Naxos
-
08:23:31 pm on enero 11, 2012 |
-
Thanks for this, both John and Anthony
I still truly think that there is no reason out of the academic frame that would give sense to the distinction between non-philosophy and philosophy. This distinction still reproduces the old scholastic categories as it gives certain predominance to philosophy as something exclusive of academic work. Out of this frame, philosophy does not support this distinction. Though, Laruelle’s take seems to be a good try, if we account John’s clarifications. Thus, this effectuated radicalism implied by Laruelle’s ‘non-philosophy’ does not go as far as it should be. Before being “a discipline that appropriates for itself the exclusive right to think at the highest levels of thought”, philosophy is the way of life that’s open to life itself as an experience immanence: as i have referred elsewhere: philosophy is not a school-game, it is rather something vital that can only be experienced by the affirmativeness of an event that breaks with history and that exposes the philosopher to the intensities that compounds his singularities and that appaer to put in risk his own sanity. - Comentado por Naxos en:
- Can We Think Democratically? Laruelle and the ‘Arrogance’ of Non-Philosophy
- 10 January 2012 at 7:21 pm
Advertisement -
...
