Reply to: Academia as a Therapy for Despair

A reply to:

As a philosopher, one has an obligation to (a) undermine the pervasive “technocratic delirium”, chauvinism, if you will, that plagues our world-thought and to (b) proclaim that we do *not* entirely belong to the world of objects of which designers[0] are seemly staunchly concerned to assimilate into; indeed, the philosopher’s goal is to remind us of the sacred, or in plainer terms: of what we already know, the questions our ancestors forgot to ask, of the fragility that subtends the sacred which is not nothing but other than experience, or what’s more: the expression, of its totality without totalization.

These are the concerns from which I judge the given paper, as they have been relayed to me from Dwayne Tunstall, in his book Doing Philosophy Personally, by way of Gabriel Marcel. My personal views I think align closely with his, and so it seems fair to set his thinking and values, principles, if we can call them this, or if anything, “demands from the other” as our only right (Fanon), as a standard from which to deploy any critique on the products of metaphilosophical assessment.

What does this paper say: in a word, what François Laruelle might say: philosophy is the transcendental hallucination of the real (Alexander Galloway on Laruelle in Against The Digital). That philosophers, in part, play the role of media intellectuals, re-casting the representation of the victim and in some significant ways is always-already praying on victims: we can think of Plato’s patrons of the cave as victims, but never mere victims. Yet another metaphor is cast to the winds: are we in yet another Cave, now reformulated as a “psychotherapy room” a la Zizek? Despite being a pleasure to read, and it certainly gives an insight into what’s going on with the philosophers, my two principles strike me as being unmet or unattainable within this framework of thought: in fact, we are not cooperating against the “technocratic delirium”, we are all of us folding completely.

The “cryptologists” and “cryptocurrency” lot have certainly undermined us all through technology monopoly[1], despite the fact that these systems sustain the Matthew principle and are largely governed by the interest of gamblers. The philosophers have yet said anything so biting as to merely type or classify these systems. And we outside of the academic milieu are even as helpless as ever, still drowning in Cookies and other tools that deprive us of autonomous identity. What have the philosophers in fact said that isn’t hidden away in some esoteric network of claims that depend on adopting the posture of the “object form” focus?

Web developers have long since broached the topic of moving away from “object-ivation” in the force of thought: it is the Resource and the Affordance which must take up our attention, and yet philosophers far and wide are still seeking to establish “objects” as representations in the mind.

While this paper is necessary, I feel, it does not go far enough to identify where philosophers have failed us, merely considering their parasitism, but it must take up a phenomenology of the resource and the affordance, and actually begin to speak to the technologists who themselves have spilled ink over the shift away from object-orientation, which philosophers seem to hold dearly as it is their bread and butter.


[1]: [On the Formation of Capital and Wealth: IT, Monopoly Power and Rising Inequality by Mordecai Kurz :: SSRN](



Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store