Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy

François Laruelle’s ‘non-philosophical’ practice is connected to its performative language, such that to the question 'what is it to think?, non-philosophy responds that thinking is not “thought”, but performing, and that to perform is to clone the world “in-Real”’ (François Laruelle, ‘What is...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: John Ó Maoilearca
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Performance Philosophy 2015-04-01
Series:Performance Philosophy
Online Access:https://www.performancephilosophy.org/journal/article/view/22
id doaj-b3bb7fd415174cb9bf93218e455e8ee3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b3bb7fd415174cb9bf93218e455e8ee32020-11-24T23:12:23ZengPerformance PhilosophyPerformance Philosophy2057-71762015-04-011116116710.21476/PP.2015.112222Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-PhilosophyJohn Ó Maoilearca0Kingston University LondonFrançois Laruelle’s ‘non-philosophical’ practice is connected to its performative language, such that to the question 'what is it to think?, non-philosophy responds that thinking is not “thought”, but performing, and that to perform is to clone the world “in-Real”’ (François Laruelle, ‘What is Non-Philosophy?’ in From Decision to Heresy [2012], 233). Non-philosophy is equally described by Laruelle as ‘transcendental practice’, an ‘immanent pragmatics’, or a ‘universal pragmatics’ that is ‘valid for ordinary language as well as for philosophy:’ He insists that we look at ‘that-which-I-do-in-saying and not just what I say’ – for the latter is simply what happens when thought is ‘taken hold of again by philosophy.’ Resisting this hold, non-philosophy performs re-descriptions of philosophy that, in doing so, produce effects on how philosophical texts are seen. Of course, whether these effects are always desired or are merely nominally considered ‘effects’ such as any description might create (misunderstanding, disbelief, dismay, boredom) is entirely debatable (and a matter for this paper). In accordance with this, however, it is notable that Laruelle objects to the focus on activity within the concept of a speech act, and instead emphasizes the ‘descriptive passivity’ that an immanent pragmatics obliges. Laruelle calls this a ‘Performed-Without-Performation’ which would be an action of the Real: philosophical language seen as a performed, but without a ‘we’ – or any others – performing (or ‘cloning’) it. It is this notion of the performative without either active human or philosophical adumbration, which is the topic of this paper.https://www.performancephilosophy.org/journal/article/view/22
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author John Ó Maoilearca
spellingShingle John Ó Maoilearca
Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy
Performance Philosophy
author_facet John Ó Maoilearca
author_sort John Ó Maoilearca
title Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy
title_short Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy
title_full Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy
title_fullStr Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy
title_full_unstemmed Laruelle’s ‘Criminally Performative’ Thought: On Doing and Saying in Non-Philosophy
title_sort laruelle’s ‘criminally performative’ thought: on doing and saying in non-philosophy
publisher Performance Philosophy
series Performance Philosophy
issn 2057-7176
publishDate 2015-04-01
description François Laruelle’s ‘non-philosophical’ practice is connected to its performative language, such that to the question 'what is it to think?, non-philosophy responds that thinking is not “thought”, but performing, and that to perform is to clone the world “in-Real”’ (François Laruelle, ‘What is Non-Philosophy?’ in From Decision to Heresy [2012], 233). Non-philosophy is equally described by Laruelle as ‘transcendental practice’, an ‘immanent pragmatics’, or a ‘universal pragmatics’ that is ‘valid for ordinary language as well as for philosophy:’ He insists that we look at ‘that-which-I-do-in-saying and not just what I say’ – for the latter is simply what happens when thought is ‘taken hold of again by philosophy.’ Resisting this hold, non-philosophy performs re-descriptions of philosophy that, in doing so, produce effects on how philosophical texts are seen. Of course, whether these effects are always desired or are merely nominally considered ‘effects’ such as any description might create (misunderstanding, disbelief, dismay, boredom) is entirely debatable (and a matter for this paper). In accordance with this, however, it is notable that Laruelle objects to the focus on activity within the concept of a speech act, and instead emphasizes the ‘descriptive passivity’ that an immanent pragmatics obliges. Laruelle calls this a ‘Performed-Without-Performation’ which would be an action of the Real: philosophical language seen as a performed, but without a ‘we’ – or any others – performing (or ‘cloning’) it. It is this notion of the performative without either active human or philosophical adumbration, which is the topic of this paper.
url https://www.performancephilosophy.org/journal/article/view/22
work_keys_str_mv AT johnomaoilearca laruellescriminallyperformativethoughtondoingandsayinginnonphilosophy
_version_ 1725600970285514752