(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.
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 -
Replying to @non_buddhism @evantthompson and
Can't we have this discussion at the blog or somewhere else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, twitter is of course not a good place. If I can find a moment to post some thoughts at the blog, I will. (But other things may call.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thanks for the consideration. I appreciate your engagement. Should I send you a pdf of A Critique of Western Buddhism? If you are going to critique the critique, this would be the best source for your material. If yes, DM an email.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Thanks for the offer, but I've got one (already sent to me by a friend).
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.