Continuing with Laruelle’s book on Badiou, which he says he initially published pseudonymously
That’s either megalomania or ambition, depending on how you look at it, to even think that. It’s good to have the ideal at least in mind.
Everyone wants to do this, right?
For anyone who considers themselves “individualist” this is the highest goal. Inb4- even artists and scientists believe they have a philosophy behind their activity, whether they ever directly articulate it or not.
Badiou is the “King of France” in the realm of ideas in a certain way, and this is how Laruelle formalizes abstractly what he does, or tries to do. We need something with this basic outline in the US, to say the least. Megalomania? Sure. Wanting to save civilization? Yes.
Trying to get even more abstract, Laruelle isn’t mentioned in this
No book on amazon mentions both their names in the title either.
Just trying to get a general picture of peak-awareness regarding French theory.
Deconstruction is a theology- is something else a theology? ohoho
A space opera with Laruelle as one of the characters- he is a theologian. Just an idea to throw out there. This is why Nietzsche never gets old to me, because he stimulates this type of thinking of constantly going beyond.
As Americans we’re outsiders ourselves looking at these philosophies – at least that’s how it feels to me. I don’t have any strong for or against reactions to these thinkers like they do in France.
A few of us on the right can relate to this, minus the quantum physics feature
He probably calls for this because of the slavery he feels to Badiou’s mathematical grounding
François Laruelle often invokes a democracy of thought
So my implicit question with him throughout this is, Does Badiou warrant close study? I just want to see if I’m going to be wasting my time. If another Frenchman has deconstructed him then I’m not going to bother.
So Laruelle might be guilty of something similar that he accuses Badiou and his math of
this appeal to a schema of thought purportedly derived from physics functions more as legitimation by slogan than as a real scientific reference
At least he tries to formulate the following. The sheep in the west only blindly follow experts and pretty much believe the same thing
what one may call Laruelle’s « aristocratic scientism« .
What’s redeemable about the two in question- try to do what Heidegger did – we can learn from that. Be critical of those who try to do what Heidegger did – we can also learn from that.
Interesting cladistically if nothing else
Aristocratic, refined, sublimated Christianity voided of all doctrinal content and liturgical obligation
I can sense reactospherians telling me “Don’t bother with those French!” Yeah, I know… Sometimes they’re clever though.
Anyone else have this project as a goal?
an escape from the prison house of Platonism under the sign of Badiou-Mao
Escape the cathedral? I want to escape Platonism too. I’ll be my own kagal.
He took up Deleuze’s project of creating concepts, that’s why he’s intriguing- whether they’re all useful concepts is another story.
That Badiou-Nancy dialogue was pretty dull. This one’s a lot more agonistic.
Heh this reminds me of Land’s point that how could it be One if one is only one of the numbers we have?
The central and guiding theme: on the one hand, a philosophy of the radical Multiple (Badiou=B.); on the other hand, a non-philosophy of the radical One (Laruelle=L.).
There is no multiple- here, let me prove that by creating another philosophy.
I have to emphasize again that I have seen nothing in Laruelle’s non-standard philosophy that would get him exiled from France. I.e. there’s something of the spirit of a navel-gazer in these theorists in general. Schopenhauer would like to have a word with them. Note that you couldn’t even characterize Laruelle as someone who wouldn’t be exiled – “What do you mean? You want to tell me more?” ask the witch-hunters (Maoists).
People probably have to do this in every time- Is Badiou a “living Einstein”? That would be good to know. That itself is something untimely, to be able to recognize that. Or is he not a genuine paradigm-shifter at all? Because priorities- I’ll continue studying people like Shmakov instead, who at least as things stand now, seems like more of a genius who is dangerous to the present order. Mathematical-Maoism? I can see both the plutos and the demos lapping that right up. I shouldn’t even have mentioned it. Thinkers like Shmakov and Choinski tried to warn people against something like that and of course neither of these Frenchmen will ever mention either of them, while at the same time detailing the thought of other safer thinkers under the pretense that they can “really shake things up”.