Laruelle as Deleuze’s scientistic double

It would be a mistake to see Deleuze and Guattari’s WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? as to any significant degree devoted to engaging with Laruelle’s work.

There are only two mentions of Laruelle, and they are contained in footnotes.Both reject his scientism. WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? develops Deleuze and Guattari’s own concept of non-philosophy, reprising the theme of the image of thought that they had developed over two decades of collaboration. They see Laruelle’s notion of non-philosophy as a scientistic double of their own.

The last two sentences of WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? are devoted to a critique of Laruelle’s scientism: « François Laruelle proposes an understanding of non-philosophy as « real (of) science, » beyond the object of knowledge…But we do not see why this real of science is not also non-science ».

Their only other mention of Laruelle in WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? is also consigned to a footnote, and it again critiques his scientism: « François Laruelle is engaged in one of the most interesting undertakings of contemporary philosophy. He invokes a One-All that he qualifies as « nonphilosophical » and, oddly, as « scientific, » on which the « philosophical decision » takes root ».

In PRINCIPLES OF NON-PHILOSOPHY (published in French in 1996, the year after his « reply » to Deleuze) Laruelle critiques his earlier position as scientistic, but without even citing Deleuze and Guattari.

https://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/reading-what-is-philosophy-3-laruelles-lapse-into-scientism/

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

4 commentaires pour Laruelle as Deleuze’s scientistic double

  1. landzek dit :

    “Their only other mention of Laruelle in WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY? is also consigned to a footnote, and it again critiques his scientism: “François Laruelle is engaged in one of the most interesting undertakings of contemporary philosophy. He invokes a One-All that he qualifies as “nonphilosophical” and, oddly, as “scientific,” on which the “philosophical decision” takes root”.”

    That doesn’t sound to me like a critique. But maybe it’s out of context.

    But I lean more L. As you already know, I see D and G as kind of an obvious Zen kind of meaning. Interesting. And valid But not very significant.

    The opposite of the Zen-being-freedom, is the science that is determined by what is given. Experiments can only go the way of conditions. Freedom goes any way it wants: that why we got Trump over here. (Zizek nod). Lol.

    J'aime

  2. landzek dit :

    Dude. I’ve been saying it to you for years. But: You really need to write a book.

    Do you need to prompt? Like a question that would act as an impetus for you to be able to center a book around? I usually do.

    If you want. I could probably give you a juicy prompt/question.

    J'aime

    • terenceblake dit :

      Thanks for the offer, and the encouragement. I do not need a prompt, I just need to decide whether I want to write a book or not.

      J'aime

      • landzek dit :

        I am still contemplating your topic suggestion if Alien. I’m reading the book now. I also got the novel “the Alientist”. Upon which the mini series was made. An Alienist was someone who dealt with mental illness in the 19th century. And then of course there’s Anti-ordopus. And just the plain “alienation” of modern society.

        Good stuff. Thx.

        J'aime

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