Revamping a concept of Hegel’s, Laruelle describes the “doctrine” of Nietzsche—the traditionally visible part—for the revolutionary pole is “ideological, relatively...necessary and objective appearance”.pic.twitter.com/wMbx97PrEw
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The signifier taken exclusively and to the end of what it can do leads to a process of fascisization; for forces (non-signifying elements and anti-signifying agents), taken to the end of what they can do leads to “an ‘autonomous’ process of rebellion”.pic.twitter.com/3BvRCnuvJd
Here’s the footnote alongside this quest for a better word than “world” (or becoming-world, as he says above); note the distinction between Lar’s footnote and my translator’s note.pic.twitter.com/gGWewYPAGn
This notion of a relation of duplicity rather than duality, which shipwrecks monism and skywrecks dualism, is the subversive seed that Nietzsche plants in all the simple binary terms by which thought becomes concretely manipulablepic.twitter.com/X4agVf2xNX
Time to saddle up, strap in, roll the dice, amor fati...the word precipice [crête] means less a perilous edge and more of a dizzying height; it is gravity itself, and not a simple misstep, that becomes dangerouspic.twitter.com/WxbDGJECVF
“master-proletariat” perhaps looks misleading in translation; in the French “prolétariat-maître”, which makes it clear that this is a question of a duplicitous (dual) relation, not an oxymoron of master as adjective describing proletariat. The rest of the passage describes this.pic.twitter.com/IoBRk1OzLl
This description of the non-reflexivity of the Rebel qua Rebel really echoes with Jean-François Lyotard’s description of the minoritarian qua minoritarian: cf. https://vastabrupt.com/2018/03/12/lyotard-brief-putting-perspective-decadence/ … over @vastabrupt , also translated by @tadkins613pic.twitter.com/l84yBsThiA
A question of rereading the history of humanity as duplicitous. This is to hypercomplexify Rousseau’s Origins of Inequality with Nietzsche’s breaking of history in two.pic.twitter.com/n9B2zLMQty
Here is the footnote explaining what Laruelle is emphasizing with this reflexive formulation. Again, notice the distinction between Lar’s note and minepic.twitter.com/wLMadEA6bL
As you may have seen, throughout, I have opted translating Rebel pronomially as “she” and Master pronomially as “he” when this was necessary. Obviously, in French nouns already have genders, so their pronouns are arbitrary; here, I kept one for each to retain consistency.pic.twitter.com/AF8TrmHGKt
Here, Foucault can be brought into dialogue, for as he wrote a year earlier in History of Sexuality, vol. 1 (1976), where he warns us of being too celebratory in the rise of discourses of liberation. “Tomorrow sex will be good again”, as Foucault mockspic.twitter.com/OBp4Zpezhu
Here is the closing lines of chapter 1. Please visit https://fractalontology.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/new-translation-of-francois-laruelles-nietzsche-contre-heidegger-chapter-1/ … for the standalone textpic.twitter.com/JTA2PrVlwK
@threadreaderapp unroll please, and hopefully this layout will work
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.