NON-LARUELLEAN NON-PHILOSOPHY, A PLURALIST SUPPLEMENTATION

One must be careful to distinguish what Laruelle says he is doing from what he is doing. This is why the performative interpretation of non-philosophy is a good idea in principle, but is mostly naive and uncritical in its application.

For example, Laruelle is implicitly relativist in his posited radical equality of philosophical thought-worlds, and his explicit scientism is an attempt to escape from that relativism, or to mask it. Laruelleans need to explain away or to neutralise his scientism because it is present in all of Laruelle’s non-philosophical works up to the PRINCIPLES OF NON-PHILOSOPHY, where he explicitly admits that it is a problem of his earlier thought.

However, he does not resolve this problem in that book, and the scientism continues. Thus the ever more pressing need to provide it with a pluralist supplementation. A simply hermeneutic pluralism is a conceivable option, but only because Laruelle, following in Badiou’s footsteps, leaves “ontology” to science.

I have been advocating supplementing Laruelle’s non-philosophy with pluralism for several years now, and have been ignored. Suddenly it has become the fashion from within the ranks of the Laruelleans to advocate the same solution, while remaining within the purview of Laruelle’s non-philosophy.

My name for this pluralist supplementation of Laruelle is non-laruellian non-philosophy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to NON-LARUELLEAN NON-PHILOSOPHY, A PLURALIST SUPPLEMENTATION

  1. landzek says:

    I feel like you have this elsewhere , but who else speaks of pluralism. Or is it a Latour coining ? Bruno seems to allow for a pluralism by his modes, different manners of experience of existence that can be mapped by his scheme. But is there anyone else? Zizek implies a type of pluralism by the parallax, but he still seems a type of non philosophy that is not Laruellian. A type of fluidity, though, that Larualle’s seems to have missed.

    Like

    • terenceblake says:

      Feyerabend, Deleuze, Hubert Dreyfus, William Connolly, Andrew Pickering, John Law are all explicit pluralists. I agree that Zizek exemplifies a type of non-Laruellean non-philosophy, but he remains a truncated pluralist due to his Lacanism.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. 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