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.