Surpassing Philosophical Antagonism?

Abstract

Surpassing Philosophical Antagonism? A Critique of Tom Eyers's Post-RationalismTom Eyers, Post-Rationalism: Psychoanalysis, Epistemology, and Marxism in Post-War France (London: Bloomsbury, 2013), 217pp.Beginning delve into a philosophical area with which one is not acquainted can often seem like stumbling upon familiar ideas: for instance, upon crossing the continental-analytic divide, one might, at first, notice similarities between Donald Davidson and Jacques Derrida. Of course there are some similarities, and some of the same issues are addressed by each thinker; however, upon initiating oneself into the orthodox philosophical discourse, fissures become apparent and before long it appears difficult assert any similarity whatsoever. It would be easy, for example, assert that existentialism is prima facie a twentieth-century rearticulation of Stoic truths. Indeed, it would not be too convoluted mount a fairly sophisticated argument in support of this. That is until one becomes familiar enough with the context in which existentialism arose: phenomenology. It would subsequently become clear that existentialism and Stoicism arose out of such different Weltanschauungen that it requires a certain amount of philosophical acrobatics even begin speak of them in terms of common themes. It is under these very conditions that we are all initiated into the disjointed philosophical discourse we all rely on. To understand collective philosophical discourses as a patchwork of partisan factions-such as structuralism and poststructuralism, or realist and anti-realist-is so fundamental the perpetuation and development of philosophy that the implicit core lesson of philosophical training is often merely conceive of all philosophical thought in the most disparate and antagonistic form possible. The pertinent question in acknowledging this situation is: does philosophy gain something by speaking about its collective ideas in such absolute terms? Or rather, does dismissing philosophies-such as structuralism, as progenitors of subsequent improvements, such as poststructuralism-really serve the collective project of philosophy? Tom Eyers would think not, at least in the instance of structuralism.Post-Rationalism is an ambitious attempt elucidate such thematic similarities between post-war French philosophies. In particular, Eyers theorises that the saturation of tendencies unite much of twentieth century continental philosophy and that such a permeation is key understanding much of the philosophical developments since the decline of existentialism and phenomenology. Post-Rationalism takes the quintessential example of post-Lacanian and -Althusserian discourses as its principle focus. Eyers aims explicate how the seemingly disparate concerns of Marxism and psychoanalysis merged in high-structuralism in accordance with the post-rationalist tendencies initiated by its precedent philosophy of science. This monograph reads such texts as the Cahiers pour l'Analyse-amongst other related texts written by Louis Althusser's students-in an attempt show how post-Althusserian Marxism and post-Lacanian psychoanalysis were particularly predisposed synergy due a shared and implicit inheritance of 'post-rationalist' thinking. More ambitiously, though, Post-Rationalism intends to show that stark lines of distinction between rival intellectual projects in post-war France, while no doubt a good incentive intellectual production, are often rather more permeable than is frequently assumed.1 This is say that Post-Rationalism has a more generalised aim of reading beyond the Cahiers pour l'Analyse towards the majority of post-war French philosophy with a view establishing the presence of a ubiquitous tendency towards thinking. In other words, Eyers wants show that orthodox philosophical categories-such as continental and analytic, Marxist and psychoanalytic, and structuralist and poststructuralist-are far more permeable that have hitherto been considered. …