Another way to state the DeLanda point

Another way to put my earlier point about DeLanda’s lack of appeal to the supposed science lovers in continental thought… A lot of times, I think the declared love of science is really a love of *epistemology*. Philosophy must become a judicial inquisition in which bad manifest images are denounced and arrested and good scientific images (still just images, but never mind) receive pats on the head.

DeLanda doesn’t really let you do that. He is interested in how nature works, not so interested in declaring his superiority to supposed fools who believe in nonexistent things.

I would agree that one should not believe in nonexistent things, but would simply disagree that belief in nonexistent things is some sort of major threat to philosophy. It is not our job to disabuse supposedly gullible people of their supposedly pathetic clinging fantasies. Philosophers are not undercover cops.