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.

Publicités
Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

5 commentaires pour LARUELLE: From Non-Philosophy to Non-Standard Philosophy

  1. landzek dit :

    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.

    Aimé par 1 personne

  2. landzek dit :

    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.

    Aimé par 1 personne

  3. landzek dit :

    …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.

    Aimé par 1 personne

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

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

Répondre

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s