Monthly Archives: January 2016

This is my review of Graham Harman’s little book THE THIRD TABLE (Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2012). In this book Harman gives an account of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous two tables argument, and posits the existence of a “third table” to … Continue reading →

There is an interesting-looking blog event organised around Geoff Pfeifer’s book “THE NEW MATERIALISM: Althusser, Badiou, and Zizek“. So far, the discussion has been slow getting started, and for the moment has turned around the rather strange consensus that Badiou’s … Continue reading →

J’aimerais écrire un livre titré ANTI-LARUELLE, qui serait tout autant pour la non-philosophie laruelléenne que contre elle, et qui contiendrait une défense de Badiou contre les critiques que Laruelle développe dans son ANTI-BADIOU. En effet, la plus grande partie du … Continue reading →

I would like to write a book entitled ANTI-LARUELLE, which would be just as much for Laruelle’s non-philosophy as against it, and which would include a defence of Badiou against Laruelle’s critiques. In effect, most of the book has already … Continue reading →

Many people would be willing to take the quantum leap into non-standard philosophy proposed by Laruelle if it were not for the religious turn taken in his most recent phase, what we may call the Christic obstacle. My duty here … Continue reading →

Some people might be puzzled at the idea of treating François Laruelle’s non-philosophy as a form of “metaphysics”. After all, he is known for a position that sharply limits the utility of traditional philosophical vocabulary, and that seeks to propose … Continue reading →

Continuing my discussion of Continental metaphysical research programmes, Latour’s @AIMEproject is significantly more satisfying, when judged in terms of the four criteria of pluralism, diachrony, apophaticism, and democracy. 1) Pluralism: Latour’s @AIMEproject with its multiple modes of existence is explicitly … Continue reading →