Leonard Lawlor

This article tries to show the irreducible connection between vulnerability and violence. This connection leads us back to the ethical level of experience. If vulnerability makes violence irreducible, then at least two reactions to violence are possible. On the one hand, a reaction is possible in which one attempts to negate vulnerability in order to close down the very thing within us that allows violence to enter. This negative reaction is actually the worst violence. On the other hand, a reaction is possible in which one attempts to affirm vulnerability, even though its affirmation opens us to the violence that will happen. Affirming vulnerability is the least-violent reaction. If the formula for the worst violence is apocalypse without remainder, then the least violence is the maintenance of the remainder. The maintenance would happen only by not possessing the remainders, which places us in a new situation of poverty.

Blindness has been a pervasive theme throughout Derrida’s career. But Derrida uses the word “blindness” only once in the title of one his works. This text is, ofcourse, Memoirs of the Blind, Mémoires d’aveugle, an essay he wrote for the catalogue for an exhibition he organized at the Louvre in 1990. I argue that Memoirs of the Blind is more than just a phase in Derrida’s deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence. Instead, it opens a larger, more ambitious project that we can call “the deconstruction of Christianity.” The article ends with a consideration of a new form of vitalism.

In this essay, I examine the ‘Postulates of Linguistics’ chapter of A Thousand Plateaus. In regard to this chapter, I aim to demonstrate something that has remained unrecognised about minor language in Deleuze and Guattari. I aim to show not only the characteristics of Deleuzian speaking in tongues that overlap with Foucaultian speaking-freely and with Derridean speaking-distantly, but also and more importantly, I hope to show how it is possible for us to make a language speak in tongues. Derrida's way of speaking is made only by forming an enunciation that states a self-contradiction, which thereby makes the enunciation imply more than it says. Foucault's way of speaking is made only by forming an enunciation that states the truth directly and loudly, which thereby makes the enunciation do more than it says. And finally, Deleuze way of speaking is made only by forming an enunciation that states a command abstracted from its context, which thereby makes the enunciation proliferate. All three ways of speaking are made not for the benefit of the speaker, but ‘in favour of’ others. And perhaps this speaking ‘in favour of’ others will allow us to come to understand the true meaning of the phrase ‘capitalism and schizophrenia’.

But for us who are fifty years removed from these courses, they present in the clearest way possible what requirements we must still follow in order to determine what an origin or principle is. Indeed, “principle” is a word that Merleau-Ponty uses repeatedly in the courses. For Merleau-Ponty, the principle must be conceived neither as positive nor negative, neither as infinite nor finite, neither as internal nor external, neither as objective nor subjective; it can be thought neither through idealism nor realism, neither through finalism nor mechanism, neither through determinism nor indeterminism, neither through humanism nor naturalism. What makes this principle so problematic for Merleau-Ponty is that none of these concepts and modes of thought can grasp the “residue,” or in more accessible terms, the “contingency” in which nature consists. Nature is contingent insofar as it is not a “reservoir” of possibilities. Instead, nature is hollowed out, a hollow that nevertheless presents in relief what is necessary for nature to be filled in. Even more, nature is, for Merleau-Ponty, eternally hollowed out, which gives it the sense of inertia, solidity, obstinancy, a sense of life as eternally self-regenerating, even a sense of “eternal return”. Here, however, we would have to raise a question: Does this conception of nature or life truly take account of finitude understood through the phenomenon of death? Unlike Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, it seems, has no answer to this question.-Leonard Lawlor, The University of Memphis.

Let us begin by assembling some signs of the present philosophical situation. On the one hand, the most important living French philosopher, Alain Badiou, calls for a “return to Plato,” despite the movement of anti-Platonism that dominated French and German thought in the 20 th century. On the other hand, the present moment sees a resurgence of naturalism in philosophy in general (including and especially Anglophone analytic philosophy), despite the criticisms of naturalism that have appeared throughout the 20 th century. Phenomenology seems to be at the center of both of these movements. On the one hand, it is the idea of a mathematized ontology that requires the return to Plato, a mathematized ontology constructed without a reflection on its transcendental grounds. On the other, the resurgence of naturalism is so strong that a book could be imagined and published with the bastard name of Naturalizing Phenomenology , as if the transcendental moment of phenomenology did not transform the very meaning of nature. These signs seem to indicate that we have entered into a phase of regression or even decline in philosophical thinking. If this interpretation of the signs is correct, if we have indeed entered into a phase of regression -- a twofold regression toward Platonism and toward naturalism -- we must ask the following question: is it possible for us to define something like a project or even a research agenda that would allow us to define a way of thinking that might lead us out of the present situation, a situation, it must be said, that seems dire for philosophy in general? If we can determine such a research agenda, perhaps we can also begin to understand what the tradition of “continental philosophy” has stood for

Further Questions. A Way Out of the Present Philosophical Situation(via Merleau-Ponty)This essay contains a short analysis of Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. The analysis focuses on the final pages of Eye and Mind, in which Merleau-Ponty speaks of a false imaginary. It is through this consideration of the “false imaginary” that we can determine Merleau-Ponty’s contribution to the idea of overcoming metaphysics, that is, the transformation of who we are, from manipulandum to being, all of us, painters. More generally however, the short analysis of Eye and Mind functions as the means to open a research agenda for what we have called in the twentieth century “continental philosophy.” The research agenda contains four conceptual features: 1) the starting point in immanence (where immanence is understood fi rst as internal, subjective experience, but then, due to the universality of the epoche, immanence is understood as ungrounded experience); 2) difference (where difference gives way to multiplicity, itself emancipated from an absolute origin and an absolute purpose); 3) thought (where thought is understood as language liberated from the constraints of logic, and language is understood solely in terms of its own being, as indefi nite continuous variation); and 4) the overcoming of metaphysics (where metaphysics is understood as a mode of thinking based in presence, and overcoming is understood as the passage to a new mode of thought, a new people and a new land). But, as we shall see, this conception of philosophy really ends up posing “further questions.” My essay attempts to summarize my new book called Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).Altre domande. Una via d’uscita dalla situazione fi losofi ca attuale(via Merleau-Ponty)Questo saggio contiene una breve analisi de L’occhio e lo spirito di Merleau-Ponty. L’analisi si concentra sulle pagine conclusive dell’opera, nelle quali Merleau-Ponty parla di un falso immaginario. È attraverso l’esame di tale “falso immaginario” che possiamo determinare il contributo di Merleau-Ponty all’idea di un superamento della metafisica, ovvero la trasformazione di chi noi siamo, da manipulandum ad essere, noi tutti, pittori. Più in generale, la breve analisi de L’occhio e lo spirito funziona come mezzo per aprire un programma di ricerca per quella che nel XX secolo abbiamo defi nito “filosofi a continentale”. Tale piano di ricerca presenta quattro aspetti concettuali: 1) il punto di partenza nell’immanenza (laddove l’immanenza è intesa dapprima come esperienza interna soggettiva, ma successivamente, a causa dell’universalità dell’epoché, essa è compresa in quanto esperienza non fondata); 2) la differenza (laddove la differenza apre la via della molteplicità, emancipandosi da un’origine e da un fine assoluti); 3) pensiero (inteso come linguaggio liberato dai vincoli della logica, e compreso solamente nei termini del suo essere proprio, come variazione continua e indefinita); e 4) il superamento della metafisica (laddove per metafisica si intende un modo di pensare basato sulla presenza e per superamento s’intende il passaggio ad una nuova modalità del pensiero, un nuovo popolo ed una nuova terra). Ma, come vedremo, questa concezione della filosofi a finisce per porre “ulteriori domande”. Tale saggio si propone anche di compiere una sintesidel mio nuovo libro Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).

The question confronting thought today is: what is a suicide bomber? But this question is a sign of a greater problem: the problem of the worst, which is apocalypse, complete suicide. Deleuze and Guattari and Derrida have given us the philosophical concepts to formulate this problem with more complexity and precision. Deleuze and Guattari have defined our current situation in terms of the post-fascist figure of the war machine, a figure that is worse, more terrifying, than fascism itself. Similarly, Derrida has defined our epoch in terms of a holocaust that is worse than any holocaust seen in the Bible. The problem of the worst then is so bad today that it requires that we make every effort to find a solution. The essay that follows constructs the beginnings of a solution to the problem of the worst. The solution will consist in a hyperbolic or even revolutionary gesture of inclusiveness that opens out onto an “elsewhere” that still needs a name. As we shall see however, no solution will ever be enough, no solution will ever be sufficient. There will never be enough done, said, or written in the name of what prevents the worst.

The Implications of Immanence develops a philosophy of life in opposition to the notion of “bio-power,” which reduces the human to the question of power over what Giorgio Agamben terms “bare life,” mere biological existence. Breaking with all biologism or vitalism, Lawlor attends to the dispersion of death at the heart of life, in the “minuscule hiatus” that divides the living present, separating lived experience from the living body and, crucially for phenomenology, inserting a blind spot into a visual field.Lawlor charts here a post-phenomenological French philosophy. What lies beyond phenomenologyis “life-ism,” the positive working out of the effects of the “minuscule hiatus” in a thinking that takes place on a “plane of immanence,” whose implications cannot be predicted. Life-ism means thinking life and death together, thinking death as dispersed throughout life. In carefully argued and extensively documented chapters, Lawlor sets out the surpassing of phenomenology and the advent of life-ism in Merleau-Ponty, Derrida, and Foucault, with careful attention to the writings by Husserl and Heidegger to which these thinkers refer.A philosophy of life has direct implications for present-day political and medical issues. The book takes its point of departure from the current genocide in Darfur and provides conceptual tools for intervening in such issues as the AIDS epidemic and life-support for the infirm. Indeed, the investigations contained in The Implications of Immanence are designed to help us emerge once and for all out of the epoch of bio-power.“Lawlor’s novel way of treating the concept of life is stimulating, original, and necessary for the social well being of our time.”—Fred Evans, Duquesne University“The Implications of Immanence continues the most promising, rigorous, and fruitful ongoing research project among scholars of twentieth-century philosophy. . . .A wonderful new book.”—John Protevi, Louisiana State University.