Review of OOO as a movement by Nathan Brown, from Tool-Being to Realist Magic:
In order to stake its claim to originality and supremacy, “OOO” has to fulminate against what it sees as a threatening field materialists, purveyors of “scientism,” process philosophers, Deleuzians, and systems theorists.
[…]
Yet many readers, perhaps trying to find an initial foothold in philosophy and theory, will find themselves in a position from which this might not be apparent. And the problem with obscurantism is that its strategy is to reinforce incomprehension, rather than alleviating it. To the extent that this strategy can itself be clarified, its effect—the cultivation of ignorance and error—is mitigated.
Not surprisingly, the OOO crowd (Bryant, Harman, and Morton) have remained silent on this. And I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a reply.
In any case, I’m going to make a point of suggesting this review to any of my friends or students who are actually considering taking OOO seriously.
Now Jon Cogburn has replied (http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/12/wow-this-is-depressing.html), but strangely enough his reply is empty anger, he even admits in the comments that he is not familiar enough with Morton’s work to be able to defend him. So all that remains is a sort of indignation on principle against philosophical critique of non-professional philosophers who misuse philosophy. I think this reaction must be seen in terms of the turn against conceptual critique that OOO endorses, this is part of the “concept-blindness” of OOO. If Nathan Brown had just called OOO “obscurantist” he would have been ignored or dismissed with a smile of amusement. But that he actually dared to take (conceptually) seriously Morton’s pronouncements on logic, set theory, and physics, is somehow seen as scandalous.