Alain Badiou, a prominent French philosopher, has engaged with François Laruelle's concept of non-philosophy, though his comments are often critical. Badiou's remarks on non-philosophy reflect his broader philosophical commitments, particularly his commitment to the event, truth, and the transformative power of philosophy.
### Badiou’s Key Comments on Laruelle’s Non-Philosophy:
1. **Critique of Non-Philosophy’s Stance:**
Badiou is critical of Laruelle’s non-philosophy for what he perceives as its rejection of the transformative potential of philosophy. Badiou values philosophy’s capacity to create new truths and engage with the event, which he sees as moments of radical change. He argues that by suspending the traditional operations of philosophy, non-philosophy undermines the creative and transformative role that philosophy can play in thinking about truth and change.
2. **Non-Philosophy as Passive:**
Badiou characterizes non-philosophy as passive or indifferent to the creative and active aspects of philosophical thought. He believes that Laruelle’s non-philosophy, in its attempt to suspend the philosophical decision, leads to a form of passivity that avoids engagement with the problems and events that philosophy seeks to address. For Badiou, philosophy should be active, engaging with the world and striving to produce new forms of understanding.
3. **Disagreement on the Nature of the Real:**
Badiou and Laruelle have different conceptions of the real. Badiou’s philosophy is built around the concept of the event, where the real is something that breaks with the status quo and creates new possibilities. Laruelle, on the other hand, treats the real as radically immanent and resistant to philosophical categorization. Badiou critiques Laruelle’s position as being overly reductive, arguing that it flattens the complexity of the real by rejecting the possibility of philosophical events that generate new truths.
4. **Philosophy vs. Non-Philosophy:**
Badiou views non-philosophy as a kind of anti-philosophy, which, in his view, might strip philosophy of its capacity to engage with and produce truths. He is concerned that non-philosophy, by treating philosophy merely as material to be used rather than a field of creative inquiry, risks losing what makes philosophy valuable—its capacity to think through and articulate the new.
5. **Potential Misunderstandings:**
Despite his criticisms, Badiou acknowledges that Laruelle’s project is ambitious and thought-provoking. However, he suggests that non-philosophy might misunderstand the nature of philosophical invention and the necessity of philosophical decision. Badiou defends the idea that philosophy must take decisions, engage with the world, and embrace the risk of failure in its quest to produce truth.
### Summary:
Badiou’s comments on Laruelle’s non-philosophy are generally critical. He sees non-philosophy as a move towards passivity and as neglecting the creative, transformative potential of philosophy. Badiou values philosophy’s engagement with events and the production of new truths, and he argues that Laruelle’s suspension of the philosophical decision risks undermining these essential aspects of philosophical practice. Despite these critiques, Badiou recognizes the ambition and originality of Laruelle’s project, though he ultimately disagrees with its implications for the role of philosophy.
