LARUELLE: From Non-Philosophy to Non-Standard Philosophy

First draft of a general overview of Laruelle’s evolution. In this text am trying to see non-philosophy as a path rather than as an illuminated state attained by conversion to a set of principles. The non-philosophical conversion is not an all-or-none once-and-for-all event. It comes in degrees and flashes, or in successive waves, and may well be different for each individual. The non-philosopher is not at the end of his or her journey, but is on the way to immanence, under the condition of immanence itself. All comments welcome.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to LARUELLE: From Non-Philosophy to Non-Standard Philosophy

  1. landzek says:

    Very interesting. It seems my comment will come by my very short book “Non-philosophy and Aphilosophy”. Which hopefully will be out soon. And i will gladly give you a copy.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. landzek says:

    I can appreciate your ideas and offerings because it is so different from my route;and yet even so: you are so much more than me in your ability for an open mind.

    It is interesting he has come around to say ‘non standard’; it appears he is finally admitting the contradiction inherent of np that i call Bad Faith, in the true Sartrean sense. And more: that his problem, as i see it, is he is incapable of committing to the meaning of np (his is a bad faith) where then the move he ‘wishes’ though formulated, must rely upon a compromise the Badiou describes, of truth relinquishing its fidelity for the sake of the returned multiple (so to speak). Laruelle has come clean and stepped down from the loft that only appears in theory for the conventionally oriented. His first mistake is that he never left the limit of reality, though he would attempt to reconcile by capitalizing ‘Real’. Badiou is likewise not exempt for this orientation that requires a specific ‘one’ reduction.

    The process of which you speak: Also i have said “the only method that L evidences is that which he did“; there is no method i could learn that would bring me to understand how i might get to some nonphilosophical place, but that i already knew what that place was. His method, the process, is thus to see it as a certain process that he used as he exemplified it in discourse; a certain Badiouian ‘truth procedure’. There is no applying it, except as one mist relinquish its truth for the real.

    Maybe ill be more clear in my essay.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. landzek says:

    …as you might be able to tell; though you have great insight for what the ‘non standard’ might imply. I on the other hand, say such possibility only may occur in reality, as a ‘always potential’ (future christ); but such a transformation is only real it thus never occurs because it is always already occurring.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: ISSO – International Summer School in Ontology (some comments) | AGENT SWARM

  5. Pingback: LARUELLE’S NON-PHILOSOPHY: principles of a metaphysical research programme | 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