François Laruelle —
This contemporary French philosopher has been brought to my attention by Fractal Ontology’s Taylor Adkins, who has apparently taken up the task of translating some of his works. This is a generous labor for the philosophical community at large, since practically none of his thought has been rendered into English. I must say that my interest has been piqued; Taylor informed me that Laruelle is influenced by J.G. Fichte, a philosopher whose work is largely skipped over or mentioned only briefly in the history of thought. Several translated sections of his work have appeared on the Fractal Ontology blog ( here, here, and here) , which I hope to read in some depth.
Taylor has expressed an interest in discussing Fichte’s work in its relation to Laruelle’s philosophy with me, an opportunity which I welcome enthusiastically. I think we might learn a lot from one another, since our research seems to be developing along similar lines.
Hey Ross! Thank you for your post! I have some other work that I’ve translated which I haven’t made available for the website because it may have a chance to get published. I have his essay on Deleuze, a draft of the first 30 pages of Phi and Non-Phi, and the first 20 pages of his Principes de la Non-philosophie. I should be working soon on chapter one of Philosophie et non-philosphie. Anyway, I was just going to let you know that if you would like more of Laruelle to read I’d be more than happy to email you what I currently have. Just let me know.
All the best,
Taylor
You’re quite welcome. I’d be thrilled at the chance of an e-mail correspondence. My address is rosslaurencewolfe@gmail.com. How steep is the learning curve in his essay on Deleuze? I’m not too well-versed in Deleuze’s thought, so I might well be lost if it presumes a familiarity. Perhaps the first 30 pages of that Philosophy and Non-Philosophy book would be a more appropriate point of departure? What do you think?
Hmm…good questions. Well, to tell you the truth, his main line of approach in the essay on Deleuze is against his Spinozism, particularly its display in What Is Philosophy…in fact, this is the only book he explicitly evokes, although he is making general claims about Deleuze’s entire oeuvre (mentioning the evolution of concepts) etc… I think the main gist of the essay makes sense, but then again if you haven’t gotten into Deleuze, why bother? However, there is a considerable discussion of Deleuze’s portrayal of Spinoza as the Christ-Event of philosophy, etc. So, he even comes to talk about a non-Spinozism…this may be of more interest to you? The draft for the phi and non-phi is a bit rough at places still, but the one to the Princips might be the most interesting…But I’ll send you all I have at the moment with some comments in an email soon.
All the best,
Taylor
Both essays sound interesting to me, so I’ll trust your judgment. Even if I’m not read up on Deleuze’s interpretation of Spinoza, I’m well-acquainted with Spinoza himself. So I might still be able to get something out of his review of Spinoza, filling in the gaps as well I can through context. Thank you again for your generosity in sharing and discussing your work with me.
I have a general question, however, which might well kick-start our discussion of Fichte. I recall you mentioned that Laruelle compared his own philosophical project with the three central goals of Fichte’s idealism. What three goals was Laruelle referring to? I can hazard a guess as to what they might be, but I’d prefer to hear Laruelle’s exposition of them.
Best,
Ross
Pingback: Francois kratz | Syr21