More less wind.

I have just begun Quentin Meillassoux’s “After Finitude”.

At risk of appearing – What, I’m not quite sure, but something very anti intellectual – In the first chapter called “Ancestrality”, QM is doing a job on what is called ‘correlationalism’. I have never heard about this terming before. But it appears that it is the term that philosophers have coined to describe the language-being rut of the past 100 so years. The correlationist ‘two-step’, he puts it. The correlation of relation over the assertion of the true object.

Now, he is describing the situation that he is going to rebut, and of course he is quite well read and so has all these authors and situated terms to draw from. What is astounding to me is that I am not very well read academically (this to say: I do not have all day to put to my studies and opportunity to read), and indeed by the time I had written, I had only read relatively few authors, yet as one could quickly notice of my blog essays here, I have incorporated much of what QM is describing in my statements, and but since all of what QM is describing is readily apparent to me. And, I’m fairly sure his argument as I proceed will make sure sense based on the situation that I somehow will already know though I am not yet acquainted with all the fashion terms; I will see. Indeed, a large part of my reading is for the purpose of seeing how authors situate terms.

So, my stemming from the first of the ‘two questions’ is how can this be so? How did do I know without the readings? He wrote the book 8 years ago and it was published in English 6 years ago. I have only heard of him the past few months. And this phenomena has occurred in many authors and readings I have read in the past 10. No one I have ever encountered in regular or (quasi-) intellectual dealings has ever talked with me about my ideas until recently. Even in school, the talks were primarily preliminary and ‘true-object-historical’ based, if not discussions based in the young assumptions behind establishing oneself in the names and or a career. All my conversations before were all usually stunted with opinion, religious assertions, and metaphysical spirituality; none have ever held the integrity to be able to get beyond the mere surfacial conversations of passing time and stating opinion. It has just been my plight that those are the types of people I have always found myself around. By this, BTW: thank god for blogosphere.

I will address the more argumentative aspects of having coming upon the ‘already situated philosophical ideas’ in later essays I’m sure.


  1. This has come up between us before: how many of these things are already apparent to us, or that we have immediately an intuitive grasp of how things will go (with Laruelle, for instance, or whomever else). I am glad you will be writing more about it soon, since it strikes me as important.

      1. You know it brings up an interesting point in the talk about irony; what can it mean to ‘misread’ ?
        In my experience it is part the romantic experience.

        Yes( exposing the romance. What are your thoughts on how to go about this ? If I may be so direct: what is the romance?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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