That was the point of this course, wasn’t it?  To open the eyes of the class to the power of objects as things?  I don’t think I was the only one who was skeptical going into this course.  I mean, the idea that non-sentient objects can exert some sort of agency on sentient beings such as myself is a tough pill to swallow.  To follow object-oriented ontology is to reduce the specialness of the human.  Yes, it’s meant to elevate the object rather than diminish the human, but by decreasing the the difference between the two planes, people just don’t seem as important.  As a human being, I’m unfortunately biased towards caring about other humans.  I may feel for the environment and care about a photo of my deceased grandfather, but in the end nothing can close to my love for my friends and family.
Another obstacle in adopting and maintaining an object-oriented outlook is the superficial silence of things.  People openly exert their liveliness, their agency, their ability to make decisions and change the world.  No matter how vibrant materials are, one has to search for this liveliness and find it in order to appreciate it.  This takes a constant effort which I’m not sure I possess, while ignoring the power of objects is painfully easy.  I’m not saying that it’s impossible to adopt object oriented ontology, as we’ve seen Bruno Latour and his steadfast fight for this worldview.  Nor am I saying that this class has failed to do its duty for me, an ignorant college student who’s yet to establish his own identity and place in this world.  This class has made a difference in my outlook, and gotten me to appreciate the importance of objects in my life.  I believe that that is enough to call this source a success.  As a human, I’ve failed to be completely “objective,” a word that I will forever associate with this course.