I disagree with your "only." The history also provides evidence and materials for thinking about the problems with what you designate as "non-Buddhism," which, despite your assertions to the contrary, is arguably enmeshed in Buddhist modernism.
My judgement is based on my reading so far, and my work in philosophy over decades, including a lot of French philosophy.
-
-
(I mean my judgement of Laruelle.)
-
Laruelle is not doing "philosophy." He is engaged in what he calls a science of philosophy. These are two decisively distinct trajectories. He is hard to read because he wants to avoid precisely The Philosophy. It took me a good five years to be able to work with his ideas.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.