Zizek, in a recent interview, talks about the life of philosophy in the world: “France and Germany, for instance, are currently in a very low state intellectually — especially Germany. Nothing interesting is happening there”.
I beg to differ. As to France, there is Badiou, Laruelle, and Stiegler, and a contemporary reworking of Deleuze and Guattari. And of course Bruno Latour (who is more a synthesis of the past than an original thinker, but I like his stuff as far as it goes). Michel Onfray is unjustly ignored, and I think his book on Freud gave a popular summary of Deleuze and Guattari ANTI-OEDIPUS type arguments that have been conveniently “forgotten”. So I don’t feel any regrets about staying on here in France. I find that the conceptual production here is still intellectually interesting and existentially stimulating.
Onfray’s FREUD got many unfriendly reviews in France, despite its being a modern ANTI-OEDIPUS for Dummies. Unfortunately, ANTI-OEDIPUS has often been recuperated as some sort of merely rhetorically exaggerated dissent from Lacanian psychoanalysis, that nonetheless preserves its basic paradigm. See http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/badious-reductions-5-the-suture-of-the-psyche-to-the-lacanian-subject/ and also http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/onfrays-freud-twilight-of-an-idol/
When Stiegler accuses Latour of not having made the detour via phenomenology and psychoanalysis, I think he is designating that “de-conceptual” aspect of Latour that pleases OOOxians like Graham Harman and Levi Bryant, who have wagered on the forgettting of the concepts that nourished a generation of thought and that led to Latour’s derivative, watered down, and fundamentally conservative synthesis indebted to Deleuze, Guattari, Foucault, and also to Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Bloor.