Talk:Non-philosophy

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 13 to Jul 23 2004, consensus was not reached. Discussion:

Huh? RickK 05:18, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but cleanup. (177 Google hits for ""non-philosophy" laruelle".) -Sean Curtin 07:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Keep, encyclopedic if quite specialist topic. I've cut this this back to a stub. Charles Matthews 07:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: There are no corresponding articles that I can see in French Wikipedia (the only non-English one I'm competent to read). The article implies that this work is better known outside anglophone circles, does anyone know which language(s)? No vote as yet. Andrewa 21:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Philosophy: Continental / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Continental philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Radical immanence and religion

It would be interesting if the article would address the issue of whether radical immanence is in some ways compatible with religion. Certain contemporary philosophers such as Michel Henry would say yes because it is part of the phenomenological and sociological aspect of religion. ADM (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally unclear

This article needs to be clarified for the continental philosophy scholar. As it reads right now, non-philosophy sounds like the blend of a more mundane / localized Neoplatonist 'the One', Hegelian dialectics, and incredibly obscure jargon. What does it mean when the 'non-philosopher' is "for the world"? How will 'non-philosophy' investigate the radical immanence that philosophy can never seemingly have? 70.138.217.107 (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At least as the article is currently written, it seems to consist almost entirely of unsupported claims. The "decisional" critique of philosophy is interesting and fairly well described here. However, claims like "The reason why the axioms and theorems of non-philosophy are philosophically uninterpretable is because, as explained, philosophy cannot grasp its decisional structure in the way that non-philosophy can" and "The decisional structure of philosophy is grasped by the subject of non-philosophy" only assert that non-philosophy grasps this structure but does not say how. Given that this seems a core concern, this information should either be given or it should be stated that non-philosophy is purely a critique of philosophical thinking that does not attempt to replace such thinking with anything else (which is what this grasping implies).

The article's jargon needs to be explicated in order for this function in an appropriately encyclopedic entry.

The function of the "Non-philosophy, Sans-philosophie" section is unclear. If nothing else, the quote can be moved to the opening summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.7.8 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following what appears to be consensus that the article is both conceptually unclear as well as lacking supporting references, I've put the refimprove template on it. In my view it would also warrant a 'multiple issues' template - in addition to the conceptual unclarity and other issues already raised, it presents non-philosophy as exclusively and originally a notion of Laruelle's ["a concept developed by French philosopher François Laruelle"], when in fact it had entered French philosophical discourse at least three decades earlier (if not before) with Merleau-Ponty's Collège de France lecture courses 1958-61 with titles including 'Our State of Non-Philosophy' and 'Philosophy and non-philosophy since Hegel'. Further, the only source other than Laruelle himself that is cited in support of claims concerning Laruelle's work is Ray Brassier, who has also severely critiqued the former, writing in Nihil Unbound that Laruelle's theory of non-philosophy "is too loose-cut to fit its objects; too coarsegrained to provide useful conceptual traction upon the material for which it is supposedly designed" (p.132). I will try to come back and add some of this into the page itself but frankly it's such a poor basis to work from that I'm not convinced it can be saved unless someone is prepared to do serious additional work on it. benimadimben 01:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.hjorth (talk • contribs)