Speaking of the concrete
As concrete as this is, relatively, there’s still a sense in which it falls into the “God’s Workshop” genre.
Ugh studying this level of text is bureaucratic itself though
I mean, if you want a utopia there are guidebooks out there, which I doubt many bureaucrats–managers–themselves actually read. I can’t breathe when I spend too much time close to the earth, back to that Laruelle mentioned yesterday
He says he is revolting against the philosophers to create a science of ordinary man – “Ya don’t see that everyday.”
Have any of them told us who we actually are?
Speaking of the academy, he’s putting all of it in question in one fell swoop.
Man is something that likes revaluations of all values one might say – I wonder where he got that from?
This type of thinking is important for CRISPR reasons
strains to capture all of reality… and each time man is declared fully accounted for.
Think of the social sciences as “emerging genres”. Are they a kind that’s going to stick? If they don’t capture reality they won’t. He’s claiming they don’t, and we’ll have to see his reasons for that.
He’s definitely a “nuke it from orbit” person.
So am I. “Rigorous” is an interesting word to use – is he modeling this science on Anglo philosophy? An infinity of “found out” – that’s Greek. Maybe he’ll find the Greeks themselves out here? I love Europe. They try to take this away from us.
A science that would no longer borrow its means of investigation, demonstration, and validation from existing sciences?
-twangy voice- “That’s what I do, that’s why I agree with the demos about most things.”
He calls them Greco-Christian ontological prejudices. Uhh probably? Nietzsche thought he got around Plato, Deleuze thought he got around Plato. We’ll see how you do pal. Pretty much every line of this I can’t imagine any American writing.
Reminds me of this
You hicks are so backwards you don’t have the grounds to say anything. US leftism vs. French leftism, choices choices. How about Laruelle except it’s Soral.
Speaking of him saying that Badiou reprises the foundational gesture of Plato, he reminds me of Plato criticizing the sophists here
philosophy has not known man and has given rise only to a mere anthropology
Nice survey here of what he calls fictional beings
quasi-transcendental androids (the Cogito, ens creatum, Spirit, the I think, the Worker, the Unconscious, etc.)
Can’t you imagine all of these beings responding to him each in the language of their own respective dogma?
Oh no, the history of philosophy is set on fire, how sad. RESET.
sigh And such a Greek book this is. Jews aren’t the only ones who are genetically themselves.
Some of you build the concrete city, and others will chat in that city about how to escape Plato – sound good?
That’s the true version of this picture
Tracing occidental nihilism to Medieval nominalism like Dugin does is just one step- Heidegger traced it all back to the Greeks, so this on Laruelle’s part is very much in the tradition of other already-existing thought, don’t let him fool you on this.
I feel so sorry for modern-day “rationalists” and even post-rationalists – it’s all so cheap next to this tradition. Knock-offs. I hate hearing them talk. What’s that, you don’t want to carry around an alien on your back? Can’t imagine why, probably can’t even pick him up.
Liberals in Dugin’s sense will love this – I have to admit, so do I
To see the reality rather than the mere possibility of man, it is necessary to abandon the unitary or Greco-occidental paradigm, which pervades almost all of philosophy up to its contemporary deconstructions, along with all of its prejudices.
I emphasize again and again- even if he doesn’t ultimately pull it off, the goal is there.
A South American might look at this and say, “I can do that like it’s nothin'” – that’s before you even understand the paradigm. You have to first understand it in order to see through it. Plus, one of the prejudices that derives from it is to hate the paradigm – that’s just typical prog thinking. If you don’t feel limited, finite, and like it’s an impossible task to go beyond what he calls the Greco-occidental paradigm then that’s probably just your ego talking if you believe yourself to have done that. In many cases today, it is a symptom of being stuck within the Jewish horizon that leads people to believe they’ve gone beyond said paradigm. Similar to the seeming unreflective use of the term “Rigorous” as a guide (much similar to Cogito, Spirit, etc.) that is another background I haven’t seen him remark on yet in this text. “Guided and ruled by Christian concepts, right…” – same logic except using “Greco”.
it is necessary to invent a rigorous non-empirical science, a theory that would precede philosophy and be its science.
That’s what proggism is to most people, they can only study philosophy through it. That’s why Laruelle can help reactionaries. This is similar to those What is Philosophy? books except perhaps it’s on a higher level.