Some clarifications on the Inhuman

Safe to say, I’m looking forward to Reza’s Intelligence and Spirit a lot and hoping its publication will occur in a period in which I’ll be able to respond and comment on it extensively. For now, I can only agree that there are convergences between speculative posthumanism, rationalist inhumanism – and with the subtractive ontology explored in Badiou and Brassier – to the extent that there are times when I feel like a philosophical sock puppet. I think this is true both of the more declarative/poetic work and the more analytic work I’ve been producing since PHL. But I’m not sure how it far it extends as yet and whether it carries the unbinding programme as far as, I think, a rigorous posthumanism should.

Toy Philosophy

Since I posted the summary of the Labor of the Inhuman (LoIH) yesterday, I have had various conversation with friends. I thought it would be best to at least provide a few brief correcting remarks. I think I was clear at the beginning of the previous post, that I no longer endorse the full scope of the original essay as well as its recap. There are many problems in that essay that need to be resolved, even though I’m still committed to its core theses. Allow me to address a couple of problems which are more significant and serious.

In LoIH, there is too much emphasis on the Brandomian conceptions of normativity and reason as rooted in special kinds of social practices. The problem is that Brandom’s idea of sociality or social practices, at times, confounds substantive sociality and sociality as a formal condition. The ramifications of this confusion are…

View original post 491 more words

One thought on “Some clarifications on the Inhuman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s