2/7 The way you single out Buddhism as a special object (despite via negation) looks like a Buddhist modernist move to me (it's still caught up in Buddhist exceptionalism)
-
-
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
3/7 A "cultural/philosophical critique of religion" seems more straightforward and accomodating than "non-Buddhism"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
4/7 You say "x-Buddhism" is anything & everything under the label "Buddhist." How can you presume to know the scope of your (totalizing) term? How do you know "non-B" doesn't fall under it? What justifies your standpoint?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
5/7 Sharf's point is that many of the intellectual moves you make under the heading of "non-Buddhism" have sophisticated antecedents in the Buddhist intellectual tradition
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
6/7 I.e. it belongs to the Buddhist tradition to question what "Buddhism" means (but you already presume to know what it designates, hence your term "x-Buddhism")
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
7/7 I think that Buddhist philosophy along with its ancient and modern dialectical interlocutors is better/richer for these issues than Laruelle, who seems pretentious and obscurantist to me
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sorry dude, but my money is on the fact you have not spent the time adequate to understanding Laruelle's project. Not that I blame you! The points that you are making here are precisely part and parcel of the non theoretical apparatus. But then...something else happens.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
My judgement is based on my reading so far, and my work in philosophy over decades, including a lot of French philosophy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evantthompson @non_buddhism and
(I mean my judgement of Laruelle.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yeah, I know that he says that. I don't buy it.
-
-
Ok. But no sense in quibbling over that point. How I have used him is more to the point, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, but if your project depends on him, and his project is no good, then that's going to be a problem for your project
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 6 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.