File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0310, message 105


Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:06:08 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: working notes on anti-philosophy


eric,

following on from the anti-philosophy refernce: some working notes.. 
(and an implicit apology to Deleuze)

Anti-philopsophers are those who suffer from a deep anxiety about 
philosophy. What causes this anxiety is perhaps the lack of concern, the 
lack of courage to philosophize is the inversion of the courage required 
to philosophize and question. The act of philosophy is a movement of 
desire and resolution. It may be that this is why the desire to expose 
philosophy and philosophers to ridicule is confused with 
anti-philosophy. The anti-philosophers are as old as philosophy itself, 
probably stretching back beyond ancient Greece into the depths of our 
indo-European histories. Usually anti-philosophy is recruited from the 
subjects of doxa, of normalized public opinion and of 'sound common 
sense'. Philosophy is probably hated by the doxa. It attacks the the 
false knowledge of the doxa, of common-sense, questioning it in the name 
of truth, genuine knowing of the episteme. For this reason it is always 
attacked by the doxa, denounced. Often as in the case of some aspects of 
philosophy – anti-philosophy hides itself under a false name. It calls 
itself a philosophy to enable it to fight against philosophy especially 
metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. It is worth bearing in mind that 
anti-philosophy and non-philosophy are not the same thing. Guattari and 
Deleuze have argued that philosophy and non-philosophy are related. 
“Philosophy needs a non-philosophy just as science needs a 
non-science....” For in this case Non-philosophy is a part of philosophy 
where philosophy is greater than simply being a communication in, 
through books, as such then non-philosophy can speak in favor of a 
philosophical understanding. With anti-philosophy however it seems to be 
the case that it is not possible to speak in favor of philosophy.

Anti-philosophy then is against philosophy, it does not want any 
philosophy. Usually it wants and even requires the end of philosophy. 
But where contemporary philosophy has been open to non-philosophy been 
always already anti-philosophical ? For cannot one say that the history 
of philosophy consists of a struggle with itself ? Perhaps one can say 
then that philosophy is the self-questioning of the philosophical 
subject, but as such philosophy cannot be said to be non or anti 
philosophy. [Here of course there is the issue of Derrida, 
deconstruction “never speaking on the topic of philosophy and therefore 
never speaking on the topic of anti-philosophy” for deconstruction could 
not speak in the name of that which it deconstructs but as such it is 
not anti-philosophy as has been suggested, rather it is a 
non-philosophy, whereas an anti-philosophy is the pure negative image of 
philosophy. As deleuze stated the object of philosophy is to produce 
more than the mere offically sanction master/royal discourses. "Is there 
a hope for philosophy, which for a long time has been an official 
referential genre? Let us profit from this moment in which 
antiphilosophy is trying to be the language of power....Let us take 
advantage of the moment..." To create an unroyal discouse. How then 
should one read Lyotard and the statement that “Philosophy as 
architecture is ruined” as an agreement with Deleuze and Guattari, or as 
an acceptance of Badiou's reading that it is a statement of failure and 
guilt? In that moment accepting that the anti-philosophers have become 
transcendent, leaving then only the minor discursive moments available 
for philosophy. [Is this not what the post-colonial thinkers imply? 
along with he believers in common-sense ?]...

regards
steve




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005