Archives mensuelles : mars 2018

Some people do not understand the nature and structure of my arguments against Laruelle, accusing me of nit-picking, personalising, and axe-grinding. Strangely, my critics seem to embody the very faults that they impute to me. I cannot devote much more … Lire la suite →

Non-philosopher François Laruelle provocatively declared in an interview « Laruelle does not exist ». Unfortunately, this modest enunciative content is in strict contradiction with the enunciative form of his philosophical writing, which stages Laruelle as a conceptual character in a philo-fiction of … Lire la suite →

Some people have questioned the presence of a uniqueness hypothesis in Laruelle’s work or had trouble with the structure of my argument. This hypothesis can be reconstructed from the logical syntax of Laruelle’s writing. It states that Laruelle is the … Lire la suite →

« Destin » et « fatalité » sont souvent traités comme des quasi-synonymes, mais leur causalité (leur mode opératoire) semble différer. Le destin relève d’une cause venant de soi, ou en affinité étroite avec le soi. Il est proche en cela à une téléologie, … Lire la suite →

Most favourable interpretations of Laruelle’s philosophy have the following defects: 1) obscurantism – legitimation of Laruelle’s stylistic obscurity, said to be “syntaxic” when it is in fact semantic (use of undefined, poorly defined, diosyncratically defined, conceptual vocabulary. 2) foundationalism – … Lire la suite →

My analysis of recent French philosophy is in terms of competing and/or complementary metaphysical research programmes, in Popper’s sense of a theory and principles for its development combining both empirical and untestable elements. One consequence of this vision is that … Lire la suite →

The main purpose of this blog is to set up a dialogue (and provisional synthesis) between different contemporary versions of philosophical pluralism. An important instrument of this task is the progressive elaboration of an open and flexible set of meta-ontological … Lire la suite →

In this video John David Ebert deconstructs Jordan Peterson’s mythological essentialism as found in his treatment of Jungian archetypes as a-historical stereotypes. This internal critique is far more effective than an external critique of Peterson’s political essentialism, especially since Peterson … Lire la suite →

Initialement publié sur Cadell Last :
Synthesis! Video: Slavoj Žižek or Jordan Peterson?  Both Please! So it seems like Žižek heard the criticisms regarding his approach to the political phenomenon of Jordan Peterson and has responded quite clearly. In this response he…

I have often argued that Slavoj Zizek, despite his explicit Lacanianism, is unconsciously a Jungian. His particular version of « Lacan » is so influenced by his reading of Deleuze and Derrida and many others that it does not correspond to any … Lire la suite →