My recent renewed interest in Laruelle comes from my studying the Badiou/Deleuze relation. I also have a more general interest in Laruelle’s new “quantum” thinking, as he is articulating some very interesting ideas in his recent quantum trilogy (PHILOSOPHIE NON-STANDARD, ANTI-BADIOU, and CHRISTO-FICTION). All this ties into my own positive project which one could call diachronic epistemological and ontological pluralism. I talk about my project here.
Perhaps my recent interventions about Laruelle can be perceived as unduly negative in tone. However, they are building on the positive things that I have been saying about Laruelle’s ideas for several years now. I think that Laruelle is a very interesting and important thinker despite his obscure style, and that he can be understood better if we contextualise his thought. This could be seen as reducing his importance, but I would argue that one will see my contextualisations as reductive only if one buys into what I call his “uniqueness hypothesis”.
Laruelle’s non-philosophical uniqueness hypothesis is the idea that there is only one non-philosopher among all his contemporaries (himself) and that all the others (Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Badiou) are stuck inside the principle of sufficient philosophy. I do not find that the uniqueness hypothesis is demonstrated in Laruelle’s texts, nor is it even a plausible idea.