/lit/ - Literature

What will I get out of him?

>>19878301
"kek"

>>18974290
1. Laruelle isn't a philosopher of difference, he's interested in the thing itself as the thing itself that it is, what I am isn't defined by what I'm not.

2. He isn't interested in philosophies of becoming my "best self", a creative nothing, a schizophrenic rhizome. We're withdrawing from the world, not diving into its energies.

3. He is interested in the World as something impenetrable to thought, not as something that is necessarily disclosed, revealed, or made transparent to us.

4. He is interested in relations that are what they are only on their side. He doesn't try to map a bunch of relations on a single plane.

>Truth as secret exists autonomously prior to the horizontality of appearance.

What did he mean by this?

It's time. You're ready for the final boss.

>tfw non-philosophy finally clicks

Have I ascended bros?

Wtf is this dude talking about?

>We are right to make war, this is the thesis of the philosophers; to rebel against the master, this is the watchword of the Gnostics; to struggle in an immanent way with the World, this is the theorem of the Future Christ. In the beginning was the struggle, and the struggle was with the World and the World did not know it . . .

Why didn't you tell me Laruelle was this based???

Is Laruelle a contemporary gnostic thinker?

This lil nigga a wizard

What does /lit/ think of Laruelle? I feel like he's on to something but I can't quite say it.

>>17321859
>laruelle-esque
holy shit this guy?

I'm fascinated by the complexity and greatness of the human mind and what it can achieve. What do you think are the cream of the crop high brow works and why?

This guy

Has anyone read anything by this man, or have any thoughts on his non-philosophy ?

I'll start

Is "I think, therefore I am" the most concrete and difficult do disprove statement? I have never found anything being as grounded as it meanwhile you can find reasonable criticism toward every other part of our reality. Is this the only clue we have?

>dude the sublimation of deluezian difference in-itself through the gnostic christ of quantum uncertainty lmao

Yo what the FUCK is this nigger talking about?

>>14958587
Good luck but it won't be enough.

So why again should you bother with anything else other than the Münchhausen's trilemma and epistemology? What is the point of anything if you can't even be absolutely certain.