Levi just posted a link to my Latour Litanizer, which has generated a bunch of new traffic to and reflection about the tool.
Over at Effervescent Crucibles, Michael points out that the litanizer tends to bring up people quite frequently. As he observes, “it points to the fact that, because of various aspects of our way of being in the world, we are much more apt to catalog particular humans as such than any other kind of being.” Indeed. He also makes note of the occasional appearance of disambiguation pages as evidence that grouping itself is a thing. It’s also worth noting that Wikipedia itself contains lists (e.g., List of dams), and those pages also sometimes come up within the litanies. Finally, Michael wonders if, given the religious background of the word “litany,” if it itself invites questions about the role of religion in modern life.
And from Kallekonatus, a charming little litany-like game, whose rules I’ll quote:
My first reaction to the litanizer was how it made me think of a game me and my brother and my cousin used to play, we called it “50-50.” The game goes like this: In a rhytmic and quick way, you are supposed to utter two random words that have ABSOLUTELY NO connection to eachother (or at least not in a commonsensical, everyday sense). The first that stutters or halts or says something that is obviously connected (either by way of association or causation or whatever) loses. It is actually harder than it sounds, and quite fun. We had some laughs over combinations like “50-50: granny and the moon,” “50-50: the Chinese Communist Party and mayonnaise” etc. etc. Childish, but still a game that is not without its ontological insights.
Finally, Graham Harman offers some thoughts on the rhetorical uses of Latour Litanies, and the importance of rhetoric in philosophy more generally.
If one didn’t already believe in the power of the Latour Litany for motivating thought, then seeing the many promising ideas that emanate from interactions with them should complete the conversion.