ON THE DANGERS OF SELF-CLONING: overcoming Laruelle’s scientism

Laruelle constantly claims scientific status for his non-philosophy but is unable to respect his own criteria or satisfy even the vaguest criteria of scientificity. Conclusion Laruellean non-philosophy is pseudo-science: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/non-philosophy-as-pseudo-science/. However, non-Laruellean non-philosophy can overcome that defect: https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/on-non-laruellian-non-philosophy/



Contrary to his claims, there is no « scientific posture » in Laruelle, and all his pretentions to scientificity are so much propaganda, a self-cloning gone wrong. Just as Laruelle cannot define his way out of metaphysics he cannot define his way into science.

As to democratic or charitable reading there is none to be found in Laruelle’s response to Deleuze and Guattari’s WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? in his « I the Philosopher am Lying » nor is the principle of charity exercised towards Badiou in his ANTI-BADIOU.

Laruelle’s clones of Deleuze and Badiou are conceptual characters within his own solipsist self-fiction, or self-cloning, and not the products of an immanent reading.

In practice Laruelle’s concept of « in the last instance » amounts to the admission: « I the non-philosopher am lying ». Laruelle is lying about pluralism and democracy because it all comes down to his one view.

Laruelle himself comes close to recognising this when he writes:

“Do I practice terror? There are obviously two readings of my text. There is a philosophical reading, one in which I do practice terror. And there is a non-philosophical reading, which is obviously my reading” (here).

Conclusion: Laruelle is someone with a few interesting Deleuzian ideas, a lot of sophistic self-description, and a cranky obscurantist style.

Cet article a été publié dans Uncategorized. Ajoutez ce permalien à vos favoris.

5 commentaires pour ON THE DANGERS OF SELF-CLONING: overcoming Laruelle’s scientism

  1. Thanks. I haven’t read him at all and probably won’t.


  2. landzek dit :

    Ah yes! The sacred lie! I wonder if you’ve had ever heard of Alistar Crowley and his ‘book of lies’.
    I think it is a certain type of esotericism, whereby conventional religion games it’s posture, that translates into religion through the lie. And this is to say that the conventional religious person, A congregant so to speak, Will routinely and axiomatically use the terms of the esoteric lie by which to establish the religious truth. And this is merely to say that the believer takes the dogma of the religion as reflections of truth self-evidently, where as the person deep end and esotericism knows that the dogma is a lie, and that the meaning of the esoteric text is not concordant with the religion that is based upon it that the two really exist in a sort of uneasy peace. Indeed we could ask ourselves why is it that Moses and Jacob was it(?) how to partition themselves off in the holies of holy’s.

    Indeed we should ask ourselves how it is that a shaman picks his protégé. It is not merely that some person of the tribe show some sort of want to be a religious figure in the community. It is really more that the person exhibits certain traits that that person does not see of themselves, or rather knows of themselves some sort of oddness or difference, but who really doesn’t know why nor reason for it. One could make an argument that our current society is indeed as Heidegger puts it in a state of destitution of spirit. In the state of this destitution it doesn’t mean that somehow human beings have discovered this magical truth of all existence that is nothingness; on the contrary it means that their spirit is in the state of destitution, that it has no real basis to justify itself in purpose except nothingness. In this way nothing this is just a placeholder just another term that flows over the truth of the matter to which it refers.

    There is a case to be made that all the shamans in our society have been marginalized into that place that has no value because terms are taken, commonly and in general, to be indicating or otherwise referring to some true thing of reality, some actual essential basic fundamental foundational true absolute of the universe. Hence when people find nothing at the bottom of Real speculations, they view it as if there is actually nothing there as if there is no substance no meaning nothing at all. One has to wonder of the contradiction and even placing the word nothing. For indeed it is within this contradiction that we find that terms did not indicate essentially real true things, but are placeholders, indicators of the scaffolding upon which reality occurs. The problem with most authors is they tend to take this situation yet again , the terms by which we are describing it are , again referring to actual real essential absolutes of the universe, as if finally we found big T truth.

    This is what I mean by the long game. There is no convincing congregants of reality that the reality they r involved with is not true, because the very act of attempting to convince someone that it’s not true is based in the contradiction that they are relying upon to find actually true things in reality. But this does not mean that I don’t exist in reality. It merely means that reality cannot contain all better proposes to be able to contain; yet as well that what it does not contain is nothing. It doesn’t mean that what reality fails to account for amounts to nothing; that is non-Sequitur and based in a religious orientation upon the terms of reality.

    Aimé par 1 personne


  4. Ping : Truth & Actuality (02) – dwmasten

  5. Ping : TÉTRALOGOS par François Laruelle: premières réactions | AGENT SWARM

Votre commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s