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
-
-
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 -
It doesn't "depend on him"! If you understand Laruelle, you understand that he provides materials for usage vis a vis local knowledges. So, non-buddhism uses certain ideas from non-philosophy, but in a (necessarily) distinct way from what Laruelle or anyone else might do.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @non_buddhism @evantthompson and
And your mere assertion (largely uninformed, I suspect) that his project is "no good" does not make it so! Again, who cares about Laruelle? On to non-buddhism!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course my assertion doesn't make it so. It's my judgement, and the question is whether it's accurate and defensible. (Which of course I think it is.)
-
-
Judgements can be better or worse, the difference being based on our effort to engage a body of thought. Sure, we can defend any view. That's what makes all of this so fun and edifying. But, again, doing so responsibly, much less "accurately," as you well know, is hard work.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.