I read Bruno Latour very much as the best kind of Catholic.
I read him as a radical Marian (and the furthest thing from a “Sophiologist”).
I read Latour as the most rigorously devout disciple of Mary Mater.
And Latour knows better than anyone that, just as no woman can be reduced to what some man thinks of her, matter is not reducible to scientific fact — that is, what “the” scientific community thinks of Mother Nature.
Nietzsche, the devoted son of a Lutheran minister, once asked “Supposing truth is a woman — what then?”
But supposing truth is absolutely not a woman?
Supposing truth is a self-serving, unfaithful notion of woman?
Supposing this notion of “woman” makes relationship with any real woman — actual or metaphorical — impossible?
Now what?
Materialists are the incels of philosophy.
They are obsessed with an ideal object of thought they confuse with real being, and this confused obsession kills all possibility of relationship. The more the materialist obsesses over his object of thought, the more unreal and alienated his notions become. And she can intuit this. She feels it directly: this dude is interacting with some creepy doppelgängeress in his head, not with her. She recoils. Her devastating pronouncement: Ick.
She will open only to those who meet her as real, who converse with her as existent, who live life with her as companion, who become transformed by her, with her, in relationship with her.
She appears as herself only in relationship. She dysappears to those who grasp her as an object of hate or of infatuation or of distant worship.
Believe me, I raised two daughters, and I know an abusive profile when I see it.
The abuser’s tell: He arrives with a defined woman-role in mind, and he demands conformity to it.
“If you were a good girlfriend, you would…”
“If you really loved me, you would…”
Marxism is a collective abuser.
Marxism is an incel driven to psychosis by disappointment and resentment.
The world failed to live up to his high expectations, and he is extremely upset about it.
And he is making that disappointment her problem.
The existent real material order will not play her role, because she is a bad material order, and that is why she is unhappy.
A good material order would behave like a good material order, and then he would happy.
He would toil a little during the day, and write a little poetry in the evening. And the material order would smile sweetly and submissively. She would shelter him for free. She would cook for him for free. She would be an angel of compassionate care when he needs free healthcare. She would fetch his newspaper and slippers. She would perform her wifely duties, and not out of duty.
If she were a good material economic order, she would do all these things.
But she isn’t.
And now she will pay for it.
See what she made him do?