Monthly Archives: April 2013

Themost important step is to get out of the idea of ideology as mere superstructure, a sort of passive reflection of what goes on in the economic base. Even if this simple picture can be complexified by notions of relative … Continue reading →

Why did post-structuralism cease to make use of the concept of ideology? This question is raised in Bernard Stiegler’s new book PHARMACOLOGIE DU FRONT NATIONAL. My understanding of these thinkers (Deleuze, Lyotard, Foucault, Derrida) is that while they may not … Continue reading →

Feyerabend on Popper’s seminar: “At first sight Popper’s seminar was a freewheeling and disorganised affair. Papers could be interrupted at any point, anyone could open his mouth. A closer look revealed an interesting pattern. If a new student, encouraged by … Continue reading →

We have traversd a period of polarisation during which the neoliberal doxa reigned uncontested almost everywhere, except in a few academic and para-academic enclaves, where a “refined” or aristocratic critique was elaborated. The philosophical result of the exténuation of this … Continue reading →

Recently I have been called a Deleuzian and also a Feyerabendian, in both cases the aim was to invalidate my intellectual production by confining it to some narrow repetitive predictable category. this is a belated reaction to such intellectual profiling … Continue reading →

One of the most philosophically interesting experiences in being a foreigner is that you can see how people categorise you almost physically. I have lived in France for 30 years now, but I still have a strong accent. I don’t … Continue reading →

1) Harman’s OOO is a variant within the general paradigm set out by Badiou’s philosophy. The terminological differences are important. Badiou speaks in terms of multiples and events, Harman in terms of objects. Badiou explicitly emphasises the pluralist aspect of … Continue reading →