Philosophical Rockstars

There’s only a handful of journals pushing the cutting-edge of philosophy, and as IT notes, one of them could use your help right now. Pli has consistently been one of the most exciting and innovative philosophy journals around, more than willing to ignore arbitrary disciplinary boundaries in the search for truth. At the very least, ask your institution to subscribe to Pli!

From IT:

It’s hard to keep a non-arms-dealer-funded journal going, and Pli, a seriously important publication for Continental Philosophy of all kinds, has been going for 19 volumes. It’s having a hard time at the moment, however, so if anyone could spare some money for back issues and/or get their institution to order Pli for the library, you’ll be remembered forever in some kind of glorious materialist non-heaven.

Topics for currently available back issues:

5: The Divine Sade
6: Responsibilities of Deconstruction
14: Spinoza: Desire and Power
15: Lives of the Real: Bergsonian Perspectives
16: Diagrams of Sensation: Deleuze and Aesthetics
17: Ultrapolitics
18: Superior Empiricism
19: Sense and Nonsense

Many of the issues that are out of print are available online, and amount to a significant resource, featuring work by/translations of: Laruelle, Nancy, Brassier, Toscano, Sallis, Andrew Benjamin, Nietzsche, Stengers, Keith Ansell Pearson, Ian Hamilton Grant, Lacoue-Labarthe, Dastur, Badiou, Elie During, Eric Alliez, Zizek, Deleuze, Virno, Bruno Bosteels, Foucault, Lorenzo Chiesa, Maurizio Lazzarato, Warren Montag, Pier Aldo Rovatti and a whole host of smart (yet humble) lesser stars…You can email Pli here [plijournal[at]]. One thing to note about Pli is its splendid design – sleek, dark and genuinely exciting. If it is unlike most academic journals, it is so in the best possible way.

And courtesy of Logical Regression – if you haven’t heard of the latest philosophical rockstars, check them out here.

3 thoughts on “Philosophical Rockstars

  1. Ahhh – this is not good news – I’m getting the newest issue now!

    As for the rockstars…apparently I need to grow my hair out

  2. Hopefully they should be publishing issue 20 soon. I’ve sent in the last of my editing changes for the Response to Deleuze, so I’m getting quite eager to see the whole issue in print. After re-reading the essay, I can’t help but think of what Ray first told me: “It’ll piss a lot of Deleuzians off.”

    I’m not sure yet…I think it will, but I hope it causes a lot more constructive criticism than sheer anger. But I do have to say that the essay reads simultaneously like a study in philosophy and polemology.

    One thing that interests/bothers me is the fact that Laruelle wrote an essay on Badiou that appeared in the same collection as the Deleuze essay: that essay was written under a pseudonym and reads like a comparison of Badiou and Laruelle.

    However, the polemical tone is almost completely lacking in this essay. Now, if I had to say, Deleuze is much less of a polemical thinker than Badiou, which makes me wonder: why attack Deleuze so sharply and with so much wit and then give Badiou an easier ride?

    It could mean a couple of things; a) Deleuze at the time (1994) seemed much more of a ‘threat’ and maybe had more followers, b) Laruelle didn’t foresee Badiou gaining so much attention so soon, c) he never recognized how polemical Badiou himself is in comparison to Deleuze.

    I’m going to be writing about Laruelle and his essays on Badiou and Deleuze for Nessie, the online journal. It should be up in a few weeks: hopefully I’ll have something concrete by then.

  3. I look forward to your article on those essays. Laruelle’s relation to Badiou is still a bit of a mystery to me.

    As far as the polemical quality of his Deleuze essay, perhaps Laruelle took him to task since he had claimed the mantle of ‘most immanent’. It’s easy to read Badiou as invoking transcendence with the concept of the event, so maybe Laruelle didn’t figure him to be as big of an opponent. That’s all speculation though; but I do think the reason for the polemics would come down to the philosophical climate at that time.

    The reception of the Deleuze essay will be interesting, like you say! I can see a lot of older Deleuzians rejecting it out of hand, but hopefully some are willing to work through Laruelle’s criticisms in good faith.

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