I know the people who wear clown makeup on a daily basis still want to know about things that are outside of their world.

You can be mad or not or whatever, it doesn’t really matter, that there is a hierarchy to these “genres” I speak of.

I can take you to the “skyscraper” of them, and even leave that from a helicopter on the roof.

This is “illegal flying” so they will be shooting it down.

With that said, I am brought once again to my favorite Frenchman

Can someone tell me how this is distinguishable from Kantianism?

The noumenon can be known, that’s why it’s easy for me to “know” that Laruelle is a Kantian.

This is, however, only one aspect of Kant that he develops. The Aristotelian heritage of entelechy seems to be lacking in Laruelle.

I say these things because I consider him one of the only people who write in the same “genre” that I do. If you have to shy away from entelechy, that couldn’t be considered true non-philosophy in our time.

So I relegate this practice of his as a “genre” below philosophy.

As a contrast, I remind you of the Frenchman by the name of Alain Soral. He’s a living person who was exiled from France. This is clearly a more genuine form of “non-philosophy”. Laruelle seems to be playing some kind of shell-game that preserves all the philosophical tenets that are dogmatically unquestionable.

If you write in ANY “genre” this should perk your ears up, because the subject in question is the mountain peak of genres in general.

If you don’t know that, do you think you even know your own?

Laruelle is like a false peak, or being nicer to the (admirable) old man, we can say it’s possible to be a bird that flies from that peak.

So in other words, I am taking the stance here which some will interpret as unduly narcissistic, that ALL of the arts and sciences and philosophies are being spoken to.

If you know you know, Laruelle is the furthest advance from the pre/socratic origins in modern times. The question is, did he forget something? He’s French, so what do you think? This doesn’t have to be insulting, it’s just a matter of fact.

These days it’s easier to criticize someone like Sartre. Imagine if I saw Laruelle similar to the way people tend to see Sartre?

ALL the genres hinge on this question, and the wrong answer could jeopardize them.

As a neechen, I see Laruelle as a post-revolution French nationalist. Anti-nobility is in his blood. This is the “State” he wants- peasants, retards, niggers. What do you think is the opposite of nobility? This is his temperament, probably some gutter-scum that cheered on the guillotines many years ago.

Being identical to someone from the 1700s doesn’t make you “non-philosophical” in the least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: