LARUELLE’S MONIST STRUCTURALISM: exclusivity vs dialogue

Patrick Jennings at The Non-Buddhist blog has some interesting reflections on the danger of giving a structuralist reading of standard philosophy as caught in a universal structure that Laruelle calls the “philosophical decision”. This meta-decision about the decision has a certain number of dubious consequences

1) the exclusivity hypothesis: Laruelle’s meta-decision places himself alone outside the philosophical decision and its universal structure, and all other philosophers inside it:

Decision and exclusivity seem to go hand in hand. If decision applies to all philosophers without exception than Laruelle is in the unique position of being the only non-decisional philosopher. If this is not so than the universality of decision is questionable”.

2) the uniqueness hypothesis: there is only one way out of the universal structure. This exit was discovered by Laruelle, and only those who follow his example can hope to free themselves from its confines. There is no other way:

“To accept the idea of the universality of decision is to say that all  who continue in a philosophical vein are, in fact, either followers of Laruelle or caught in decision. This is an unnecessarily rigid idea of decision and one that even Laruelle can’t sustain”.

3) synchronic stasis and binary bind: this universal decisional structure is stable through history, it does not evolve or mutate, it undegoes no fundamental transformation. It is an all-or-none affair, knowing no degrees or gradations:

“Decision is, on this reading, a black and white issue. There are no degrees of decision, no evolution of decisional thinking and no room for  further analysis.  Everyone who comes after Laruelle  must embrace the non-philosophical dispensation or be damned. Worse, this bind is retroactive— we must  read all philosophers from Plato on in the light of Laruelles discovery, or be damned by association”.

4) deadlocked dialogue: given that there is only one creator of non-philosophy and only one way to do it, all other contemporary thinkers are consigned to the universal structure, and all dialogue or mutual influence becomes not only redundant but impossible.

“Generally, a strong critical current in contemporary philosophical thinking acts to dilute the force of decisional thinking and absolutism. ( Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, Agamben, Laruelle, etc) It would be  absurd to limit non-philosophical thinking to Laruelle, taking into account the work of the above philosophers. The fact that Laruelle does so is one of the tensions internal to his work”.

I have only commented on the first half, but the whole article merits attention.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to LARUELLE’S MONIST STRUCTURALISM: exclusivity vs dialogue

  1. Patrick jennings says:

    Thanks for the re-blog and commentary Terence.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. landzek says:

    He is not alone. Merely very very few understand him. That is the most offensive issue, the ressentment of Nietzsche. The ‘project mayhem’ ofthe narrorator in fight club. The knight of faith in kierkegaard. These are absurd positions that most humans will not conprehend. Hence also Harmans withdrawn object.

    Like

  3. landzek says:

    … Or more correctly and exactly they comprehend thru negating terms, as if the term is reaching a True Object. Nihilism, nothing, nonsense. And the like. As these are taken to show the agent a True real thing.

    Like

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