What would you think of "non-philosophy"?.And Derrida

[sidetrack]

*Flippant:Stuff like this is why when it comes to knowingly secular and irreligious philosophy like this my mind goes youtube.com/watch?v=zIdvMjbf9gQ
*
Logician stuff typically makes me pay tense attention and political stuff provides a mixed bag of reactions for me.

The notion of a non-philosophy compelled me to look up this wiki article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-philosophy),short,short) enough to reiterate and that I’d like to bring up with you guys.

And I feel tempted to say that psychology,spirituality and religion are decent “non-philosophy” if anyone is looking for some.

I’ll highlight what imo are key points

**Laruelle argues that all^1 **forms of philosophy (from ancient philosophy to analytic philosophy to deconstruction and so on) are structured around a prior decision, and remain constitutively blind to this decision.

The ‘decision’ that Laruelle is concerned with here is the dialectical splitting of the world in order to grasp the world philosophically.…Laruelle finds this decision interesting and problematic… because the decision itself cannot be grasped (philosophically grasped, that is) without…further scission.

Laruelle further argues that the decisional structure of philosophy can only be grasped non-philosophically. In this sense, non-philosophy is a science of philosophy… not metaphilosophy because…Ray Brassier notes, “philosophy is already metaphilosophical through its constitutive reflexivity”. Brassier also defines non-philosophy as the "theoretical practice of philosophy proceeding by way of transcendental axioms and producing theorems which are philosophically uninterpretable".…** philosophy cannot grasp its decisional structure in the way that non-philosophy can**.

Laruelle’s **non-philosophy, he claims, should be considered to philosophy what non-Euclidean geometry is to the work of Euclid. **

[eye-catcher of a line _…]

The decisional structure of philosophy is grasped by the subject of non-philosophy. Laruelle’s concept of “the subject” here is not the same as the subject-matter, nor does it have anything to do with the traditional philosophical notion of subjectivity.It is, instead, a function along the same lines as a mathematical function.

The concept of performativity…is central to the idea of the subject of non-philosophy…non-philosophy which collapses the distinction (present in philosophy) between theory and action.

non-philosophy would be meaningless without the concept of radical immanence.…non-philosophy axiomatically deploys immanence as being endlessly conceptualizable by the subject of non-philosophy.

In “A New Presentation of Non-Philosophy” (2004), François Laruelle states:

“I see non-philosophers in several different ways…They are related to the analyst and the political militant, obviously, since non-philosophy is close to psychoanalysis and Marxism — it transforms the subject by transforming instances of philosophy… But **they are also related to what I would call the ‘spiritual′ type ** [Ouuhh…]… This is why a quiet discipline is not sufficient, because man is implicated in the world as the presupposed that determines it.

^1 all forms of philosophy,eh ? =_= .See ppl,statements like that is why in this age of nigh-effortless global interconnectivity I so strongly think that it’s darn well time that we figure out a way to explain philosophy from other topographic ideas b/c goodness knows how Western philosophy has had a tendency to get lost in fog or up it’s own back-end (please forgive the phrasing) and be late in the game of talking non-Eurocentric ppl seriously.Yes,I know that Eastern philosophy’s deep interconnection with spirituality makes it a particulary tricky one to explain but darn it !,make the effort b/c it only serves to highlight to philosophers to take spirituality more seriously,more often,eh? .If anyone feels more keen on another region of the world there’s the even less talked about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_philosophy

Would anyone care at taking a try at explaining what the wiki article means?.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Would anyone care at taking a try at explaining what the wiki article means?.

This…

Laruelle argues that all^1 forms of philosophy (from ancient philosophy to analytic philosophy to deconstruction and so on) are structured around a prior decision, and remain constitutively blind to this decision.

…seems to be making a claim that all forms of philosophy involve an determined act of willful but blind assent to axiomatic presumptions (Laruelle’s “prior decision.”)

Where the difficulty arises is with his claim that philosophers remain “constitutively blind” to the “decision.” The observation might be made that Laruelle’s own assessment of philosophy is similarly structured around his own “prior decision” about philosophy which is likewise “constitutively blind” to his own prior decision about philosophy.

His error appears to be in assuming that philosophers are universally blind to their own “prior decisions.” He seems to imply that philosophers are incapable of seeing those prior decisions as intentional. Laruelle provides no reason for thinking philosophers are blindly disposed in this way other than by making his own “constitutively blind prior decision” that this is the case. In my experience with philosophers worth their salt, all quite clearly and consciously identify their initial premises and show NO “constitutive blindness” regarding that step.

The entire depiction of “non-philosophy” conjures a vision of a dog chasing its own tail, all the while convinced it is about to inflict a great deal of pain on some other pooch.

 

[GEddie]

As a lifelong nonphilosopher myself, I am ecstatic that nonphilosophy seems to have found the beginnings of a system.

ICXC NIKA

 

[sidetrack]

As a lifelong nonphilosopher myself, I am ecstatic that nonphilosophy seems to have found the beginnings of a system.

ICXC NIKA

xD LOL.Why?.Is seeing the work of being a “nonphilosopher” being taken up by someone who’ll presumably do the cognitive labor of working out a system,making you feel happy and validated ?.

I forgot to take the mention of Derrida out of the title as that’s for another posting.I first heard about non-philosophy in a book about deconstructionism,where it said that deconstructionism can be said to be an example of it.

 

[Pat_Payne]

The only question of any worth I’ve heard from a philosopher is “Tall, Grande or Venta?”

 

[GEddie]

xD LOL.Why?.Is seeing the work of being a “nonphilosopher” being taken up by someone who’ll presumably do the cognitive labor of working out a system,making you feel happy and validated ?.

I forgot to take the mention of Derrida out of the title as that’s for another posting.I first heard about non-philosophy in a book about deconstructionism,where it said that deconstructionism can be said to be an example of it.

I have no need for such a system, but maybe it’s existence will lead to more people taking nonphilosophy seriously.

ICXC NIKA