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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005