Archives mensuelles : mai 2016

REFLECTIONS ON DEALING WITH THE ALPHA MODE OF EXISTENCE AND ITS AVATARS Deleuze said that people are always disappointing, that what is important is not meeting or discussing with people but encountering ideas. I beg to differ, as this statement … Lire la suite →

Some authors have expressed surprise and discontent at the fact that I express my own views in the reviews I have written of their books. Such a reaction suggests that they have an epistemologically naive empiricist vision of a book … Lire la suite →

Bruno Latour poses the quite Feyerabendian question « What is the recommended dose of ontological pluralism« , and he sketches out his own intellectual development in terms of an ever-increasing dose of this pluralist medecine. Feyerabend’s own development can be seen in … Lire la suite →

Spinoza propounds what Gilles Deleuze calls a philosophy of immanence: all theological notions are eliminated in favour of the rigorous deductive chains of premises and consequences in parallel with the rigorous physical chains of cause and effect. The common view … Lire la suite →

Bruno Latour’s recent analysis of Spinoza’s asymmetric treatment of religion and science was anticipated by fellow ontological pluralist Paul Feyerabend: « I cannot stand it when so-called thinkers not only presume to know things better than their fellow human beings – … Lire la suite →

THE HOUSE is a short story by Fredric Brown, published in 1960. Only 3 pages long (pdf here), it is enigmatic yet seemingly fraught with meaning. It seems to display the pieces of a puzzle, but with no clue as … Lire la suite →

I think the best brief exposition of OOO is to be found in a post on Graham Harman’s blog « brief SR/OOO tutorial« . He includes this as the first chapter of his collection of articles BELLS AND WHISTLES. I reply to … Lire la suite →

Both Feyerabend and James are pluralists, both are pragmatists. Feyerabend begins his career with his proposal of the « pragmatic theory of observation » and finishes with the defence of the pragmatic choice of ontology: « the definition of what is real and … Lire la suite →

Doing philosophy, that is to say taking philosophy seriously, is a dangerous act. One does not encounter such enunciative double binds in the pursuit of one’s passion without being adversely affected, even when one is capable of seeing through them. … Lire la suite →