Archives mensuelles : juin 2015

There is a common misunderstanding of my theoretical interventions that is based on a misapprehension of the context of my remarks. Many people perceive me as expressing a sort of personal obsession in my writing, for example in my critical … Lire la suite →

This year is the 40th anniversary of the publication of the first edition of Feyerabend’s AGAINST METHOD. It seems an appropriate time to revisit the book, and Feyerabend’s thought more generally, to see what contribution it can make to our … Lire la suite →

AS: What do you think of Alexander Galloway’s comments on forgetting Deleuze? TB: I can only sympathise with him. Galloway seems to regret having wasted much of his time reading a lot of media theorists, no doubt for professional reasons, … Lire la suite →

I think the idea that one can not or should not explain Laruelle, or any other philosopher, is more authoritarian than one may want it to be. Explaining is impossible, but I am a teacher, so I do the impossible … Lire la suite →

« On a theoretical plane, three current solutions make it difficult to approach the problem of man and victim without misunderstanding […]: (1) the creationist reaction as a symptom of a lost paradigm, without a doubt the most dangerous regression, but … Lire la suite →

I find many of the posts on philosophy blogs unreadable, premised as they are on being part of, and very interested in, the institutional inscription of philosophy and various other informal indicators associated with that institutional existence. This is no … Lire la suite →

Argument: Graham Harman, contrary to the legend he has tried to accredit, did not have to confront a philosophical world dominated by anti-realism and the epistemology of access. Let us recall a few well-known facts in the history of philosophy … Lire la suite →

On the subject of Deleuze and « critique »: despite his explicit pronouncements against the critical attitude, Deleuze in practice gave a lot of importance to critique. There is not only his critique of Freud and Lacan, but more generally his critique … Lire la suite →

Given that I admire Feyerabend’s pluralist realism, and that I detest their antithesis as formulated in Harman’s object-oriented philosophy, it is a legitimate question to ask: why do I continue talking about OOO? One reason is that I am very … Lire la suite →

I explain in IS ONTOLOGY MAKING US STUPID? how, in the late 70s in Sydney, my philosophy department was dominated by the Althusserians and the Lacanians. My own speciality was philosophy of science, and I particularly admired the critique of … Lire la suite →