/lit/ - Literature

>>13310364
seethe

>>13310262
>>13310352
FUCK THEY ARE ASKING ME TO EXPLAIN HIM. explaining him is a bit difficult since his stuff doesn't really make philosophical sense. non-philosophy is sort of a perspective of seeing philosophy where you observe it's tautological structure and use it as material for speculation. shitposting aside, i still have a lot of issues comprehending his primary sources so i can't give a very cogent explanation. i know brassier has used laruelle's approach for his own transcendental nihilism, though the article i read of him explaining his interest in laruelle didn't have that much substance. in general, non-philosophy isn't really a substantial form of thought and places much more emphasis on form.

idk about non-standard philosophy. that shit is even more autistic. he is mentioning shit to do with quantum physics now. i honestly think it probably makes more sense if you instead try looking at the field mathematically. for instance,
this is a quote from someone talking about reverse-mathematics:
>Perform the following thought experiment. Suppose you are given two formal presentations of the same mathematical theory. The definitions of the first presentation are the theorems of the second, and vice versa. This situation frequently occurs in mathematics. Which of the two presentations makes the theory “true?” Neither, evidently: what we have are two presentations of the same theory.
what caught me is that in a way it is very close to the autopositional structure that laruelle babbles about. of course, unlike philosophers, mathematicians don't necessarily believe that the mathematical object has some ontological truth in the real world. this skeptical attitude though manifested itself with NON-euclidean geometry. the advent of which cemented the fact that euclidean geometry no longer has a justification for its 'amphibology' (i.e. its transcendence in making claims of the Real). not only that but within the realm of euclidean geometry, you see that it is unable of even comprehending the problematic, and you have to make a sort of Vision-in-One to step out of it. when you do so, you can now work on euclidean geometry as pure material as opposed to a tool to prove theorems with. this is what you do w mathematical logic and the like.

this also helps explain why he calls it non-philosophy. it isn't a negation of philosophy but really something that sort of goes beyond its boundaries. i think laruelle's stuff can also be better be comprehended if you contrast it with bachelard's philosophy of science (who i assume laruelle takes influence from). in it he coins non-cartesianism. this perspective is also influenced by the advent of non-euclidean geometry, but what bachelard takes from it is a subtly different. as opposed to take a radically different perspective, he instead sees this as a prompt that descarte's foundationalism should be abolished while still keeping the idea of a rational subject.