Is François Laruelle's 'non-philosophy' utter

>>2518232
what game is he playing?

>>2518257
Ultima Online

Can you explain his non-philosophy to me?

>>2518490
It is a strange foundational performativity, a method of using philosophical language non-philosophically, according to predetermined rules, in order to grasp, suspend, and extract the decisional structure or "choice" that philosophy is supposedly predicated on yet is unaware of and cannot grasp philosophically.

https://plijournal.com/files/laruelle_pli_8.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-philosophy

https://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/laruelle-derrida.pdf

>>2518232
The idea of meta-philosophy is a load of crap. Philosophy is the deepest you can go in enquiry, and it involves its own study already. There's no need to create something beyond it.,

>>2518529
I should note that the first link is after Laruelle seems to greatly back away from the more radical rhetoric he used to employ.

Ergo, Derrida was right in his criticism but Laruelle can't admit it.

https://www.academia.edu/12682438/LARUELLE_vs_DERRIDA_sufficiency_scientism_and_performativity

>>2518539
Laurelle at least used to claim that what he was talking about was beyond even meta-philosophy.

He seems to want to be the "last philosopher". Rejecting hierarchies by implicitly asserting a metaphysical hierarchy with his own thought at the top, all while denying this.

>>2518529
That seems like something I'd like to try 'my lens' on.

>>2518568
I do appreciate thinking in these sorts of directions. I will probably read up on this at some point.

>>2518259
This game inhabits a special place in my childhood.

>>2518586
Same