners, and outsider habitus. This personal dislocation—never quite at home in either his village of origin or the intellectual elite—became central to his sociology. It gave him a keen eye for the subtle ways institutions privilege some and marginalize others while disguising these hierarchies as natural.

Biography as Sociology

Bourdieu’s own experience became a living case study of cultural capital. His journey showed how educational institutions transform inherited advantages into apparent merit. He succeeded, but only by learning to navigate codes of speech, taste, and behavior that were not his own. This autobiographical truth infused his works on education, from The Inheritors to Reproduction, where he demonstrated how schools reward those whose backgrounds already match institutional expectations.

The “Miraculous Oblate” as Concept

By calling himself a “miraculous oblate,” Bourdieu highlighted both the improbability of his success and its explanatory value. He was not a heroic exception but a product of structural forces: a rural child carried into elite spaces by educational selection and historical circumstance. His life exemplified how habitus, capital, and field interact, producing both constraints and rare openings.

Why His Biography Still Matters

Bourdieu’s story reminds us that theory is never detached from life. His sociology is not abstract speculation but the distillation of lived contradictions: belonging and exclusion, privilege and disadvantage, structure and agency. By tracing his path from Béarn to Paris, we see why his work speaks with such urgency about the hidden mechanisms of inequality—and why it continues to resonate with those who feel caught between worlds.

Learn More:

Bourdieu Explained

Habitus: Pierre Bourdieu’s Key to Understanding Social Life

The Social Game Board: Bourdieu’s Concept of Field

Beyond Money: Bourdieu’s Theory of Capital

Doxa, Orthodoxy, and Heterodoxy: Bourdieu’s Invisible Powers

When Habits Fall Behind: Bourdieu’s Concept of Hysteresis

Reflexivity in Bourdieu’s Sociology: A Method, Not Just a Mindset

Education as Reproduction—and Resistance: Bourdieu on Schools and Inequality

Distinction, Taste, and Class Today: Revisiting Bourdieu’s Classic Insight

Symbolic Power and Symbolic Violence: Bourdieu’s Subtle Weapons of Domination

Pierre Bourdieu - short summary of ideas

12 key concpets in Bourdieu's socological thought

Derrida on Iterability, Supplement, and Undecidability

At the heart of deconstruction is an insight that Derrida develops repeatedly, and never quite the same way twice: language works by repetition, and this very repetition is what makes language unstable. Words do not mean because they are uniquely tied to a moment, speaker, or intention. They mean because they can be repeated - across time, space, contexts, and speakers.

Derrida takes up this idea through the concept of iterability, which he develops especially in his response to J.L. Austin’s speech act theory. A sign must be iterable - repeatable in different contexts - to function at all. But this very repeatability introduces alteration. Each time a word or sign is used, it carries with it a history of previous uses and the potential for entirely new meanings. It can never be entirely contained by one speaker’s intention or one moment’s context.

A “thank you,” for example, may express gratitude, irony, obligation, refusal. The context doesn’t simply fix the meaning - context is always open, always interpretable, always in motion. The sign is never fully at home.

Iterability Undermines Originality

Iterability challenges the idea that any word or meaning can have a pure origin. If signs must be repeatable to function, then even the “first” use of a word is already framed by potential repetition. There is no pristine moment of presence - no pure meaning untouched by difference or citation.

Even speech, long privileged in the philosophical tradition as direct and present, depends on structures of spacing and repetition. And writing, rather than being a fallen or secondary form, simply makes these structures more visible. It shows that communication is always mediated - always deferred, always exposed to alteration.

The Supplement: That Which Both Completes and Displaces

This leads us directly to another key term in Derrida’s vocabulary: the supplement. In texts like Of Grammatology (especially his reading of Rousseau), Derrida shows how the supplement is seen as something added to a whole - something secondary, unnecessary, external. But this appearance is deceptive. The supplement doesn’t just add; it reveals a lack that was already there.

Writing is called a supplement to speech - an external support. But if speech requires writing to be preserved, interpreted, or repeated, then it was never self-sufficient. The supplement shows that what was thought to be primary and complete was in fact incomplete, dependent, unstable. It completes and displaces at the same time.

This is not an exception; it is the structure of meaning itself. Every system that claims self-identity or purity requires a supplement, and in doing so, reveals that it never possessed what it claimed to possess in the first place.

Undecidability: Where Meaning Demands Decision, Without Grounds

The third concept in this triad is undecidability. This term can easily be misunderstood. It does not mean we can never decide, or that all interpretations are equal. Rather, it describes a situation in which a decision must be made, but where the conditions for making it are not guaranteed.

In legal or ethical contexts, for example, we often must choose between competing obligations - justice and law, duty and desire, individual and collective. Deconstruction insists that these oppositions cannot be resolved by simply applying a rule. Every decision involves risk, context, and responsibility - and no decision is ever final, secure, or fully justified.

In a text, undecidability emerges when a word or phrase generates multiple, incompatible meanings - none of which can be fully eliminated. A deconstructive reading does not try to resolve this, but to think within it. Undecidability is not a flaw; it is a structure of language and meaning.

Opening Meaning Without Abandoning It

Derrida’s work on iterability, the supplement, and undecidability challenges the dream of fixed meaning, original presence, and final truth. But this does not lead to relativism or chaos. Rather, it demands a new kind of attention: to the conditions under which meaning happens, and to the responsibilities of interpretation.

Signs are iterable-that is what makes meaning possible. But iteration always alters - that is what makes meaning open, dynamic, and never complete. Supplements reveal that systems are built on what they exclude, and that exclusion is never stable. Undecidability does not paralyze us - it forces us to decide without guarantees, with awareness that every choice leaves something behind.

This is not the end of meaning. It is where meaning begins to become visible - in its movement, in its excess, in its impossibility.

See also:

Derrida on Writing and Trace

Derrida and Specch Act Theory

Derrida and the concept of justice

Derrida's On Grammatology between structuralism and post-structuralism

Derrida's Critique of Presence and the Logic of Logocentrism Explained

Derrida on Différance, Trace, and the Temporality of Meaning

Deconstruction of Binary Oppositions and Hierarchical Structures

Glossary of Key Derrida and Deconstruction Terms

Philippe Descola’s Four Ontologies and the End of Western Exceptionalism

Philippe Descola didn’t set out to destabilize modernity. He simply followed the evidence and found, to his mild surprise and our collective disorientation, that the Western way of carving up the world - that neat split between humans and everything else - is not a default setting but a historical quirk. His four ontologies are less a taxonomy and more a metaphysical mood board, a reminder that people across the globe have been inventing radically different ways of cohabiting existence long before European thought started congratulating itself for discovering nature.

If Viveiros de Castro cracks open the notion of perspective, Descola cracks open the notion of reality’s architecture itself.

What the Four Ontologies Actually Are

Descola proposes four primary ontological regimes - naturalism, animism, analogism, and totemism - each describing how beings are sorted according to physical and interior qualities.

Naturalism will feel familiar. It’s the modern West’s home turf: humans alone have interiority (mind, consciousness, intention), while all beings share a physical nature. Hence our comfort with MRI machines and pet psychics existing in the same society, albeit with different Yelp ratings.

Animism does the opposite. Many Indigenous societies in the Amazon and elsewhere attribute shared interiority across humans, animals, and sometimes features of the landscape, while bodies differ. A spirit-rich cosmos where personhood is distributed rather than monopolized.

Totemism aligns physical and interior qualities within specific collectives. Think of beings - human and nonhuman - sharing forms of identity because they descend from a common prototype or ancestor. It is less about symbolic animals on sports jerseys and more about kinship as a metaphysical fact.

Analogism, the most baroque of the four, takes the world as a splintered mosaic of singular entities connected through intricate correspondences. Medieval Europe, traditional China, and many Indigenous cosmologies operate here. Everything is different, yet everything rhymes.

Why the Framework Stings

What makes Descola irritating in the productive sense is his deadpan clarity. He tells the West: naturalism is not universal. It is simply one way of organizing the furniture of reality. The world is not a museum waiting for scientific labels; it is a negotiation of ontological commitments.

Here’s where you might feel that familiar cognitive twinge - the suspicion that the Western separation of nature and culture has been doing more ideological work than descriptive work. Descola isn’t attacking science. He’s just asking why one ontology gets to pretend it’s not an ontology at all.

Everyday Symptoms of Ontological Drift

The fun part is noticing how naturalism is fraying at the edges. Think of how easily people attribute agency to algorithms, how wellness culture resurrects analogistic correspondences, how pets slide into quasi personhood, how climate activism treats the Earth less as an object and more as a subject with moods. The four ontologies are not historical boxes; they are active scripts. You probably toggle between them before breakfast.

I once caught myself negotiating with a stubborn smart speaker as if it were an animist entity, then googling CO2 data like a naturalist, then feeling guilty toward a houseplant with all the analogistic intensity of a medieval monk. This is not hypocrisy. It is ontological pluralism leaking into everyday life.

The Takeaway

Descola offers a vocabulary for something you already sense: the Western world picture is wobbling. Not collapsing, but losing its monopoly. His four ontologies do not rank or reconcile anything. They simply hold up a mirror and say: choose your commitments carefully. Reality has always been more than one thing, and the sooner we drop the myth of Western exceptionalism, the better our chances of building a world that can survive its own complexity.

See also: Turning Ontological: Critical Paths in the Ontological Turn

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro: Perspectivism and the Anthropologist Who Broke Reality

Key Thinkers in the Ontological Turn

Derrida and the Deconstruction of Binary Oppositions and Hierarchical Structures

Thinking in Pairs

Western philosophy, literature, and culture often think in pairs. Truth and falsehood. Mind and body. Reason and emotion. Male and female. Presence and absence. These oppositions have long been treated as natural, foundational, and stable—as if the world just comes organized in neat little binary oppositions, ready to be categorized.

But Derrida teaches us to be suspicious of such neatness. These oppositions do more than organize thought; they carry hierarchies within them. One term is usually privileged over the other: reason over emotion, presence over absence, male over female. The first term is seen as primary, essential, pure; the second as secondary, derivative, impure. The structure of the opposition is not neutral—it is built to sustain power.

The Logic of Hierarchy

Derrida calls this structure a "violent hierarchy." It’s not just that oppositions exist; it’s that they are structured so that one term dominates and the other serves. Take “speech/writing,” for instance. In much of Western philosophy (Plato, Rousseau, Saussure), speech is seen as the authentic expression of thought—direct, living, immediate—while writing is a copy, a shadow, a mere representation.

But deconstruction shows that this privileging is unstable. The “secondary” term (in this case, writing) often turns out to be what makes the “primary” term possible. Writing is not a simple derivative of speech; it reveals that speech itself is already structured by difference, spacing, and absence. The secondary term is secretly foundational—it supports and disrupts the dominant term at the same time.

This is not a one-off case. The same reversal can be performed across countless binaries: nature/culture, inside/outside, original/copy. Each pair conceals a dependency: the dominant term needs the excluded one to define itself. This is the paradox deconstruction exploits.

Deconstruction as Strategic Reversal

Deconstruction doesn’t simply reject binaries. It starts by inhabiting them—reading a text in terms of the very oppositions it depends on. But then it moves toward reversal: showing that what the text treats as marginal or inferior is actually central. The idea is not to flip the hierarchy and install the “weaker” term on top—that would just repeat the same logic—but to unsettle the structure itself.

This move is often subtle. Derrida doesn’t announce that “writing wins” or that “absence is better than presence.” Instead, he reveals how the logic of the text undoes itself, how the privileged term cannot hold its place without borrowing from what it seeks to exclude. This is not about leveling the field, but about making the instability of the field visible.

Reading Binary Structures in Practice

To read deconstructively, one pays attention to how oppositions are constructed, how one term gains authority, and what that authority depends on. The aim is to locate points where the text contradicts itself, where the binary blurs, or where the supposedly secondary term exerts surprising influence.

Take, for example, the opposition between man/woman in classical philosophy or literature. The male is often defined as rational, complete, autonomous; the female as emotional, lacking, dependent. But if we ask how “man” gains his coherence, we may find that it is through the construction of “woman” as his opposite. Without the “feminine,” the “masculine” has no edge, no contrast, no identity. The binary creates the illusion of stable gender categories, but in doing so, it reveals their fragility.

The Politics of Binary Thinking

Derrida’s critique of binary oppositions is not just abstract or linguistic—it has profound ethical and political implications. Hierarchies are not just conceptual; they organize institutions, justify exclusions, and reproduce inequalities. When the “rational subject” becomes the standard of thought, those deemed irrational are pushed to the margins. When “civilized” is opposed to “savage,” a whole colonial discourse takes shape.

To deconstruct binary oppositions, then, is not merely to play games with language. It is to interrogate the structures of thought that support systems of dominance—intellectual, social, and political. It is to expose how exclusions operate and how the excluded returns within the very structure that claims to reject it.

Living in the Intervals

Derrida doesn’t offer a way out of binary logic. He doesn’t propose a new system beyond oppositions. Instead, he invites us to read in the interval, to dwell in the space where oppositions tremble, blur, or collapse. In that space—where presence is haunted by absence, and writing undercuts speech—we begin to see not a new foundation, but a new relation to meaning itself.

Deconstruction teaches us to recognize that the center never holds because it was never really central to begin with. The outside is already inside. The margin supports the core. And the binary is never as binary as it seems.

Know more:

Binary oppositions in linguistics

Binary Oppositions in Anthropology

Derrida on Writing and Trace

Derrida and Specch Act Theory

Derrida and the concept of justice

Derrida's On Grammatology between structuralism and post-structuralism

Derrida's Critique of Presence and the Logic of Logocentrism Explained

Derrida on Différance, Trace, and the Temporality of Meaning

Glossary of Key Derrida and Deconstruction Terms

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro: Perspectivism and the Anthropologist Who Broke Reality

The core provocation of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro is deceptively simple: what if the “nature-culture” divide - that big, invisible sorting machine of Western thought - is not a universal truth but a provincial habit, the cognitive equivalent of thinking your local subway map is a cartography of the cosmos? Amerindian perspectivism, his signature idea, doesn’t just tweak anthropology’s metaphysics; it kicks the legs out from under the whole table and invites you to sit on the floor instead, cross-legged, slightly destabilized, suddenly aware that reality has more trapdoors than you were led to believe.

Let me spoil the ending: humans aren’t the only ones with perspectives. But this isn’t Disney animism. It’s a philosophical jailbreak.

What Perspectivism Actually Says

In the cosmologies of many Amazonian peoples, jaguars see themselves as persons, not as animals. They drink blood, yes, but to them it appears as fermented manioc beer. A tapir considers itself a person too, and so does the vulture, the anaconda, the peccary. The shared baseline is not biology but personhood. What changes is not “culture” (as in human symbolic life) but “nature” itself - the form bodies take and the worlds those bodies disclose.

Western metaphysics, Viveiros de Castro argues, does the opposite. We naturalize bodies and treat cultures as the variable add-ons. But Amerindian perspectivism flips the axis: cultures are the constant - the universal condition of personhood - while bodies are the specific filters through which worlds become visible.

This is the part where you, dear reader, feel the little metaphysical draft blowing on your ankles. Good. Hold that.

Why This Isn’t Relativism

A lazy reading might whisper that perspectivism is just relativism with better face paint. It isn’t. Relativism says there’s one world interpreted differently. Perspectivism says different beings literally inhabit different worlds because bodies produce worlds, not merely interpretations of them.

Think of it this way: your cat doesn’t just misinterpret the living room. She occupies a slightly different living room, attuned to other intensities, other affordances, other stakes. If you grant that idea even a millimeter of philosophical space, you suddenly realize how limited the Western “world as a single container” model really is.

And yes, this has implications for everything from ecological politics to AI discourse. If multiple worlds are always already in play, then the problem isn’t how to represent others but how to negotiate coexistence across ontological difference. A small problem, really. Only the whole future.

The Viral Afterlife of Perspectivism

Here’s the part that delights me: perspectivism has quietly seeped into digital culture like a philosophical leak. Every time someone jokes that their dog “thinks you work for him,” or a meme imagines pigeons running secret city governments, or an online community spins an entirely new cosmology out of vibes and lore - you see perspectivism’s echo. Not the full theory, of course, but the intuition that other beings, systems, and actors occupy worlds that intersect ours without collapsing into them.

Viveiros de Castro would resist making this cute. He is suspicious of domesticated theory. Perspectivism is not a metaphor; it’s a diplomatic challenge.

The Takeaway

If the ontological turn has a patron saint, it’s Viveiros de Castro - not because he asks us to believe what Amazonian peoples believe, but because he asks us to stop assuming our metaphysics is the operating system of the universe. His wager is moral as much as intellectual: a world of many worlds demands more than tolerance. It demands the courage to admit your reality is just one of the local ones.

See also: Turning Ontological: Critical Paths in the Ontological Turn

Key Thinkers in the Ontological Turn