Although Quentin Meillassoux’s philosophy desires to be postmetaphysical and posttheological, I argue in this paper that it remains structurally theological. Specifically, I argue that Meillassoux’s speculative thesis on the contingency of nature and its laws repeats at a formal level the medieval theological distinction between God’s absolute power and God’s ordained power. The first part of this paper discusses how this distinction allowed medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus to understand and have faith in the stable contingency (...) of the present order of things in light of divine omnipotence. The second part of this paper discusses how Meillassoux repeats this distinction, intentionally or not, between God’s absolute power and God’s ordained power in his attempt to think the absolute contingency of the laws of nature as an effect of hyper-Chaos. Although, unlike the medieval God, Meillassoux’s hyper-Chaos remains fundamentally without reason and devoid of any moral valence, I argue in the third section of this paper that Meillassoux sneaks in an existential faith in the present and future order of things with his appeal to hope in a speculative resurrection of the dead, a move that brings him further in line with the substance of the distinction between God’s absolute power and God’s ordained power. (shrink)

In this article, I put Nancy’s thinking in conversation with contemporary demands for a flat ontology. I show that Nancy does in fact propose an ontology that is flat and in that way undoes the priority of human experience as the producer of sense. At the same time, I show that Nancy avoids two pitfalls other flat ontologies often fall into: a formalism that forgets materiality and falls prey to general equivalence and a depoliticization that removes any agential role for (...) human beings in the creation and destruction of the world. (shrink)

The paper focuses on the character of the literary and contends that if, instead of accepting the legitimacy of the question “what is literature?” and trying to answer it, one were to subject the question itself to a critical scrutiny—i.e. in order to lay bare what the question presupposes about the literary—it becomes obvious that any attempt to answer the question by uncritically accepting the legitimacy of the puzzle it puts forward can only give rise to contradictions. For the question (...) requires and presupposes for an answer an ontologically independent foundation, and the latter, given its immutability, requires the positing of a reality/representation disjunction—where the latter of the pair permits of and accommodates the experience of change—thereby ensuring that representation, too, requires a foundation, which, due to the impossibility of a foundation being the foundation of its other, that is, mutability, ends up undermining the very possibility of a disjunction, and, hence, the coherence of the foundationalist enterprise. Given that the problem of incoherence is bound to recur in all attempts to explain the literary in a foundationalist framework and given that the logic of foundationalism is one with the logic of nihilism—for the incoherence necessitates the denial of the possibility of literature—a release from the contradictions and a reinstatement of the reality of literature can come about only if one is awakened to the incoherence of the foundationalist undertaking. The resulting turn away from foundationalist thinking to differential thinking—where the incoherence of the demand for coherence is grasped and the reality of time reinstated—sheds light on the twining of the destinies of the literary and the philosophical: if philosophy as differential thinking awakens us to the displacement of being in the flow of time, literature sets into work the displacement of meaning in the functioning of language. This confirms that not only are the attempts to unearth a ground for the literary a mistake, but denying the reality of the literary event—i.e. upon failing to find a ground—is equally a mistake. (shrink)

The main thesis of this text is that for a critical evaluation of the institutions built on the foundations of colonialism that preserve the worlds of neoliberal global capitalism, financial capitalism, and necro-capitalism, we need to rethink the two main divisions mediated by decolonial theory and decolonisation as analytical tools: the racial/colonial divide and the imperial/colonial divide. This text attempts to analyse the relation between capitalism and colonialism in order to determine the implications for the theoretical and philosophical thought of (...) two historical forms of capitalism, which are not historical at all because they are fully functional in the present: racial capitalism and settler capitalism, or racial-settler capitalism, as it is called in its joint formation. In order to get to this point, we must first see the place of colonialism in capitalism and how theory is reflected in its relationship to the past and present. Last but not least, the question this article is occupied with is: “What kind of world is this where a trans person, a woman, or a man is treated like garbage?”. (shrink)

Since its inception in the late 2000s, supporters of Quentin Meillassoux tended to oppose the movement he founded, speculative materialism, to Derrida and the Derridean community. The arc of Meillassoux's later publications, however, did not support that opposition, especially when it became clear that he neither dismissed correlationism nor set aside literary concerns. These approaches might not be as incompatible as has been supposed. Still, if any affinity is to be established, a first need is to reassess the core of (...) Meillassoux's argument in After Finitude, which has continued to influence his publications. In this article, I attempt not merely to comment upon Meillassoux's argument, but to justify it from within, and so to demonstrate its logic. Then, using a method of re-reading that will be familiar to many, I will attempt to show how that logic reveals speculative materialism and Derridean concerns to be better treated as logical affiliates. Doing so will not presuppose agreement, but will set the stage for more thorough comparisons in future. (shrink)

The contemporary realist turn in philosophy can be seen as a reaction to a merely constructivist understanding of being. The formulation of a realist ontology was already the central concern of Nicolai Hartmann’s philosophy. Hartmann argues that in order to pose the ontological question critically, a realist analysis of the cognitive relation must precede posing the question of being. From the critical analysis, it follows that the cognitive relation is embedded in the relationship of being. Thus, the epistemic relation becomes (...) understandable in the sense of beings encountering and touching one another. In this respect, some proponents of the contemporary realist turn emphasize that there is a philosophically relevant experience of being that can be understood as resistance. Beyond this statement, Hartmann’s analysis of the encounter with being is able to take into account the fact that different kinds of being touch us differently. (shrink)

Mathematics plays a central role in the philosophical system of Alain Badiou. The aim of this essay is to situate this appeal to mathematics in the broader context of his work, including its literary and political elements.