Francois Laruelle’s idea that non-philosophy is a weapon of last defense can be understood in the context of his broader critique of traditional philosophy and his attempt to formulate a radical alternative. Here’s how this phrase can be interpreted:
1. A Response to Philosophy’s Enclosure: Laruelle argues that philosophy has always operated as a kind of self-sufficient system, constantly assimilating other forms of thought into its own framework. By calling non-philosophy a “weapon of last defense”, he suggests that it is not merely another philosophical position but a strategy to resist philosophy’s tendency to subordinate all thinking to its own categories.
2. A Defensive Measure Against Philosophical Domination: Philosophy, for Laruelle, tends to impose its structures on other disciplines (e.g., science, art, religion) and even on individuals ways of thinking. Non-philosophy is a last defense against this hegemony - it refuses philosophy’s authority while still engaging with its material in a transformed way.
3. Against the Sufficiency of Philosophy: Laruelle critiques the idea that philosophy can always explain, comprehend, or define the Real. Non-philosophy is a defensive weapon in the sense that it protects thinking from the illusion that philosophy is the ultimate means of accessing reality.
4. A Radical Passivity Rather Than Aggression: Interestingly, this “weapon” is not an aggressive one but operates through radical passivity, or letting-be. Rather than countering philosophy on its own terms (as one philosophical school against another), non-philosophy disarms philosophy by suspending its pretensions and instead deploying a form of thinking that is immanent to the Real rather than subordinated to philosophical decision.
5. A Last Defense Before Philosophy’s Collapse: If philosophy, in Laruelle’s view, is reaching a point of exhaustion due to its endless self-reinventions, then non-philosophy serves as a “last defense” before the collapse of philosophy’s credibility as the sole arbiter of thought. It offers a different mode of thinking that allows philosophy to be used without being trapped in its circularity.
In short, calling non-philosophy a weapon of last defense highlights its role as a radical safeguard against the sufficiency and dominance of philosophy - protecting thought from being entirely absorbed into philosophical systems while opening a space for a new kind of thinking.
