François Laruelle and Alain Badiou are both significant figures in contemporary philosophy, but they differ markedly in their approaches, methodologies, and philosophical goals. Laruelle’s critique of Badiou is rooted in these differences, particularly in how they conceptualize the relationship between philosophy and the Real.
### Alain Badiou:
- **Philosophical Approach**: Badiou's philosophy is centered on the concept of the event and the ontology of multiplicity. His work seeks to revive and reinterpret the notion of truth within a materialist framework, heavily influenced by set theory and mathematics.
- **Key Concepts**: Badiou is known for concepts such as the "event," "truth procedure," "being and event," and the "subject." He uses set theory to articulate a vision of ontology where being is understood as pure multiplicity, and truths emerge through events that rupture the established order.
- **Goal**: Badiou's goal is to establish a robust framework for understanding how radical change (an event) can occur and how subjects can remain faithful to the truths that emerge from such events. He views philosophy as intimately connected to politics, art, love, and science, which he considers the four conditions of philosophy.
- **Relation to Other Philosophers**: Badiou is in dialogue with figures like Plato, Marx, Lacan, and Cantor, seeking to synthesize their insights into a new ontological framework. He also critiques poststructuralism and other contemporary trends in philosophy, emphasizing the necessity of a renewed engagement with universal truths.
### François Laruelle:
- **Philosophical Approach**: Laruelle's "non-philosophy" challenges the entire structure of philosophical thought as traditionally conceived. He argues that philosophy, by its very nature, tends to impose a certain structure or decision on the Real, which he believes is fundamentally flawed.
- **Key Concepts**: Laruelle’s work revolves around the "One," "unilateral duality," "non-philosophy," and "immanence." He rejects the idea that philosophy can fully capture or represent the Real, instead proposing that the Real is radically immanent and cannot be subjected to philosophical decision or representation.
- **Goal**: Laruelle's goal is to democratize thought by deconstructing the hierarchical structures within philosophy. He aims to suspend the authority of philosophy, allowing for a non-philosophical or "non-standard" approach that views philosophy as just one form of thought among others, not a privileged discourse.
- **Relation to Other Philosophers**: Laruelle is critical of the entire philosophical tradition, including figures like Badiou. He seeks to position his thought outside the conventional boundaries of philosophy, arguing that philosophy’s claim to describe or access the Real is inherently flawed.
### Key Differences:
1. **Ontology vs. Non-Ontology**: Badiou’s philosophy is deeply rooted in ontology, using mathematical set theory to describe the structure of being and the emergence of truth. Laruelle, on the other hand, rejects ontological approaches altogether, arguing that they impose a philosophical decision on the Real that is ultimately limiting and misleading.
2. **The Role of Philosophy**: Badiou sees philosophy as a discipline that can engage with and articulate truths that emerge from events in various domains (politics, art, love, science). Laruelle critiques this view, arguing that philosophy’s pretension to capture truth is itself a form of dominance or "philosophical decision" that must be overcome.
3. **The Concept of the Real**: For Badiou, the Real is something that can be engaged with through the event and the subsequent truth procedures. For Laruelle, the Real is radically immanent and cannot be accessed or represented by philosophy. Philosophy, in Laruelle's view, always falls short of the Real because it imposes a structure on it.
### Laruelle's Critique of Badiou:
Laruelle's critique of Badiou centers on what he sees as the inherent limitations of Badiou’s philosophical project, particularly its reliance on ontology and the idea of the event. Laruelle argues that Badiou’s philosophy, despite its innovative use of mathematics and its radical approach to truth, still operates within a philosophical framework that imposes a certain structure or decision on the Real. This, for Laruelle, is a form of philosophical authoritarianism that fails to recognize the radical immanence of the Real.
Laruelle criticizes Badiou’s concept of the event, arguing that it remains a philosophical construct that attempts to capture or impose a meaning on the Real. In contrast, Laruelle proposes a non-philosophical approach that does not seek to impose any structure or decision on the Real but rather thinks "from" the Real in a way that avoids the pitfalls of philosophical authority.
In essence, Laruelle sees Badiou as still caught within the traditional philosophical desire to master or represent the Real, whereas Laruelle’s non-philosophy aims to dissolve this ambition and approach thought in a more egalitarian and immanent manner.
