Hey /lit/.
How's your philosophy treating you?
Too bad you're falling for that millennia old meme.
You're too clueless to know about Non-Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-philosophy
Philosophy = outdated
"Laruelle's non-philosophy, he claims, should be considered to philosophy what non-Euclidean geometry is to the work of Euclid."
Philosophy= Newtonian physics
Non-Philosophy = Relativity & QM
>s-shut up, I've read countless book of philosophy, y-you can't say it was all for nothing ;((
>h-he's probably some crackpot
Nope, even modern philosophers can see his genius:
>
Until a decade ago, he has been described by Scottish philosopher Ray Brassier as "the most important unknown philosopher working in Europe today"[4] and was described by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari as "engaged in one of the most interesting undertakings of contemporary philosophy."
>
Laruelle out-Wittgenstein'd Wittgenstein.
>>7922896
Did he like... create an antithesis (non philosophy) for my thesis (philosophy)?
>>7922917
He proved that philosophy is pretty much broken.
>>7922919
so... what's new?
>>7922919
Could you summarise how?
>>7922929
Everything:
Laruelle argues that all 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. Examples from the history of philosophy include Immanuel Kant's distinction between the synthesis of manifold impressions and the faculties of the understanding; Martin Heidegger's split between the ontic and the ontological; and Jacques Derrida's notion of différance/presence. The reason Laruelle finds this decision interesting and problematic is because the decision itself cannot be grasped (philosophically grasped, that is) without introducing some further scission.
>>7922936
Can you stop quoting Wiki and write something worth reading?
>>7922936
I read that. Still can't see something new
>>7922896
>Philosophy= Newtonian physics
>Non-Philosophy = Relativity & QM
Flip that if anything. As physics becomes less empirical/experimental and more theoretical in its advance beyond Newton (and as the underlying mathematics becomes less provable), its basis becomes more and more philosophical.
Why would someone Google "x is shit" unless they had strong opinions and couldn't find anyone dumb enough to agree with them?
But this is *still* philosophy, advanced philosophy though, in order to understand it you need to know traditional philosophy.
>>7922968
>fodder
non-philosophy is too sophisticated for you to grasp. you're so immersed into decisional philosophy, you cant think out of it.
>>7922896
Ray Brassier (the Nick Lande fan) and D&G like Laurelle for a reason. Theyre taking a classic Nietzschean approach. This "non-philosophy' has existed as "anti-philosophy" since Pascal (directed at Descartes) and has gone all the way up to Witty.
What does non philosophy say about full skepticism?
>>7923000
Please please please enlighten me. Destroying my standpoints is my fetish
>>7922896
>what non-Euclidean geometry is to the work of Euclid
so... also a form of geometry?
Philfag here.
I've heard proffessor saying that non-phil will be the dominant philosophical view in a decade or two.
Because it includes the it makes the intangible tangible through the non-decisional process.
Which is philosophy with a much wider scope.
And the most crucial thing about it is self-awareness the 'normal' philosophy lacks, which causes some restrictions.
>>7922896
If you're thinking about studying philosophy you should just study math.
>>7923117
>makes the intangible tangible through the non-decisional process. Which is philosophy with a much wider scope.
Can you give examples?
>mfw /lit/ doesn't know about non-phil
I'd expect /lit/ to know all the cutting edge philosophy.
>>7923037
Non-Euclidean geometry utilizes a good chunk of the axioms from Euclidean geometry. "Philosophy" could be taken to be actually the current trends of philosophy as Euclidean geometry was taken to BE geometry in its heyday.
>2016
>still falling for the sophisma with different name meme
Any non-philosopher (mouth-breather banging his head against a keyboard and typing useless letters because he denies meaning, truth and objective causality) is an absolute meme and just a desperate attempt to defend abuse through poignant words. Nothing new here.
We can move on.
>>7923140
>2016
>believing an analogy is a model
>believing saying something about X means X os something
>took university so well that forgot basic logics
I don't even know why you are wasting your time discussing an edgy meme. Non-philosophy isn't quantum physics, it is post-modern buddhism edgy extravaganza pretending to have depth.
I haven't seen a single idiot who can apply this meme to anything. They just use it for ad hominem. There isn't even anything to debate. If someone brings the non-phil bullshit to you, use your eyes. Think. Compare. You've just rebutted non-philosophy unconsciouslly.
>>7923147
That was said on every turn of philosophical/cultural/artistic/scientific/etc advancement.
>this new "wheel" meme is completely useless, I can move things with m own hands just fine.
Go back to your cave, this ain't for you.
>>7923161
Ican'tunderstandcomplexthings.exe
Philosophy is incestuous. It doesn't apply to life outside itself. It is merely a mental exercise.
>these threads
>no posts about pragmatism
>>7922936
But non-philosophy is structured around a decision too -- i.e., dialectically splitting the world into philosophy and non-philosophy. Therefore it BTFO's itself.
>>7922896
Sounds more like "multivariate philosophy"
>>7923000
non-philosophy is within decisional philosophy anyway
ALSO I READ THIS ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD AND THERE IS ABSOLUTE ZERO SUBSTANCE
at no point does anyone talk about how this scission is of importance or note, or why this "ruins" trad philosophy or ANYTHING
except this post:
>>7923165
which is actually noteworthy for how unbelievably fucking MORONIC it is
>>7922896
Nick Land pls go.
>>7922896
Yet another wave of French gibberish masquerading as "deep thought".
What an embarrassment.
>>7923349
> look, little Timmy is trying out his first troll!
>>7923349
Lmao. Uh no, I'm pretty sure Alfred Tarski was more rigorous.
This guy gets it:
https://planomenology.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/non-philosophy-1-the-use-of-philosophy/
>>7923337
Laruelle's advocacy of a radical recession is entirely at odds with Land's thought as it now stands.
He is a suitable enough subject for the usual dismissals of Continental thought, esp from an analytic perspective, and the OP may well be made in ignorance.
However, I'd suggest those free of prejudice might actually try reading his work before dismissing it out of hand with such vituperation. It is at least provocative, and not greatly suited to summary.
Engaging with a thinker doesn't necessarily require some partisan investment in their position. Philosophy isn't organised sport, despite appearances to the contrary.
>>7923395
sermoning la chorale babbylonian babykeks
>>7922896
All philosophy is pseudo-intellectual bullshit that millennials use to seem deep
>Philosophy and journalism MAJOR
Thinking of going into law school, studying journalism law, free speech law etc.
Maybe work for the AP
Or be unemployed.
>>7922896
Le "philosophers won't like it" meme.
Nice meme.
>>7923395
>Engaging with a thinker doesn't necessarily require some partisan investment in their position.
The problem with bullshit artists is that they don't *have* positions. They spout vague nonsense in a grandiose fashion and then expect to be taken seriously. It doesn't work that way.
>>7923406
The kind of pseudo-'philosophy' that gets talked about on /lit/ - yes, you are correct.
I don't know much but I do know a man called Laruelle wrote that wikipedia article.
>>7923364
> "Non-philosophy is only intelligible from a non-philosophical perspective"
so its just a long-winded tautology
>>7923161
Nothing I said was pro non-philosophy, you meme-spouting autist. I was trying to rationalize why Laruelle was using that analogy to describe non-philosophy. Clearly you need a refresher on logic because you're deriving shit from my words which I never insinuated.
He's only half-right.
You don't need philosophy when you have class struggle.
So going by this thread OP is full of shit?
Philosphy isn't a premise
Non-philospy is the absence of the assumption
I guess it's true enough
>>7924199
Nah, the latest replies are probably from the same troll.
b8
>>7922896
laruelle is badiou doing quantum logic instead of classical logic=>trash
>>7922896
>he believes in relativity
Good goy
>>7923322
Could you please explain to me why this is different than metaphilosophy? The Wiki says Laruelle claims that metaphilosophy is itself philosophy, i.e. just refers to the self-reflective tendency of philosophy, and that "meta" isn't good enough to grasp the.. what?
That's where I'm losing it. I keep reading this thing and nodding at all the basic points, which seem like ordinary aspects of metaphilosophy. Then they mention the auto-authoritative thing, which I guess kind of makes sense, but I'm not seeing the necessity. Why wouldn't metaphilosophy's self-reflectiveness be able to suspend judgment? Why does a metaphilosophical analysis of presuppositions inherently require or involve (?) a auto-authoritativeness?
It says that without doing so, metaphilosophy descends into aporia or relativism. OK, but that's not necessarily a bad, or final, thing?
Maybe I'm just too dumb to get it, but it seems like it's saying
>Philosophical thought is conditioned by its own categories of thought [old idea]
>into (necessary binaries etc.), [old idea]
>but this necessarily involves a new "auto-authoritative" thing, to even encompass the critique of the old [why?]
>THEREFORE, ?????????
My lunchbreak is over so I can't do more than skim but can someone tell me what I'm missing?
>>7925857
He explicitly stated that it's near impossible to grasp it through traditional way of thinking.
>>7925857
>That's where I'm losing it. I keep reading this thing
Your first mistake was taking any of this horseshit seriously.
I collect knowledge like a person collects starwars toys
>>7922896
Summary for newcomers to this thread
> Some guy has an idea that hilariously enough indulges in all the sorts of things people usually hate about philosophy, like concentration on extremely narrow, extremely specific metaphysical concepts
> Titles it "Non-philosophy" although it is actually itself a philosophical critique of certain philosophies
> OP is some retard who bought into the "LE PHILOSOPHY IS DEAD" meme
> 'Look, this guy uses mysterious-sounding words and created something called non-philosophy. I bet he's really smart and he agreed with me!' (Note: He doesn't actually even agree with the OP)
> When asked to further explain, OP just quotes wiki, because he clearly doesn't understand the ideas he's working with
Congrats OP, this is one of the most pathetic, posturing threads I've ever seen
wtf:
How does non-philosophy achieve this other use of philosophy, without thereby giving way to pragmatic relativism? It begins with the One, which for philosophy is the operator of synthesis. Yet rather than positing the One as original unity which philosophy separates and then reunites, non-philosophy begins by positing the One as without separation, or as already separated from the dyadic separation and synthesis, or cleavage, of thought and the world (which non-philosophy calls the Thought-World). The One as radical immanence is no longer split up into two parts which are then mixed together, but is itself already split off from every splitting. It is not the original unity of these two parts, but rather, is without unity and without parts. It is not a plane of consistency, nor is it inconsistent multplicity, for it is without consistency, separated from consistency without being separated into consistency and inconsistency, on the basis of either.
There are no predications of the One, there are no conceptual values assigned to it, because the legislation of such values already supposes the separation of thought from the world. The One is that which is already given without being given by way of a concept. It is not deduced by thought, but already given without deduction. While philosophy may appropriate the One for its own use, to authorize it and validate it, it only does so in an illusory way, employing a concept of the One rather than the One itself, which is without appropriation.
The One-without-unity and without-consistency, which is to say, without-concept, is already separated from the philosophical amphiboly of thought and world, or the Thought-World. Hence, the two constitute a Duality, yet this duality is not reconciled in a synthesis. Philosophy is capable of synthesizing its dyad only by doing so on the basis of an illusory appropriation of the One. Yet because the One is already separated from the dyad without being separated in and by the dyad, this Duality is also without-distinction, in that the One is already distinct from the Thought-World even while thought cannot distinguish itself from the former. Philosophy imagines that it already includes the One, that it is sufficient to the One, that its transcendental synthesis is ultimately identical to the One-as-unity. Yet the One is Identity (to) itself, and not the identity ‘of’ philosophy, nor identical ‘to’ its synthesis.
>>7922896
Non-philosophy is philosophy though. Laruelle's description of philosophy, from which he gets his non-philosophy, is inherently philosophical.
>>7922896
Philosophy is dead. Philosophy remains dead. And we have killed it.
God is dead.
Poetry is dead.
Philosophy is dead.
Why must we always kill our darlings bros?
>>7922896
So basically he's never studied formal logic?
Cool.
I like how he forms this dialectical relationship between philosophy and non-philosophy.
>>7922896
The picture in OP only proves that Stephen Hawking has a lot of free time.
it is even more pathetic than expected: they try to connect to science-as-myths-or-paradigms, like the teens on /sci/ think that they are smart once they discover this doctrine from some fantasy of induction through fallibility ...
It confirms thus that it is yet another rationalism, therefore done by people who despise enough empiricism to think that there must be more than what we are conscious of.
This latter point is crucial, if we are to finally elucidate what a non-philosophical use of philosophy can do. Because the elements of philosophical decisions (concepts, for the most part), once released or at least disengaged from their decisional determination, no longer pretend to sufficiently explain, or determine, or give the Real, but rather, are posited as given according to the Real, concepts themselves become equivocally real materials for use. The conceptual contents of all philosophical doctrines, insofar as the latter have been adequately suspended and so the former adequately cloned, become the material of an experimental theoretical practice and practical theory, and no longer the instruments of a theory of practice and practice of theory. Concepts and theories, no longer sutured to their explanatory sufficiency, becomes the subject of an experimental use. This experimentation is performed on the basis of a new experience of the Real or of radical immanence itself, insofar as it is now a matter of an experience of (philosophy or the world given according to) the Real. It is this experience according to the One, or vision-in-One, that opens up a radically non-intuitive thought, for which concepts no longer function as conditions, but as ‘fracalizers’ capable of inducing unprecedented forms of experience, just as the telescope and microscope did so for the natural sciences.
>>7927858
Non-philosophy then constitutes a unified theory of philosophy and science, as it suspends philosophy’s pretentious claims upon the real, which in the past have always led to confrontations in which philosophy aimed to ‘ground’ science, or ‘subsume’ it, or deny it, or challenge it, or at least supplement it. Non-philosophy, on the contrary, as a use of philosophy, no longer seeks to explain the Real, but rather, like science, seeks to explain empirical phenomena through experimental testing and constant negotiation amongst disparate theories. For non-philosophy, philosophy itself becomes the empirical phenomena to be explained, experimented with, and theorized. The non-philosopher no longer claims privileged access to the Real, but rather, like science, confines itself to a kind of empirical pragmatics determined according to the Real. Good science never claims privileged access to the Real, but only the best available theory of how given phenomena work, while always leaving the determination in the hands of the Real (in-the-last-instance). This is why, for the scientist, the results of an experiment always take precedence over the hypothesis: determination is ultimately left in the hands of the Real, not in those of the theory.
As we can see, non-philosophy offers a universal pragmatics of philosophy, or a use of philosophy that is not itself determined according to philosophy. This is a use not only of philosophical materials taken as given, but philosophy itself taken as the means of production of conceptual materials. No longer constricted to their ‘authorized’ or ‘official’ use, the concepts and theories belonging to the history and future of philosophy are no longer pitted in an aimless and endless war of decision against decision, doctrine against doctrine, philosopher against philosopher. Rather, they are liberated of this vain toil and free to be used according to the Real. And as man himself is, in the flesh, given according to the Real as well, this use is determined according to the Real in-man or in-person, rather than man-as-philosopher. The question of this use according to man is also, finally, the question of a utopian use. Not a hypothetical, imaginary, or regulative idea of utopia, but an effective utopia as already given according to the Real, rather than according to decision.
>>7922936
Sounds like an intersesting philosophy that that guy has
![flat,800x800,070,f[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kQrcoUf.jpg "flat,800x800,070,f[1].jpg")
>justifies attacking philosophy by citing only the edgiest, hippest, freshest meme philosophers (Brassier) and those only a fan of them would know about
senpai you've got three options
>be a naive stemlord
>be a Nietzschean
>admit you (critically) enjoy philosophy
>>7922936
Why do you think that decision to divide one thing into two must be further divided?
In order to grasp the scission wouldn't we just require to understand the concept of division; division itself on the other hand would be comprehended through the two divided things (say faculties of understanding and phenomena). It seems as if division in itself need not be divided since it's self explained with the constituent parts of the division.
There is nothing outside of the real of philosophy.
>>7923349
Nope its washed up bullshit that isn't even original. The only thing new is the emperor's clothes. Everything he's spouted out is just rehashed bullshit masquerading behind neologism and typical continental pseudo-intelligence.
You mention QM and relativity, but I'd venture to guess that you know nothing about them. Do you even know what an integral is? M m, n space?
Also if you think this is the most rigorous form of philosophy in the last several hundred years, are you familiar with the fact that cardinal numbers are equivalence classes of equipollent sets? that the value of x^y is equal to the cardinality of the set of functions ƒ such that ƒ: A -> B where the cardinality of A is equal to y and the cardinality of b is equal to x?
>>7923213
your mom is incestuous, self-centered, and needs exercise
>>7929827
This.
OP = moron.
>>7922896
A shame this pedants will never know the joy of Stoicism.
>>7922936
This is basically what Adorno means by immanent critique and philosophy as a force field.
There are certain assumptions made, certain brute facts in play within any field of problems signed by a particular philosopher. These assumptions and the dynamic of the field itself make themselves apparent at points within the text that seem to either in reference to the simultaneity of the field (1) constitute points of contradiction and tension; and in reference to the bounds of the field (2) point beyond what it intends. Immanent critique then seeks to unearth all these contradictions and assumptions and philosophical excess to map out the field it immerses itself within.
>>7930859
>>7925857
So non-philosophy is rebranded and actualized nihilism?
