ON NON-LARUELLIAN NON-PHILOSOPHY

A consequent philosophical pluralism has its own dynamic that leads from a pluralism inside philosophy (eg Feyerabend’s methodological pluralism), to a pluralising of philosophy itself as an ontological realm and a cognitive régime claiming completeness and universality (eg Feyerabend’s Machian “way of research” and his later ontological pluralism: the aim is to move beyond the academic idea of “philosophy as a discourse that covers everything … an all-encompassing synthetic view of the world and what it all means”.

Here I think comes the move of putting philosophy in relation to a non-philosophical outside (non-philosophical not meaning a classical negation but a wider practice, as in non-Euclidean geometries). Laruelle has written on this sort of thing at length, but he cannot claim exclusive ownership (nor even chronological priority) of this idea, nor is he even necessarily the best exemplar of the practice of such a non-philosophy.

At least Laruelle’s work is a gesture in the right direction. And so his name can have the operator  “non-” applied to itself with as much justice as Laruelle applies it to philosophy. A non-laruellian non-philosophy is a reasonable prolongation of pluralism. Feyerabend, Bruno Latour, Bernard Stiegler, Deleuze and Guattari are good examples of such a non-laruellian non-philosophy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to ON NON-LARUELLIAN NON-PHILOSOPHY

  1. sdv says:

    A double non operator, a double negation becomes a positive… simply philosophy?

    Like

  2. terenceblake says:

    Negation does not necessarily follow the simplistic paths of the classical propositional calculus. Non-Lobachevskian non-Euclidean geometry could be something new: Riemannian geometry, for example. If you think that something went wrong with philosophy when it became academic philosophy, then non-laruellian non-philosophy (N-L N-P) is simply what philosophy was supposed to be all along.

    Like

  3. Pingback: IS LARUELLE EUROCENTRIC? | AGENT SWARM

  4. Pingback: IS IT WORTH THE EFFORT TO READ LARUELLE? | AGENT SWARM

  5. Pingback: NON-LARUELLEAN NON-PHILOSOPHY, A PLURALIST SUPPLEMENTATION | AGENT SWARM

  6. Pingback: ON THE DANGERS OF SELF-CLONING: overcoming Laruelle’s scientism | AGENT SWARM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s