Archives mensuelles : janvier 2016

This is my review of Graham Harman’s little book THE THIRD TABLE (Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2012). In this book Harman gives an account of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous two tables argument, and posits the existence of a « third table » to … Lire la suite →

There is an interesting-looking blog event organised around Geoff Pfeifer’s book « THE NEW MATERIALISM: Althusser, Badiou, and Zizek« . So far, the discussion has been slow getting started, and for the moment has turned around the rather strange consensus that Badiou’s … Lire la suite →

J’aimerais écrire un livre titré ANTI-LARUELLE, qui serait tout autant pour la non-philosophie laruelléenne que contre elle, et qui contiendrait une défense de Badiou contre les critiques que Laruelle développe dans son ANTI-BADIOU. En effet, la plus grande partie du … Lire la suite →

I would like to write a book entitled ANTI-LARUELLE, which would be just as much for Laruelle’s non-philosophy as against it, and which would include a defence of Badiou against Laruelle’s critiques. In effect, most of the book has already … Lire la suite →

Many people would be willing to take the quantum leap into non-standard philosophy proposed by Laruelle if it were not for the religious turn taken in his most recent phase, what we may call the Christic obstacle. My duty here … Lire la suite →

Some people might be puzzled at the idea of treating François Laruelle’s non-philosophy as a form of « metaphysics”. After all, he is known for a position that sharply limits the utility of traditional philosophical vocabulary, and that seeks to propose … Lire la suite →

Continuing my discussion of Continental metaphysical research programmes, Latour’s @AIMEproject is significantly more satisfying, when judged in terms of the four criteria of pluralism, diachrony, apophaticism, and democracy. 1) Pluralism: Latour’s @AIMEproject with its multiple modes of existence is explicitly … Lire la suite →

There is a very interesting post festum analysis of @AIMEproject by Bruno Latour, Donato Ricci, Robin de Mourat, Christophe Leclercq, and an equally interesting response by Vassilis Kollias. I discovered the article and Vassilis’s response to it by chance today. … Lire la suite →

My englobing philosophical context is that of the contemporary search for a pluralist, diachronic, democratic, apophatic ontology. I argue that Harman’s OOP considered as a metaphysical research programme fails on all four criteria. Laruelle’s non-philosophy when evaluated in terms of … Lire la suite →

ANTI-LARUELLE: there is a real problem with a thought that espouses democracy and performativity, and that performs the exact opposite of democratic exchange. Laruelle’s vision is structuralist: he fixates on the structural aspects of the philosophies that he examines, e.g. … Lire la suite →