CFP Vol. 3.1

Non-Philosophy and Philosophy: Elucidating the Parenthetical

Editors: Oraxiom editorial team — ONPhI

Date limite: Ongoing

L’appel ci-dessous est rédigé en anglais (texte officiel du document source).

Télécharger l’appel (DOCX)

This issue of Oraxiom seeks to interrogate the past and future trajectories of non-philosophy by better understanding its relationship to the history of philosophy. Put otherwise, for this issue, we seek to explore the possibility of a non-philosophical history of philosophy. Though Laruelle is broad in his reference to philosophers, theologians, mystics and scientists, he punctuates his history of philosophy by way of proper names in parenthetical remarks: (Plato), (Kant), (Nietzsche), (Husserl), (Heidegger), (Derrida), (Deleuze), etc. With these graphic signatures, the philosophical pierces through the non-philosophical text. These parenthetical punctuations are ripe for analysis and rigorous explication.

But first: Quid juris? By what right can we ask to drag the non-philosopher back into the history of philosophy from which they fought so hard to escape?

“But to what end?” Laruelle asks himself in the introduction to his 1985 work Biography of the Ordinary Man. An assertion precedes this question, and it is an assertion that constitutes the core of all of Laruelle’s work: “There is every reason to revolt against philosophers”. It is this conviction that provides continuity throughout each phase of the non-philosophical project.

In our current issue we seek a return to the perilous landscape of philosophy in order to better understand philosophy as Laruelle reads it. This in turn clarifies Laruelle’s own rebellions while simultaneously contextualizing future Non-Philosophical pursuits. The idea is that better understanding the philosophy from which the non-philosopher rebels draws into sharper focus the positive program of the Non-Philosophical project. Our gamble is that working through the specificity of Laruelle’s readings of the history of philosophy can point toward a more robust discursive exchange between philosophy and Non-Philosophy.