figures of the anti-philosopher

Some time ago I was asked to contribute an essay to a German anthology on Latour’s “Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?” I was probably asked to do that because Latour’s essay is dedicated to me. The reason it is dedicated to me is because I urged Latour to write it. Being in France, where he is often assaulted as being a crusty old-time realist, he tends to forget that in America the critique is more of the opposite, Sokalian variety: Latour is just another French relativist who doesn’t believe in reality. So, I recommended that he distance himself from that picture of him in America even more, and hence the essay.

The reason I mention this is that I plan that essay, I am beginning to think I will talk about various figures of the anti-philosopher across history. Everyone is familiar with the sophist, the pedant, and the Inquisitor as being great enemies of the philosopher at various times in history. All of those figures grew out of specific historical configurations of philosophy in their respective times, in which philosophy existed in opposition to rhetoric, dogma, or erudition.

It is my view that philosophy now exists in opposition to an ocean of critique. Everything can be debunked. Every popular movie is “philosophical” the more it suggests that everything is just a dream. Everything is a textual fiction. Everything is arbitrarily constructed by the perceiver. Everything is argument.

Under these conditions, rather than the sophist, pedant, or Inquisitor, it is the troll who looms as the new figure of the anti-philosopher. The sneer from nowhere, as K-Punk put it, is our equivalent of the Sophist bringing his wife and children to the courtoom to cry and gain sympathy, or the Inquisitor thundering “how dare you oppose the dogmas of the Church?”

I’m not just speaking of trolls in the blogosphere, but trolls in all walks of life, including education and journalism. More on this in the spring.