LARUELLE’S UNFULFILLED PROMISES

1) It is laughable that so many people blindly repeat Laruelle’s claim that Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy is a « philosophy of difference ». It is much more accurately characterised as a « philosophy of multiplicity », that mutates in WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? into a philosophy of infinity.

2) Laruelle has shown that he is capable of self criticism, but he is much slower in this than his contemporaries, and he lags behind them (his long-lasting scientism is a case in point). He is also blind to the self-criticism embodied in the work of others.

3) A notable case of this concept-blindness is to be seen in his persistence in criticising the « philosophies of difference », when the thinkers involved had already noticed the problem and moved on years before Laruelle got round to his critique.

4) A striking example is Deleuze’s passage from DIFFERENCE AND REPETITION (which features the concept of difference, but closely tied to multiplicity) to LOGIC OF SENSE, where the concept of difference is marginal, and multiplicity comes to even greater prominence).

5) Laruelle’s ideas are becoming increasingly irrelevant. His critiques of Deleuze are of relatively minor interest. Zizek, Badiou and Latour have produced deeper and more thorough responses to Deleuze’s work, and their own work has been in constant evolution.

6) One would not guess these sorts of evolution exist from Laruelle’s texts. So Iwe must reject the undue simplification of philosophical history effectuated in Laruelle’s grand narrative, where he takes pride of place (quite unjustly).

7) Laruelle promises far more than he delivers, he misses the mark far too often, and it serves no good purpose, unless wilful ignorance is a good purpose, to pretend otherwise.

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

3 commentaires pour LARUELLE’S UNFULFILLED PROMISES

  1. landzek dit :

    I think the problem with L that you elaborate on for me comes down to him not having fidelity to the object of his discourse in the sense that Badiou has used.

    I think I said it before and I won’t say it anymore after this because I think your analysis are more pertinent to getting anywhere. Lol. That little Raul does the best of anyone that I’ve read at describing the situation as and in the situation itself; his problem arises when he attempts to engage with something else that is not it: hey there by and ask a contradiction which appears as a gaping hole, which then further appears as many contradictions and inconsistencies basically that you are able to see and elaborate on.

    I think that fault is part of his position because he is a member of the academy and he asked to answer to certain solutions about what are we to do.

    I don’t think his discourses tell us anything about what we’re supposed to do; that’s why I say once you understand him there’s almost no point in talking about him or bringing up any argument that he might talk about except as examples of a particular point. But if you take him as describing a position that can be used for argument then on one hand you have the typical theological congregants, and then on the other hand you have blatant contradiction.

    The solution he evidence is by his discourse is that it is salute and needs no argument. The problem is that as an employed academic philosopher he cannot just talk about what is; He Hass to talk about what is as involved with a necessary imbalance and then offer solutions to that in balance so other people can talk about what he has to say and use him for various things. But that’s exactly where he goes wrong I think, because he has stepped out of the Marxist use value. And no one who is employed by the institution is allowed to step out of use value.

    Aimé par 1 personne

  2. dmf dit :


    Slavoj Žižek – The trouble with pleasure: Deleuze and psychoanalysis

    J'aime

  3. landzek dit :

    …crossed my mind right now:
    One of my daughters best friends uses the pronouns “they, theirs,them”

    Is there a better sign of our pluralist times? 😄

    J'aime

Laisser un 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