TO THE TEXTS THEMSELVES: Laruelle, Zizek and the reading of thrownness

1) Globalising about philosophy without engaging with specific texts and arguments is bad method and useless thought.

2) To paraphrase Kant, globalising without engaging the texts is empty, engaging the texts without globalising is blind.

3) My criterion for discussing thinkers is not that of their pre-eminence, but rather of (my own) thrownness.

4) I do not condemn Laruelle’s resistance to his contemporaries, Rather, I condemn his pretentiousness and the wilful blindness of his readings and of his grand narrative.

5) Specifically, Laruelle globalises about « philosophy » but he is ignorant of the texts he pretends to englobe and blind to their meaning.

6) Zizek’s discussions of Buddhism are ludicrous (for instance, he has no idea of the Bodhisattva), but that does not taint or invalidate his discussions quantum theory.

7) Laruelle does not englobe or engage Zizek, but tries to englobe Deleuze and Badiou and fails. Neither are very effective, but Laruelle’s effectivity is less, due to his strategy of englobe-but-do-not-engage.

8) Zizek is able to say that Badiou’s ontology of inconsistent multiplicities does the same work as his own quantum ontology, Laruelle is incapable of such an admission.

9) Zizek’s treatment of Deleuze has become increasingly favourable and borrows from him openly and explicitly, whereas Laruelle is incapable of such charitable readings. He maintains his negative criticism of Deleuze while borrowing from him unavowedly.

10) I don’t think one can so easily separate things, ideas and texts, so I would propose the mediate rule of thumb: to the texts themselves.

Note: I am indebted to a discussion with Artxell Knaphni for helping me to clarify my ideas.


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

3 commentaires pour TO THE TEXTS THEMSELVES: Laruelle, Zizek and the reading of thrownness

  1. landzek dit :

    Perhaps we disagree in the ‘being thrown”. I puport that the thrown is indeed into text, but ‘the texts’ arise as conditions which reflect what is already there.

    This is not a relapse into subjective essentialism and relativity, but rather reference to a situation that is already occurring such that the texts reference that occasion, they are ‘tools’ to give definition. The definitions likewise arise in context for themselves, but are only knowable through a certain machanism if denial: I am sure that when you goto eat, you do not first give the server a 5 hour lecture and have a discussion with her about this and that, all the point of describing how food arises as text.

    No. You don’t. So to posit and engagement with the texts as though they are Telling is something significant about existence or ourselves or whatever is indeed a kind of religion on one hand, and a kind of distracting game, on the other. It is no less than what the Scholastics did in the early 1000s Europe. To engage with texts in this way is a kind of dogma, telling us that this is the only proper way to know something, a proper way to understand oneself, the world. Etc. : ontological, cosmological, theological.

    The fact that I come upon is that I reading the texts and engaging with them, they ‘give’ a certain dimension to what is already there as my thoughts, may, as my Being, such that what is actually occurring is the Being Of text at all times.

    But when I eat, I simply eat. There is no larger metaphysical sense that accompanies me into eating. Likewise with the text; that is, except so much as I am involved with promoting a religious ideal.

    Oh My work concerns religion, how it is possible. How it functions. Where when does it have substance , etc.

    Anyways. I appreciate you. Keep it up. As I’m sure you will

    And write a book already. !


  2. landzek dit :

    … oh : I don’t know about globalizing; maybe that is not great or invalid.
    But I do localize it: a particular manner of activity, like running or “the marathon”. Philosophy is identifiable as an object, and can be generalized as a Being. But one must look at it in a certain manner, though, and thus speak in a certain manner. One cannot Be and see Being in itself, in the same ‘space/time’ – right? Quantum ; I think that I where you get hung up.

    I say simply that philosophy, like a thought, like a feeling, like the wind, like water, like a process, like a doing, like a nothing, like a something, like a motion, like a position- is an object that has qualities and behaves in a certain manner . They all Be. They are all Being. They all arise – less as text, and more as discourse – as terms of existence.


Laisser un commentaire

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


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte 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