Does non-philosophy’s refusal of transcendence lead to the chaos of “anything goes”?
There is no being limited to the confines of a domain or a discipline, but that does not mean that there is doing without discipline, or obliterating domains.Laruelle’s point of view is more concerned with the creative process of thought, where “philosophy” in his vocabulary is more a question of results and their disciplined acquisition and imposition.
Creation is not rule-bound, but it is not chaotic or self-indulgent. Laruelle does not want philosophy to dictate its own use, criteria or evaluation. He refuses the implicit injustice of philosophy as all at once judge, party, deliberation and execution. He does not sceptically abolish all criteria, but opens them up to change, and makes them more flexible.
I see no problem with subsuming a tradition like non-philosophy within the more general tradition of democracy. This approach does not plunge us into some abstract relativist crisis of criteria. It maintains the existing criteria and enriches them with others.
When I re-read ANTI-BADIOU I suddenly realised that Laruelle was constantly proposing criteria and evaluing Badiou (and by implication himself) in terms of these criteria. At the end of my last post I put forward a constellation of criteria shared by many thinkers of the tradition of recent French philosophy: theoretical and practical pluralism, open exchange, diachronic thought, realism, empirical pertinence, apophaticism, democracy.
These criteria are not to be applied blindly, like a “post-Continental” checklist. They are tips and pointers, to be taken into consideration. They can also enter into conflict. Who adjudicates? All of us, and we can discuss together our reasons.