The Meillassoux Dictionary

The

The Meillassoux Dictionary

Edited by

TEXT TO COME
Peter Gratton and Paul J. Ennis
The Lyotard Dictionary provides an exceptionally clear presentation
of his complex and challenging ideas. The entries are written with
Meillassoux
precision, detail and clarity, offering helpful introductions to unfamiliar
concepts as well as fascinating insights for those who already know
Lyotards work. It will be an indispensable guide for students of Lyotard
at all levels.
Dictionary
Simon Malpas, University of Edinburgh

The first dictionary dedicated to the work of Jean-Franois Lyotard

Jean-Franois Lyotard is famed for being one of the most acute

observers on the cultural phenomenon of the postmodern, and his
ideas resonate throughout the academic world, from philosophy and

Peter Gratton and Paul J. Ennis

the social sciences through to literary, media and cultural studies.
Drawing on the internationally recognised expertise of a multi-
disciplinary team of contributors, the entries in The Lyotard Dictionary
explain all of Lyotards main concepts, contextualising these within his
work as a whole and relating him to his contemporaries. It forms an
essential introduction to this fascinating and hugely influential thinker,
demonstrating his continuing significance as a cultural theorist.

Stuart Sim is Visiting Professor in the Department of English and

Creative Writing at Northumbria University. He is widely published
in the field of critical theory, and his works on Lyotard include
Jean-Franois Lyotard (1996), and Lyotard and the Inhuman (2001).

Cover image: Prophesy, Mixed media, 40 x 30" Simon Kenny, simonkenny.artweb.com

Cover design: www.hayesdesign.co.uk

ISBN: 978-0-7486-9556-0 Edited by
Edinburgh

Peter Gratton
www.euppublishing.com and Paul J. Ennis
 Th e M e illa s s oux
Dictionary

Edited by Peter Gratton and Paul J. Ennis

 editorial matter and organisation Peter Gratton and Paul J. Ennis, 2015
the chapters their several authors, 2015

Edinburgh University Press Ltd

The Tun - Holyrood Road, 12(2f) Jacksons Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ

www.euppublishing.com

Typeset in 11/13 Ehrhardt by

Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire,
and printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 0 7486 9555 3 (hardback)

ISBN 978 0 7486 9558 4 (webready PDF)
ISBN 978 0 7486 9556 0 (paperback)
ISBN 978 0 7486 9557 7 (epub)

The right of the contributors to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted in
accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and
Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498).
 C on te n ts

Acknowledgementsiv
List of Abbreviations for Works by Quentin Meillassoux v

Introduction: From a Speculative Materialism to a Speculative Ethics

Peter Gratton and Paul J. Ennis 1

Entries AZ 19

Bibliography175

Notes on Contributors 180

 A c kn ow l e d ge m e nt s

We would like to begin by thanking all the contributors to this volume.

Their efforts have allowed this work to become the rich resource we hoped
it would be. It has been a pleasure to work with people we have known in
various capacities through the years.
We also wish to extend our thanks to Carol Macdonald and the team at
Edinburgh University Press for taking on this project and helping it come
to fruition.
 List of A b b re vi a ti on s f o r Wo r k s
b y Qu e n ti n M e i l l as s o ux

AF After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, trans.

Ray Brassier, London: Continuum, 2008.
AOTF Archaeology of the Future: Interview with Quentin
Meillassoux, Paletten 12 291/292 (2013), pp. 8697.
BM Badiou and Mallarm: The Event and the Perhaps, Parrhesia,
16 (2013), pp. 3547.
CBI There is contingent being independent of us, and this contin-
gent being has no reason to be of a subjective nature: Interview
with Quentin Meillassoux, in Iris van der Tuin and Rick
Dolphjin (eds), New Materialism: Interviews and Cartographies,
Michigan: Open Humanities Press, 2012, pp. 7181.
(CLN) The Contingency of the Laws of Nature, Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, 30:2 (2012), pp. 32234.
DI Appendix: Excerpts from LInexistence divine, in Graham
Harman, Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011, pp. 175238.
DI2 LInexistence divine, Doctoral Disseration, Universit de
Paris,1997, available at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/127
012496/Quentin-Meillassoux-L-Inexistence-Divine>(accessed
1 September 2013).
IQM Interview with Quentin Meillassoux (August 2010), in Graham
Harman, Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making,
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011, pp. 15974.
IRR Iteration, Reiteration, Repetition: A Speculative Analysis of the
Meaningless Sign, Paper presented at the Freie Universitt,
Berlin, Germany, 20 April 2012, available at <oursecret-
blog.com/txt/QMpaperApr12.pdf> (accessed 1 September
2013).
IWB The Immanence of the World Beyond, in Connor Cunningham
and Peter Candler (eds), The Grandeur of Reason: Religion,
Tradition, and Universalism, London: SCM Press, 2010, pp.
44478.
MSC Metaphysics, Speculation, Correlation, Pli: The Warwick
Journal of Philosophy, 22, (2011), pp. 126.
NS The Number and the Siren: A Decipherment of Mallarms Coup de
Ds, trans. Robin Mackay, Falmouth: Urbanomic, 2012.
vi l i s t o f a b b r e v i a t i o n s

PV Potentiality and Virtuality, in Robin Mackay (ed.), Collapse

Volume II: Speculative Realism, Oxford: Urbanomic, 2007,
pp.5581.
SC Subtraction and Contraction: Deleuze, Immanence and
Matter and Memory, in Robin Mackay (ed.), Collapse Volume
III: Unknown Deleuze [+Speculative Realism], Falmouth:
Urbanomic, 2007, pp. 63107.
SD Spectral Dilemma, in Robin Mackay (ed.), CollapseVolume IV:
Concept Horror, Falmouth: Urbanomic, 2008, pp. 26175.
SR Speculative Realism, in Robin Mackay (ed.), Collapse Volume
III: Unknown Deleuze [+Speculative Realism], Falmouth:
Urbanomic, 2008, pp. 40899.
TWB Time without Becoming, Paper presented at the Centre for
Research in Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University,
London, United Kingdom, 8 May 2008, available at <http://
speculativeheresy.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3729-time_
without_becoming.pdf> (accessed 1 September 2013).
 Introd u c ti on : F rom a S pe c ul at i v e
Mat e ri a l i sm to a Sp e c u lat i v e E t hi c s

The French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux, born in 1967, has already

had a remarkable impact on the direction of contemporary Continental
philosophy. He has been the subject of an introductory text (Harman
2011a) and helped inaugurate a speculative revival in Continental philoso-
phy (see Bryant et al. 2011). Whilst it is true that his thinking is a work-in-
progress, he has by now sketched the outlines of his long-term project in
two works: After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency (2008)
and Divine Inexistence (in excerpted form in Harman 2011a). Alongside
these two principal texts, a number of English language articles and a
monograph on Stphane Mallarm, The Number and the Siren (2012),
have appeared that paint various aspects of his project in further detail.
Despite this, the sceptical reader may ask whether a dictionary devoted
to his work is premature. This may be a legitimate concern, but there are
sound reasons to begin this project sooner rather than later. In particular,
Meillassouxs concepts are well suited to the format of a dictionary. More
importantly, this dictionary acts as a site for scholars to carry forward the
most important debates from the last ten years in Continental philosophy.
Finally, in these pages critics and supporters have provided straightfor-
ward definitions of key terms while being clear about any problems they
find in Meillassouxs presentation of his ideas.
Anyone familiar with Meillassoux will know that his system is struc-
tured in such a way that new readers often feel overwhelmed. There are
a number of reasons for this. First, his language is often formal and his
writing is stylistically closer to traditional rationalism or even Anglo-
American philosophy. This is a virtue in terms of rigour, ambition,
and directness, but at times Meillassoux can be overly compact when
it comes to context. For instance, in After Finitude there are oblique
references to the virtual, but this is only properly expanded upon in the
article Potentiality and Virtuality. The same is true for problems dealt
with in chapters such as Humes Revenge that are given more detailed
treatment in the article The Contingency of the Laws of Nature. The
reader exposed to the full range of these texts will discover not just new
additions to Meillassouxs project, but, in some cases, the precise moti-
vations for certain arguments and their roots in long-standing debates
in rationalism and empiricism, the philosophy of set theory, and more
besides. Moreover, the definitions of key terms in After Finitude provided
2 introduction

here will reveal the ethical import of even his most abstract metaphysical
considerations.
It should be noted that there is a further complication regarding his
recption arising from the chronology of the texts as they are appearing
in English. It is easily overlooked that Divine Inexistence precedes After
Finitude by almost a decade. Although the 2003 revision surely improved
the text, it remains the less rounded of the two. While the same confidence
is evident in both it is clear that After Finitude is the more mature text.
This perhaps explains why Meillassoux has been so hesitant to publish an
updated version of Divine Inexistence. The published articles reveal that
there is a consistency to his thinking going back to his dissertation, but it
is difficult to know whether publishing it now would best serve his overall
project. The Number and the Siren is something of an outlier within his
thinking, but it speaks to his commitment, found throughout his works,
to imaginative rationalism. In a recent interview with Sinziana Ravini, he
says there is much more to come and that he is working on topics as varied
as science fiction, Nietzsche, Duchamp, Hegel, and another engagement
with Mallarm (AOTF, 96). In an interview with Harman, he also men-
tions Darwinism and Pyrrho as future topics (IQM, 174). Nevertheless, it
is a fair wager that these specific contributions will supplement rather than
radically alter Meillassouxs architectonic.
Readers of Meillassoux will quickly notice certain tendencies when it
comes to his argumentative strategy. In almost all his texts the same series
of foundational arguments are repeated in condensed form. The reitera-
tions are often based on accounts provided in After Finitude. On occasion
this comes at the cost of clarity. This is also an issue when it comes to the
background his system presupposes. Although rarely engaged outside of
allusive footnotes, he takes it that his reader has a firm grip on everyone
from Immanuel Kant to Martin Heidegger to his mentor Alain Badiou.
This is why we have dedicated a number of entries to key figures in
the Continental tradition. For many commentators, the chief defect in
Meillassouxs system is that it oversimplifies the complex commitments
of his interlocutors until they become mere caricatures. Here we hope to
have provided the space for defenders of these thinkers to respond, which
is but another way to expand the readers context for reading Meillassoux.
Finally it should be said that any critical engagement here comes from
some of the best scholars in the field and thus the reader will have a front
seat to the important debates Meillassouxs oeuvre raises.
Flowing from this is the related issue of Meillassouxs influences.
Again, he is often enigmatic. What is certain is that he is a heterodox disci-
ple of Badiou in as much as his mathematical ontology is clearly modelled
on, but distinct from, that of his mentor. His evocation of Georg Cantors
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 3

set theory to solve Humes problem of causal connection is the most direct
example of Badious mentorship. Descartes is another clear influence and
After Finitude is explicitly posited as an attempt to access the in-itself from
a Cartesian rather than Kantian framework. His depiction of hyper-chaos
as the primary absolute that founds a derivative mathematical absolute is
modelled on Descartes argument for extended substance, but with major
surgery allowing for this adaptation. Finally, it is arguable that Gilles
Deleuze is a strong influence since Meillassoux deploys rebooted versions
of immanence and virtuality in his arguments. However, he is careful to
ensure that he renders these distinct enough that his challenge to the prev-
alence of Deleuzes philosophy is clear. This is cemented by Meillassouxs
bracketing of Deleuze under the category of subjectivist metaphysician in
After Finitude (see also Subtraction and Contraction where both Deleuze
and Bergson are engaged indirectly).
On the flipside it is unmistakable that Meillassoux has certain philo-
sophical targets in mind. The critique of correlationism is aimed squarely
at the post-Kantian tradition of Continental philosophy. The term
correlation evokes everything from Kantian transcendental idealism to
phenomenology/post-phenomenology, structuralism/post-structuralism,
postmodernism, and deconstruction. Meillassoux directs especial ire at
the thinkers of the theological turn in French phenomenology since he
believes they have abandoned reason and revised the Kantian in-itself for
their own quasi-religious ends. It is possible to get the impression that
Meillassoux intends to develop a system broadly free from the traditional
problems of post-Kantian philosophy. However, his project does not
disavow the Critical project. Rather the Critical project is critiqued for
its slow disengagement from attempts to think the absolute such that the
forces of dogmatism, fanaticism and ideology have been given free reign
over it. This is the problem of fideism by which philosophers provide
cover for any belief about the absolute because it is a space untouchable by
human reason. This gives his project, which at first seems to be nothing
more than a defence of the natural sciences, a concrete edge.
In what follows we present Meillassouxs thinking in a twofold manner.
We first provide an account of his ontology as developed chiefly in
After Finitude and rounded out in the English-language articles such
as Potentiality and Virtuality and The Contingency of the Laws of
Nature. We then explain his ethical project as developed in Divine
Inexistence and expanded upon in articles such as Spectral Dilemma and
The Immanence of the World Beyond.
The central text of Meillassouxs system is After Finitude: An Essay
on the Necessity of Contingency. It does not deal with the full range of his
thinking and the reader unfamiliar with his others works may miss the
4 introduction

motivation behind it. We will come to see how this essay has a founda-
tional role in his system, providing a set of ontological commitments in
order that we might build an ethics upon them. His belief is that a rational
ethics requires an ontological grounding to motivate one to live ethically.
By this he does not mean that ethics is impossible without rationalism, but
that a rational ethics would be immune to all manner of cynical, despair-
ing, or fanatical impulses following in the wake of the so-called Death of
God. It can even seem, at first, as if his arguments are indifferent to the
status of the human. This is a major error and the central aim in what
follows demonstrates that before all else Meillassoux is concerned with
human dignity.
The fundamental ontological principles guiding Meillassouxs work
are as follows: being is independent of thought and thought can think
being. This seems uncontroversial, but the crux of his argument will be
that philosophers are in practice forced to deny both principles due to
other foundational principles they hold. The first principle reveals to us
Meillassouxs general commitment to materialism. Being is matter inde-
pendent of us. The second principle is evidence of his rationalism, and we
will come to see that being can be thought using formal languages such as
logic and mathematics.1 There is also an important hint that this theory
will lead us to address the nature of thoughts relation to the absolute
(AF, 1). He aims to think this relation by way of the distinction between
primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are said to belong to
an object as properties independent of ones relation to it. They subsist
whether one is there or not. Secondary qualities are those sensual qualities
that exist only in ones relation to the thing and they disappear outside that
relation. After Kant, this distinction fell under suspicion for its naivety.2
We cannot claim to think primary qualities outside the entangled poles of
subjectivity and objectivity (and their avatars). Meillassoux will argue that
the attention in post-Kantian philosophy shifts toward the co-constitutive
bond between these poles, but he wishes to reintegrate primary qualities
according to the Cartesian variation where they are considered intrinsic to
the mathematical properties of the object.
Before we can grasp the nuances of his positive commitments in detail
we need to look at his critique of correlationism. He defines it as the idea

1 It is worth mentioning here, given how tempting this critique is, that Meillassoux is
not going to say that being is mathematical in nature: This is not to Pythagorize,
or to assert that Being is inherently mathematical: it is rather to explain how it is that
a formal language manages to capture, from contingent-Being, properties that a ver-
nacular language fails at restituting (CBI, 80).
2 Meillassoux names Berkeley as a precursor to this position (AF, 3). Elsewhere, Berkeley
is given a more central role as the founder of the era of correlation (see IRR, 3).
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 5

according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between

thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the
other (AF, 5). There are two principal arguments used by correlationists:
the correlationist circle and the correlationist two-step, the argument
that what matters is the relation of the correlation rather than that which
is related (AF, 5). The circle stresses the pragmatic contradiction faced
by realists: when you claim to think any X, you must posit this X, which
cannot then be separated from this special act of positing, of conception
(SR, 409). The implication of the circle is that one cannot, under pain of
contradiction, claim to think an independent reality. Thus the correla-
tionist affirms a correlational facticity as a limit around which thinking
cannot hope to get (IRR, 1). The true cost of correlationism is said to be
our inability to think a non-relative outside: the great outdoors, the absolute
outside of pre-critical thinkers (AF, 7). To force an examination of the
principles of correlationism he focuses on statements that require objects
to subsist outside our thinking them. He does not mean subsisting outside
our relation to them in the present, but at a time when there was no human
relation to objects at all: ancestral time.
This brings us to Meillassouxs scientifically realist account of
ancestral statements meaning those which refer to any reality prior to
the emergence of consciousness, such as the statement that the date of
the origin of the universe is approximately 13.5 billion years ago. The
correlationist will normally accept what science tells us about ancestral
realities, but not literally. The principles of correlationism undermine the
literal sense of scientific statements and, more importantly, Meillassoux
will claim this equates to undermining their sense altogether. Ancestral
statements are said to be based on arche-fossils, which are defined
as materials indicating the existence of an ancestral reality or event
(AF, 10). The correlationist tends to focus on how these exist in the
present and so are contemporaneous with us (AF, 12). Meillassoux calls
this the codicil of modernity, which appends the adage for humans to
all scientific statements (AF, 13). This seemingly innocuous point about
arche-fossils has, however, significant consequences. Firstly, it distances
the philosopher from the literal and directly realist sense of the ancestral
statement. Secondly, it generates a new level of meaning that is said to be
deeperthan the scientific one: a more originary correlationist meaning
(AF, 14).
This deeper meaning does not render scientific knowledge impossible
in terms of intersubjective verifiability by a contemporary community of
scientists. Meillassoux however is not simply interested in verification
in the present, but in how the sciences aim at concrete determination
concerning, in this case, ancestral realities. He claims that science carries
6 introduction

out repeatable experiments with a view to external referents which endow

these experiments with meaning (AF, 17). Meillassoux is concerned with
how this more originary meaning, that to be is to be a correlate, directly
undermines this necessity of having the capacity to speak in a register of
signification where reality is not correlated (he will imbue m athematics
with this capacity). He is pushing the question as to how ancestral state-
ments can be considered potentially true in-themselves. What are the
conditions that allow us to conceive of these statements as such and
thus, given the questions they claim to answer? To resolve this dilemma
Meillassoux will need to find a way to think primary qualities absolutely,
that is, outside of any relation to the subject. He turns to Descartes to find
a model that will allow him to achieve this aim.
Meillassoux is specifically interested in the Cartesian argument for
the absolute existence of extended substance and its link with the onto-
logical proof in which the primary absolute acts as guarantor for the
absolute scope of mathematics, which is described as a derivative absolute
(AF,2930). If he can find a similar model, one unburdened by theological
associations, he believes he should be able to carry out a robust defence of
primary qualities. Descartes proof for the existence of God (the primary
absolute) runs as follows: (1) Given our idea of God as a being possessing
all the perfections absolutely (2) then existence (since it is a perfection)
is necessarily one of them; hence (3) God exists. Meillassoux notes that
Descartes proof allows one to move from an idea for us, that is, the very
idea of Gods existence, to its formal necessity as an ontological absolute.
This seems an appealing option since he wishes to make a similar transition
from what is for-us to in-itself. However, Meillassoux ultimately finds
this model unsatisfactory since it relies heavily on the dogmatic assertion
of a self-sufficient necessary being. His own project will aim to uncover an
absolute necessity that does not reinstate any form of an absolutely neces-
sary entity on the basis that dogmatism is no longer a serious option for any
contemporary form of philosophy (AF, 34).
Thus blocked from the dogmatic route to reality, Meillassoux also
critiques other problematic approaches to the real. The first is the weak
correlationism of Kant, which allows us to posit the existence of reality
in-itself, but states that we cannot have any knowledge about it. The
second approach is strong correlationism and it is characterised by two
important decisions. The first is the one common to all forms of cor-
relationism, which stresses the primacy of the correlate (AF, 37). The
second decision arises in opposition to weak correlationism and another
option, namely speculative/subjective idealism (SI). SI is said to insist
onthe absolution of the correlate (AF, 37). There is no in-itself accord-
ing to it and this means there is nothing but the subject-object dyad
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 7

(AF,37).3 Against SI, strong correlationism holds that the correlational

forms can only be described and never absolutised (AF, 389). This
means we cannot speak about what is outside our finite limitations. In
relinquishing any grasp upon the in-itself we end up in a situation where
discourses on the absolute are legitimate so long as they are irrational:
philosophers seem to ask only one thing of these absolutes: that they
be devoid of the slightest pretension to rationality (AF, 45). The con-
sequences of this are significant since we end up with fideism because
strong correlationism allows for the slow emergence of scepticism con-
cerning absolutes, which has the peculiar consequence of legitimising any
belief about the nature of the absolute. This he calls the religionizing of
reason (AF, 47).
We turn now to the central move in Meillassouxs ontology. This is
the rendering of the facticity of the correlation into a form of knowledge
(AF, 52). For Meillassoux facticity names the correlationist position
that we can only uncover conditional rather than absolute necessity
(SR,4289). We simply cannot say what constitutes the ultimate ground
that could explain, as metaphysics once did, why things are the way they
are. This means that we must we think according to those limits whether
they are construed as epistemological or ontological. This is an important
transition to register because it will involve Meillassoux re-rendering
facticity not as an incapacity but as a feature of the in-itself (AF, 53).
The absence of reason will be taken as an actual feature of our reality.
Or, put differently, he will turn the negative insight into a positive one.
This corresponds to a shift from epistemological limitation to ontological
knowledge. Meillassoux claims that facticity is then a real property of
the in-itself and has been hiding in plain sight (AF, 52). Unreason, this
absence of metaphysical necessity, is said to warrant the designation of an
absolute ontological property (AF, 53).
How does Meillassoux convince us of this switch? What re-emerges is
the problem of moving from the for-us to the in-itself. To make his
point he depicts a dialogue that will bring together the various actors of
After Finitude discussed so far. The dialogue concerns the nature of our
future post-mortem or death (AF, 55). At first we have two dogmatists:
(1) a religious believer who holds that existence does not end with our
death and that we continue to exist after it. (2) An atheist who holds that
death is strictly the end. He then introduces (3) a strict correlationist,

3 One possibility that emerges from this is subjectivist metaphysics, which involves
the hypostatization of some mental, sentient or vital term (AF, 37). Meillassoux has
called this a proliferation of subjectivations of the real and has renamed it subjectalism
(IRR,3).
8 introduction

not explicitly identified as weak or strong, who holds that both are wrong
since the best position on what happens after death is agnosticism. This
is because knowledge is always of this world and neither believer nor
atheist can claim to know what happens once we exit it. Both outcomes
are possible, but that is as far our knowledge goes. Then into the dialogue
(4) a subjective idealist enters and she argues that the two options are
unthinkable since the only range we have is that of thinking. In response
to both dogmatic positions and subjective idealism, the strict correlationist
must maintain that all three positions are possible and she recuses herself
from the debate.
Then finally a speculative philosopher enters, a stand-in for Meillassoux
himself, and claims that the two dogmatists and the subjective idealist
have misidentified the absolute. It is precisely the capacity-to-be-other
as such, captured through the eyes of the strict correlationist, that the
absolute indexes (AF, 56). This agnosticism means that when it comes to
the in-itself anything is equally possible. We see that in some cases, for
instance atheism, this includes the possibility of non-being (AF, 57).
Non-being is the ontological name for death and the commitment of
strict correlationism to the facticity of the correlation means that the cor-
relationist must recognise absolute possibilities, such as death, which are
intrinsically non-correlational. The possibility of non-correlated realities
is thereby assured from within strict correlationism. Meillassoux takes
this admission of the capacity-to-be-other to be the faultline leading out
of the correlation (AF, 57).4 For Meillassoux, we discover here a way to
think realities subsisting beyond the correlation and not dependent on it.
What subsists in-itself, irrespective of the correlation, is a time of a radical
inhumanity and this is why he will place a strong emphasis on temporality
when discussing the absolute (MSC, 12). In essence, he proposes that we
turn the absence of metaphysical necessity, and the possibility for every
entity to become otherwise, into an ontological principle that refers to
an absolute time affecting all entities. In other words, the correlationist
already takes for granted the existence of the contingency of the correla-
tion; the point is to see that contingency as an index of reality as such.
Many have noted that a problem arises here. This hyper-chaotic time,
ensuring the capacity-to-be-other of all entities, seems at odds with our

4 Strict correlationism cannot escape admitting this capacity due to a structural dilemma
it faces. It wants to de-absolutise the correlation against subjective idealism because it
is anti-absolutist, but to do this it would have to absolutise facticity in order to allow for
non-correlated possibilities. However, it does not want to absolutise facticity because it
is sceptical about non-correlated knowledge. This means it would have to de-absolutise
facticity, which in turn absolutises the correlation as found in subjective idealism.
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 9

original desire to uncover a primary absolute that could justify mathemati-

cal discourses warrant upon ancestral realities (AF, 64). To address this
issue Meillassoux introduces determinate conditions that entities are
subject to from within this model (AF, 66). He begins with a demonstra-
tion that the thing-in-itself is non-contradictory. He provides an unusual
argument to this effect: Suppose a contradictory entity existed. If it
existed it would hold two states at once and thus be in contradiction with
itself. It would both be and not be at the same time. If this were the case
it would continue to be even in a state of non-being (AF, 6970). However,
non-contradiction is required for the transition between states stipulated
by our commitment to the absolute scope of the capacity-to-be-other
(AF, 71). There must be some determinative state to switch between and
this requires non-contradictory entities. Regarding the existence of the
in-itself his approach is straightforward: If one accepts the principle of
unreason then one affirms the capacity-to-be-other of entities. This is
unthinkable without the persistence of the two realms of existence and
inexistence and we can assert that there must be entities with the capacity
to become other than they are lest this would not be possible (AF, 76).
This leads to a positive rendering of the terms we have encountered
so far. We are said to be engaging in a logos of contingency, which is to
philosophise without accepting the principle of sufficient reason (AF, 77).
The principle of unreason is renamed the principle of factiality in order
to disassociate it from the potential negative connotation of irrationalism
(AF, 79). This principle states that facticity is not a fact or factual. It is
not contingent like entities or laws. In an affirmative manner, only con-
tingency is necessary, thus the subtitle of the After Finitude: The Necessity
of Contingency. The procedure whereby we discover the conditions of the
absolute is called derivation, which produces figures (AF, 79). Although
we have secured some knowledge of the primary absolute, in particular the
absolute scope of non-contradiction, we seem to remain within Kantian
coordinates when it is the Cartesian ones we want to transition toward
(AF, 81). We must get from the absolute scope of logical principles to
the absolute scope of mathematical statements (the secondary absolute).
Despite this a subtle warning is given: we cannot present the complete
resolution of the problem here (AF, 81). What can be resolved is a quite
specific problem that has traditionally been considered insoluble: Humes
problem of causal connection. It is the perfect dilemma since it motivated
by the belief that there is an ineffable reason underlying all things (AF,
82). To show why his ontology has broad appeal Meillassoux will aim to
solve this case and he presents this as a first foray into factial speculation.
Meillassoux is aware of an obvious objection to the implications of a
hyper-chaotic time, namely that there is in experience a manifest stability
10 introduction

that is at odds with the claim that things could change for no reason at
all. Hence, there must be constant physical or natural laws ensuring this
stability. In short, if physical laws were actually contingent, we would
have already noticed (AF, 84). Taking Humes example of billiard balls
we know that given the same initial conditions, the same results invari-
ably follow (AF, 85). Humes problem raises a simple dilemma: whilst
we are certainly being reasonable to expect the same results to follow, it
cannot be guaranteed as necessary a priori. Our only recourse in terms of
gaining knowledge is our own experience, which is trapped in the present
and only knows what happened in the past; we mistake our habits for
physical necessity. The principle of non-contradiction can certainly tell
us that a contradictory event is impossible, but as to whether any non-
contradictory event will follow we have no assurance (CLN, 323). This
is one of the most long-standing puzzles in modern philosophy and with
typical confidence Meillassoux promises a novel solution to it.
There are, for Meillassoux, three possible responses to Humes
problem. The first is the metaphysical one. Here one demonstrates the
existence of a necessarily perfect being who acts as a guarantor that our
laws are the optimal ones for governing our universe. The second is the
sceptical or Humean solution. Although we cannot demonstrate causal
necessity a priori we can shift the problem toward the origin of our belief
in their necessity (AF, 88). This is the habituation we build up over time
when confronted with the consistency of outcomes. The third potential
response is the transcendental or Kantian solution.5 It asks us to imagine
what the consequences of the absence of causal necessity would be. For
Kant, the consequence would be the impossibility of structured represen-
tation, objectivity, or even consciousness. The very fact of representation
refutes the contingency of laws (CLN, 325). Meillassoux believes all three
positions adhere to the common assumption that the truth of causal
necessity cannot be called into question (AF, 90). This is precisely what
he wishes to question.
He proposes a fourth speculative solution and from this perspective one
argues not, as with Humean scepticism, that reason cannot demonstrate
apriori the necessity of laws. Instead one claims that reason proves a priori
the contingency of laws. What he does here is flip Humes supposed defer-
ence to the principle of sufficient reason such that we embrace what reason
tells us a priori about causal necessity namely that it does not exist. This
extends, in Meillassouxs ambitious critique, to the physical or natural
laws themselves. If causal connection cannot be demonstrated then we

5 Here Meillassoux has in mind the objective deduction of the categories in the Analytic
of Concepts from Kants Critique of Pure Reason.
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 11

must abandon it and trust our rational instincts (AF, 91). However, we
still have the dilemma as to why natural and physical laws are so consist-
ently stable and why, despite what reason tells us, we do not encounter
constant chaos. To destabilise this picture he zones in on what he calls the
necessitarian inference involved in our belief in causal necessity (AF, 94).
This inference takes it that the stability of laws presupposes the necessity
of those laws (AF, 94). It works as follows: (a) if laws could change for no
reason they would do so frequently (b) but they do not and thus (c) they
cannot and should be considered necessary. Accepting that (b) is incon-
testable he focuses on (a), which if undermined collapses the entire argu-
ment. He calls the force of the argument the frequentialist implication,
which boils down to the belief that the contingency of the laws of nature
would result in their frequent transformation (AF, 95).
There is a subtle move here in the suggestion that the argument for
the stability of laws is based on a form of unacknowledged mathematical
reasoning. Drawing on the work of Jean-Ren Vernes (1982), Meillassoux
thinks that the frequentialist implication is enmeshed with probabilistic
reasoning (AF, 95). To illustrate this point, he introduces the example
of a gambler faced with a die that always lands on the same face, leading
him to suspect that it is very probably loaded (AF, 96). In the classic
scenario of the throw of the dice there are equally probable outcomes that
we can calculate. In this scenario that which is equally thinkable [a priori],
is equally possible (AF, 96). Once the dice are thrown and an outcome
occurs we can assign probabilistic reasoning to chance reoccurrences. If,
however, we started with this thesis of equiprobability and the same result
kept occurring, we have reason to assume that we are not dealing with
chance. We suspect a hidden cause is ensuring the outcome. If the dice
landed on the same face not just for the duration of the game, but for our
entire lives, then we are in the situation we find ourselves in with physical
laws. This leads one to accept that there is some underlying reason why
they always re-occur. It is perhaps impossible to ever know this reason, as
Hume believes, but that there is one is not in doubt.
The problem is in treating the universe the same way we treat events
within it, that is, using probabilistic reasoning. This would necessitate
that we are in position to conceive of a complete set of all universes with
alternative physical laws.6 What Meillassoux has in mind here are possible
worlds governed by different laws; each throw of the dice would represent
a new possible world and its laws being put into effect (IWB, 448). In
our example, the dice-universe always lands on ours leading us to make

6 Meillassoux notes that non-contradiction is still applicable here since otherwise they
would not be conceivable alternatives (CLN, 329).
12 introduction

the frequentialist inference. It is improbable that our laws are contingent

given the fact of the manifest stability of natural laws. Meillassoux will
argue that the necessity we infer here should be considered a supplement
(AF, 98).7 The argument for stability hinges on the conception of a dice-
universe that would represent a Whole [Tout] of possible universes from
which our own universe can be considered one possibility (CLN, 330). But
is such a Whole legitimate in this case? His answer is no. Events taking
place within the universe can be calculated according to some defined
total, but the totality being discussed in relation to physical laws is not one
we actually encounter in experience nor is it possible that we could.8
Nor can the Whole be theoretically assured in a post-Cantorian age.
Building on Badious use of Cantor he follows the now standard line that
set theory disallows any consideration of a fixed totality.9 To simplify,
each attempt to construct the theoretical totality or the set required to
undertake this calculation about possible worlds is immediately undercut
by the impossibility of generating it. This is because, according to the
lesson of Cantor, a larger set can always be constructed that includes this
set resulting in the detotalisation of what we had taken to be the total.
This operation can persist indefinitely. The Whole that would make this
probabilistically based argument possible is not a dependable basis for
the demonstration being made.10 We are ignorant as to whether totalisa-
tion is possible and this is sufficient to disqualify arguments made on its
basis (CLN, 333). This is not a proof, but a suspension of the assumed
legitimacy of the frequentialist implication that holds that if laws were
contingent this would manifest often. We cannot say that frequent change
is probable or stability improbable on the basis of such an inference.
Having undertaken his critique of causal necessity Meillassoux does
not immediately provide his promised solution. He will later outline how
this will be accomplished, but for now he turns to the earlier problem of
ancestral reality. In doing so, he proceeds to introduce a more expansive
sense to those statements that refer to a temporal discrepancy between
thinking and being such that both anterior and ulterior events are covered
(AF, 112, italics removed). The term dia-chronicity is introduced to cover
this wider sense (AF, 112). He turns his attention back to the event of
modern science with Galileo and Copernicus as the figures responsible

7 Not to be confused with the pure supplements introduced by advents (IRR, 15).
8 See PV, 65 where recourse to experience is eliminated as a feasible option.
9 Meillassoux gives an account of the mathematics involved at various places. See CLN,
3323; AF, 134 fn 11; and PV, 667. See also Gironi 2011: 423.
10 Meillassoux admits that other set-theoretical axiomatics may allow for the totality
required, but the existence of this one axiomatic at least undermines it (CLN, 333).
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 13

for allowing such statements to gain traction. This event is linked to the
mathematization of nature, the unleashing of formal languages, that
renders the discourse on anterior and ulterior time meaningful without
recourse to fabulation (AF, 112). This process of de-mystification is
further accompanied by an awareness of the autonomy of the world, its
indifference to us, and its subsistence regardless of our presence (AF, 115).
We approach this non-correlated world in mathematical terms and on that
basis hypothesise meaningfully about it. Thus Meillassoux will suggest
that a more fitting name for the Kantian Copernican turn, which excised
this Galilean-Copernican spirit from its remit, is the Ptolemaic counter-
revolution in philosophy (AF, 118).
While Kant is commended for excising dogmatic metaphysics from phi-
losophy, he is condemned for missing the speculative import of modern
science (AF, 120, italics removed). In a way, Meillassoux is disappointed
that as the natural sciences opened us up to the great outdoors, philoso-
phy went another way and created nothing more than an insular field of
limited possibilities. How then to revive the Galilean-Copernican spirit
for philosophy? What speculative tasks remain ahead of us? After Finitude
ends by outlining what this would require. In particular, Meillassoux
believes we must discover a link between the capacity of mathematics as a
formal language and the principle of factiality.11 The motivation for this
derivation arises firstly from the problem of ancestrality, which requires a
derivation supporting the claim that what is mathematically conceivable
is absolutely possible and hence can subsist beyond correlated realities
(AF, 126). Secondly, this derivation is needed to properly resolve the
problem of causal connection and this would allow us provide ontological
support for the intotalisation thesis in relation to manifest stability since,
as it stands, the intotalisation hypothesis remains merely one possible
reading of set theory amongst others (AF, 127). Two absolutisations are
required then: the ontic one concerning the possibility of ancestral realities
and the ontological one concerning the non-Whole. This is where After
Finitude leaves off, and we can turn now to an entirely different facet of
Meillassouxs thinking: his ethics.
Meillassouxs work is not simply focused on the nature of an abstract
absolute, but includes an important ethical dimension. He is, following
a long line of thinkers in the French and German tradition, not content
with simply propounding a new ontological system, but wants also to
reshape the way in which we regard our common possibilities of being

11 The first provisional attempt occurs in IRR, 1838, but given that this occurs in the
context of a conference paper we will need to await the first complete example of this
demonstration.
14 introduction

in the world. Meillassoux develops his ethics according to a hope, one

undergirded by rationalist considerations, in the emergence of future God
that would redeem our fallen world. For Meillassoux, given the capaci-
ties of hyper-chaos, it is conceivable that the current stability of natural
laws has been upended before that is, the facts of the physical laws have
themselves changed. Meillassoux argues there were previous Worlds
capitalised to distinguish them from the world of the non-Whole prior
to this one. They are (1) the World of inorganic matter; (2) the World of
organic matter; and (3) the World of organic matter and thought. In this
way, Meillassoux differentiates between the notion of World and world,
since each World emerges ex nihilo from the world of hyper-chaos. The
essential point here is that once one is willing to accept Meillassouxs
ontological vision that no non-contradictory possibility can be discounted,
then we see the possibility of a new World to come, which has immense
implications for ethics.
Meillassoux argues at various points that from one World to the next
there is a qualitative leap that cannot be explained in terms of the physical
laws of the previous one. Hence, each World is sui generis or self-causing:
the World of thought could not have come out of the laws governing
organic matter and organic matter, he avers, could not have been caused
by simple matter. In this manner, speculative materialism affirms the
radical contingency of our world (IRR, 11). The philosopher oriented
toward contingency thereby has as her concern not being (ltre),
thatis, what currently exists, but, as Meillassoux puts it, the perhaps
(le peut-tre) (TWB, 11). What is possible, in the most pressing ethical
sense, is for him not another World beyond this one in any vertical sense,
as in vulgar forms of Platonism, but other Worlds to come. These Worlds
would build on the current instantiation and merge with it immanently.
The only restriction he places on these possible Worlds is that they bring
more into reality than was there before. He believes that we can identify
the most likely possibilities by identifying what is currently lacking in the
current configuration, and it is these possibilities that are the province of
the speculative philosopher.
The lack in question is expressed in the term divine inexistence.
Meillassoux develops his ontological commitments toward an interest not
in a God who is or who is not, but in a God who may be (or is currently
in-existent). The appearance of this God would precisely be a fourth
World beyond those mentioned already, one not certain to happen, but
whose potential appearance gives us hope beyond the nihilism of the
present. It would also be an addition to this World in that it would bring
into being a more complete justice since this could solve what he calls the
spectral dilemma. This refers to the haunting of our common existence by
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 15

a mourning over all those lost in history, those whose deaths we cannot
begin to put in rational order or make any sense of. There is no need to
detail all those kinds of spectres Meillassoux describes the dead child,
the victims of heinous massacres of all sorts since only the most affectless
of us do not feel the existential weight of the horrors of this or that death,
as well as all the Holocausts of history. To be human is to live under the
shadow of this wide work of mourning. For Meillassoux essential mourn-
ing over these spectres is impossible in our current World. What words
could console us concerning them?
This is Meillassouxs way of indirectly addressing the problem of
whether we can accept a God who would allow such deaths to occur. In this
way, Meillassoux follows, from a different direction, the view of Jacques
Derrida, namely that our lives are always lived as a work of mourning.
However, whereas Derrida saw this finitude as inexorable, Meillassoux
argues that the nature of hyper-chaos ensures that it is possible that our
condition could be otherwise. Who would choose to believe in a God who
would allow such deaths? For the believer we have precisely the opposite
problem than that faced by the nihilist. This is the dilemma that arises
from the lack of a transcending principle at work in the world that would
provide justice for the departed. Note well that the argument, as produced
by Meillassoux, takes place at the ethical level. These are not dry proofs for
a clockmaker God or a mere first principle that founds nature. This is not
the God of the philosophers. Rather at its heart, the spectral dilemma con-
cerns a personalist God, one who answers our prayers and who can provide
mercy for the living and the dead alike. This God is not metaphysical, but
ethical: a plea for any light with which to banish away our darkest fears.
The answer Meillassoux provides for the atheist faced with the spectral
dilemma is not in the form of various proofs for Gods inexistence. We hear
nothing of evolutionary theory or physicist accounts of the Big Bang that
disprove the book of Genesis, or about the problematic logics of the cosmo-
logical proof, or all the well-worn paths of the non-believer. The atheist,
rather, responds to the dilemma in precisely ethical terms:

You want to hope, [the theist says], for something for the dead You hope for
justice in the next world: but in what would this consist? It would be a justice
done under the auspices of a God who had himself allowed the worst acts to be
committed You call just, and even good, such a God To live under the reign
of such a perverse being, who corrupts the most noble words love, justice with
his odious practices: isnt this a good definition of hell? To this hell you wish
for them, I prefer, for them as for myself, nothingness, which will leave them in
peace and conserve their dignity, rather than putting them at the mercy of the
omnipotence of your pitiless Demiurge. (DI, 265)
16 introduction

Neither of these positions can be considered an ethical response to

the dead, Meillassoux suggests: the atheist abhors the very idea of such
a fearsome God, while the believer can only go on with the faith that life
is something other than devastated by the despair of terrible deaths
(DI, 265). Countless books argue for and against the possibility of such
a God, and the arguments are well-worn and historically repetitive. Few
readers of Meillassouxs After Finitude would expect that his arguments
regarding the divine inexistence would remain on such ethical grounds.
While its true that After Finitude provides an indirect proof against the
existence of God, namely as a necessary being, here he goes further to say
that even a necessary and impersonal God, as found in Aristotle, could
not answer the spectral dilemma: both sides of the dilemma take on the
existence of a personal God and this is correct, in so far as any other God
would seem meaningless for our existence, save answering a metaphysical
dilemma.
Meillassoux thus will map out a third position not often envisioned in
the binary debates over Gods existence or inexistence. His view is that
both sides take for granted that were God to exist, then His existence
would be necessary: to be atheist is not simply to maintain that God does
not exist, but also that he could not exist; to be a believer is to have faith
in the essential existence of God (SD, 268). But God doesnt exist; this
follows not only from the arguments of After Finitude but is required for
any worthy God lest He remain responsible for the myriad horrors of this
world. But that God may be also holds out hope for an existence that, as of
now, confronts the lack of meaning for the deaths of history. Meillassoux
goes further, saying that the problems of the worst regimes, such as the
Soviet one, involve an inequality of the living and the dead, creating the
latter in the name of those who will be alive in the future. Thus he argues
that a God of justice will not just bring mercy to the living but to all those
who have died. However, this requires the appearance of a World to come,
since God cannot be posited except as contingent, in the sense that, if
its thinkability supposes that nothing prohibits its advent, inversely, no
destinal law can be supposed to guarantee its emergence (SD, 271).
Meillassoux is not suggesting that under the current laws of nature we
can hope for the rebirth of the dead. As we have seen, he does not adhere
to the principle of sufficient reason whereby the laws of this universe are
eternal. Rather, by radicalising Hume he has also overturned the latters
atheism. In this way, while nature does not provide for an all-powerful
God, hyper-chaos provides for its hope beyond this World. Meillassouxs
thinking is therefore never far removed from considerations of our mortal
condition. His project is ultimately not about realism in any abstract sense,
but is imbued, from his dissertation forward, with a touch of the absurdity
 i n t r o d u c t i o n 17

of our current condition, one that gives us every reason, it seems, to find
God unforgivable. Meillassoux gives us a veritable hauntology, a study of
these spectres who, he says, refuse to pass over, who still belong to the
world of the living, even as unending shadows that we can only meekly
begin to countenance (SD, 262). He argues not only that this thinking of
the possible God marks a future just world, but that it should have effects
upon us in this one. Freed by an existential weight of utter hopelessness we
can begin to act differently in this World.
In Kants philosophy, the dignity of the human was founded in its
ability to reason and on this basis give itself over to the moral law. For
Meillassoux, the ultimate being is the one who can think the factial-
ity of reality and thus have a rational hope for an immanent World to
come (IWB, 462). This figure, of whom he suggests the human may
just be one type, is notable for both its cognitive and tragic character:
rational enough to understand the contingency of all, it also knows the
ever-present possibility of its own death. As Meillassoux understands the
fourth World, God will prevent the decay of our bodies, but given that
God is not necessary, we cannot hold out the hope that He is eternal or
everlasting. Thus even in Meillassouxs system, where justice and equal-
ity might one day win out, death is still a contingent possibility given the
unpredictable power of hyper-chaos. While Meillassoux is interested in
working out the fourth Worlds formal possibility, the point is to think
how this dense possibility effects our conduct in this World. This vision
of a future is one that he thinks calls forth what he dubs the eschatological
or vectorial subject, one magnetically attracted by the emancipation of
the World to come (IWB, 463).
The vectorial subject, he argues, is produced through successive specu-
lative stages: (1) first, a removal from despair by recognising the lack of
limits for reason, since the latter can move speculatively to the absolute.
This absolutisation of reason thus counters Kants finite subject while
deciphering a potential God. The vectorial subject provides both a hope
for a future beyond this World and knows that this World may not arrive,
but Meillassoux argues that this is anything but a political quietism. We
know what a future World would be that could deliver us from injustice,
and thus we work, here and now, to bring about the justice we can. (2)The
second stage for the vectorial subject is nihilism, which Meillassoux
understands as this subjects recognition of the coming World as horrify-
ing. Meillassoux argues that the truly difficult moment is the realisation
that the coming of the fourth World could mean an immortality from
which there is no escape. This nihilism was first identified by Nietzsche in
his famed Eternal Recurrence of the Same, which as Meillassoux rightly
argues, is not a consideration of our finitude, but rather the possibility of
18 introduction

our immortality. The greatest weight, the one that grounds Nietzsches
nihilism, is not death, but an everlasting (and tedious) life.
In such a scenario the vectorial subject faces an aporia beyond that which
she faced in the spectral dilemma: either the coming World arrives and the
vectorial subject sees the satisfaction of her greatest hopes, at which point
she becomes meaningless, or it doesnt arrive and these hopes face no
such satisfaction. If its the former, then the vectorial subject, formed by a
quest for justice, no longer has any meaning for going on; her purpose has
been fulfilled and she loses her very reason for being. This also means that
Meillassoux agrees with Marx that any true communism equivalent to a
future World of justice, as he sees it is also the cessation of politics. This
not to say, though, that a World freed of politics, that is, no longer with
material inequities and misery, would be free of disquiet. It would still be
a World with love and its betrayal, a World with the life of thought and
horrific mediocrity, and all the other petty miseries life offers. The vecto-
rial subject, then, looks forward to a World not of happiness, but a World
of disquietude, one from which death cannot provide an escape. Our hope,
then, is a peculiar one: to free human beings from material misery in order
that they may experience the human dignity of disquietude and anxiety.
Having come to this, we conclude our brief entre onto Meillassouxs
thought, a form of thinking that is at once speculative and ethical, highly
rationalist and deeply felt. In the dictionary that follows, our contributors
have done a remarkable job of filling in the details of our broad sketch
above. They dont always agree with Meillassoux, but their admiration
for what is an increasingly audacious body of work means they are always
fair. It is our hope to provide you the tools to follow him with all of his
potential, whether in disquietude of the World to come or in disagreement
with his major claims.
 A
ABSOLUTE

Bart Zantvoort
The question of the absolute has historically been posed in two ways.
Firstly: what is the ultimate ground or foundation for reality as a whole?
This is framed in at least three ways: what is the first cause, the uncon-
ditioned, or the highest entity? Secondly: what are the absolute, non-
relative properties of things? That is, what are the attributes of a given
entity independent from the standpoint of an observer?
Meillassoux takes up this classical schema in an unusual way. Taking
Ren Descartes as an example, he distinguishes between a primary
absolute and a derivative absolute (AF, 30). For Descartes, the primary
absolute is the existence of a perfect, all-powerful God (see Cartesian
in-itself). The secondary absolute, which is the capacity of mathematics
to describe the non-relative properties of things, can be derived from the
primary absolute, because a perfect God would not deceive us in our
use of mathematics. Meillassoux agrees with Descartes that we need to
demonstrate the absolute reach of mathematics. But he thinks that after
Immanuel Kants critique of dogmatism and his own destruction of the
principle of sufficient reason, we can no longer invoke God or any
other form of highest entity to do so. Instead, he proposes the principle of
factiality as his own primary absolute.
This principle states that contingency alone is necessary (AF, 80).
According to Meillassoux, all beings are necessarily contingent, and
we can know this absolutely. (It must be noted here that absolute for
Meillassoux seems to entail both that we can know absolutely that contin-
gency is necessary and that this principle is itself absolutely necessary). It
is from this principle that the capacity of mathematics to describe absolute
properties of things is supposed to be derived. Meillassoux uses absolute
20 a b s o l u t e

to mean two very different things, however. In relation to the status of

mathematics, as well as in the critique of correlationism, it means: that
which is thinkable as existing independently of thought (AF, 57; 117).
But in relation to the principle of factiality, it means: that which must be
thought as absolutely necessary (AF, 62). Although Meillassoux rejects
the traditional understanding of the absolute as an ultimate cause or nec-
essary entity, he still maintains that the necessity of contingency can be
demonstrated through a rational argument (AF, 60).
Initially, Meillassoux claims that mathematics is absolute only in the
first sense: The absoluteness of that which is mathematizable means: the
possibility of factial [that is, contingent] existence outside thought not:
the necessity of existence outside thought (AF, 117). But he also claims
that the absoluteness of mathematics (see set theory) has both an ontical
scope in so far as it pertains to entities that are possible or contingent, but
whose existence can be thought as indifferent to thought, and an onto-
logical scope, since it states something about the structure of the possible as
such (AF, 127).
This ontological scope of mathematics would consist in a speculative
resolution of David Humes problem. Hume argued that we cannot
derive the necessity of the laws of nature from experience, and therefore
we cannot know if they will continue to hold as they have in the past.
Meillassoux, on the contrary, wants to prove the stability of the laws
of nature. This proof would provide an absolute foundation for the
derivative-absolute capacity of mathematical science: It is ... necessary
to establish the legitimacy of the assumption that the stability of natural
laws, which is the condition for every science of nature, can be absolutized
(AF, 127).
The demonstration in After Finitude amounts only to a hypotheti-
cal resolution of this problem (AF, 110; 127). Meillassoux argues that,
although the laws of nature are contingent and could therefore change
at any moment, this does not preclude the obvious fact of their stability.
Probabilistic reasoning, which would lead us to expect these laws to change
frequently if they are contingent, can only be applied to numerical totali-
ties, whether these are finite or infinite. But, according to Meillassoux, the
Cantorian transfinite, according to which the thinkable does not constitute
a totality, gives us reason to think that the world as a whole might not be
such a totality. Therefore, probabilistic reason does not necessarily apply
to the world as a whole, and it is at least a plausible hypothesis that the laws
of nature could be stable (AF, 107). But, as Meillassoux admits, this is only
a hypothetical resolution of Humes problem, because the version of set
theory he uses is only one set of possible axioms among many (AF, 104).
Therefore, we do not know a priori whether or not the world as a whole
 a d v e n t 21

forms a totality or not. The absolute proof of the stability of the laws of
nature would require him to derive the necessity of Cantors theorem from
the principle of factiality (AF, 110).
Contrary to many interpretations, therefore, Meillassoux is not trying
to prove that the laws of nature could change at any moment. The ultimate
ambitions in After Finitude are, in fact, to prove the following: (1) The abso-
lute necessity of the principle of factiality; (2) The absolute possibility (AF,
117) of the world described by mathematics (the capacity of mathematics
to accurately describe contingent entities, which exist independently from
us); (3) The absolute and ... unconditionally necessary scope (AF, 127)
of the Cantorian transfinite (see Georg Cantor), which will allow us to
legitimize absolutely the stability of natural laws.
Of these aims, only the first is accomplished in After Finitude. In
Iteration, Reiteration, Repetition, Meillassoux takes up the project of
proving the absolute status of mathematics again, but he has to conclude
that he has not succeeded (IRR, 37). If, therefore, After Finitude serves as a
critique of correlationism, demonstrating that the limits of knowledge have
been too narrowly constructed, we are still awaiting Meillassouxs second
critique in which he proves that thought, in the form of mathematics, can
think the absolute.

ADVENT

Christina Smerick
The word Advent means a coming or an arrival. In the Christian tradi-
tion, advent is a liturgical time, before Christmas, when Christians
anticipate the coming of the Christ child and reflect and repent upon the
various ways in which they have failed to live toward the ethic articulated
by Christ in Scripture. Advent is most strongly linked to the Incarnation
of Christ the entry of God into the world in bodily form. Advent is thus
the revelation of God in Christ an indication of the radical reconcilia-
tion between the divine and the human, the spiritual and the material.
The advent of Christ in the world is a radical in-breaking of the divine
not merely as a deus ex machina but as a human being, a material entity.
Advent also implies a second Advent the return of Christ to rule.
Advent thus functions as a time to reflect both upon the past and the
future, and draws attention to the notion that this present time is a time
between between the Incarnation and the Return, a time of already
and not yet. Advent indicates both the yearning for deliverance and the
hope for redemption.
22 a n c e s t r a l i t y

Meillassouxs work utilises advent to indicate the possible coming of

a fourth World of justice, a radical, unforeseeable and yet anticipated
novelty in which God may be possible. As such, it echoes the liturgical
sense of anticipation and hope found in orthodox Christian traditions.
However, the paradoxical nature of Advent in the Christian tradition,
and its belief that God in Christ entered this already broken and known
world, does not seem to be implied or indicated in Meillassoux. Rather
his argument is that it will literally be a new World to come, one that will
bring the justice promised by the old messianisms which take God to be
existing now, not in a possible future.

ANCESTRALITY

Rodrigo Nunes
The problem of ancestrality is Meillassouxs opening gambit in After
Finitude, and thus, in a sense, also a major aspect of what his philosophy
as a whole is recognised for. It sets the scene for everything that follows:
the characterisation of correlationisms limits and its unholy alliance
with fideism; the deduction of the principle of factiality and the
attainment of an absolute in the form of hyper-chaos; the derivation
of the determinate conditions facticity imposes on all beings; and the
defence of mathematised sciences capacity to access a nature thought
independently from humans (see Cartesian in-itself). It matters pre-
cisely as a philosophical problem, one liable to make us revise decisions
often considered as infrangible since Kant (AF, 37). The extent of
Meillassouxs attachment to it is nonetheless debatable since the book
itself states the wish only to provide a rigorous formulation of it in
such a way that its resolution no longer seems utterly inconceivable to us
(AF, 37).
The argument starts by defining ancestral statements as those bearing on
any reality prior to the emergence of the human species, or of life on earth
in general, not by distance in time, which makes something merely ancient,
but in terms of anteriority in time in relation to any sentient or sapient
relation to the world. While ostensibly addressing dia-chronicity, the
temporal lag that ancestral statements reveal between world and relation-
to-world, the problem extends to scientific statements as a whole, to the
extent that it concerns the capacity to think the world in itself, separately
from its givenness to us. The problem, in a nutshell, is: how can we have
knowledge of something that was given prior to there being any mind it
could be given to?
 a n c e s t r a l i t y 23

If its resolution, which does not trouble scientists, seems inconceiv-

able for philosophers, that is because of the dominance of correlationism.
How can a correlationist, for whom being is co-extensive with being
given to a human mind, interpret a statement that essentially concerns
the givenness of something that was given before it could be given to any
human mind? According to Meillassoux, what the correlationist does is
distinguish between a superficial, realist sense (x took place millennia
before human life) and a more originary, correlational one (x is given to
us today as having take place). While the first indicates a chronological
anteriority of being over the correlation (x was given before givenness),
the second establishes a logical anteriority of the correlation over what is
given (x is given to us as given before givenness). This means that the
truth of the statement arises not from the dia-chronic anteriority of the
past itself but from a present, universalisable experience, intersubjec-
tively verified by the scientific community, being retrojected into the past
to which it refers. That means it is a true statement, in that it is objective,
but one whose referent cannot possibly have actually existed in the way this
truth describes it (AF, 34). In this way, anything that occurs is only taking
place for us. Since she only accepts the statements sense at the cost of
denying its reference, the correlationist must turn it into nonsense; an
ancestral statement, concludes Meillassoux, can only have sense if that is
the literal, realist one.
One should ask, however, whether the argument does not presuppose
rather than demonstrate the problem with correlationism that Meillassoux
wishes to expose. That would mean that its upshot that confronta-
tion with ancestrality exposes every variety of correlationism as an
extreme idealism, incapable of taking science for its word and therefore
dangerously close to contemporary creationists (AF, 18) relies on the
assumption that any correlationism is an extreme idealism. This, in turn,
would be disastrous, as it could not only deprive factial speculation of its
strategic role, which is fighting the religionizing of reason (AF, 47) that
results from strong correlationisms ultimate coincidence with fideism
(AF, 468), but, more importantly, of its whole point.
The place to test that hypothesis is the most important passage in After
Finitude, where Meillassoux turns correlationism around by arguing
that the very idea of the difference between the in-itself and the for-us
depends on what is perhaps human thoughts most remarkable power
its capacity to access the possibility of its own non-being, and thus to
know itself to be mortal, which in turn presupposes that contingency
be thought as absolute (AF, 59): If I maintain that the possibility of my
not-being only exists as a correlate of my act of thinking the possibility of
my not-being, then I can no longer conceive the possibility of my not-being
24 a n h y p o t h e t i c a l

(AF, 57). This is the subjective idealists position: in order to know myself
to be mortal, I must be capable of thinking my death as not requiring my
thought of it to be effective, and hence as something outside of the cor-
relational circle (AF, 78).
Yet the question of my death requiring my thought of it to be actual
only arises if I take my thought to constitute its objects in the sense of
causing their ontic existence as something out there in the world. And
for whom, except an extreme subjective idealist, is a subjective act of
thought the cause of somethings existence? It is one thing to say that
xonly is for me if it is for me, a more subtle tautology than it seems, and
another to say that x only is if it is for me, which is the position against
which Meillassoux is arguing. If I subscribe to the former, I can draw a
further distinction between two ways in which x can be for me: experience
of my death is impossible, as the consciousness and sensory apparatus
necessary to register it would be lacking. But I can think myself as mortal,
for example, via the perfectly legitimate inductive reasoning that if I am
similar to other living beings in most aspects, and living beings are, as far
as I know, mortal, I must be similar to them in that respect, too. My own
death can be an object of thought for me as an actual possibility whose
occurrence is independent from my thought, even if it cannot be an object
of experience. This is a much more modest alternative to either believing
things do not exist unless I think them, or hyper-chaos.
That Meillassoux reduces the issue to a choice between the latter two
becomes clear when he states that unless by thinking contingency as an
absolute, like the speculative philosopher, it would never have occurred to
you not to be a subjective (or speculative) idealist (AF, 59). It would seem
that in forcing a choice between the speculative absolute and an extreme,
solipsistic subjective idealism, Meillassoux makes his most important
argument depend on an artificial restriction of our real philosophical
alternatives. As a consequence, he builds his proof on the refutation of the
weakest of all the positions he wishes to oppose and leaves unconsidered
all sorts of possible non-extreme correlationisms for which the problem of
ancestrality in all likelihood would not arise.

ANHYPOTHETICAL

Rodrigo Nunes
He whose subject is being qua being must be able to state the most
certain principles of all things, one that is non-hypothetical and which
every one must have who knows anything about being; this is how
 a n h y p o t h e t i c a l 25

Aristotle (Metaphysics IV, 1005b91005b15) prefaces the principle of

non-contradiction. Meillassoux picks up the gauntlet: a demonstrated
first principle, the principle of factiality seems to reconnect with the
most profound illusion of philosophy since its Platonic inception, that
of an anhypothetical principle, that is, a founding principle of rational
thought that is not irrationally posed (in a contingent way), but is instead
itself founded in reason (DI2, 54, his emphasis). In a very classical way, he
is posing the problem of beginnings, though not so much where to begin
his enquiry, but on what principle to found speculative philosophy and
rational thought as a whole. If philosophy is the field of necessary dis-
cursivity, its point of departure must consist in identifying that which,
amidst the facticity of being, is itself not factual (DI2, 434).
If the speculative defence of the rights of thought over the absolute is
not going to be a relapse into metaphysics, its first principle must not
be metaphysical. While metaphysics is characterised by affirming the
existence of necessary beings, speculative reasoning cannot allow itself
the complacency of running up a chain of sufficient reason in order to
arrive at a being that is necessary or causa sui. What it does, instead, is to
establish a necessity that is not the necessity of a being, since no being
is necessary, but of the contingency of beings a contingency that is not
itself a being (DI2, 53). At the same time, this first principle must break
with hypothetical rationality (DI2, 54) the idea that beginnings can
only be posed in the form if then, rather than demonstrated. It
must be a first demonstration, i.e., demonstrated without being deduced
from another statement; only then can it be the anhypothetical princi-
ple demanded since Plato as the first principle of philosophy (DI2, 54, his
emphasis).
For Meillassoux, the principle of factiality does more than fit the
description of a fundamental proposition that [cannot] be deduced from
any other, but which [can] be proved indirectly, by demonstrating that
anyone who contests it can do so only by presupposing it to be true, thereby
refuting him or herself (AF, 601); it is in fact a stronger candidate for
first principle than Aristotles. All that can be shown of the latter is that
it is impossible to think a contradiction, allowing the strong correlationist
to claim that, while unthinkable, it might be possible in absolute terms.
In turn, factiality concerns absolute contingency not only for-us, but in-
itself, so that to think the possibility of the contingency of contingency is
merely to posit a higher contingency, thus presupposing what one seeks to
deny. It is thus both anhypothetical and absolute.
One should note Meillassouxs statement concerning the faultless
consensus in contemporary thought around hypothetical reason the
idea that the beginning of reason can only be posed as axiom, postulate,
26 a r c h e - f o s s i l

thesis, hypothesis etc. (DI2, 534, his emphasis). One could easily expect
this to apply to philosophy, given the ascendancy of correlationism; the
fact that Meillassoux extends it to the hypothetico-deductive reason
deployed by logic and mathematics and the inductive reason deployed
by experimental sciences (DI2, 534), however, complicates the picture
painted at the start of After Finitude. If the sciences understand themselves
as hypothetical, what purchase can the argument of ancestrality retain?
Is there a correlationism of the sciences themselves? What would that
mean for the concept of fideism?

ARCHE-FOSSIL

Rodrigo Nunes
Arche-fossils materials indicating the existence of an ancestral reality
or event; one that is anterior to terrestrial life (AF, 10) are what
ancestral statements are about. They are that which the problem of
ancestrality is meant to show correlationism as incapable of thinking.
Two examples of arche-fossil are an isotope whose rate of radioactive
decay we know, or the luminous emission of a star that informs us as
to the date of its formation (AF, 10). Since speculative materialism
deals only with the necessary conditions that belong to a contingency
delivered of all constraints other than that (or those) of its own eternity,
it does not concern itself with existing things, which are by necessity
contingent (IRR, 12). Thus, as Meillassoux clarifies, the arche-fossil was
employed in After Finitude only so as to problematize the contemporary
self-evidence of correlationism, by way of arguing that the problem of
ancestrality appears insoluble for as long as one stays within the correla-
tional circle (IRR, 12).
It is the fact that the arche-fossil indexes a lacuna of manifestation
rather than in manifestation not a spatio-temporally distant event or
being, but specifically one that is prior to any correlation that allows
Meillassoux to expose correlationisms embarrassment, which comes
in the face of contemporary sciences apparent capacity to think nature
independently from any phenomenological experience of it, or even
a world wherein spatio-temporal givenness itself came into being within a
time and a space which preceded every variety of givenness (AF, 22). Yet
Ray Brassier makes the perspicuous point that, to the extent that his
defence of the absolute rights of objective reality pivots around estab-
lishing a rift between ancestral time and spatio-temporal distance, it
harbours a concession to correlationism, for surely it is not just ancestral
 a r c h i - f a c t 27

phenomena which challenge the latter, but simply the reality described
by the modern natural sciences tout court (Brassier 2007: 59). To insist
that only the ancestrality presented by the arche-fossil transcends cor-
relational constitution, therefore, is to create an exception where there
is none: science tells us that we are surrounded by mind-independent
processes all the time, and the fact that these are contemporaneous with
the existenceof consciousness, while the accretion of the earth preceded
it, is quite irrelevant (Brassier 2007: 60).
Meillassouxs choice of isotope dating as an example is perhaps an even
greater trouble for his argument. Not, pace Hallward, because measuring
is a human, convention-based practice the point about the reality of what
is measured still stands but because this being an area in which preci-
sion is paramount, and thus highly dependent on advanced technology, it
displays rectification much more habitually than, say, the formalisation of
certain physical relations into mathematical functions (see the back and
forth between Hallward 2011 and Brown 2011). As such, it brings into
sharper focus the difficult spot in which Meillassouxs defence of math-
ematised science places him in regard to the revisability of scientific claims
(see Johnston 2011). Estimates of the age of the universe have varied a fair
amount throughout the last century, during which the Hubble constant,
the first relatively accurate measurement of the rate of expansion of the
universe, was recalculated several times. It was only with the discovery of
microwave cosmic background radiation in the 1960s that a way was found
to determine the Hubble constant without the need to refer to galaxy
distances, thus increasing accuracy. Throughout the last decade, the exact
measure changed literally every two years, as the data from the Wilkinson
Microwave Anisotropy Probe measurements were released, providing
ever greater precision so that the actual figure has been revised even after
the publication of After Finitude.
A correlationist rejoinder to Meillassoux could therefore be that the
universe coming into existence is something that effectively took place
13.75 billion years ago, at least according to todays best science; but the
event of this becoming an object of our knowledge thus being true for
us only took place as recently as 2010, when scientific consensus stabi-
lised around this measurement.

ARCHI-FACT

An alternative name for the facticity of the correlation. See, for example,
MSC, 1718.
28 a t h e i s m / t h e i s m

ATHEISM/THEISM

Paul OMahoney
Atheism is a profession of non-belief in the existence of any God, which
is opposed by both theism and deism. Theism is the belief in the existence
of at least one God, who evinces a concern for the world. This world can
thus be influenced by God and in many belief systems it is also the crea-
tion of the God. As such, theism is a belief with a specific content, where
the nature of the deity is accessible to human beings, sometimes through
reason, though for others this access can only come through revelation.
With this theism is distinguished from deism. Deism is the assumption
that, although God or gods do exist and may have created the world, they
do not intervene in this world. Deism thus rejects all accounts of religious
revelation or the miraculous interaction of a deity with creation. All
revealed religions therefore count as theistic. The modern origin of theism
is commonly dated to the 1660s, attributed to Ralph Cudworth, who used
it in his The True Intellectual System of the Universe, first published in
1678. Cudworth was concerned to refute atheism, along with all moral
and political philosophy derived from or conducive to atheistic principles.
Two things can immediately be noted about Meillassouxs position.
First, he offers a stronger conception of atheism. Second, though deism
counts as a religious belief, Meillassouxs use of the term the religious
in all cases clearly implies theistic beliefs (see irreligion). Atheism and
the religious are considered opposites. Each denies to the other the power
to refute its position; this is one feature of contemporary fideism, where
even atheism is reduced to a mere belief and can therefore essentially be
equated with religion. It is Meillassouxs stronger and stricter interpreta-
tion of atheism that allows him to propose a third option to these alterna-
tives, which apparently exhaust all possibilities. Rather than the beliefs
that there is or is not a God, for Meillassoux:

The two theses are in truth stronger than these factual statements: for their sense
lies in the supposedly necessary character of either the inexistence or the existence
of God. To be atheist is not simply to maintain that God does not exist, but also
that he could not exist; to be a believer is to have faith in the essential existence
of God. (SD, 268)

Both positions are then seen to be tied to or derived from a belief in

necessity and, ultimately, belief in the principle of sufficient reason.
By virtue of his denial of any necessity save for that of contingency, and
his consequent assertion of the omnipotence of Chaos, Meillassoux can
 b a d i o u , a l a i n 29

posit God as an eternal possibility. This would be the personal God who
brings with Him the promise of justice and the resurrection of the dead
as a real possibility:

It is a question of maintaining that God is possible not in a subjective and syn-

chronous sense (in the sense that I maintain that it is possible that God currently
exists), but in an objective future sense (where I maintain that God could really
come about in the future). At stake is the unknotting of the theo-religious link
between God and necessity (God must or must not exist) and its reattachment to
the virtual (God could exist). (SD, 269)

In Meillassouxs definition, God must henceforth be thought of as the

contingent, but eternally possible, effect of a Chaos unsubordinated to any
law (SD, 274). This permissible (and for Meillassoux rationally defen-
sible) hope is the ground of his discussion of divine inexistence and is
Meillassouxs primary contribution to theological or religious debates.

B
BADIOU, ALAIN

Christopher Norris
Alain Badiou was Meillassouxs teacher and mentor at a formative stage
in the latters intellectual development and has continued to encourage
and actively promote the younger mans work. Badious influence is
everywhere evident in Meillassouxs thought, although it doesnt always
take the more overt forms of explicit agreement or closely convergent
thinking. Certainly there is a lot of common ground between them, both
as a matter of shared philosophical commitments and the range of topics
to which their work has been addressed. The intellectual kinship comes
out most clearly in the opening section of After Finitude with its now
famous attack on correlationism that is to say, on the epistemology
of Immanuel Kant along with all the proliferating woes in its wake and
its dramatic, not to say imperious, statement of the adversary case for an
outlook of intransigent or hard-line objectivist realism. It is also apparent
in Meillassouxs high regard for mathematics, the physical sciences,
and art (especially poetry) as among philosophys prime conditions or
essential means of critical orientation. Both of them tend to philosophise
30 b a d i o u , a l a i n

through a combination of passionate critical engagement with various

thinkers of the past, although Badious range is much wider in this respect,
and speculative ventures well beyond the limits of orthodox history of
ideas or philosophical commentary. Despite that, they are both axiomatic
thinkers in the sense usually associated with mathematics, logic and the
formal sciences, that is, starting out from certain assumed, though not
necessarily self-evident, premises and then proceeding to derive their
consequences by a deductive (or quasi-deductive) sequence of argument.
Beyond that, more specifically, there are numerous shared points of
reference, for instance, the set theory of Georg Cantor and the poetry
of Stphane Mallarm, that may safely be said to exemplify Badious
influence on Meillassouxs developing project, although often their
modes of engagement with these topics have been markedly divergent.
Indeed it is the differences between them that I shall focus on here since
the commonalities are less to the point in this context. One such difference
concerns their respective deployments of set theory as a means to articu-
late ontological issues and to argue for a realism (in Meillassouxs case, a
speculative realism). Badiou takes developments in this area since Cantor
to have established a number of cardinal truths not only in mathematics
but also, by more than loose analogy, in politics and art. That claim is
advanced on the strength of a detailed working-through of the formal
arguments (proof-procedures) involved and a likewise rigorous working-
out of what they signify or demonstrably entail when transposed to those
other contexts. Thus it is a question of showing, via methods like Cantors
technique of diagonalisation and results like the power-set axiom, how
any given political situation or current stage of development in the arts
is always, by the strictest necessity, exceeded, surpassed, or potentially
thrown into crisis by that which finds no place in the dominant count-as-
one. Among such excluded and socio-politically disenfranchised minori-
ties are the sans-papiers or undocumented migrant (mainly North African)
workers in France whose unrecognised collectivity forms the equivalent
of that absolute excess that comes into play once the power-set axiom is
applied, as by Cantor, to the multiple sizes or orders of infinity.
Badiou is a realist about mathematics in so far as he takes it as axiomatic
(1) that set theory is ontology, and (2) that any genuine event, whether
in mathematics, politics, or the arts, is ineluctably marked by that unpre-
dictable occurrence that disrupts, invalidates and potentially transforms
some existing ontological scheme. It is the moment, typically evaded
or repressed by many philosophers from Plato down, when consistent
multiplicity gives way to the outbreak of an inconsistent multiplicity
which, again potentially, heralds the advent of some radical change or
advance. At the same time this realism is qualified by Badious emphasis
 b a d i o u , a l a i n 31

on the subject as militant of truth, that is, the subject who comes into
existence solely as a result of taking up that specific challenge and there-
after investing their best efforts in its carrying-through. Meillassoux is
also a realist, as witness most strikingly those now famous pages in
After Finitude where he deploys the arche-fossil, that is, the immemorial
relic of a time before the advent of any sentient life-forms, as a supposed
knock-down argument against all correlationism, whether of a Kantian
(epistemological) or latter-day (post-linguistic-turn) persuasion. However
his realism differs from Badious in finding no such procedurally speci-
fied role for the human subject, perhaps because it might seem to soften
or compromise his hard objectivist stance, and also, as fairly leaps off the
page toward the end of After Finitude, in the kinds of consequences he
draws from set-theoretical reflection on the multiple orders of infinity.
It is here that Meillassoux advances his extraordinary reading of David
Hume where he steals a spectacular march on the latters much-debated
outlook of epistemological scepticism with regard to causal explanations
and our grounds (or lack of them) for supposing the uniformity of nature.
This Meillassoux rejects in favour of a nominally realist outlook according
to which it is reality that changes, for all that we can possibly know, along
with those putative laws of nature that, once acquainted with Cantors
discovery, we must conceive as subject to radical mutation from moment
to moment across the infinities of possible worlds that might pop into and
out of existence.
I shall not here go into the problems with this speculative venture from
the viewpoint of a realist outlook compatible with the sorts of causal-
explanatory reasoning basic to the physical sciences. My point is that it
stands in striking contrast to Badious insistence that if we are capable of
making discoveries or achieving advances in mathematics, the physical
sciences, politics, or art then this entails a number of precepts decidedly
at odds with Meillassouxs version of Hume. These are, firstly, that in
any given situation, there are uncounted multiples that objectively exceed
whatever is known, recognised, or grasped concerning that situation and,
secondly, that for this reason truth exceeds knowledge, that is, it must
be thought of as objective, recognition-transcendent, or epistemically
unconstrained. Moreover, thirdly, if indeed mathematics is ontology
then certain kinds of formal reasoning (from Cantors diagonal proce-
dure to the concept/method/technique of forcing elaborated by Paul
Cohen) are capable eventually of delivering truths that go beyond a
presently existing state of knowledge but that are none the less latent or
(so-far unknowably) contained within it. Scientific revolutions thus occur
not as the result of some obscure Kuhnian process of rationally under-
motivated paradigm-change but by the working-through among faithful
32 b a d i o u , a l a i n

or militant subjects of a truth-procedure whose outcome is, of course,

not epistemically guaranteed in advance but whose validity is all the same
a matter of objective warrant. It is, to say the least, unclear how any such
procedure could possibly work if one subscribes to Meillassouxs itself
obscurely motivated doctrine of infinitised ontological relativity.
Another difference between the two thinkers has to do with Meillassouxs
emergent interest in developing (perhaps more aptly, trying out) a specu-
lative theology based on the same line of argument. This involves the idea
that even if, in our presently existing reality, there is nothing that answers
to the name or description God nevertheless there might indeed
must be infinitely numerous worlds amongst the infinitely many infini-
ties thereof in which no laws of nature or anything else would debar such a
being from existence. However playful or doctrinally disengaged, the kind
of thinking here displayed is again maximally remote from Badious mili-
tant atheism and his clear determination that speculative interests, despite
their undeniable centrality to his work, should not do anything that
takes away from the force of its political and intellectual commitments.
The same applies to Badious readings of literature, especially Stphane
Mallarms poetry, which must be seen as very much an integral part of
his overall project since, for better or worse, their approach is predomi-
nantly thematic, rather than formal, and aims to discover in literary texts
an analogue or allegory of his own mathematical, ontological, political
and, of course, art-related interests. When Meillassoux reads Mallarm,
on the other hand, he does so in pursuit of an arcane numerological thesis
that may perhaps be textually warranted or true to Mallarms intent but
which leaves a distinct impression that the poem functions mainly as a
pretext for Meillassouxs conceptual acrobatics.
Despite these divergences of intellectual temperament and orientation
it is worth repeating that Meillassoux owes a great deal to his early mentor
and would surely not have written a book like After Finitude (at any rate
the first, more convincing part) had it not been for Badious example. To
some extent the aforementioned problems may derive from precisely that
affiliation since, as other commentators have noted, they are problems
that also affect Badious work, though in a different form. Thus it is often
hard to grasp how Badious highly abstract mathematical ontology can
be thought to hook up in any convincing way with the various sectors of
reality, whether scientific or political, where they are supposed to have
critical traction. Of course this is a version of the issue that has long
exercised philosophers of mathematics, namely, in the plaintive words of
physicist Eugene Wigner, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics
in the physical sciences. However that issue is rendered especially acute
with thinkers like Badiou and Meillassoux since they each, in different
 b r a s s i e r , r a y 33

ways, raise abstraction or speculation to a high point of philosophic prin-

ciple even while (again in different ways) making large claims concerning
its real-world applicability or purchase.
In Meillassouxs case it is further exacerbated by his seeming lack of
acquaintance with the large body of recent Anglophone work in realist,
especially causal-realist, epistemology and philosophy of science that has
appeared in the wake of old-style logical empiricism. A knowledge of this
work might have helped not only to buttress his own position but also
to strengthen its scientific credentials, provide it with more substantive
metaphysical content, and perhaps prevent or damp down that chronic
oscillation between ultra-realism and a strain of ultra-speculative thought
that, if taken with less than a large pinch of salt, would undermine that
whole project. Indeed one suspects that some of the current excitement
around speculative realism has to do with its coming as such a dra-
matic turn-around after so many movements of Continental (especially
French) thought with a strongly anti-realist, constructivist or correla-
tionist bias.

BRASSIER, RAY

Pete Wolfendale
Ray Brassier is a Scottish philosopher largely responsible for popularis-
ing Meillassouxs work in the Anglophone world. He published one of
the first critical engagements with Meillassouxs work in English and
was the translator of the first English edition of After Finitude. He was
also one of the principal organisers and one of the four speakers at the
infamous Speculative Realism conference at Goldsmiths College in
2007, though he has since distanced himself from that term. He has
consistently criticised what he sees as the avoidance of epistemological
problems in Anglophone Continental philosophy, as well as the ignorance
of and sometimes hostility toward the natural sciences often associated
with it. There is a profound affinity between Brassiers criticisms and
Meillassouxs critique of correlationism, in so far as they both insist
on the necessity of taking the results of natural science literally, but there
is equally an affinity between their positive positions, in so far as they
are both committed to the revival of rationalism in contemporary phi-
losophy. Nevertheless, Brassier has a number of important disagreements
with Meillassoux, some of which have grown more serious as his position
has developed and changed in recent years. We will begin by presenting an
outline of Brassiers thought in his book Nihil Unbound, and the criticisms
34 b r a s s i e r , r a y

of Meillassoux found therein, before addressing how these have developed

since its publication.
Nihil Unbound connects a number of different themes, structured
around the core contention that nihilism is not an existential quandary
but a speculative opportunity (Brassier 2007: xi). He takes it that nihilism
is the logical conclusion of the progressive disenchantment of nature by
science begun in the Enlightenment, through which conceptual thought
comes to be seen as something manifest in causal processes amenable
to naturalistic explanation and normative value comes to be seen as
something projected upon nature by these same processes. This more or
less passive consequence of the work of reason is to be neither opposed
nor ameliorated, but rather to be embraced. However, this differs from
Nietzsches own active nihilism in so far as it does not aim to overcome
the will to truth, because this constitutes the normative core of reason that
drives disenchantment. This point is crucial to Brassiers thought, in so far
as it functions as a fundamental constraint upon what he characterises, fol-
lowing Wilfrid Sellars and Paul and Patricia Churchland, as the project of
replacing the manifest image of man in the world with the scientific image.
The aim of Nihil Unbound is to steer a path between a self-destructive
naturalism that violates this constraint and a soporific correlationism that
preserves rationality at the expense of neutering scientific naturalism.
Although it is possible to see Meillassouxs work as already navigating
this difficult path, Brassier provides two important criticisms that recom-
mend against following him, both of which turn on Meillassouxs responses
to objections to his opening argument that correlationism is incompatible
with the scientifically ratified truth of the arche-fossil. On the one hand,
he maintains that Meillassouxs claim that the arche-fossil is not merely
a lacuna in the given, but rather a lacuna of givenness itself, depends
upon an asymmetry between time and space that can only be motivated
by appealing to a logic of time that supersedes the scientific account of
time in precisely the way that correlationism does. He thus demands that
the non-correlation of thought and being be conceived in non-temporal
terms. On the other hand, he maintains that Meillassouxs claim that any
transcendental structure of thought must be empirically instantiated in an
existent thinker invalidates his own appeal to the intellectual intuition
of absolute contingency. He thus demands that thoughts ability to think
its non-correlation with being must not be premised upon an access to
being that is secured through an ontological privilege.
Brassier meets the first demand by appropriating Francois Laruelles
general account of philosophy as founded upon a decision that divides the
real (being) into an a priori component which constitutes thought and an
a posteriori component that constitutes its object, before uniting the two in
 b r a s s i e r , r a y 35

the form of a pre-established harmony that is sufficient to encompass its

own intelligibility, and deflating it into an account of correlationism more
specifically. He thereby transforms Laruelles non-philosophical suspen-
sion of philosophical decision into a philosophical scision of the correla-
tion between thought and being premised upon the necessity of thoughts
empirical instantiation. The bare fact that the real determines thought in-
the-last-instance is taken to foreclose its intelligibility to thought, in so far
as the distinction between them is operative only from the side of thought
itself. This unilateral duality of thought and the real forms the original
basis of Brassiers transcendental realism.
Brassier meets the second demand by appropriating Alain Badious
rationalist account of thought, in so far as its mathematical abstraction
enables it to preserve the normative core of reason while making possible
a subtractive ontology that obviates the need for an access to being that
reflexively secures its own ontological status. However, he transforms
Badious subtractive approach to being on the basis of the mathemati-
cal thought of the empty set the void by re-founding it upon the
limit-case of scientific comprehension being-nothing the real as
evacuated of all positive content, or as what is common to all stages of
the indefinite process through which science attempts to grasp nature.
Brassier re-articulates this conceptual limit as a metaphysical terminus
extinction the ultimate annihilation of all matter, which he then uses
to reformulate the Freudian death drive as a relation that every material
entity bares to this terminus. This irrevocably unbinds the interests of
reason from the interests of living, liberating the will to truth from the will
to survive, while simultaneously incarnating the indifference of being to
thought that grounds the non-dialectical negativity of unilateral duality.
Whereas After Finitude posits the necessary possibility that everything
can become otherwise (and thereby the necessity that there is something
rather than nothing) as thoughts point of contact with the absolute, Nihil
Unbound posits the inevitability that everything will become nothing as
thoughts subtractive purchase upon the real.
Brassier has departed from the position put forth in Nihil Unbound in
at least three substantial ways since its publication. The first of these is
his rejection of Meillassouxs sympathetic characterisation of the circle
of correlationism as an argument from pragmatic contradiction in favour
of David Stoves characterisation of it as an instance of the fallacy of
equivocation, called the Gem (Brassier 2011: 5664). The realisation
that correlationism is premised upon an equivocation between concepts
and objects motivates a transcendental response to correlationism more
direct than the Laruellian scision attempted in Nihil Unbound, in so far as
the latter also ignores the conceptual content of thought in order to treat
36 b r a s s i e r , r a y

it as an object among others. The second departure is his abandonment of

Badious account of thought as ultimately too abstract to be naturalisti-
cally tractable. The realisation that Badiou and Meillassouxs focus upon
mathematics as the paradigm of rationality leaves them unable to account
for the specificity of empirical science motivates a more concrete analysis
of the empirical instantiation of thought in causal systems that can be
related to their objects through perceptual interactions. The final depar-
ture consists in distinguishing the project of nihilism from the metaphys-
ics of extinction, in so far as the latter depends upon precisely the sort of
pseudo-scientific appeal to temporality that plagues the argument from
the arche-fossil.
Taken together, these departures announce two fundamental shifts:
a shift away from the Cartesian rationalism of Meillassoux and Badiou
toward the rationalism inherent in the German Idealism of Immanuel
Kant and G.W.F. Hegel, and a shift away from the combination of tran-
scendental minimalism and brute realism of Laruelles non-philosophy
to the resurrected Kantianism and thoroughgoing naturalism of Sellars.
These shifts have not modified the core of Brassiers project, which
remains that of preserving and harnessing the intellectual force of nihil-
ism. However, this is no longer simply constrained by the need to protect
the normative force of reason from its own progressive disenchantment of
nature, but is motivated by the need to articulate the relationship between
the normative and the natural as such, or between what Sellars calls the
space of reasons and the space of causes. This involves combining
the general critique of epistemic and categorial givenness provided by
Sellars with the more specific critique of phenomenal selfhood provided
by Thomas Metzinger as the basis of a functionalist account of rational
agency capable of bridging the gap between the transcendental structure
of conceptual norms and their empirical instantiation in the behaviour
of causal systems (see, for example, Brassier 2011). This rigorously anti-
phenomenological approach puts Brassiers current work in even greater
conflict with Meillassouxs, in so far as the latters account of the genesis
of thought from life ex nihilo, and the independence of sensible second-
ary qualities from mathematisable primary qualities that it facilitates,
ultimately preserve much of the phenomenological account of experience
traditionally favoured by correlationism.
 c a n t o r , g e o r g 37

C
CANTOR, GEORG

Paul Livingston
Georg Cantor was the creator of set theory and the modern theory of the
mathematical infinite. His discovery of a rigorous, mathematical way to
treat actually existing infinite sets revolutionised the foundations of math-
ematics as well as philosophical thinking about infinity, with implications
that continue to be actively explored today. Prior to Cantor, philosophers
had argued that the infinite can exist only potentially and never actually
(for example, Aristotle), that the concept of an actually existing infinite
quantity is contradictory or paradoxical in itself (for example, Locke and
Galileo), or that the actual infinite must be identified with the absolute
or the divine, and hence cannot be understood by a finite intellect (for
example, Aquinas) (Moore 2001: 1744, 7583). Against each of these
interpretations, Cantor showed that it is mathematically possible and
useful to discuss an open hierarchy of infinite sets the so-called transfi-
nite hierarchy and that their ordering and relationships could be rigor-
ously modelled and understood.
Around 1874, working on the problem of finding general trigonometric
representations for functions, Cantor discovered that infinite sets of differ-
ing sizes could be distinguished and that the set of natural numbers or pos-
itive whole numbers (1, 2, 3) is smaller than the set of all real numbers
(numbers with indefinitely long decimal parts). This led Cantor to posit
the bases of what would become set theory, and in 1883 he defined a set
(Menge) as any many [Viele] which can be thought of as one, that is, every
totality of definite elements which can be united to a whole through a law,
commenting also that by this I believe I have defined something related
to the Platonic eidos or idea (quoted in Hallett 1986: 33). His definition of
sets allowed him to introduce the concepts of set cardinality, that is, the
size of sets considered in terms of the possibility of putting them into one
to one correspondence with one another, and the power set, which is the
set of all subsets, the arbitrary re-groupings of the elements of a given set.
These ideas led him to be able to prove what has become known as
Cantors Theorem: any set, whether finite or infinite, has a power set that
is strictly larger than itself (in the sense of one-to-one correspondence). In
proving the theorem, Cantor invented the powerful and general technique
38 c a n t o r , g e o r g

of diagonalisation, which later found application in many developments

of set theory and proof theory, including (in a proof-theoretic version)
as one of the central steps in proving Kurt Gdels incompleteness
theorems. Cantor was also able to formulate what became known as the
continuum hypothesis, a hypothesis about the relative size of the set
of natural numbers and the set of real numbers, or of the set of points
on a continuous line. In particular, on one formulation, the continuum
hypothesis holds that there is no set of any transfinite size or cardinality
between that of the natural numbers and that of the real numbers. Cantor
worked unsuccessfully to prove or to refute the continuum hypothesis for
much of the rest of his life, and the problem of the truth or falsity of the
hypothesis sustained set-theoretical research for many decades. It was
finally proved by Gdel (in 1939) and Paul Cohen (in 1963), respectively,
that the continuum hypothesis can neither be refuted nor proven from
standard set-theoretical axioms.
In the first decades of the twentieth century, Cantors ideas were
quickly applied by philosophers and logicians such as Bertrand Russell,
Gottlob Frege and Ernst Zermelo to axiomatise set theory and put all
of mathematics on a firm set-theoretical foundation by showing how
numbers and other mathematical objects could be defined in terms of sets.
However, from the beginning, the development of set theory was beset by
a series of interrelated paradoxes, some of which may have already been
known to Cantor. The most famous of these is Russells paradox, which
states that the set of all sets is not an element of itself (that is, the set is not
an element of itself if it is, and it is an element of itself if it is not). After
Russell pointed out the paradox, set theoreticians have resorted to various
devices to ensure that contradictory sets such as the Russell set cannot
arise or be formed. Most generally, these devices appeal to varieties of the
intuition that a set that would be too big, that is, roughly as big as the
set of all sets, if that were to exist, cannot be formed. Despite (or because
of) this resolution by fiat of the paradoxes in the standard axiomatisation,
their impact has continued to be felt in logical, mathematical and espe-
cially metaphysical thought.
Although Cantor provided, for the first time in history, the rigorous
basis for a mathematical treatment of the infinite, his own views about
the infinite were shaped by theological and religious ideas. In particular,
Cantor distinguished between the mathematical infinite, which he treated
with his theory of the transfinite hierarchy, and the absolute or unin-
creasable infinite, which he identified with God. Perhaps anticipating
or reflecting the set-theoretical paradoxes, Cantor termed the too-large
infinities that cannot exist without contradiction inconsistent multi-
plicities. For example, according to Cantor, the totality of all that can be
 c a n t o r , g e o r g 39

thought is such an inconsistent or absolute infinite, and so cannot be

conceived without contradiction.
In Being and Event, applying his programmatic identification of ontol-
ogy with mathematics in terms of what is called Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory, Alain Badiou argues that the set-theoretical paradoxes of the too-
large infinities demonstrate in a rigorous fashion the non-existence of a
one-all, that is, as is shown by the axioms under the impetus of the para-
doxes, there is no universe or consistent totality of all that exists (Badiou
2007: 2330). Although being in itself, for Badiou, can only be thought
as pure inconsistent multiplicity, every presentable whole results from
the operation of a counting as one, which produces it as a limited and
consistent unity.
In After Finitude, Meillassoux follows Badiou in appealing to Cantors
set theory to establish metaphysical conclusions about infinity and totality.
Meillassoux maintains that Cantors set theory shows that the totalization
of the thinkable can no longer be guaranteed a priori (AF, 103). This
result, according to Meillassoux, has implications for the structure of
modality. In particular, the axioms of post-Cantorian set theory provide
the resources for thinking that the possible is untotalizable (AF, 105).
That is, given the fact of the non-existence of the one-all, there is no
single, total set of possible worlds or scenarios. This, in turn, allows
the disqualification of the necessitarian inference, which deduces the
necessity of physical laws from their apparent stability by reference to a
supposed totality of possibilities accessible to a priori reasoning, and thus
helps to support Meillassouxs own thesis of an overarching absolute and
necessary contingency (AF, 1056).
There are at least two significant problems with Meillassouxs attempt
to apply Cantorian conclusions to support the thesis of absolute contin-
gency (Livingston 2012 1046). First, it is not clear that Cantorian set
theory has any direct application to the theory of possible worlds, or even
if so, what that application demonstrates. Probability is well-defined even
over sets of transfinite cardinality, so the appeal to the transfinite hierarchy
itself cannot block what Meillassoux calls the necessitarian inference,
and even if Cantor is taken to have demonstrated the non-existence of
the set of all sets, it is not clear how considerations about probability are
to be linked to this (non-existent) total set. Second, it is not clear that
Cantors theorem or the set-theoretical paradoxes have to be interpreted
as showing the non-existence of a set of all sets at all. Alternatively, it is
possible and cogent to consider them to demonstrate simply the neces-
sary inconsistency of this totality, and indeed to indicate the kinds of
structural inconsistencies and paradoxes that must arise with the exist-
ence of totalities of certain kinds. But since the structure of inconsistent
40 c a r t e s i a n i n - i t s e l f

t otalities is not simply unthinkable (and indeed can be modelled with what
is called dialetheiac logics, certain non-well-founded set theories, and
formalisations of critical, dialectical and deconstructive thought about
contradiction), it is not clear that either Badiou or Meillassoux is justified
in interpreting Cantorian set theory as excluding this possibility.

CARTESIAN IN-ITSELF

Sebastian Purcell
Rehabilitating the idea of the Cartesian in-itself after the Kantian Critical
project (see Immanuel Kant) as a means for critiquing contemporary
forms of correlationism, such as phenomenology and the linguistic turn
in mid-century Anglo-American philosophy, is the basic metaphysical
objective of Meillassouxs speculative materialism.
The Cartesian in-itself is best understood in relation to the distinction
between primary and secondary qualities, terms which were first
coined by John Locke, but which are clearly present in Ren Descartes
thought. For the latter thinker secondary qualities are those which exist
both in relation to my own conscious perception and the object itself.
For example, if you were to place your hand over a candle flame, the heat
you would feel is something registered in your own consciousness. The
flame itself does not feel the heat. Yet, your own feelings of heat are not
hallucinations because they are prompted by proximity to the flame. This
means that while secondary qualities exist in relation to you, they do not
exist solely in your mind, but also bear some relation to the object. Primary
qualities, by contrast, are those properties of the object that would exist
even if you were not around to perceive them, and which are thus under-
stood to be inseparable from the object. For Descartes these properties
are those that pertain to spatial extension, and so are subject to geometric
proof. They include width, length, movement, depth, size and figure.
Meillassoux generalises Descartes account of primary qualities and
makes it compatible with advances in contemporary mathematics. The
Cartesian in-itself satisfies the following two conditions: it is all the aspects
of the object that can be formulated in mathematical terms, and it is those
aspects that can be meaningfully conceived as properties of the object itself
(AF, 3). By mathematical formulation and meaningfully conceived
Meillassoux intends those aspects that are subject to proof by means of
modern mathematics most basic abstract algebra, namely set theory
in its standard Zermelo-Fraenkel formulation, and standard non-formal
methods of mathematical proof (see Georg Cantor).
 child ( infans ), the 41

Support for the Cartesian in-itself is today often thought untenable

because of what might be called the correlationist critique. It runs thus:
even if you think of an object in mathematical terms, then it is you who are
thinking it. What you are thinking is thus an object for you, and this means
that it is a secondary rather than primary quality. The sort of objectivity
that the Cartesian in-itself maintains, then, is supposed to constitute a
form of objectivity on its own, but it turns out to be a self-contradictory
notion. Instead, the post-Kantian sense of objectivity is more generally
accepted, which maintains that something is objective if its representation
in my mind is universalisable, not independent.
Meillassoux agrees with this critique of the Cartesian in-itself, and
responds in two ways. First, he develops the ancestral argument to show
that the post-Kantian position, correlationism, is itself deeply troubled.
Second, he demonstrates how, from within the correlationist framework,
it is nevertheless possible to make ones way to the outside, by adopting
a strong correlationism and seeing what it must take as absolute, namely
the fact of the contingent relationship of thought and world itself.

CAUSATION

See Hume, David.

CHILD (INFANS), THE

Leon Niemoczynski
According to Meillassouxs ontology described in his theorisation of the
fourth World of justice, the Child can be interpreted to be the birth
of an infant that is the symbol of the rebirth of humanity, or it can be
interpreted as The Child of Man, a mediating Christ-like figure who
brings divinity itself under the universal conditions of contingency (DI,
334). Although Meillassouxs descriptions of the literal birth of the infans
are vague, according to LInexistence divine the birth of the child marks a
key moment in the messianic eschatology (or eschaology as coined in
Immanence of the World Beyond) indicating a knitting together of Greek
reason and Judeo-Christian faith with hope in the contingent conditions of
hyper-chaos that enable future change (IWB, 463).
Meillassoux states that the child represents the God to come present
in humanitys womb (DI, 335). This is to say that humanity can be
42 c o n t i n g e n c y

pregnant with hope for a future to come, to see the birth of a new World,
just as in the past conditions have given birth to Worlds of life, matter
and thought. Thus, the infans represents a spirit of expectation making
each human a forerunner of God (DI, 232). According to Meillassoux,
however, there will always be some ambiguity regarding the birth of the
child during, before, or after the advent of the fourth World of justice.
This is due to the indifferent power of the surcontingent that covers the
predictability of any symbolic birth that is to happen. Regardless of the
unpredictability of this symbolic gesture made by the birth of the child,
Meillassoux ventures that it is a requirement in the advent of the incarna-
tion of universal justice.
The child, or infans in Latin, suggests for Meillassoux the unborn child
or one who does not speak (DI, 225). This symbolisation assures the
impossibility of any specific religious vision for the advent of the fourth
World. The child is the one who teaches us that its power is not the
manifestation of a superior power of providence, but of contingency alone
(DI, 225). The child teaches others that power is not to be had in an authori-
tative transcendent manner in its own right, but is solely an immanent end
(DI, 225). The child also teaches humanity the impossibility of despising
ourselves with respect to what makes us human thus [the child] cannot
be loved as Lord but as one who knows itself to be equal. It is part of
the divine gesture that has made itself human among humans (DI, 225).
In short, the child represents the supreme abandonment of power
during the time in which a Christ-like messianic figure, a mediator,
assumes the power of rebirth, inaugurates a process of bodily resurrec-
tion so that justice can be brought about for the dead, and relinquishes
power once justice is accomplished for which the advent was this events
founding condition. Thus the child is a human mediator between human-
itys current World and universal justice.

CONTINGENCY

Nathan Brown
The centrality of this concept to Meillassouxs enterprise is signalled by
the subtitle of After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. The
primary claim of Meillassouxs philosophy is that only contingency can and
must be thought as absolutely necessary. The absolute, he argues, is the
absolute impossibility of a necessary being (AF, 60). Thus, his effort is to
think contingency in a manner that is speculative rather than either empiri-
cal or metaphysical. Contingency is thought as an absolute, as a property
 c o n t i n g e n c y 43

of the in-itself rather than of observable reality. Yet grasping this absolute
does not require the metaphysical assertion than an absolute entity exists;
on the contrary, it is precisely the impossibility of the existence of such an
entity that delivers the veritable concept of contingency. It is through the
concept of absolute contingency that Meillassoux thus opens an alternative
passage between empiricist scepticism and dogmatic rationalism to that
cleared by Immanuel Kants transcendental philosophy.
Several distinctions are required to isolate the specific concept of
contingency that we find in Meillassouxs work. Contingency must be
distinguished from both facticity and chance. Empirical contingency
must be then distinguished from absolute contingency. Empirical con-
tingency is distinct from facticity in so far as the former is predicated
of everything that can be or not be, occur or not occur, within the world
without contravening the invariants of language and representation
through which the world is given to us (AF, 40). Empirical contingency
is that which, within the framework of these invariants, is not necessarily
the case. Facticity, on the other hand, pertains to the modality of these
invariants themselves: these are factical in so far as we cannot establish
their necessity or contingency. That is, these invariants of language and
representation through which the world is given to us constitute a fact
rather than an absolute since we cannot seem to establish whether or not
they are necessarily the case.
The concept of absolute contingency is to be distinguished from empir-
ical contingency, however, in so far as the former results from converting
the deficit of knowledge implicit in the concept of facticity into a positive
item of knowledge concerning the modality of the real. Facticity can be
legitimately identified with contingency, Meillassoux writes, in so far as
the former must not be thought of as comprising a possibility of ignorance,
but rather as comprising a positive knowledge of everythings capacity-
to-be-other or capacity-not-to-be (AF, 62). The burden of the central
chapter of After Finitude is to demonstrate, by way of anhypothetical
demonstration (AF, 602), that facticity can only be thought as an abso-
lute: one can only remain rationally consistent by thinking those factical
constants apparently governing the world as necessarily unnecessary, and
therefore necessarily subject to the possibility of alteration without reason
(without any higher law or constant governing this alteration). While
empirical contingency (or precariousness) designates the perishability of
determinate entities, a possibility of not-being which must eventually be
realized, absolute contingency (or contingency proper) designates a pure
possibility; one which may never be realized (AF, 62). What is absolutely
contingent is a real possibility that may come to pass for no reason what-
soever, but that also may not come to pass, since nothing necessitates it.
44 c o p e r n i c a n r e v o l u t i o n

Absolute contingency is therefore unbound from the necessary finitude

that governs empirical contingency.
Meillassouxs concept of contingency is further sharpened by its distinc-
tion from chance and virtuality. The paradigm of chance is a throw of the
dice abiding by laws of probability: the outcome of the throw is not deter-
mined, but its indeterminacy is limited by the physical and mathematical
invariance of the context in which it is thrown. Absolute contingency, on
the other hand, breaks with any predetermined set of cases or context of
physical laws that might frame the preconditions of an event; it is thus
capable of affecting the very conditions that allow chance events to occur
and exist (AF, 101). The most technical formulation of this distinction is
offered in Potentiality and Virtuality: Chance is every actualisation of a
potentiality for which there is no univocal instance of determination on the
basis of the initial given conditions. Therefore I will call contingency the
property of an indexed set of cases (not of a case belonging to an indexed
set) of not itself being a case of a set of sets of cases; and virtuality the prop-
erty of every set of cases of emerging within a becoming which is not domi-
nated by any pre-constituted totality of possibles (PV, 72). Contingency is
thus a property of virtuality: it is the condition of all possibilities that occur
outside a pre-constituted totality of possibles.
In both Potentiality and Virtuality and Chapter 4 of After Finitude,
Meillassoux elaborates a mathematical way of rigorously distinguishing
contingency from chance (AF, 104) through the application of Georg
Cantors theory of the transfinite to the sort of probabilitistic reasoning
that has been applied to David Humes problem of induction. It should
be noted that, in doing so, Meillassoux does not ground his concept
of absolute contingency upon an ontological interpretation of Humes
problem of induction. Rather, his argument concerning the implications
of transfinite mathematics is only intended to counter a possible objection
to his anhypothetical proof of the principle of factiality in Chapter 3. In a
word, Meillassouxs mathematically grounded distinction between chance
and contingency aims to displace any recourse to the improbability of
absolutely contingent events on the basis of past experience or any proba-
bilistic reasoning requiring a closed set of cases.

COPERNICAN REVOLUTION

Fabio Gironi
The expression Copernican Revolution refers to the sixteenth-century
definitive rehabilitation of the heliocentric model of the solar system,
 c o p e r n i c a n r e v o l u t i o n 45

generally attributed to the influential work of Polish astronomer Nicolaus

Copernicus. Meillassoux singles it out as a momentous scientific and
philosophical conceptual shift, decisively overthrowing anthropocen-
trism and establishing the epistemic priority of the natural sciences. He
moreover employs the term, and its polemical subversion Ptolemaic
counter-revolution, to construct a critique of the philosophical project
of Immanuel Kant and the post-Kantian tradition, guilty, in Meillassouxs
reading, of a reactive subversion of Copernicus insight.
In the Preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
proposed, by way of clarification of his own transcendental method, an
analogy between it and a number of revolutions in the mathematical and
physical sciences, all singular instances of a general type: a Revolution der
Denkart, a radical shift in our methods or ways of thinking wherein the
rational agent was seen to constitute or put something in the object of
inquiry. Most famously, Kant refers to Copernicus conceptual shift in
astronomy which, as Kants transcendental idealism does, postulates that a
certain kind of activity is to be attributed to the cognising subject, who there-
fore contributes to the phenomenon under examination. As Copernicus,
against common-sense intuitions, attempted to explain the apparent move-
ment of the celestial bodies by having the Earth-bound observer move
across outer space, so Kant, against contemporary epistemological theories,
conceived appearances to depend upon an a priori discursive movement
across our internal conceptual space.
Meillassoux, like numerous commentators before him, criticises
Kants analogy as misconceived. Unlike Copernicus, who demoted the
Earth-bound observer from a privileged to a subordinated position,

Kants philosophical turn amounts to an anthropocentric shift, where the

peculiar modes of cognition of rational agents are given the priority as
unique and uncircumventable modes of access to independent reality.
Preserving the astronomical analogy, Meillassoux argues that Kants
revolution, then, is best described as a Ptolemaic counter-revolution,
considering how the subject is immovably reinscribed at the centre
of the epistemological process. Meillassoux accuses Kant of a reac-
tionary betrayal of the Copernican conceptual turn, subordinating the
factual discoveries of science (which only a naive realist would take
literally) and their speculative import (AF, 120) to the subject-centred
conditions of possibility of any knowledge whatsoever, and thus laying the
foundations of that correlationist transparent cage which for centuries to
follow curtailed the ambition to attain knowledge of objectively existent
non-human reality.
For Meillassoux the Copernican turn, correctly interpreted as untamed
by transcendentalist caveats, indexes the irrevocable unmooring of humans
46 c o r r e l a t i o n i s m

from cosmic centrality, both spatial and conceptual. The modern science
spawned by the encounter between the Copernican demotion of the human
and the Galilean mathematisation of nature is uniquely able to deliver a
non correlational mode of knowing (AF, 119) of the glacial reality indif-
ferent and anterior to human thought, a fiercely n on-correlated great
outdoors (AF, 7), stripped of subject-dependent qualities and reduced to
its mathematically describable primary properties.

CORRELATIONISM

Levi R. Bryant
Meillassouxs concept of correlation is arguably among his most s ignificant
and controversial contributions to philosophy. In After Finitude, he defines
correlation as the idea according to which we only ever have access to the
correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term consid-
ered apart from the other (AF, 5). Although Meillassoux does not himself
specify this, correlationism presumably comes in a variety of different
forms, and is therefore not restricted to theories focused on the relation
between mind and being. Thus the relation between transcendental ego or
lived body and the world in phenomenology would be one variant of corre-
lationism, while the relation between language and being in Wittgenstein,
Derrida and Lacan, or between power and knowledge in Foucault, would
be other variants. In each case we encounter the claim that being cannot be
thought apart from a subject, language or power.
Meillassoux argues that correlationism has been the central notion
of philosophy ever since Immanuel Kant, whose core epistemological
hypothesis is twofold. On the one hand, Kant argues that objects conform
to mind, rather than mind to objects. Kant claimed that in traditional
forms of epistemology the mind was conceived as a mirror that reflects
being as it is in-itself, independent of us. He argues that mind does not
merely reflect reality, but rather actively structures reality. Consequently,
on the other hand, he argues that we can never know reality as it is in itself
apart from us, but only as it appears to us. If the mind takes an active role
in structuring reality (for us) we are unable to know what it is in-itself
because we cannot determine what, in appearances, is a product of our
own minds and what is a feature of things as they are in themselves. This is
because we cannot adopt a third-person perspective that would allow us to
compare things as they appear to us and things as they are in themselves.
Consequently, knowledge is restricted to appearances and we must remain
agnostic as to what being might be like in itself.
 c o r r e l a t i o n i s m 47

The claim that modern philosophy is inspired by Kantian correlationism

is not the claim that most modern philosophers embrace the specific
details of Kants philosophy. Clearly Wittgenstein, for example, does not
adopt Kants account of transcendental categories, pure a priori intuitions,
or the transcendental ego when he speaks of language games. Rather, the
correlationist gesture consists solely in the claim that we can only think the
relation between being and thinking and that therefore our knowledge is
restricted to appearances.
Correlationism is not merely the thesis that we must relate to something
in order to know it. Obviously we had to discover dinosaur fossils to know
anything of the past existence of dinosaurs. For Meillassoux, it is not rela-
tion per se that makes a position correlationist, but rather the assertion of a
very specific, unsurpassable relation. As Meillassoux remarks:

Correlationism rests on an argument as simple as it is powerful, and which can

be formulated in the following way: No X without givenness of X, and no theory
about X without a positing of X. If you speak about something, you speak about
something that is given to you, and posited by you. Consequently, the sentence:
X is, means: X is the correlate of thinking in a Cartesian sense. That is: X is the
correlate of an affection, or a perception, or a conception, or of any subjective act.
To be is to be a correlate, a term of a correlation ... That is why it is impossible to
conceive an absolute X, i.e., an X which would be essentially separate from a subject.
We cant know what the reality of the object in itself is because we cant distinguish
between properties which are supposed to belong to the object and properties belonging to
the subjective access to the object. (SR, 409, my emphasis)

Correlationism is thus not the thesis that we must relate to something in

order to know it, but rather that what we know of anything is true only
for us. In this regard, correlationism is a form of scepticism for it asserts
that whether or not things-in-themselves are this way is something we
can never know because we can only ever know things as they appear to
us, not as they are in themselves. For example, for the correlationist there
is no answer to the question of whether carbon atoms exist apart from us
and whether they decay at such and such a rate because we only ever know
appearances. This is Meillassouxs support for scientific realism. For
the correlationist we are never able to get out of the correlation between
thought and being to determine whether or not carbon itself has these
properties or whether it is thought that bestows these properties, which
is sometimes the view of scientific functionalism. Meillassoux calls this
unsurpassable relation the correlationist circle.
One of Meillassouxs central projects lies in finding a way to break out
of the correlationist circle. He seeks to determine whether it is possible
48 c o r r e l a t i o n i s m : w e a k a n d s t r o n g

to think the absolute or being as it is in-itself apart from mind, and what
characteristics the absolute might possess. Meillassouxs discussion of
ancestrality or statements about time prior to the existence of human
beings is not an argument against correlationism per se, but is designed
to present readily familiar and widely accepted claims about cosmic time
prior to the existence of life and humans that ought not be permissible
within a correlationist framework. If correlationism is true, what entitles
us to make claims about the nature of the universe billions of years prior
to the emergence of life or mind? Meillassoux presents his account of
how we might break out of the correlationist circle in his discussion of the
principle of factiality in After Finitude.

CORRELATIONISM: WEAK AND STRONG

Michael Austin
Correlationism is the often unstated view that being only exists for
subjects, that there is a direct correlate between subjective mind and the
world of objects, or perhaps more accurately, that thinking beings have no
access to the world except by way of cognition, so that any claim to think
or discuss things-in-themselves is taken as either imaginative whimsy or
pure absurdity. Like tea though, correlationism can be taken either weak
or strong. While correlationism broadly understood maintains that we
have access only to the correlate of Thought and Being, it is the possibility
of anything existing outside of the correlate that ultimately allows for the
distinction between weak and strong correlationism. Meillassoux sug-
gests several historical figures as a way of understanding the distinction
between these positions, with the former represented by Immanuel Kant
and Edmund Husserl and the latter by Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin
Heidegger.
Weak correlationism accepts the move of Critical philosophy, claiming
that we must take account of how and what we know prior to any talk
of metaphysics. Where various weak correlationists differ is in what
this taking account of means. For instance, Husserl will maintain that
in order to understand the world, we must grasp it as purely through
experience as possible, through phenomenological description. Through
eidetic reduction, we can capture things in their most abstract, as features
or qualities shared across types, grasping the eidos of things. Beyond this
experience, we can know nothing, but like Kant, Husserlian phenomenol-
ogy will not presume to be equipped to dismiss the possibility of things-
in-themselves. Kants agnostic position concerning the in-itself is more
 c o r r e l a t i o n i s m : w e a k a n d s t r o n g 49

than simply stating that things in the world could be other than what
they are (e.g. this or that thing need not exist necessarily), but tells us that
it is impossible to claimthat things must necessarily appear as they do.
In other words, by saying that while we cannot know things other than
through rational cognition, that is, that it is impossible to know any object
except through the categories of rationality, it remains possible to think
or imagine that things could in-themselves be otherwise, that things may
not be wholly reducible to their mere appearances. What we have access
to, says the weak correlationist, is merely the correlate of thought and
being, that small space where the two converge, while what lies outside of
this convergence remains thinkable but ultimately unknowable. Things-
in-themselves remain forever unknowable to rationality. The noumenal
remains very much an open question for the weak correlationist, as we can
neither affirm nor dismiss anything about things outside of their givenness
to human experience.
The strong correlationist argument picks up from its weak cousin,
namely with the question, why claim there are things-in-themselves
at all? Simply stating that the idea of things-in-themselves is thinkable
and therefore non-contradictory is not enough, as I can think all sorts
of non-contradictory things which most likely do not exist, from uni-
corns to self-transforming machine elves. In fact, Terrence McKennas
tryptamine-induced elf hallucinations make just as much sense as the
mysterious things-in-themselves, argues the strong correlationist, neither
of which exist necessarily by virtue of not being self-contradicting. The
strong correlationist will insist that we must therefore abolish the very
idea of things-in-themselves as incoherent speculation. We know of no
reality, no being, outside of our own thought and to propose that there
even exists such a thing is entirely groundless and presumes knowledge
attained outside of thought to begin with, which is impossible. There is
no agnosticism for the strong correlationist, as there is an absolute conflu-
ence between thought and being, with neither existing without the other
and the possibility of there being one without the other entirely absurd.
What can be said to exist is what we can know (being-for-thought), with
the limit to our thinking being identical to the limits of existents. There
is no objective knowledge, as all knowledge is knowledge of the givenness
of things, that is to say, we know things only in so far as they are for-us.
For the strong correlationist, there can be no being outside of thought,
as the very possibility of such a thing existing is not only incoherent, but
illogical. That is to say, while the weak correlationist accepts the possibil-
ity of a world outside of the correlation of Being and Thought, the strong
correlationist absolutises the correlation itself since our knowledge extends
only to the bare givenness of the world. This means that it is impossible to
50 creation ex nihilo

think the fact that there is a world at all, as our rational discourse extends
only as far as the givenness of such a world, that is, our relation to it.

CREATION EX NIHILO

Peter Gratton
This is a traditional theological/philosophical term meaning creation
from out of nothing. It is most commonly associated with monotheistic
religions wherein a creator God brings forth the universe from nothing.
The concept acts as a bulwark against the problem of the infinite regress
of causes. Meillassoux dissociates the term ex nihilo from its theological
context and argues that if one drops ones belief in causal necessity then
the idea of events emerging from nothing becomes perfectly conceivable.
His case for hyper-chaos, and the novelty it can produce, means he is
committed to a the idea of a universe that is not constrained by a predeter-
mined set of possibilities and can produce events from out of nowhere or
nothing, that is ex nihilo.

D
DEATH

Daniel Sacilotto
For Meillassoux, death or the mortality of the living is first a corollary of
his theses concerning the necessity of contingency of being in general.
In this sense, death designates the possibility of thoughts non-being or,
put differently, the impossibility of its necessity, since the world goes on
without it. Thought in these terms, the possibility of death corresponds
with the materialist attempt to think that which does not depend on thought
for its being. Death is thus named the pure other of ourselves (IRR, 19).
The possible absence of thought would then be an ontological consequence
of the argument for factiality. For if every entity is necessarily contingent,
it follows that the same applies for thought, or the agents of thought.
However, thoughts contingent being seems to operate also as a premise
that supports the argument for factiality, rather than as a consequence
of the latter. It informs a pivotal point in the dialectic proposed by
 d e a t h 51

Meillassoux between the idealist, who absolutises the correlation, and

the speculative materialist, who absolutises the facticity defended by the
correlationist. Idealism resists the claim that we couldnt even think
thoughts non-being, and thus denies that death is impossible. This
renders thought itself absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, the correlationist
insists on the epistemic restraint that is the facticity of thought. According
to the correlationist, we simply do not know whether thought is necessary
or not. And it is this possibility that speculative materialism argues
cannot be taken to be merely for-us, lest we grant the idealist the impos-
sibility of thinking our non-being (AF, 57).
Nevertheless, we should note that all Meillassoux has shown is that in
order for us not to be idealists we must be able to determine that the pos-
sibility of thoughts non-being is absolute rather than relative or for-us.
But his argument does not give reasons to decide between idealism and
speculative materialism, or explain why we ought to reject the absoluteness
of the correlation, beyond the declared avowal of materialism. In order to
go beyond correlationist ignorance, something else is needed. To do this,
Meillassoux lends credence to the correlationists insistence on facticity by
now appealing to our knowledge of our own contingency and mortality. We
know ourselves to be mortal, he claims. In response to the alleged epistemic
modesty of the correlationist, Meillassoux is then able to claim: The very
idea of the difference between the in-itself and the for-us would never
have arisen within you, had you not experienced what is perhaps human
thoughts most remarkable power its capacity to access the possibility of
its own non-being, and thus to know itself to be mortal (AF, 59).
Meillassoux provides no further support for how this knowledge is
gauged, but it clearly conditions the purported derivation of the neces-
sary contingency of all beings, and not only our own. Thus although the
contingency of our thought would apparently follow from the principle
of factiality, the latter actually turns out to presuppose knowledge of the
former.
Looking past this difficulty, it is important to realise that just because
it is necessary that we can die, given the contingency of all beings, it
doesnt follow that we will or must die. Once the principle of factiality is
granted, the prospect of death nevertheless leaves open the possibility of
its non-occurrence. This is crucial for Meillassoux, in so far as the advent
of the fourth World of justice, which is the object of hope in his ethical
programme, requires the possibility of the dead not only being resur-
rected, but joining the living in eternal life and equality. The possibility of
death, tethered to the contingency of being and thought, should thus not
be taken to entail its inevitability, or its incompatibility with the prospect
of eternal life.
52 d e l e u z e , g i l l e s

Finally, in a more metaphorical register, mathematics is described as

complicit with death by virtue of the radical indifference of its formal
ideography to the meanings of natural language, and to the proximate ends
of human life. In so far as it allows the thought of that which exceeds the
horizon of our experience and existence, mathematics grants access to the
Kingdom of death, which is to say, it can think the Cartesian in-itself
or the absolute, that which is not a mere correlate of thought (IRR, 19).

DELEUZE, GILLES

Jeffrey Bell
Gilles Deleuze (19251995) is probably Meillassouxs most important
interlocutor, the philosopher who is both closest to his own concerns
and yet the one with whom he most strongly disagrees. On the one hand,
both Deleuze and Meillassoux place great emphasis on contingency,
and each draws from the work of David Hume in important respects in
order to make the case for contingency. The central thesis and subtitle of
Meillassouxs After Finitude is that the only thing that is necessary is the
necessity of contingency. Deleuze and Guattari, similarly, will call out
in What is Philosophy? against what they label the cult of necessity and
will reaffirm Nietzsches own advocacy of the roll of the dice, the chance
and contingency inseparable from all things. In What is Philosophy? they
will also give philosophy the task of creating concepts, a task that entails
affirming and embracing a fundamental chaos. Similarly for Meillassoux,
chaos, or what he calls hyper-chaos, is fundamental, and the nature and
role of this chaos is one of the principal themes of his own philosophy.
Despite these similarities, there are three points that Meillassoux
singles out where the differences could not be starker. First, whereas
Meillassouxs project sets out to critique what he calls correlationism,
Deleuze, by Meillassouxs lights, actually affirms a strong version of corre-
lationism in that the correlation itself becomes the absolute in Deleuzes
system. With the traditional understanding of correlationism, the real is
always and only real as correlated to a subject that has access to it. One can
entertain the thought of a world without correlation, but then again this
would be a thought and we are once again within the circle of correlation-
ism (hence the problem of ancestrality). Deleuze, Meillassoux argues,
does not even entertain the possibility of a world without correlation,
but absolutises it. He offers a vitalist hypostatization (AF, 64), to use
Meillassouxs term, of this correlation by arguing that all reality is simply
a correlate of a life.
 d e l e u z e , g i l l e s 53

The second point of difference concerns the philosophy of becoming.

According to Meillassoux, one only truly overcomes the cult of necessity
and truly affirms contingency when one abandons any attempt to establish
a philosophy of becoming. The reason for this, Meillassoux claims, is that
absolutising becoming involves affirming contradictory entities an entity
that simultaneously is and is not and yet it is just such entities that are
not contingent for they always include all their possibilities; they cannot
not be since they already presuppose their not being! Deleuzes philoso-
phy of becoming is thus incompatible, Meillassoux concludes, with the
effort to overcome the cult of necessity.
The third and final point of disagreement concerns the principle of
sufficient reason (PSR). Simply put, while Meillassoux rejects the PSR,
Deleuze endorses it. Meillassouxs reason for rejecting the PSR is quite
straightforward: it is a consequence of the necessity of contingency in that
there is no reason for anything being or not being the way it is. Deleuze, by
contrast, is inevitably drawn, Meillassoux believes, to a version of the PSR
by virtue of his own version of strong correlationism. It is thus only by
overcoming correlationism and the related philosophy of becoming, there-
fore, that one can truly support the two points upon which Meillassoux
and Deleuze agree.
Deleuze and Meillassoux are thus so close yet so far away philosophi-
cally, and thus it is no surprise that Meillassoux devotes a fair amount of
energy to contrasting his own position with Deleuzes, beginning with
the strong correlationist label he attaches to Deleuzes project. In his
longest treatment of Deleuze, the essay Subtraction and Contraction,
Meillassoux offers an illuminating and creative take on Deleuzes thought.
Meillassouxs treatment of Deleuze here is very fair and nuanced, but,
as with his teacher Alain Badiou, there is a tendency to read Deleuze as
a dualist, a virtual-actual dualist in this case. These dualist readings are
problematic. For one, the virtual is not, Deleuze makes clear, a separable
reality determinately distinct from the actual. If this were the correct
reading, then the strong correlation between Life taken here as the
virtual writ large and the determinate actualities would indeed be how
to read Deleuze. For the sake of brevity, it should be noted that Gilbert
Simondons work was profoundly influential upon Deleuzes, and an
important part of Simondons philosophical work was to understand the
process of individuation from metastable states. A metastable state is
not a determinate state but is rather the dynamic condition for the pos-
sibility of differentiating between determinately distinct states. There is
a tendency in Meillassouxs reading of Deleuze, as there was in Badious,
to assume a world of two fundamentally distinct and already individu-
ated states the virtual and the actual when in fact it was precisely the
54 d e r i v a t i o n

effort to understand the emergence of individuated states that best char-

acterises Deleuzes entire project. Perhaps the conclusion to draw is that
Meillassoux has in Deleuze a worthy interlocutor.

DERIVATION

This is Meillassouxs technical term for the procedure of uncovering the

conditions of hyper-chaos. A condition revealed through derivation is
known as a figure.

DESCARTES, REN

Devin Zane Shaw

Descartes (15961650) is often considered, especially in the Continental
tradition, as the founding figure of modern philosophy for rejecting the
authority and Aristotelianism of the Scholastics and grounding philoso-
phy on the cogito or thinking subject. The legacy of his work remains a
point of contention in contemporary French philosophy. On the one hand,
for the post-Heideggerian tradition, including Jacques Derrida and Jean-
Luc Nancy, Descartes distinction between thinking substance (cogito)
and extended substance makes possible the technicity that reduces nature
or being to the calculable world of standing reserve. On the other hand,
a number of philosophers influenced by existentialism or Jacques Lacan,
such as Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancire and Slavoj iek, lay claim to the
Cartesian subject to reformulate a radical concept of political subjectivity
and praxis.
Unlike for his predecessors, for Meillassoux the cogito is of secondary
conceptual importance; in After Finitude he focuses on Descartes distinc-
tion between the primary qualities of the in-itself that can be formulated
in mathematical terms and secondary qualities that are subjective and
sensible (see Cartesian in-itself). By desubjectivising nature through
mathematics, Meillassoux argues, Descartes thought provides a model
for speculation that escapes from the correlationist circle. To set out
his speculative position, Meillassoux examines Descartes metaphysical
argument to justify the absolute existence of extended substance, that
is, extended substance in-itself and not for-us. This argument has four
steps: (1) An absolutely perfect being must necessarily exist; (2) Deception
is an imperfection; (3) I have an idea of bodies extended in space; there-
 d e s c a r t e s , r e n 55

fore (4) bodies must exist independently of the cogito, since God is not a
deceiver given that deception is an imperfection.
Meillassoux argues that Descartes metaphysical claims to the specula-
tive problem of the absolute are ultimately untenable. Metaphysics,
on his account, is that type of thinking that holds that the absolute is a
necessary entity or being, such as God, that can be explained through the
principle of sufficient reason. While all metaphysics is speculative,
that is, concerning the absolute, Meillassoux will stake out a position
that he claims is speculative without being metaphysical or correlative,
since first, it does without attempting to demonstrate a necessary being,
and second, it does without relying on the principle of sufficient reason,
as the principle of sufficient reason ultimately fails, since it requires an
infinite regress of reasons for a beings necessity. Rejecting speculative
thought, as correlationism does, leads to the undesirable consequence
of the return of the religious; it legitimates all those discourses [such as
fideism and mysticism] that claim to access an absolute, the only proviso
being that nothing in these discourses resembles a rational justification of
their validity (AF, 445). These discourses can talk about the absolute but
there is no possibility of rationally adjudicating between them thus they
prioritise belief over reason as a means for accessing the absolute.
Though he argues that Descartes metaphysical claims about the
absolute in-itself seem to be irrevocably obsolete, Meillassoux claims
that the speculative solution to demonstrating the intelligibility of the
absolute follows the same procedure. Descartes argument establishes
the existence of a primary absolute from which it derives a derivative
absolute, the absoluteness of mathematics (AF, 30). For Descartes, the
primary absolute is the perfect being that guarantees the existence of
extended bodies that can be described in themselves in mathematical
terms. To avoid falling into dogmatic metaphysics, Meillassoux pro-
poses, we must uncover an absolute necessity that does not reinstate any
form of absolutely necessary entity (AF, 34). He argues that speculative
philosophy must demonstrate the necessary ontological structure of the
absolute rather than a necessary entity. Claiming, as he does, that the
speculative thesis holds the absolute necessity of the contingency of
everything allows him to bypass the use of the principle of sufficient
reason, for the necessity of contingency means that anything could become
otherwise without reason. (However, that the absolute has the ontological
structure of contingency or pure possibility is necessary). Rather than
Descartes necessary God, Meillassoux holds that absolute contingency is
the primary absolute from which it is possible to derive the absolutisation
of mathematics. To complete the Cartesian structure of his speculative
argument, Meillassoux continues by attempting to demonstrate that the
56 d i a - c h r o n i c i t y

derivative absolute is the absolutisation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axi-

omatisation of set theory, which elaborates a specific condition of contin-
gency, namely that absolute contingency is transfinite and non-totalisable.
Despite constructing his speculative argument by analogy to Descartes,
there is a significant difference concerning how they absolutise mathematics.
The difference arises due to the dual meaning of the term derive. In the
case of Descartes, to claim that the absolutisation of mathematics is derived
from God, the primary absolute, means that the existence of extended
substance is dependent upon God. For Meillassoux, derivation is a dem-
onstration which establishes that a statement is a condition of facticity
(AF, 127). Thus his absolutisation of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory elabo-
rates conditions of the ontological structure of absolute contingency as pure
possibility. Nevertheless, statements about the ontological structure of the
absolute, such as only those theories that ratify the non-All harbour an
ontological scope (AF, 127), are a different type of claim from ontical state-
ments, such as that the origin of the universe was 13.5 billion years ago
(AF, 9). It remains to be seen how the ontical absolutisation of mathematics
relates to the ontological absolutisation.

DIA-CHRONICITY

Paul J. Ennis
Toward the final stages of After Finitude Meillassoux discusses the idea of
dia-chronicity as the temporal discrepancy that exists between thinking
and being in terms of both anteriority and ulteriority (AF, 112, italics
removed). The dia-chronic statement is one that refers to non-correlated
events whether we mean by this ancestral statements, as in the opening
chapter of After Finitude, or futural events such as the extinction of our
species.

DIALETHEISM

Raphal Millire
Aristotle, in Book of the Metaphysics, famously states that the same
attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject
in the same respect, and he adds that this idea, known as the principle
of non-contradiction (PNC), is the most certain of all principles
(1005b1924). In After Finitude, Meillassoux draws the outline of an argu-
 d i a l e t h e i s m 57

ment to prove this principle. He writes that such a proof would point
out that paraconsistent logics were not developed in order to account for
actual contradictory facts, but only in order to prevent computers, such as
expert medical systems, from deducing anything whatsoever from contra-
dictory data because of the principle of ex falso quodlibet (AF, 789).
Therefore, he says, paraconsistent logic onlydealswith contradictory state-
ments, and not worldly contradictions; thus it doesnt threaten the idea that
there are no true ontological contradictions, even if we can, for pragmatic
purposes, speak of true logical contradictions.
Meillassoux seems fully aware that paraconsistent logic, in which some
(but not all) contradictions are true, is nothing but a formal system: it has
no bearing, in itself, on reality, and neither can it be used as a metaphysical
thesis to undermine the ontological PNC as found in Aristotle. However,
this shouldnt come as a surprise: arguably, formal systems can never be
used to solve metaphysical issues, and this has nothing to do with the
alleged utilitarian aim of paraconsistent logic as a way to deal with incon-
sistencies in (medical) databases.
Nonetheless, this doesnt mean that a genuine metaphysical thesis
denying the ontological PNC is not defensible; in fact, it has been
minutely advocated as dialetheism, most notably by Richard Routley and
Graham Priest, who coined the term. Dialetheism argues that there are
some sentences such that both they and their negations are true in other
words, there are genuinely true contradictions. Paraconsistent logic does
support dialetheism by showing that its main thesis is logically intelligible,
but the latter is nevertheless independent of the former: indeed, while
paraconsistent logicians provide ways of thinking that some contradictions
are true in some possible worlds, most of them do not really believe that our
world is one of them. Thus dialetheism is a much more radical view, but
Priest has shown at length that it may actually be used to solve classical
paradoxes about time, change and motion (Priest 1987). Moreover, one
cannot rule out dialetheism as easily as Meillassoux thinks; David Lewis,
for instance, acknowledged that his opposition to dialetheism was, in the
end, entirely dogmatic: I am affirming the very thesis that Routley and
Priest have called into question and contrary to the rules of debate
I decline to defend it. Further, I concede that it is indefensible against
their challenge (Lewis 1998: 101).
Interestingly, Priest (1987) also tackled in detail some issues related
to the limits of thought, which are arguably also Meillassouxs main
subject in After Finitude; he has given thought-provoking applications of
dialetheism to such issues, including Berkeleys so-called master argu-
ment (one cannot conceive of an unconceived object), one of the very first
attempts to show how naive realism falls into a pragmatic contradiction
58 d i v i n e i n e x i s t e n c e

as Meillassoux puts it. According to Priest, this pragmatic contradiction

is a true one, typical of the limits of thought; therefore, a correlationist
philosopher is not entitled to conclude that realism is false, but only that
reality (including the very fact of the correlation) is contradictory.

DIVINE INEXISTENCE

Leon Niemoczynski
The Divine Inexistence: An Essay on the Virtual God is the title of
Meillassouxs 1997 doctoral thesis. As he remarked in After Finitude, the
divine inexistence is to be the subject and title of a much larger, forthcom-
ing work, as After Finitude covered only the first 150 pages of the whole
of The Divine Inexistence. In addition to the dissertation, there are two
noteworthy pieces that Meillassoux has published that cover important
topics found in The Divine Inexistence. Those pieces are the essay Spectral
Dilemma and a lengthy book chapter called The Immanence of the
World Beyond.
In all of these texts Meillassoux argues against atheism/theism
(foreach accept and work within the terms of theistic thought), q uestions
a/theism or any God after God a/theological perspective and its
anti-realist fideism, and opposes orthodox onto-theological religion and its
corresponding longing for satisfying transcendence (defined as exteriority
in general) (DI, 8). A more admissible alternative, claims Meillassoux, is a
third option that he calls in different places divinology, simply philosophy,
or irreligion. For Meillassoux, knowledge of Gods e xistence is not con-
strained by the limits of human reason and thusrelegatedto be an object
of faith found within some unknowable noumenal realm (see Immanuel
Kant). Rather, divinology does not reject God at all. It places an imma-
nent form of hope in Gods current inexistence and the potential for this
virtual God to appear in the future. Meillassouxs claim is that philosophy
can believe in God precisely because God does not currently exist.
In After Finitude, Meillassoux concludes that only contingency is itself
necessary. This is important regarding the divine inexistence because
Meillassoux does not accept God in terms of onto-theology, as a
necessary being or causa sui. Because metaphysics deals with necessity
and necessity has been rejected through the principle of factiality, we
cannot admit God (a necessary being) into metaphysical theology de facto.
After the death of God we have no grounds to admit God back into our
ontology if necessity demands that re-appearance by way of faith. Later,
Meillassoux equals his rejection of necessity with the insufficiency of
 d o g m a t i s m 59

reason. If everything has the property of being absolutely contingent, it

does not have to be that way in virtue of its creation, we cannot provide
a sufficient reason as to why something should be some way rather than
another way. Using a principle of insufficient reason, then, Meillassoux
states that there is no reason why anything, including Gods existence, is
necessary, which means there can be no ontological proofs for the exist-
ence of God.
Another important aspect of divine inexistence is Meillassouxs argu-
ment that while he cannot accept the principle of sufficient reason, he
nevertheless does accept the law of non-contradiction. If an entity were
somehow both itself and not itself, that is, self-contradictory, it could
not change, since of course, since its already all that it could be. Thus,
it would a necessary being, since it does not change, yet would defy the
necessity of contingency Meillassoux already derives in the first sections of
After Finitude. This means that anything can appear, without reason, save
for the contradictory.
When we apply this reasoning to God, we find that God as a necessary
being cannot exist. But given the nature of hyper-chaos and the fact
that anything can appear without reason, save for contradictory beings,
Meillassoux is able to state, if there is no law for becoming, then becom-
ing is capable even of God (DI, 6). Thus, God inexists, or, does not
exist now but, in accordance with the principle of factiality, may exist at
some point in the future. God is thus virtual, though neither possible
nor necessary. Rather, Gods possible existence is necessary. Given his
critique of the principle of sufficient reason, which states every effect must
have a cause, Meillassoux states that there can be creation ex nihilo, that
is, effects that arise from no previous cause. He thinks this has occurred in
the three worlds of matter, life and thought. But it is the fourth World
of justice that relates to divine inexistence, since for Meillassoux this
justice requires a divine being capable of the resurrection of the dead.
Therefore, this divine beings appearance, among others, is ethically most
important.

DOGMATISM

Robert S. Gall
Meillassouxs references to dogmatism need to be understood within
the context of Immanuel Kants definitions and analyses of dogmatism
in his Critical philosophy. In The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant defines
dogmatism as:
60 d o g m a t i s m

the presumption that it is possible to make progress with pure knowledge, accord-
ing to principles, from concepts alone ... and that it is possible to do this without
having first investigated in what way and by what right reason has come into pos-
session of these concepts. Dogmatism is thus the dogmatic procedure of reason,
without previous criticism of its own powers. (32 [B xxv], his emphasis)

With Kant, then, dogmatism became synonymous with rationalism and

its attempt to give an absolute description of the world uncontaminated
by experience based upon reason alone. What is dogmatic about such
an attempt is 1) the unquestioned belief that reason is capable of acquiring
and extending knowledge without appeal to experience, and 2) the unques-
tioned belief in the concepts used by reason to extend our knowledge. Kant
rejected both dogmatism (rationalism) and scepticism (empiricism) in
formulating his Critical philosophy that has served, by Meillassouxs own
account, as a blueprint for philosophy since the nineteenth century.
Since Meillassoux aims to revive the Cartesian thesis that we can know
the properties of an object as they are in the object itself in mathematical
terms (see Cartesian in-itself), he recognises that he is obliged to deal
with the charge that he is proposing a return to a pre-critical, dogmatic
metaphysics. He deals with this by trying to redefine our understanding of
dogmatism and its relation to metaphysics and the absolute. Generalising
from the example of Ren Descartes, Meillassoux argues that what
defines dogmatism is the claim that there is some necessary being. In
Descartes philosophy, an absolute, necessary being (God) is deployed
to found a world absolutely outside us, based upon the ontological
argument and tied to the principle of sufficient reason. However, as
Kant has shown us, all claims of a necessary being fail because nothing
can be shown to be necessary by definition. No thing exists just because
of what it is. Rejecting dogmatic metaphysics then means to reject all
real necessity, and a fortiori to reject the principle of sufficient reason, as
well as the ontological argument (AF, 33). That nonetheless leaves open
the possibility of knowing a different kind of absolute (a non-necessary
absolute) in mathematical/geometrical terms. It is this possibility that
Meillassoux pursues in After Finitude. In this way, Meillassoux attempts
to remain an heir of Kant without giving up the notion of an absolute that
is known through (mathematical) reason. However, one of Kants condi-
tions for dogmatic philosophy is that there is no criticism of the powers
of reason within that philosophy. Meillassoux does not appear to question
the powers of reason; he does not question the ability of logic to ground
itself and seems to take it as given that reason is its own justification. To
his Kantian or post-Kantian critics, then, Meillassouxs philosophy would
still qualify as dogmatism.
 e m p i r i c i s m 61

E
EMPIRICISM

Adrian Johnston
Before addressing Meillassouxs positioning vis--vis e mpiricism proper
as an epistemological orientation in philosophy, I should say a few words
about his relations with things empirical, specifically as per the empirical
sciences resting upon a posteriori observation and experimentation. To
begin with, Meillassoux, following French philosopher and historian
of science Alexandre Koyr, singles out Galileo Galilei of 1623s The
Assayer as the one-and-only father of modern science. On this conten-
tious account of the birth of scientific modernity, the Galilean distinction
between primary and secondary properties of observed objects the
former are mathematisable/formalisable and, therefore, supposedly
indicative of the mind-independent real features of natural beings in
and of themselves, whereas the latter are non-quantifiable qualities
perhaps limited to being phenomena peculiar to the observing mind is
the sole locus of origin for the modern sciences. In other words, Koyr
and Meillassoux, like a number of other French thinkers from the
mid-twentieth century to the present, such as Louis Althusser, Jacques
Lacan and Alain Badiou, among others, believe that the essence of sci-
entificity strictly speaking consists in mathematical or mathematical-style
formalisation.
The reaffirmation of this Koyran thesis apropos scientific modernity
already signals Meillassouxs favouring of a French neo-rationalist
epistemology, with Koyrs narrative completely sidelining and ignoring
the 1620 New Organon of British empiricist Francis Bacon. (I will return
to the topic of British empiricism shortly.) Bacons canonical text lays the
foundations of the empirical and experimental approach that has come to
be known as the scientific method. Against Koyr, Meillassoux, etal.,
Bacon, not to mention Galileo as an observer and experimenter, instead
of as a pure mathematician, cannot defensibly be denied the title of (co-)
founding figure of modern science. In fact, it would not be unfair to
say that Meillassouxs version of the distinction between primary and
secondary qualities he opens After Finitude with a declaration that he
intends to revivify and redeploy this early-modern distinction long ago
having fallen out of general philosophical fashion is Cartesian, rather
62 e m p i r i c i s m

than Galilean, or, for that matter, Lockean, with John Locke, another
British empiricist, also adopting this distinction for his own purposes.
Meillassoux seeks to elaborate a rationalist ontology that is both realist
and materialist, one in which knowing subjects truly can know and not
simply think material objects qua asubjective things-in-themselves. As per
the subtitle of Jean-Ren Vernes Critique of Aleatory Reason (1982), a book
influencing the author of After Finitude, Meillassoux too plays Descartes
contra Kant (more precisely, contra the critical, empiricism-inspired
dimensions of Immanuel Kants transcendental idealism). Although
Meillassouxs ontology and philosophical modus operandi owes much more
to rationalism than empiricism, he partly motivates his system-building
endeavours through recourse to the latter as well as to the empirical sci-
ences of nature.
Meillassouxs arche-fossil argumentative device is extrapolated from
those natural sciences studying entities and events presumably predating
the genesis of sentient and/or sapient life. On a realist interpretation, these
experimental, a posteriori sciences refer to beings enjoying actual exist-
ence utterly independent of whatever statuses they might possibly have as
objects-qua-correlates of any consciousness whatsoever. Through recourse
to such disciplines as cosmology and geology Meillassoux emphasises
that most practising scientists are spontaneous robust realists about their
targets of investigation he aims to manoeuvre Kantian and post-Kantian
anti-realists (that is, idealist and phenomenological correlationists) into
confronting a stark binary alternative between either (1) absolutising as
eternal and ubiquitous the subjectivity of the correlationist version of the
subject-object co-relationship or (2) conceding the sentient and sapient
subject and its co-relationships to be non-absolute, namely, to have arisen
contingently in space and time as factical geneses surfacing out of asubjec-
tive real being an sich. Just as the V.I. Lenin of Materialism and Empirio-
Criticism (1908) contends, following Friedrich Engels, that all alternatives
to militant realist materialism boil down in the end to the solipsistic subjec-
tive idealism of George Berkeley, Meillassoux wields his arche-fossil so as
to force various types of correlationists to choose between an anti-realism
resting on an absolutised subject (an understandably unpalatable option
too implausibly extreme and anti-scientific for most of them) or a realism
at least implicit in acknowledging the factical spatio-temporal emergence of
thereby de-absolutised subjects.
Apropos empiricism per se as a philosophical orientation, Meillassoux
leans heavily on David Hume in particular. More precisely, he pro-
poses an ontological construal of Humes problem of induction, a
gesture akin to G.W.F. Hegels speculative move of ontologising Kants
critical-epistemological Transcendental Dialectic. Although Locke

 e s c h a t o l o g y 63

and Hume, unlike other British empiricists such as Bacon, Hobbes

and Berkeley, exhibit a reluctance to indulge in ontology foreshadow-
ing Kants same wariness, Meillassoux insists upon reading Humes
problem as more than merely epistemological. In fact, Meillassoux goes
so far as to claim this assertion is absolutely central to Meillassouxian
ontology that the problem of induction is already its own solution.
In other words, the impossibility of any purported law of nature being
deemed via induction to be a necessary connection qua forever-unbreak-
able rule is a matter of ontological insight rather than epistemological
ignorance. The combination of a realist rendition of the inductive-yet-
mathematised empirical sciences of nature with a related rendition of
Humes problem of induction leads Meillassoux to advance an ontology
(un-)grounded on the core idea of hyper-chaos, namely, the concept
of the omnipotent power of a lawless contingency unconstrained by suf-
ficient reasons as the sole necessity operative across the temporal expanse
of existence. As hyper-chaotic, the being and beings of Meillassouxs
ontology can, at any time, possibly undergo an unimaginably large
number of radical transformations deviating from past and present
observed patterns of behaviour. With his system under-construction
being based on the foundation of a hyper-chaotic ontology, Meillassoux
faces the daunting challenge of defusing the many profound difficulties
this Hume-indebted vision generates.

ESCHAOLOGY

Meillassouxs name for an eschatology based on hyper-chaos as intro-

duced in IWB, 463.

ESCHATOLOGY

Christina Smerick
The word eschatology means, in its literal sense, the study of what is last
as a final resolution or completion. Eschatology therefore focuses upon the
final condition of a being, be that a human being (personal eschatology) or
the entire world (cosmic eschatology). Theistic religions tend to under-
stand time as linear and therefore hold to an expectation of a conclusion
to time, an end in which everything is destroyed and something new is
brought into being, or an end in which everything is redeemed and made
64 e s c h a t o l o g y

new. Theistic religions, particularly Islam and Christianity, sometimes

refer to this as the Day of Judgement.
Eschatology has not only a temporal sense as indicated above but a tele-
ological sense as well. The end is not merely the completion or ending of
a linear temporality but is also a fulfilment of a particular purpose, a com-
pletion of a task or a goal. Despite all appearances, those who adhere to an
eschatological worldview have faith that there is a process or goal in and
for this world that will be achieved by God. Rather than resignation in the
face of suffering and evil, eschatology holds fast to the belief that all will
be redeemed, resurrected, made new, or made clear at the end of history.
Thus, eschatology could be best summarised experientially as audacious
hope, or, more negatively, as insane expectation (a phrase used by David
Hart). Christian eschatology is focused upon here because it resonates
most strongly with Meillassouxs own eschatological writings.
In twentieth-century Christian theology, eschatology once again came
to the fore. Early twentieth-century theologians refocused their attention
upon the insane expectations claimed in Christian doctrine. On the
popular front, eschatology assumed a central position in fundamentalist
movements in America, which themselves were a response to the
historical-critical method of Biblical scholarship popular among academ-
ics at the turn of the century. Fundamentalist eschatology relies upon a
particular interpretation of apocalyptic Biblical literature (apocalypse
meaning an uncovering or revelation) such as the Book of Daniel and the
Book of Revelation.
There are varying forms of fundamentalist eschatology. Dispen sa
tionalism is the belief that God is revealed to humanity at various times,
in various dispensations. Dispensationalism is one version of premil-
lennialism, which holds that the end of this age will inaugurate a time
of peace under the leadership of Christ. Dispensationalism holds that
the last dispensation of God will happen at the millennium, the end of
this present age and the start of a 1,000-year reign under Christs leader-
ship. Premillennialist eschatology holds that the Day of Judgement will
follow this reign. Amillennialism, held by scholars more than laypeople,
argues that Christs reign has already begun and that it began at his
death, resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).
Postmillennialism holds that this present age is progressive, that Christ
will come to reign once the entire world is converted to belief in Him.
While these differences at first may seem to the internal debates of
fanatics, they are not theoretical. They reflect not only what each group
hopes for but also how they view the current conditions of humanity.
If one holds that Christ will come to reign before all are saved, ones
understanding of the meaning and purpose of this age shades toward the
 e s c h a t o l o g y 65

negative. What is happening now is essentially hopeless and purposeless,

because the only hope is Christs coming when all will be made right. Our
own actions have no purpose. A postmillennialist, however, will believe
that our actions contribute to the coming kingdom, and therefore are of
critical importance.
Putting Meillassouxs work into context with the above is no small
feat, especially as he certainly would not identify himself with any of the
aforementioned movements. However, his work focusing upon divine
inexistence and the creation ex nihilo of worlds aligns strangely but
significantly with eschatological concerns expressed in twentieth- and
twenty-first-century Christianity. Most resonant is his argument that
reality is a hyper-chaos that creates ex nihilo worlds, and that a fourth
World of justice is at least logically possible, a world through which God
comes into existence. Therefore, he holds forth an audacious hope that
human beings may become immortal and God may come to reign in this
fourth possible world. While Meillassoux does not hold to a present God,
an existent God, and is thus far removed from anything like an orthodox
Christian or theistic position, he nevertheless hopes for a future God, or
rather for a world to emerge, ex nihilo, in which God does exist. This God
would not be produced from a previous world (of matter, life or thought),
but it is possible in that anything is possible. This possibility, of a world
of Justice, of God, should not remain at the level of theory, however,
but should inform and shape our behaviour in this world without God.
Meillassoux writes: We must revive the extreme hope of eschatology
in order to act and right away in view of an unconditional equality
for all people, whose ultimate realisation no longer depends on us but
on an omnipotent God who guarantees the soundness of our folly
(IWB, 454). His work expresses a personal eschatology in that he sug-
gests that the lives of the dead need completion or fulfilment. His work
expresses a cosmic eschatology in that there could be a world-to-come in
which every life is fulfilled and death is no more. God is not to blame for
the current injustices of the world, for God does not (yet) exist. But God
could exist, in the future, and this is what would make the sufferings of
this world meaningful and at the same time annihilated for this coming
world of justice can only work, for Meillassoux, if death itself dies and the
dead are bodily resurrected all of them.
Placing Meillassouxs philosophical eschatology alongside traditional
theistic eschatologies is obviously problematic. However, the problems or
questions that emerge from a careful reading of any eschatology are the
same, and are ethical in their scope. Meillassoux argues that the extreme
hope of eschatology should shape our behaviour in this world, but that
the creation of this world of justice is not dependent upon any action or
66 e t e r n a l r e c u r r e n c e

happening in this world. In this sense, he echoes both the premillennial

and postmillennial ethical viewpoints, even as they contradict one another.
While Meillassoux is no dispensationalist, in that he does not hold to any
intervention or appearance of God in the worlds we are currently aware
of, he does hold forth the hope for a future dispensation, one that would
be the first coming of God.

ETERNAL RECURRENCE

Daw-Nay Evans
Nietzsche calls the eternal recurrence the greatest weight and the
highest formula of affirmation that is at all attainable (Nietzsche 1974:
341; 1954: 1). He introduces the concept in The Gay Science and Thus
Spoke Zarathustra. Some view it as a philosophical embarrassment, while
others see it as the cornerstone of Nietzsches thought. For those who
view the eternal recurrence as crucial to appreciate Nietzsches thinking,
two different interpretations have emerged. The first contends that the
eternal recurrence is a cosmological theory about the nature of time. The
second contends that the eternal recurrence is a thought experiment that
should be construed as an ethical command akin to Kants categorical
imperative. Despite these internecine battles, there is little doubt that the
eternal recurrence is Nietzsches answer to the problem of nihilism that is
the Platonic-Christian worldview. The latter is static and linear, whereas
the world in which things eternally recur (or are said to recur) is fluid and
cyclical.
The presentation of the eternal recurrence as a true doctrine first
appears in 109 of The Gay Science. This version does not contradict the
more popular, hypothetical version presented in 341 of that same text. As
a cosmological theory, the eternal recurrence is non-teleological. There
is no overarching purpose or aim to time as such. Indeed, the narrative
of progress so prominent in many religious and philosophical traditions
is absent in the eternal recurrence. Without a beginning or an end, this
cyclical theory of time stands in stark contrast to its competitors. As a
consequence, the same things that occurred in the past will infinitely
repeat themselves in the same manner in the future. On this reading, at
least two questions arise. First, given the truth of recurrence, how is it sig-
nificant for my life? When one becomes aware of the truth of recurrence,
it should have transformative power such that you change your behaviour
in the same way you changed it countless times before. In other words,
the moment you become aware of the reality of recurrence is the moment
 e s s e n t i a l s p e c t r e 67

you decide to live in a manner different than you did in the past. Even
though this is a life you have lived numerous times before, you have yet
to live this particular life in its entirety. Thus, you have no idea what your
future entails until you experience it for yourself. Second, what actually
recurs? Some have argued that to save Nietzsche from the fallacy of mis-
placed concreteness we should think of that which eternally recurs as a
reconfiguration of energy as opposed to the repetition of events, ideas and
persons in their concrete sameness. If we move from a classical atomistic
theory of time to a more dynamic energy theory, then what repeats is not
literally the same things of the past but the energy of which those things
are composed. For these reasons, the eternal recurrence is fatalistic but
fatalistic in a way that leaves room for personal growth and change.
As a thought experiment, the eternal recurrence is a test to determine
if we would choose to affirm our life as it has been lived on the assump-
tion that time eternally recurs. For those who view the eternal recur-
rence as more myth than reality, the psychological disposition it should
motivate does not require it to be literally true. There are two ways in
which Nietzsches eternal recurrence is analogous to Kants categorical
imperative. First, both Nietzsche and Kant view their theories as tests.
Just as Kants categorical imperative is a test to determine if our actions
have moral worth, the eternal recurrence is a test to determine if our lives
are worthy of affirmation. Second, both Nietzsche and Kant view their
theories as having descriptive force. Kants categorical imperative follows
from understanding ourselves as rational agents, while Nietzsches eternal
recurrence, even as a thought experiment, follows from taking a fatalistic
worldview seriously. Kant and Nietzsche are different in terms of the
scope and magnitude of their views. Kants ethics is meant to be univer-
sally applicable to all rational agents. Nietzsches ethics, so to speak,
apply to a select few.
Amor fati means accepting things as they are and not wanting them to
be different. For Nietzsche, only those strong enough to stare into the
abyss of a meaningless universe will accept the truth of eternal recurrence
or, alternatively, affirm the idea of eternal recurrence. The challenge is to
view ones life as a totality whose tragedies and triumphs are woven into a
beautiful tapestry to be repeated again and again.

ESSENTIAL SPECTRE

The unmournable dead whose horrific deaths motivate the spectral

dilemma.
68 f a c t

FACT

Robert Jackson
In Meillassouxs system facts play a crucial part in answering the question
as to why there is something rather than nothing, and more specifically
why anything at all did not necessarily have to be. To see why this
might be so, Meillassoux distinguishes, and then shortly after rejects,
two models of the principle of unreason: a Kantian weak model and an
enforced strong model, both of which follow from the two models of
correlationism. The weak Kantian interpretation of factiality suggests
that if something is (as a fact) then it must be contingent without then
entailing that this something must exist. Maybe nothing exists. The
strong interpretation, emphatically endorsed by Meillassoux, demands
that not only is something contingent, but also that there must be con-
tingent things. The weak principle claims that if a fact exists, it must be
contingent, but the strong principle claims facts do not support whether
or not factual things exist.
Now, endorsing the weak principle means endorsing facticity as a fact,
because if nothing existed, there would not be any factual basis for it. This
leads to an unacceptable regress that is self-refuted by the absolute nature
of the strong interpretation, which evacuates all necessity from those facts
and identifies absolute possibility. For if there was a weak arena of factual
things, there will always be the assumption of a second-order realm of
factual things upon which it can change (AF, 74). Supporting that would
require a third order and so on. Therefore, it is not a fact that things exist;
rather it is an absolute necessity that contingent factual things exist. In
order for contingency alone to be necessary, something must exist. This
is a direct consequence of the principle of factiality because the absolute
facticity of everything that exists cannot be thought as a fact. Meillassoux
refers to this as the non-iterability of facticity, that facticity and facts
cannot be applied to themselves (AF, 79).
 f a c t i a l i t y 69

FACTIALITY

Robert Jackson
The principle of factiality (principe de factualit) denotes the final stage
of absolutising the facticity of the correlate. It is the necessity or non-
facticity of facticity. It is also referred to as the principle of unreason. The
typical definition of facticity as Meillassoux uses it is found in the work
of Martin Heidegger. There one understands facticity as the brute, con-
tingent fact of ones existence, which can only be described in terms of its
finitude, and not deduced as something that had to be the case or neces-
sary. Meillassoux is mostly concerned with the facticity of the correlates
contingent existence: that it could be otherwise. Moreover he is especially
concerned with its facticity as an anti-absolutist gesture that only narrows
contingent possibilities for the correlate, that is, there can be no absolute if
facticity is only mine or for me.
Thus his pivotal argument in Chapter 3 of After Finitude is to establish
and expose the contradictory nature of the strong correlationist position,
and convert its facticity into an absolute for speculative materialism,
whilst crucially distinguishing it from absolute idealism. The speculative
materialist thesis is endorsed over idealism, and is favourable, in so far as
the latter cannot pass through the meshes of facticity (AF, 51). Idealist
absolutism maintains that the correlation of being and thought itself is
absolute and necessary. Whilst idealism can only absolutise the necessity
of the correlationist circle, entailing that the in-itself is necessarily consti-
tuted by subjectivist traits, factiality only seeks to absolutise the absolute
other facticity of the correlate, entailing that the absolute other of contin-
gency can be deduced in itself. I can deduce an absolute possibility that
something can happen outside of thought and that a being-other of the
correlates constitutive thought is absolutely possible.
To put it another way, if the facticity of strong correlationism was
believed to be rooted in its finitude, that is, the failure to think the in-
itself, Meillassoux modifies its function as a feature of the in-itself abso-
lutely. It is because of strong correlationisms implicit admission of the
absoluteness of contingency that the unthinkable can occur, and being an
absolute, this entails that nothing, not even the correlationist position, is
necessary. The facticity of the correlate presupposes an absolute within
it. Therefore, not only is the correlate absolutely contingent, but rational
thought can go one further, and know that reality is, in itself, absolutely
contingent. The principle of factiality thus evacuates necessity from
absolutely everything that exists and paradoxically only contingency
alone is absolutely necessary.
70 f e r v o u r

In separating speculative materialism from idealism, Meillassoux

believes he has introduced an entirely new absolute which simultaneously
defeats the sceptical finitude of the facticity, and transforms its blind spot
into an absolute knowledge of the things themselves. His strategy there-
fore hinges on the ability of the speculative materialist to convince the
correlationist that his position conceals absolute contingency, namely that
there is no reason why the correlationist must exist indefinitely. Thusthe
speculative materialist defeats the idealist (who absolutises the correla-
tion), the dogmatic metaphysician and naive realist (who thinks that there
must be a hidden reason for facticity in reality itself) and the correlation-
ist (who can only de-absolutise facticity, by postulating it for us and not
in-itself). If the strong correlationist remains sceptical of this and seeks to
de-absolutise factiality, he can only do so on the basis of re-introducing it:
by affirming the absolute possibility of everything and therefore implicitly
presupposing the absolute.

FERVOUR

The manner of being belonging to the vectorial subject oriented toward

bringing the fourth World of justice into being.

FICHTE, JOHANN GOTTLIEB

Devin Zane Shaw

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (17621814) is best-known for his The Science of
Knowledge (1794), in which he set out his doctrine of a system of tran-
scendental idealism grounded in the activity of the absolute I. Rather than
evaluating Fichtes philosophy as ultimately idealist or realist, which has
been the subject of recent debate, Meillassoux claims that The Science
of Knowledge is the chef-doeuvre (or masterpiece) of correlationism
(SR, 409). In it Fichte attempts to show that all versions of realism
fall victim to a pragmatic contradiction: after positing the absolute I, he
proceeds to show that any attempt to think the thing-in-itself leads to
a contradiction, that is, it must make recourse to the act of thinking of
the in-itself. Meillassoux argues that speculative materialism must
demonstrate that the correlationists reliance on facticity, in Fichtes
terms, freedom, entails a pragmatic contradiction in so far as it implicitly
absolutises facticity.
 f i d e i s m 71

Fichtes work follows Immanuel Kants suggestion in the Critique of

Practical Reason (1781) that it should be possible to derive both theoretical
and practical reason from a common principle, which Fichte posits as the
absolute I. In addition to the absolute I, in Part I of The Science of Knowledge
he proposes two other principles, that of opposition and of ground. The
three principles have, on his account, ontological, ethical, epistemological
and methodological implications (we will here consider only the onto-
logicaland epistemological implications). Fichte posits the absolute I as an
infiniteand unconditioned activity in both form and content that functions
as a regulative ideal, while he also attempts to deduce from this activity
the categories put forward by Kant in Critique of Pure Reason (1781). For
example, from the first three principles, the principles of identity, opposi-
tion and ground, Fichte argues we can deduce the categories of reality,
negation and limitation as moments of the selfs activity.
The crucial moment of correlation occurs when Fichte posits the prin-
ciple of opposition, which opposes the not-self to the self. (Technically
speaking, he writes that the proposition ~A is not equal to A has its
transcendental basis in the not-self, just as the proposition of identity
A=A has its transcendental basis in the activity of the absolute I.) While
formally the not-self is unconditioned, its content is conditioned by the
first principle of the system, the selfs activity. While his account sug-
gests that the self and not-self are unconditionally opposed, Fichte argues
that this opposition is overcome by the first synthesis in the system, the
principle of ground, which demonstrates that the self and not-self interact
through mutual limitation. It is possible to demonstrate that Fichte is a
correlationist because he holds that the not-self must be grounded in the
selfs activity before any form of objectivity is possible: in order to set
up something as an object, I have to know this already; hence it must lie
initially in myself, the presenter, in advance of any possible experience
(Fichte 1982: 109).

FIDEISM

Paul OMahoney
Fideism refers to the belief that human reason cannot attain certainty in
metaphysical, religious or moral matters, and that consequently beliefs
formed in these areas must in large measure be a matter of faith.
Historically, there have been prominent fideist strains in Catholicism, but
the Church today proscribes the doctrine, holding faith to be rationally
informed rather than wholly independent of reason. This is worth record-
72 f i d e i s m

ing because Meillassoux sees the influence of this historical, religious

phenomenon in contemporary fideism. His claim is that contemporary
fideism is the outcome of a sceptico-fideist tradition inaugurated by
Montaigne, who is called its founding father. The classical document
of Montaignes fideism is his Apology for Raymond Sebond. There,
Montaigne explicitly acknowledges his debt to and admiration for classical
scepticism, and defends adherence to traditional, historically transmitted
religion or morality on the grounds that unaided reason cannot establish
final certainty about such things. This tradition is considerably radicalised
by the sceptical arguments of David Hume.
Humes critique undermines human reason, denying it the potential to
attain certainty in matters of fact; most famously, he denied the evident
necessity of causal relations. It is Immanuel Kants response to Hume,
however, which is the stronger spur to fideism. In salvaging necessity by
making causality one of the categories of human reason, and restricting
reasons province to phenomena, rendering inaccessible the noumena or
the unknowable things-in-themselves, Kant instituted what Meillassoux
calls correlationism. His Copernican Revolution is thus the anteced-
ent of twentieth-century anti-realist traditions (see Ptolemaic counter-
revolution). Contemporary fideism is for Meillassoux essential or
fundamental. It is a consequence of a shift from Kants position, where
the thing-in-itself is unknowable but thinkable, to one where it is even
deemed unthinkable. Any absolute is therefore categorically closed
off to thought or reason. This is strong correlationism, where Kants
was weak, and Meillassoux makes strong correlationism a synonym for
fideism. The thinkers he implicates most strongly in the rise of fideism
are Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger, two of the figures most com-
monly associated with what Richard Rorty called the linguistic turn in
twentieth-century philosophy. They are implicated in what is called by
Meillassoux communitarian or intersubjective solipsism, where inter-
subjective agreement is posited as the only possible or available standard
for what counts as true.
With the sceptical critique of metaphysics leading to the undermining
of human reason, and the denial of its ability to achieve absolute knowl-
edge, the consequence is that belief in the power or superiority of reason
to faith becomes itself a matter of faith since it cant be proved: fideism
becomes fundamental.
 f i g u r e 73

FIGURE

Fintan Neylan
A core concern of Meillassoux is discerning what properties we may estab-
lish about the absolute. Because Meillassoux conceives the absolute in the
terms of its classical meaning, that is, as mind-independence, the proper-
ties we may derive must be thinkable by us, but not relative to us. Such
non-relative properties are determined by establishing what he calls figures
and he argues that speculative materialism can derive a number of
them. Traditionally the goal of deducing absolute properties was achieved
through positing necessary metaphysical entities, but ever since Immanuel
Kant this route has been barred. Although agreeing with Kants critique
of metaphysics, Meillassoux points out that his Critical philosophy went
too far in its disqualification of all knowable m ind-independence. For
what Kant missed is that there is a non-metaphysical mind-independence
which speculation can access when it grasps the absolute.
In grasping absolute contingency, speculation may discover certain
features of it: while it is not subject to any higher rule of restraint, there
are instances in which chaos limits itself. Not arbitrary binds, these con-
straints are conditions which even hyper-chaos must not breach. It is
within the capacity of speculation to establish certain statements about
hyper-chaos as instances of such auto-limitation, and hence as conditions
for its existence. These conditions of hyper-chaos are known as figures.
Because such conditions would be invariant across any possible world
which hyper-chaos can muster, the properties of the absolute which those
statements express may be considered absolute, mind-independent prop-
erties. As these conditions, figures give a non-metaphysical account of
mind-independence because they are properties which must hold regard-
less of any situation hyper-chaos manifests.
After Finitude identifies three such figures to be demonstrated: that
the absolute is non-contradictory, that the absolute exists, and finally
that mathematics discourse has both absolute scope and that it requires
possibility to be untotalisable. While the initial two figures are derived as
an immediate consequence of hyper-chaos, this last condition about math-
ematics is an example of how figures are to guide the project of speculative
materialism in future works. The speculative method is defined as the
procedure whereby figures are discerned in order to overcome difficulties
encountered by factial ontology. Thus mathematics ability to discuss
mind-independent entities and the structure of possibility is identified as
a condition in order to resolve the question of how the mathematical sci-
ences are possible the central concern of After Finitude.
74 f i n i t u d e

If we grant the last of these will be proven, through figures speculative

materialism establishes the outlines of its mind-independent ontology.
For it thus states these three properties (non-contradiction, existence,
and the capacity of mind-independence and possibility to be expressed
in mathematics) are properties of the absolute, holding regardless of the
existence of any other entity.

FINITUDE

Daniel Sacilotto
In its broadest sense, finitude designates an entire configuration of
philosophical thought, roughly corresponding with the emergence in
modernity of what Meillassoux names correlationism, and which
becomes radicalised and reiterated throughout the twentieth century in
various forms. In its germinal weak or Kantian form, the thesis of finitude
designates fundamentally an epistemic limitation in the possibilities open
to the transcendental subject. This constraint has at least two salient
characteristics. First, it exemplifies what Immanuel Kant designates as
the facticity of thinking, and which marks the foreclosure of thought
given the conditions of the categories of understanding. Thus, although
we can have a priori knowledge about the twelve categories that structure
the understanding, and consequentially the way in which things must
appear to us in judgement, we are in principle barred from knowing
why we have twelve categories and why things appear in the way they
do. These conditions are merely given and accessible to us, but we are
foreclosed access to the reasons for why these conditions obtain thus.
Similarly, on the side of intuition or perception understood in the widest
sense, the subject is constrained by the receptivity of the senses, which
for Kant anchors the faculties to the external world as well as ones own
gaze upon the life of ones mind. In contrast, infinitude is conceived in
terms of the absence of such constraints. Thus the mind of God is said
to be infinite in itspower in so far as it is subject to no reasons which it
does not know (it is not factical), and in so far as his thought produces
the thing thought (it is not constrained by the senses onto an external
world).
Finitude has a second, properly ontological dimension, correlated to
what Meillassoux calls the contingency of being or the entity, that is,
the possible non-being of that which is. This is precisely the aspect that
becomes exploited later by the strong correlationists, for whom factic-
ity, not just in terms of our epistemic limitations, must be recognised,
 f i n i t u d e 75

more radically, in its ontological scope. Canonically, Martin Heidegger

conceives of Daseins existence as properly individuated through the
(non)-event of death, where the temporal phenomenological horizon that
constitutes its being-in-the-world is definitively closed. It is thus the event
of death or the finite contingency of Daseins being that marks that experi-
ence as its own. For Meillassoux, to go after finitude requires that we
overcome both the epistemic and ontological constraints described in cor-
relationist philosophy. In a first moment, Meillassouxs argument for the
principle of factiality seeks to establish the possibility of a knowledge of
the absolute, precisely by recognising facticity as an ontological absolute
rather than a mere epistemic constraint (AF, 59). Ontologising scepti-
cal doubts raised by David Hume and others, Meillassoux thus takes
thoughts inability to find reasons for its own being as evincing the fact
that there just are no reasons for things to be. This is precisely the thesis
of factiality, according to which what we can know absolutely is that things
are necessarily contingent, giving knowledge of an ontological principle
that extends beyond that which is relative to the subject. And since the
argument for factiality is meant to prove the necessity of the contingency
of every being and law, it follows that the subject must likewise be contin-
gent, that is, it must be mortal.
However, the overcoming of finitude has another radical, ontological
dimension. In the course of showing that the laws of nature are them-
selves contingent, Meillassoux seeks to show that the necessary contin-
gency of every being and law in principle leaves open the possibility that
the mortality of human life may itself be subject to change (see death).
But doesnt the apparent stability of laws, and thus our phenomenologi-
cal experience of death, attest to their probable occurrence, if not their
necessity? Mortgaging his argument to Alain Badious use of Georg
Cantors Theorem (see set theory), Meillassoux claims that there is no
infinity of all infinities, that one cannot totalise the field of possibili-
ties open to being and so calculate probabilistically that the frequency
or apparent stability of a law or event is a reason for its necessity, or the
likelihood of its recurrence. In other words, it defeats what Meillassoux
calls the frequentialist implication (AF, 103). Although it is not clear
how this set-theoretical operation should yield insight into what is pos-
sible or not in the world, it is clear Meillassoux takes this result to open
the possibility of an eventual transformation of the human beyond its
present mortality. Thus, in the final stage envisaged in his account of
divine inexistence, the advent of the fourth ontological order, the
fourth World of justice,calls for going after finitude for humanity in
another sense, namely by Gods banishing death and thus providing a
world of immortality.
76 f o r m a l i s m

FORMALISM

Paul J. Ennis
The second part of Meillassouxs lecture, Essay on the Derivation of
Galileanism, has the aim of providing a factial derivation that would
legitimate the absolutizing capacity of modern science that is to say,
Galilean science (IRR, 18). The derivation required will be in the form
of the capacity to think a meaningless sign as the minimal condition
of any formal language whether we mean this in logical or mathematical
terms (IRR, 18). The derivation will function by establishing that there is
a bond between the meaningless sign, sometimes called the empty sign,
and absolute contingency.
Meillassoux provides us with a new distinction in this lecture. The
properties constitutive of the primary absolute are now named primo-
absolutising properties (IRR, 18). For instance, facticity (in his sense) and
non-contradiction are primo-absolutising properties that apply to all enti-
ties. This is the absolute considered in the ontological register. Deutero-
absolutising properties are those related to the derivate or secondary
absolute and they are absolute separation and persistence (IRR, 19). This
is the ontic register. The ability to generate deutero-absolutising state-
ments is his focus in this essay, but it is approached with the first type in
mind. To grasp the latter Meillassoux wishes to find a criterion of formal
languages and, in particular, to identify one belonging to mathematics
that would help explain its relationship to absolute contingency (IRR, 20).
Meillassoux tells us we will be discussing logico-mathematics in the
modern sense of formalism, that is, post-Hilbert. What is the general
feature of all mathematical formalism? Meillassoux looks at the example
of set theory in its standard Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axiomatic form
(IRR, 20). He characterises it as a first-order logic with a foundational
role for mathematics and claims that it differs from the sense of axiomatic
we find in Euclid. He portrays the Euclidean approach as one that begins
with definitions, then establishes postulates, and then states its axioms.
The definitions precede the axioms and this, for Meillassoux, distin-
guishes Hilberts formal axiomatic from Euclids. In modern formalism
one does not begin with any initial definition (IRR, 21). We have undefined
terms subject to specific relations. For instance, in set theory we have
base-signs as meaningless signs (for example, ) naming undefined sets
(the terms in this context) (IRR, 21). The set is simply this meaning-
less sign with no reference to anything outside itself. Since set theory is
foundational it follows that the meaningless sign is the initial object of
mathematics (IRR, 21). Relations are considered in terms of operator-
 f o u r t h w o r l d o f j u s t i c e 77

signs that perform operations on the base-signs, designated by meaning-

less signs, for example as the sign of membership or V for disjunction
(IRR, 21). Through the manipulation of base-signs by operator-signs we
begin to see how the relations between terms are built up. Formally, then,
we have only relations between signs and never the informal intrusion of
definition or meaning.
Meillassoux claims that the ZF axiomatic can produce sets such as the
empty set, which allows one to construct the succession of ordinals, and
thus to provide a foundation for numeration. The relevant point we can
extract from his treatment of axiomatic set theory is that it becomes pos-
sible to differentiate between the uses of meaningless signs in informal
or formal languages. In informal languages we can have meaningless
signs, decontextualised letters, or randomly constructed words, but the
tendency is to avoid them since the aim of natural language is commu-
nication. In formal languages, however, syntactically, the meaningless
sign plays an essential, structural role in that we depend on them being
undefined (IRR, 23). Formal meaning is, then, the rule-governed use
of meaningless (or non-signifying) syntactical units and for this reason
constitutes the register capable of producing deutero-absolutizing truths
(IRR, 23).

FOURTH WORLD OF JUSTICE

Fintan Neylan
In the face of the existence of pain and suffering, one might imagine that
the rational, non-religious response consists in shrugging ones shoulders
and accepting that this is just how the universe of immanence is, namely,
a random one full of despair and void of hope (see finitude). Even with
his acceptance of a scientific worldview, Meillassoux takes issue with such
despair being regarded as the only rational response. While acknowledging
that the transcendental option of hope usually provided by religions must
be ruled out, he is adamant that this does not strip an immanent ontology
of hope altogether. For despite the actually existing despair we find at
present, through the principle of factiality one can rationally envision a
just world emerging within the current universe.
Factial ontology considers not just the extremities of what is possible
as real, but the import of such non-contradictory possibilities on what
currently exists (see principle of non-contradiction). To the existence
of a world rife with misery, the factial response is that there may emerge a
World free of injustice, seated within the already existing world. Humans,
78 f o u r t h w o r l d o f j u s t i c e

as beings capable of reason, can rationally conceive of hope through this

possible World of justice, and are not required to consign such notions
about a better world to a latent mystical impulse. Through the factial,
justice becomes a possible World that can serve as an object of rational
hope in a universe of suffering. It allows the concept of hope to have
coherence in the current world of pain and not seem like an irrationality.
Ontologically, justice is to appear after the already emerged Worlds of
matter, life and thought. As with the previous three, the World of justice
is to emerge through creation ex nihilo.
For Meillassoux, such an emergence of a World must in some way be an
ex nihilo novelty. In each of the previous emergences, we see an addition
of an element that could not have existed beforehand: the addition of life
to a dead universe of matter and the addition of thought to an unthinking
universe of life. This last World is crucial, for the capacity to know abso-
lute contingency emerges only in thought. This capacity that is afforded
to rational beings forms a core piece of Meillassouxs project, for a World
is defined as that which currently constitutes this capacity and ex nihilo
occurrences as novelties which would further define this capacity. While
it is contingent like everything else, this knowing relationship between a
contingent being and contingency is marked out as that which cannot be
surpassed. With the World of thought comes a bar on the emergence
of additional elements, for to thought there can be nothing added which
would enable a superior manner in which the absolute may be grasped.
The appearance of humans in the World of thought is by no means
an accident, because humans are named as the realisation of this capac-
ity. Having nothing to do with a particular biological make-up, for
Meillassoux the human is a being that can grasp its contingent existence in
relation to the absolute truth of contingency, the realisation of this unsur-
passable relationship. The human is accorded a special place in factial
ontology, for ex nihilo novelties are specified by the fact that they define it.
The emergence of the next World, which Meillassoux argues will be the
World of justice, is complicated by the unsurpassability of the human: as
a World it must involve some form of ex nihilo novelty that further defines
the human, but this novelty is barred from being an addition which would
exceed the World of thought. This complication leads Meillassoux to
suggest that the World of justice would entail the immortality of humans
as its ex nihilo novelty.
Entailed in being human is the awareness of a universal equality
between all rational beings, despite the actual existence of deep inequali-
ties, for example, pain, suffering and unjust death in our current universe.
Hope is both this awareness and an orientation toward the realisation of
such a radical equality, that is, a World of justice.
 f o u r t h w o r l d o f j u s t i c e 79

Meillassoux sets great store by the fact that we can be orientated to a

World that is not yet actual, that we have an idea of justice, a universal
regardless of the fact it does not exist. Because we always hope for justice,
he argues that we are already defined by it. He bolsters this claim by the
fact that, while anything conceivable is possible in the factial, there is only
one possible novelty which would further define the human. In lieu of not
being able to surpass the human, this further defining novelty would have
to be a different style of emergence: instead of an exceeding, the novelty
would consist in redefining what the human actually is, that is, a rebirth
of the human in just form. This recommencement of the human would be
a recompense for our undergoing in the current World events that violate
the strict equality of which we are all aware. In order to actualise justice,
the emergent novelty would be the rebirth of humans as immortal, free
from pain, suffering and early unjust death.
Meillassoux thus inverts the Christian apocalyptic vision in his con-
ception of the coming of a World of justice: it is not an event in which
humanity is judged and reproached, but one of redress and rectification
for the horrors and injustices humans have endured over countless millen-
nia. The World of justice is one where the equality of all rational beings
is finally respected. But the coming of this World is to be of benefit not
only to future generations, but for the dead too: what is hoped for is the
rectification of all injustices past, present and future, which includes
early death. The deceased are to be raised from the grave in order that
the past injustices done to them can be redressed through the bestowal of
immortality.
Thus the World of justice is the only possible World which can further
define the human, one in which immortality would emerge. As a real pos-
sibility, justice defines the human by being an object of hope. It is impor-
tant to stress that Meillassouxs considerations of justice are a detailing
not of one extravagant notion among others but of the only possibility that
adheres to the limits set down by the emergence of the human. For though
its actualisation would be an ontological remaking of the human as just, it
would not be a surpassing. As such, it will be the fourth World to appear
ex nihilo, coming after matter, life and thought.
80 g e r m a n i d e a l i s m

G
GERMAN IDEALISM

Sean J. McGrath
German Idealism began in the last decade of the eighteenth century with
a variety of responses to unresolved questions generated by Immanuel
Kants Critical project. It lasted until the 1840s, with Schellings Berlin
lectures, alternatively considered the completion of German Idealism (as
depicted by Walter Schulz) or the first act in its overcoming (as depicted
by Horst Fuhrmans). One could root the movement in the rejection on
logical, metaphysical and ethical grounds of Immanuel Kants claim
that the objects of human cognition are appearances and not things-in-
themselves. Where Kant seemed to maintain the realism of objects, at
least as a possibility, it was not clear how this was consistent with his
epistemology. If a subject only ever knows phenomena, and if phenomena
are by definition objects for a subject, the conditions of the possibility of
which lie entirely in the a priori structure of transcendental subjectivity
(space, time, the categories of the understanding and the ideas of reason),
what sense could there be to Kants claim that the matter of cognition (by
distinction from its form, which is a priori), that is, sense data, is a poste-
riori and mind-independent?
Fichte first demolished the notion of things-in-themselves on the
ground that a mind-independent object is a contradiction in terms. This
led to the argument, common to Fichte, the early Schelling and Hegel,
that in order for mind to think a limit, it must already be beyond that
limit, on its other side, as it were. It follows that a reason that sets limits for
itself, that is, reason that has achieved transcendental knowledge, is in fact
limitless or absolute. The thesis that mind or spirit posits its own other in
order to overcome it and in that act comes to know itself or realise a richer
mode of operation, which Fichte first formulated and Hegel perfected, is
the basic presupposition of German Idealism. In its inclusion of intuitive
or non-discursive modes of experience as well as its thematisation of the
unconscious, German Idealism was closely bound up with Romanticism.
Nevertheless it would be a mistake to describe German Idealism as the
philosophy of Romanticism since it was not primarily a literary or artistic
endeavour and stood some critical distance from Romantic art, politics
and literature. In histories of philosophy, German Idealism is generally
 g e r m a n i d e a l i s m 81

considered the next step after Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz on the
rationalist side, and Locke, Berkeley and Hume on the empiricist side. As
such it is read as a systematic attempt to heal the split between rational-
ism and empiricism, subjectivity and sensibility. However, the German
idealists created such novel philosophical structures and were possessed of
such seemingly inexhaustible genius that it is a misreading to reduce them
to a response to any previous or contemporaneous intellectual movement.
The German idealist rejection of a real limit to reason precipitated a
resuscitation of metaphysics and inaugurated the most fertile period
for speculative philosophy since the heyday of Greek philosophy. Fichte,
Schelling and Hegel are notable for their systematic treatments of every
dimension of philosophy, from logic to political philosophy.The immedi-
ate reaction to German Idealism, especially in the work of Kierkegaard,
Marx and Nietzsche, should be included in any assessment of its historical
influence since these authors are inconceivable without that against which
they revolted. The inconclusive relation of the parts of Kants Critical
project to one another inspired an intense search for a general system
of philosophy, where system meant, as Karl Leonhard Rheinhold was
the first to point out, that all of its parts could be derived from a single
principle. This first principle could only bethe absolute,the unconditioned
which precedes all conditioned concepts or beings, all that which is limited
by opposites. This assumption made the German idealists sympathetic
to Spinoza and his effort to found philosophy in the concept of the infi-
nite or substance. However, the German idealists criticised Spinozas
insufficiently nuanced account of subjectivity; for Schelling and Hegel,
the absolute must be considered both subject and substance if it is truly
absolute. The failure of German Idealism to achieve an absolute system,
already announced in the lectures of the late Schelling, was the departure
point for the non-foundationalism of Kierkegaard, Marx and Nietzsche.
The rise of German Idealism was closely connected to the panthe-
ism controversy, in which Moses Mendelssohn sought to defend the
Spinozism of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. At issue here was the ques-
tion of whether Spinozas identification of God and nature amounted to
atheism, and more broadly, whether a deductive rationalist philosophy
was compatible with a theistic and morally oriented worldview.Friedrich
Heinrich Jacobi argued that it was not: any attempt to rationally deduce
truth was fatally flawed since God, the truth itself, entirely transcended
reason. Jacobi allied Spinozism with Kants transcendental idealism and
declared that both produce only a pseudo-religiosity, which he called
nihilism, because it amounts to finite reasons denial of anything other
than itself and humanitys worship of its own image. For Jacobi genuine
religion and morality is grounded in the immediate non-conceptual
82 g e r m a n i d e a l i s m

c ertainty in r evelation which the tradition calls faith, not reason. All three
of the German idealists rejected this argument, albeit in different ways,
and insisted that the basic beliefs of Western religion were fully compatible
with a priori reasoning. In Schellings late lectures a concession was made
to Jacobi: a priori reasoning, however necessary, Schelling argued in Berlin
in the 1840s, is merely negative; the real is excluded from it. Our knowl-
edge of the real is always a posteriori and as such a disruption of the ideal.
The paragon of such an interruption is biblical revelation. However, the
late Schelling held that a posteriori revelation can become the foundation
for a new mode of philosophy, which he called positive philosophy, when
its truths are appropriated by reason. Such an appropriation becomes the
ground for a genuine philosophy of history and metaphysical empiricism.
This represented a radical change of perspective for Schelling, who had
started as a supporter of Fichtes idealism. Fichte argued that reasons
other, which he called the not-I, is generated unconsciously or posited
by reason itself, so that in the activity of overcoming its otherness, either
by reducing the object to conceptual knowledge, that is, science, or by
mastering wild nature so as to make it habitable by rational beings, that is,
ethics, reason can come to know itself for what it truly is, not an object but
a pure subject that subsists only in its proper activity. The early Schelling
pursued this thesis in his first major works but then supplemented it, to
Fichtes dismay, with a philosophy of nature, arguing that the unconscious
self-positing subject can also be approached through a systematic study of
nature in itself. Nature understood as endlessly productive ground (which
Schelling called, after Spinoza, natura naturans), by distinction from its
objects produced (natura naturata), is nothing other than a pure activity
that generates limits (finite entities) for the sake of overcoming them.
Nature annuls the finite by sacrificing the individual to the universal,
in organic life, the single organism to the species through reproduc-
tion. Thus the absolute subject and absolute nature coincide in the early
Schelling; they are to be considered as indifferent to one another. Hence
alongside a transcendental philosophy of the subject, such as Fichtes,
Schelling advocated a transcendental philosophy of the object, such as was
being developed in various ways by romantic scientists under the banner
Naturphilosophie.
Along with the poet Hlderlin, Hegel had been Schellings classmate
in Tbingen from 179093. His first work mediated the dispute between
Fichte and Schelling by describing Fichtes work as subjective idealism
by distinction from Schellings objective idealism. Fichtes absolute
subject is a denial of the identity of the I and the not-I, Hegel argued.
Schelling established the identity of the subject and object by means of
his notion of the objectivity of the subject, on the one hand, the subject
 g e r m a n i d e a l i s m 83

as a product of nature, and the subjectivity of the object, on the other,

nature as absolute non-thinged productivity. The truth of the matter
could only be found in a position that was neither subjective nor objective
but maintained the unity of the subject-object or the absolute. Schellings
philosophy prepared the way for such an absolute idealism. Schelling
found Hegels early position entirely congenial to his identity-philosophy,
which was the next stage of his thinking (after transcendental philosophy
and nature-philosophy). To his surprise, when Hegel published his
Phenomenology of Spirit in 1807, Schelling discovered that Hegel rejected
the premise of his identity-philosophy entirely.
Hegel attacked Schellings early notion of the absolute, the ineffable
origin of thought and action that could only be known through intuition,
as obscurantist, and called for a reinstatement of public and discursive
reason. According to the mature Hegel, Schellings conception of the
identity of subject and object elided the distinctions that determine
the different forms of consciousness, distinctions which are crucial for
the concrete universalisation of reason or spirit (Geist). This point has led
non-metaphysical interpreters of Hegel to argue that Hegels is not a phi-
losophy of the absolute at all but rather a much more modest philosophy
of the conditions of intelligibility (John Burbidge, Robert Pippin). In any
case, sublimation (Aufhebung) is the key to Hegels logic and the basis of
his approach to metaphysics and ethics. Reasons essential activity consists
in the negation of that which initially resists it (alternatively sensation,
particularity, nature, art and revelation), which leads to the discovery that
all apparent immediacy is in fact nothing but inchoate or concealed media-
tion. The notion is not an ineffable absolute or a transcendent God but
the concretely experienced truth that reason has no other: the otherness
that it encounters in nature and in itself is nothing other than itself in an
alienated form. Freedom consists in the activity of finding oneself in ones
other. In this regard, Hegels system is a qualified return to Fichte, with
the caveat that the notion need not begin in subjectivity and is not the
apotheosis of the subject: the truth of reason can be discovered anywhere
and is no more subjective than it is objective.
A summary of German Idealism would not be complete without a word
on aesthetics. The anonymously written Oldest Program for a System of
German Idealism, variously attributed to Hlderlin, Schelling or Hegel,
posits that the absolute idea is beauty that is only adequately expressed in
art and mythology. This premise was basic for the early part of Schellings
career. In various ways, the early Schelling argued that art is higher than
discursive philosophy for it alone gives concrete expression to that which
reflection must always hold apart: the ideal and the real, the subject and
the object, freedom and necessity. Hegel rejected this subordination of
84 g o d

philosophy to art and maintained, to the contrary, that art, like its ally,
religion, is mere picture-thinking, a concrete expression of the absolute
idea or notion in an inferior and sensuous form, which is necessary at a
certain stage in the history of spirit but which needs to be cancelled and
preserved (aufgehoben, sublimated) by philosophy.This is the presupposi-
tion for Hegels infamous claim that art comes to an end in the nineteenth
century: its function had been taken over by idealist philosophy.
When Hegel died in 1831, he was without doubt the most influential
thinker of his generation, with a following among both conservatives (right
Hegelians who took the point of the system to be the triumph of reason)
and radicals (left Hegelians who emphasised the necessity of war and
revolution in the dialectic of history). In 1841, Frederick William IV, King
of Prussia, called Schelling to be Hegels successor in Berlin and paid him
the largest salary ever granted a university professor in Germany up to
that time, in the hope that Schelling would purge German intellectual life
of Hegelianism. Schelling had not published in decades. It was, however,
widely known that he had been working on both a critique of Hegel and an
alternative to Hegels system (especially in the Ages of the World drafts and
in the lectures delivered at Erlangen and Munich). On the opening day, the
Berlin lecture hall was filled to capacity with the younger generation, who
were weary of idealism and hungry for change, among them Kierkegaard,
Engels and Bakunin. Most of the auditors left disappointed. While the late
Schelling hardly displaced Hegel in the history of philosophy, his positive
philosophy has recently been recognised by many scholars as the inception
of late nineteenth-century materialism, Marxism and existentialism.
Schellings positive philosophy begins from the assumption that reason
is insufficient to the real; reason is only fully rational when it is ecstatic,
outside itself and receiving the truth of that which it did not itself gener-
ate. In this final act, German Idealism came full circle and returned to the
point of its inception, the notion of self-mediated reason, only to emphati-
cally deny its sufficiency.

GOD

Anthony Paul Smith

The arrival of After Finitude was greeted by many as a corrective to the
so-called theological turn in French philosophy. This theological turn
referred to the renewal of interestin questions of religionby major think-
ers like Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas. Meillassouxs After
Finitude was thought to represent a move away from questions related
 g o d 85

to God, whether they be philosophical or theological in character, as

Meillassoux took explicit aim at a kind of fideism he located as existing
under the postmodern condition of scepticism concerning the possibility
of knowledge of the absolute. This scepticism disempowered philosophy
to respond to religious claims to truth.
While Meillassouxs antipathy toward the nefarious elements of religion
is explicit in After Finitude, especially in his remarks on the anti-scientific
character of religious creationism, it soon became clear that his project
was not atheist in any straightforward sense. It was with some surprise
that readers discovered his unpublished doctoral thesis bore the title
LInexistence divine(Divine Inexistence). Readers were then metwith ideas
arising out of that thesis in the publication of his essay Spectral Dilemma
in English translation in 2008 and the less well-known but expanded
version of the essay, which was published in English as The Immanence
of the World Beyond in 2010. In these essays readers saw the emergence
of a certain naming of God arising out of the outline of the system pre-
sented in After Finitudeand the ethical importance of this conception of
Godfor Meillassouxs project became clearer.
Meillassouxs argument that the only necessity is contingency has as
a consequence that the laws of nature are also grounded upon hyper-
chaos. This leads to a theory of virtualities that may emerge from this
hyper-chaos and Meillassoux claims that among these virtualities we
may also count God. In short, for Meillassoux, God does not exist, but
may emerge and so exist in the future. This has led some philosophers
to criticise him for seemingly sneaking religion back into philosophy.
Most notable amongst these critics is Adrian Johnston, who mockingly
compares this theory to one which would see the possible emergence of a
Flying Spaghetti Monster. Johnstons criticism confuses Meillassouxs
conception of God, a conception which he calls irreligious, with the
current standard theistic conception of God propagated by religious
leaders.
While Meillassouxs irreligious conception of God emerges out of his
theory of hyper-chaos, it is developed primarily in relation to an ethical
problem he names the spectral dilemma. This dilemma arises in rela-
tion to horrific deaths that remain unmourned or for which mourning does
not bring any satisfaction when confronted with the horror of these deaths.
These horrific deaths may be the death of a child, the murder of a people,
or the sacrifice of one generation for the sake of another future generation.
Meillassoux claims the standard atheist and religious responses are differ-
ent forms of despair in the face of these spectres. The first has to give up
hope of absolute justice and the second posits that justice is to be carried
out by a being which has allowed the worst injustices to exist. What
86 g r a n t , i a i n h a m i l t o n

Meillassoux responds to with his vision of a God that may be (or may
come to exist) is not the hope in an all-powerful being to worship. Rather
God is a name for the human hope in an absolute egalitarian justice which
he claims is found in all revolutionary and messianic projects.
While Meillassoux argues for the possibility of a God who may arise in
the future to bring justice, he has not yet gone on to develop a theory of
the character of that God. The name of God is something of a placeholder,
though at points in these essays his conception of God may appear to be
positing simply the standard theistic account of a God who is all-powerful,
all-knowing, eternal, and so on. However, his refutation of the religious
response to suffering includes a rejection of the eternity of God (as it
contravenes the principle that only contingency is necessary), leading
the way to a claim that this irreligious conception of God will require a
new science of the divine to replace theology. Meillassoux calls this new
science divinology, for which his past works appear to provide only a
prolegomena. The future work promises to combine his speculative phi-
losophy with a strong emphasis on a theory of absolute justice in the face
of human suffering.

GRANT, IAIN HAMILTON

Peter Gratton
One of the four original participants in the 2007 speculative realism
conference, Iain Hamilton Grants work is focused on renewing a par-
ticular form of Platonism to get past the problems of correlationism in
Immanuel Kant. He is principally known within speculative realist circles
for Philosophies of Nature after Schelling (2006). His task in this work is to
think a philosophy of nature that is not mechanistic, where nature is more
subject than object. Greatly influenced by F.W.J. Schellings reading of
Plato, Grant contends that nature cannot be the mere correlate of human
thought, but is in fact the productive power of all that is. To articulate
this nature, following Schelling, we must have a speculative physics that
would give us a natural history of its processes, which also remain stub-
bornly irreducible to what can be thought. This history would focus on
processes that deeply unthings or de-objectifies all that is. In this way,
Grant is critical of Graham Harmans object oriented ontology, since
the latter would focus only on what are the ephemeral effects of an under-
lying physics. In other words, his principal argument against Harman is
that the productivity of nature is prior to any particular objects. The mark
of being, then, is power, which upends all substantial forms of being.
 h a r m a n , g r a h a m 87

For Schelling, what was the prius or absolute prior to substances or

things was not a ground or ultimate substance, as in onto-theology,
where one substance (e.g., God) subtends all others, but rather a dyna-
mism that we can never think, since thought itself is a product of that
power and dynamism and thus could only provide a schema that cannot
do justice to this prius. The ultimate ground, then, is a certain becom-
ing that is less a ground than the shifting sands of reality. But Grant is
also critical of those who would make this ungrounding power a form
of vitalism, which he rejects on the basis that it exports the qualities of
the living (and in particular the human) onto being itself. Finally, Grant
is not allergic, like the other speculative realists, to the label of idealism.
His argument is that the infinite idea, the unconditioned, is precisely that
which is prior to and productive of all things, and which, as Plato notes,
cannot be given to the senses. Reading the Plato of the Timaeus, among
other writings, Grant finds that this infinite ungrounding power cannot be
given over to one idea or another on the flip side of materiality, since that
would make the idea finite and conditioned. Thus, through rich readings
of the tradition, Grant finds room to critique correlationism and substance
philosophies, but not a powerful idealism that would critique all forms of
Kantianisms remaining in the twenty-first century.

HARMAN, GRAHAM

Peter Gratton
Harman was one of the original four speakers at the 2007 speculative
realism conference and is perhaps the most inveterate populariser of
the movement through his books and weblog (http://doctorzamalek2.
wordpress.com). One of four self-identified as following object oriented
ontology, along with Timothy Morton, Ian Bogost and Levi Bryant,
Harman has argued that philosophers have either overmined or under-
mined objects. To undermine them means to take objects as mere epi-
phenomena of some deeper effect, as in the powerful nature of which Iain
Hamilton Grant speaks, empiricism, atomisms, and all manner of process
philosophies, as well as materialisms, whether Marxist or the more tradi-
tional varieties. To overmine objects means to treat objects only in so far
as they relate to one another, as in the actants of Bruno Latours mature
88 h e g e l , g. w. f.

philosophy, or the correlationism that also comes under sharp critique

from the other speculative realists. From his earliest work to his most
recent, Harman has argued that objects in themselves are prior to any of
their relations at the sensual level. As such, objects in themselves are indu-
bitably real, but cannot be made the correlates of thought, since we can
only ever access the sensual level of the object. While an import exponent
of Meillassoux in several important works, including Quentin Meillassoux:
Philosophy in the Making (2011), Harman is critical of his work for still
being too correlationist, since Meillassoux uses the correlationist circle as
the starting point for his pivot to the real. And inasmuch as Meillassoux is
given to discussions of the chaotic in-itself and set theoretical insights into
the absolute, he both under- and overmines the objects that Harman has
put at the centre of his work.

HEGEL, G.W.F.

Bart Zantvoort
By identifying himself as a speculative philosopher of the absolute,
Meillassoux unmistakeably and, without doubt, knowingly places himself
in relation to Hegel. Like Hegel, Meillassoux aims to boldly sweep away
the theoretical clutter of scepticism and the critical project of Immanuel
Kant and claim that thought can think the absolute. But, although Hegel
is mentioned in many places in After Finitude, these references are rather
disjointed, and without exception critical. Despite his dismissal of Hegel
as a subjectalist (IRR, 8), their projects are much more similar than
they might at first appear. Most of Meillassouxs criticisms of Hegel are
not new. He claims, firstly, that Hegel is a thinker of absolute identity.
Because Hegel thinks that all finite entities are contradictory he is forced
to conclude that the true is a self-identical whole, in which all differences
are contained (AF, 70). Meillassoux makes the inverse argument that,
because a necessary entity is impossible and a contradictory entity would
be necessary, contradiction is impossible. Secondly, Hegel subordinates
contingency to necessity. For Hegel, according to Meillassoux, the abso-
lute constitutes a rational totality, in which contingency is a necessary
but secondary moment (AF, 80). And finally, Hegel is a metaphysi-
cian, because he postulates a necessary entity, mind or spirit (Geist), as
absolute.
More interesting, however, is the role Hegel plays in the core argu-
ment of After Finitude, the argument for the principle of factiality. This
principle entails that all determinate things are contingent and could be
 h e g e l , g. w. f. 89

otherwise than they are (AF, 79). According to Meillassoux, the correla-
tionist argues, in Kantian fashion, that the laws of nature and logic what
Meillassoux calls the structural invariants of our experience might
appear to be necessary for us, but we cannot know if in reality (in them-
selves) they are actually different from the way they appear to us. But,
Meillassoux argues, this leaves the correlationist fixed on the horns of
a dilemma (AF, 59). Either the correlationist admits that the structural
invariants of our experience could really be otherwise, and that therefore
everything, including the laws of nature and logic, is contingent. Or else,
he has to admit that these laws could not really be otherwise, which means
that they are absolutely necessary. But this is precisely the idealist posi-
tion, which Meillassoux ascribes to Hegel, and which the correlationist
seeks to avoid. According to Meillassoux, Hegels idealism consists in
absolutizing the correlation of thinking and being (AF, 37). While Kant
thinks that the categories that structure our experience are merely a fact
for us we cannot know whether or not they truthfully represent the
world as it is in itself and can therefore only be described, Hegel thinks
that these categories can be deduced, and therefore are proven to be neces-
sary (AF, 38).
Although Meillassoux does not distinguish clearly between the subjec-
tive idealist and the speculative or absolute idealist (AF, 59), it is Hegels
position as described above which is crucial in establishing the principle of
facticity. Meillassoux forces the correlationist to choose between specula-
tive materialism and (Hegelian) idealism. Since he rejects the latter on
the basis of the arguments already given, speculative materialism must be
correct.
While Meillassoux clearly distances himself from Hegel, even as he
takes over his terminology, their positions are similar in a number of ways.
Firstly, although it is true that Hegel thinks the categories of the Logic
(such as being and nothing, identity and difference) are necessary and can
be deduced, isnt Meillassoux doing something similar when he tries to
derive non-trivial knowledge his figures from the principle of factial-
ity (AF, 80)? He demonstrates, firstly, the impossibility of a contradictory
entity, and secondly, the necessary existence of a contingent entity. But
he goes much further than this. The project he outlines in After Finitude,
even if he does not manage to execute it there, is to prove two major
points: firstly, the absolute reach of mathematics, that is, its capacity to
describe the world as it is in itself (see Cartesian in-itself), and secondly,
the absolute and ... unconditionally necessary scope of the Cantorian
transfinite (AF, 127) (see set theory; Georg Cantor). The latter would
allow him to derive the stability of the laws of nature absolutely from the
principle of factiality (AF, 127). But if this stability can be derived, does
90 h e g e l , g. w. f.

this not mean that it is necessary? What is the difference, then, between
the Hegelian deduction and Meillassouxs derivation?
Secondly, one of the core elements of Meillassouxs argument is the
rejection of the principle of sufficient reason. Although Hegel is
undoubtedly a philosopher of reason (Vernunft), he does not subscribe
to the principle of sufficient reason (Grund). As he shows in the section
on Ground in the Science of Logic, every coming into existence of an
entity depends on a moment of irreducible contingency, a groundless
ground that retroactively integrates the conditions for this entity into a
causal chain. Although the existence of a thing or the occurrence of an
event depends on a set of conditions, these conditions do not make the
event necessary. The only reason for something to happen is, ultimately,
just the fact that it happened, or what Meillassoux calls facticity. But
after the event has happened or the thing has come into existence, its
conditions become a necessary part of its causal explanation. In this way,
Hegel allows for contingency while also explaining the obvious existence
of causes in empirical reality, something which one can say Meillassoux
fails to do.
Finally, it could be argued that both Meillassoux and Hegel abolish the
difference between the world as it appears to us and the world as it is in
itself in order to show that thought can think the absolute. Meillassouxs
argument is the following: the correlationist claims that we can only know
things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves. But in order
to make this distinction, while at the same time escaping idealism, the
correlationist has to admit that the laws of logic and nature could really
be otherwise than they are. For Meillassoux, this shows that there is no
unknowable in-itself that serves as a reason or ground for the world we
experience. The facticity of the given is all there is: there is nothing
beneath or beyond the manifest gratuitousness of the given nothing but
the limitless and lawless power of its destruction, emergence or persis-
tence (AF, 63).
This, however, is also Hegels approach, to show that there is no myste-
rious essential world lying behind the given, but that what appears to us is
the world in itself. The separation between thought and reality is, accord-
ing to Hegel, a necessary illusion, born of the frustrations we experience
in exercising our limited capacity for knowledge and action. Hegel thinks
that we can overcome scepticism by showing its origin in the development
of consciousness, and that philosophy can achieve self-transparency of
method, which allows it to think the world as it is in itself while at the same
time retroactively justifying and securing its own procedure. Through a
very different line of reasoning, the points of convergence and divergence
of which remain to be explored, Hegel and Meillassoux thus work toward
 h e i d e g g e r , m a r t i n 91

the same aim, which, in typically Hegelian fashion, Meillassoux invokes in

the last words of After Finitude: the reconciliation of thought and absolute
(AF, 128).

HEIDEGGER, MARTIN

Marie-Eve Morin
For Meillassoux, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger is one of
the chief representatives of strong correlationism. In Being and Time,
Heidegger seeks to raise anew the question of the meaning of Being. He
looks for the horizon in terms of which Being itself can be understood.
Heidegger sees it as necessary to put ontology, the study of beings
qua beings, on a secure footing. Heidegger first turns to an analytic of
Dasein, that is, to a study of this entity that does not just happen to be
but that also displays, in its relation to all entities (including itself), an
understanding of Being that allows it to relate meaningfully to what it
encounters. In seeking to analyse the ontological constitution of Dasein,
Heidegger hopes to gain insight not only into Being, that is, into the
givenness or intelligibility of entities in so far as they are encountered or
understood, but also into the givenness of this intelligibility itself, the
givenness of givenness if one will.
Here, Heideggers correlationism is evident. For Heidegger Being is
only in so far as there is a Dasein that relates meaningfully to entities, and
Dasein is only in so far as it displays this essential relation to Being. In a
similar way, the world is only in so far as Dasein exists, because the world
is neither the sum total of entities nor their container, but the coherent
milieu wherein Dasein assigns itself to a possibility of being (for example,
house building) and through that assignment lights up some entities or
lets them be encountered in one way rather than another. Truth also exists
only in so far as Dasein is, since the uncoveredness of entities that serves as
the basis for a true assertion is dependent upon Daseins understanding of
Being, which lets these entities manifest themselves. Hence, as Heidegger
will say, Newtons laws were not true before Newtons discovery, but
neither were they false. Rather, it is Newtons assertion of the laws of
motion that made entities accessible as obeying (and as having always
obeyed) these laws.
Nevertheless, Heidegger is clear that, while Dasein is the condition
of the appearance or manifestation of entities, these entities are in them-
selves the beings that they are even when there is no Dasein. Reality,
and not real things, is dependent on Dasein. This means that something
92 h u m e , d a v i d

can only manifest itself as real, that is, in its independence from Dasein,
for a Dasein that can let the entity be encountered as what it is in itself.
Furthermore, Daseins unveiling of entities does not mean that they are
merely subjective, but rather that Dasein, because it is not bound to enti-
ties but transcends them, is thrown forth or opens a world or a space of
meaning in which entities are freed to be encountered. Our being-free for
the manifestation of beings allows these beings to be binding for us, to be
the measure of our comportments and assertions.
After Being and Time, Heidegger will abandon the transcendental-
horizonal way of asking about the meaning of Being because it tends to
represent this horizon in an objectifying way as something present that is
projected by human beings. Heidegger realised that this horizon is tempo-
ral and hence includes an essentially hidden, unpresentable side. Despite
this change, Heideggers fundamental question remains the same: how
to think the truth/manifestation not of entities, but of Being itself as the
source of the meaningfulness (light, intelligibility) of entities. Being itself
is now thought as Ereignis, the event that appropriates the human being
for Being, throws the human being into the clearing of Being and calls
upon it to sustain or projectively hold open this opening. Heideggers cor-
relationism remains unchanged: he will say that Being needs the human
while the human being belongs to Being.

HUME, DAVID

Jeffrey Bell
The philosophy of David Hume plays an important role in the argument
of After Finitude, where the entire fourth of five chapters is devoted to
what Meillassoux calls Humes problem. Traditionally this problem
is known as the problem of induction. Meillassoux refers to one of the
oft-cited passages from the Treatise, where this problem becomes most
evident namely, the passage where Hume points out that there is
nothing in the nature of the billiard balls themselves that necessitates where
the struck ball will go once hit. There is nothing contradictory about the
ball going in any of an infinite number of other possible directions. What
leads us to the expectation that the ball will go where it does is that relative
to the totality and set of experiences one has had with respect to billiard
balls, one outcome is more likely than any of the others. If the ball were to
go in an unexpected direction, then we would look for a reason to account
for this. It is the totality of states of affairs that provides us with the reason
that explains any given outcome.
 h u m e , d a v i d 93

To offer another example, if you were to encounter a random person at

the store, you would think nothing of it. Given the totality of ones experi-
ences, this happens every time you go to the store. If you encountered this
person again an hour later at a completely different store, you might note
the coincidence. But if such random, chance encounters were to continue
you would eventually remove from consideration the explanation that they
were random encounters and claim that there is another reason to explain
them namely, you are being stalked. It is only in relationship to the total-
ity of ones experiences that one is provided with a reasonable explanation
for why something is or is not the way it is.
With this Humean understanding of how we go about providing reasons
for that which appears, Meillassoux is a short argumentative step away
from reaching the central conclusion of After Finitude: to wit, the rejection
of the principle of sufficient reason and the affirmation of the neces-
sity of contingency. If the explanations in terms of necessity and contin-
gency both rely upon a totality or set of all experiences, and if we eliminate
the possibility of a totality, then we likewise do away with the capacity
to provide such explanations. This is precisely what Meillassoux does.
Drawing from the theory of the non-All of Georg Cantors set theory,
which is itself a necessary conclusion of mathematics, Meillassoux is led
to his ultimate conclusion that the principle of sufficient reason is false and
hence that only contingency itself is necessary. Nothing has a reason for
being rather than not being.
Despite the importance of Humes arguments in the build-up to
Meillassouxs general conclusions, Humes arguments themselves do
not rely upon the totality or set of ones experiences, and in fact Humes
approach problematises such arguments in that the very notion of identity
itself, whether of an individual or a totality of individuals, is one of the key
problems and concerns of Humes philosophy (and it has received signifi-
cant attention from Hume scholars as well). In the case of the billiard balls
discussed above, it is a synthesis of the mind based upon the resemblance
of particular impressions that does the heavy lifting in Humes arguments,
not the relationship of these syntheses to a totality. Such syntheses,
however, do not give us necessity for Hume but account for our belief
in necessity, which may well be misguided. It is with Immanuel Kant
more than Hume that the importance of a totality of syntheses becomes
a problem (see Kants antinomies of pure reason). Meillassouxs turn to
Hume is a good strategic move, though it reflects Meillassouxs philo-
sophical agenda more than it does Humes philosophy (and perhaps that
is as it should be).
94 h y p e r - c h a o s

HYPER-CHAOS

Robert Jackson
Hyper-chaos is one of the names for Meillassouxs primary absolute
and is used when he wishes to convey its force or power. It resembles
the eternal and lawless possible becoming of every law (AF, 64). As
Meillassoux notes, this conception of absolute is not exactly welcoming.
He dubs our grasping of it a Pyrrhic victory (AF, 64). Unlike the tradi-
tional attributes of an absolute, hyper-chaos doesnt provide us with an
orderly foundation or even an ethical standard. Since it is autonomous
and indifferent anything can happen, without reason, without law, and
without purpose. There is no higher law to govern its reach. Moreover,
it cannot be described as anything fluid, such as flux or becoming, since
this would be to misunderstand the scope of its power: even becoming is
contingent when it comes to hyper-chaos. The possibility of the world
emerging in complete stasis is entirely possible; as is the most frenetic
degree of activity.
This seems paradoxical. For if reality is hyper-chaotic why does it not
appear as such? From the vantage point of thought, causation seems stable
enough, or at least stable enough to retain my experience of consistency.
My fingers do not suddenly turn into wood, nor does the standard model of
physics change incessantly over time, destroying the quantum framework
of everything. It certainly appears that laws do not change, and we can
provide recurring accurate predictions on this basis, that is, until our fal-
libility demands a new law to explain certain contingencies. Meillassouxs
answer is to point to the consequences of the principle of factiality. In
doing so, factiality provides an alternative to the sceptical (David Hume)
and transcendental (Immanuel Kant) approaches to why thought has no
knowledge of any necessary connection between certain events occurring.
What Hume and Kant failed to challenge was their unquestioned posit-
ing of an unfathomable reason behind causation, and they also failed to
unify contingent events with stable ones, that is, how stable events such
as thought and matter emerge from such a putative hyper-chaos. If we
know there is no necessary reason supporting such stability, thought need
not attempt incessantly to grasp a cause for it. Rather it should accept the
knowledge of an acausal absolute.
Meillassoux argues that the stable universe that we experience must be
the result of hyper-chaos and that it is only by way of contingency that
laws are stable. If hyper-chaos continued to emerge with frequently stable
laws, it would make sense that one inferred the existence of a necessary
reason. Yet, this does not disqualify the indeterminate nature of those
 i m m a n e n c e 95

laws when discussing the world in-itself and so it would be a mistake

to suggest that they are necessary. This is not to say that necessary laws
are replaced by other necessary laws. Instead, hyper-chaos is defined by
the lack of any totalisable grand law of necessity, apart from contingency
alone, to ground ontology. Meillassoux concedes that laws of nature do
occur within hyper-chaos, but they do not define the law of hyper-chaos,
which has no law.

I
IDEOLOGY

Paul J. Ennis
Meillassoux links metaphysical necessity with ideology. The ideological
standpoint is to assert that some state of affairs must be one way and cannot
be otherwise. There are many entities that can gain credence from their
association with metaphysical necessity which he defines in this context as
the pretension of proving the existence of a necessary God which, in
turn, leads to the upholding of the necessity of natural laws in our world
or of any other kind of entity for that matter (IWB, 4456). Meillassouxs
own ideological commitments are not always made clear, but a subtle
undercurrent of Marxism runs throughout his work. For instance, he tells
us that the fourth World of justice will resemble Marxs vision of a life
without politics (a communist life, IWB, 473, his emphasis).

IMMANENCE

Jeffrey Bell
As traditionally understood, immanence is how the nature of the reality
of this world is characterised such that it does not depend upon anything
other than this reality itself that is, anything that transcends it. Platos
forms, for example, transcend the particular objects of this world and these
objects depend upon the transcendent forms in order to be the objects
they are the form horseness is the transcendent reality that determines
whether or not a particular object is a horse. Aristotles forms, by contrast,
are immanent to the particular objects that embody these forms, although
96 i m m a n e n c e

the dependency relationship, and hence transcendence, persists within

Aristotles thought as well. It is Spinoza who is generally considered to
be the philosopher who pushed the philosophy of immanence to its most
radical conclusions. In his famous statement Deus sive Natura (God or
Nature), Spinoza is arguing that there is no transcendent reality, that
nature is all there is and nothing, not even God, transcends it.
In his essay, The Immanence of the World Beyond, Meillassoux
challenges some of the key assumptions of this traditional view of imma-
nence. As Meillassoux states it, immanence is not of this world (IWB,
468). On first blush, this may appear to be simply placing an immanence
label on a bottle of transcendence. The reasoning behind this move,
however, is that it is precisely the perspective of our biological lives in
this world that places us in the context of forever thinking what is after or
beyond this life. It is the perspective of finitude that leads us, ineluctably,
to transcendence. The awareness of our being-towards-death as Martin
Heidegger understood it, for example, does not result in an affirmation
of immanence. Rather for Meillassoux death on this view remains that
which forever eludes our grasp. In short, the recognition of our primordial
finitude in Heideggers sense draws upon a relation to that which exceeds
and transcends our grasp, and hence the perspective of worldly finitude
brings transcendence onto the scene.
What about Spinoza and his radical affirmation of the infinite nature
of an immanent substance? For Meillassoux the answer to this question
hinges upon how one understands the relationship between immanence
and this life. In this context, Meillassoux argues that it is Nietzsche who
truly grasps the relationship between this life and immanence when he
puts forth the idea of eternal recurrence. The experience of eternal
recurrence, Meillassoux argues, is not the experience of death but of
immortality (IWB, 468). On Meillassouxs reading this is not an immor-
tality of a life beyond this life, a life that continues on after this life has
ended, but is the continuation without end of this very life, and in all its
prosaic everydayness as Meillassoux puts it (IWB, 469). It is this attitude
that is beyond the this-worldly perspective in that it no longer embraces
the finitude of this life but instead affirms the infinitude and absolute
nature of this life and all that is. Meillassoux thus concludes, apropos
Spinoza and Nietzsche, that, Only he who can bear the idea of this one
and only life which is constantly recast in its prosaic-ness without any
hope of escaping via the transcendent or nothingness, experiences radical
immanence (IWB, 469).
Meillassouxs understanding of immanence follows directly from his
thesis regarding hyper-chaos and the necessity of contingency that
follows from it. Key to Meillassouxs position is his rejection of the prin-
 i m m a n e n c e 97

ciple of sufficient reason (PSR). For Spinoza, the PSR is integral, for if
nature could be other than the way it is then it would be limited and deter-
mined by the modal possibility that it is not, which contradicts Spinozas
affirmation of an absolutely infinite substance namely, God or Nature.
Since all determination entails negation for Spinoza, an absolutely infinite
substance cannot be other than what it is for then it becomes limited by
the possibility of what it is not. Spinozas philosophy of immanence is
therefore fundamentally tied to affirming the PSR.
It is precisely the concern for substance being other than what it is
that Meillassoux rejects. In fact, a pivotal consequence of the rejection of
the PSR is that there is no reason at all for nature being or not being the
way itis. Key to this argument is the principle of non-contradiction.
Spinozist monism, for example, is a consequence of the law of non-con-
tradiction in that if we propose more than one absolutely infinite substance
then this would mean that this absolutely infinite substance is limited by a
substance that it is not, and hence it is not absolutely infinite after all. Since
this violates the law of non-contradiction the initial proposal must be false
and thus there is only one absolutely infinite substance. Meillassoux also
calls upon the law of non-contradiction but what supports it for him is the
very possibility that each and every thing could be other than it is, and for
no reason, including, somewhat paradoxically, the law of non-contradic-
tion itself. Without the PSR, we cannot provide a rational ground for the
impossibility of a contradictory being, but if we were to presuppose such
a contradictory being then it would become a necessary being for it would
always already entail what it is not. We could never imagine or think of a
thing as not being its other, for as a contradictory entity it would always
already involve its contradictory opposite. A consequence of the thesis
regarding the necessity of contingency, therefore, is Meillassouxs argu-
ment for the law of non-contradiction, and one that does not rely upon the
PSR, as does Spinoza.
For immanence to be beyond this world, therefore, is not for it to be a
possibility other than the actuality of this life, but rather radical immanence
is for life to have no reason that limits it to being or not being the life or
thing that it is. It is this radical equaliser of hyper-chaos and unreason that
comes in the wake of the absence of the PSR that brings us to immanence.
This was precisely the core insight of Nietzsches eternal recurrence and it
is the true meaning of radical immanence according to Meillassoux.
Immanence, however, need not presuppose the radical unreason
of a hyper-chaos that is the necessity that everything has no reason
for being or not being. Crucial to this conclusion was Meillassouxs
response to David Humes problem, whereby if we drop reference to a
totality or set of possibilities, then the explanatory power of the modal
98 i m m o r t a l i t y

istinction between necessity and contingency vanishes and we are left

d
with radical, necessary contingency. From here Meillassoux derives the
principle of non-contradiction and his understanding of radical imma-
nence. Meillassouxs approach presupposes two key elements: first, it
requires a notion of the non-whole that is irreducible to a determinate
all or totality (or set thereof); and secondly it requires a principle of
exclusive disjunction, or the law of non-contradiction and the related
law of the excluded middle. These key notions provide the planks upon
which Meillassoux builds his theory of immanence, immortality, the
infinite and the absolute. Another option remains, however, and that
is the constructivist approach as found in some contemporary math-
ematicians and philosophers (Deleuze belongs in this camp). A common
strategy in this approach is to use infinitesimals and other related notions
in order to provide for a radical PSR that provides a reason for things
but not one reducible to any determinate reason for why things are or
are not thethings they are. This approach, likewise, will affirm a radical
immanence of nature, a nature irreducible to the determinate world of
this life. Hence this is in line with Meillassouxs arguments, but it will not
affirm an immanence beyond this world if this is intended, as Meillassoux
intends it, to initiate a disjunctive dualism between radical immanence
and its determinate other.

IMMORTALITY

Paul OMahoney
Immortality as it has been conceived in mythical or metaphysical specula-
tion is not as straightforward as might be imagined. The most unqualified
form of immortality is that attributed to gods conceived of as eternal
beings. Eternity implies that the deity has always existed and thus is
uncreated, and is, technically, outside of time, rendering its nature, in
many traditions, inaccessible to human reason. An eternal being may be
distinguished from a sempiternal being, which is one created in time but
potentially immortal; many archaic gods such as Dionysus, with a popular
birth story, would technically be sempiternal. However, this immortality
is not unqualified or unconditional. A vampire, for example, is immortal
under certain conditions, but can be killed (and would not survive, for
example, the total destruction of its environment). Angels are sempiternal
beings that are created by God but immortal; the same goes for those
promised resurrection and afterlife by their religions. Even in these
cases, however, the immortality remains conditional: because it is granted
 i m m o r t a l i t y 99

by a superior, eternal being and creator, it can conceivably be revoked by

the same. In almost every conception of immortality, the quality of death-
lessness is combined with agelessness. The Cumaean Sybil in Ovid is the
most prominent mythical figure granted immortality but who continued
to age, having forgotten to ask for eternal youth. Early Christian theolo-
gians overcame the problem posed by the curious faithful that many
in heaven would be decrepit and old, while others remain as dependent
newborns through a novel solution stating that everybody granted resur-
rection would have the healthy body they had or would have had at the age
of thirty-three, the age at which Christ died.
Immortality becomes important for Meillassoux in his elaboration and
resolution of the spectral dilemma, which emphatically opposes tradi-
tional, religious visions of immortality. An essential spectre is the victim
of a death who cannot be mourned due to its horrendous, senseless or
unjust nature, and who therefore haunts the living. The mourning of such
spectres would be essential grief, but this is impossible from either an
atheist or religious position (IWB, 4512). The religious position claims
that life is unendurable in light of such deaths if there is no benevolent
God to resurrect and compensate them; the atheist responds that such a
God is whimsical and unjust to have allowed such deaths originally, and a
common fate of nothingness awaiting both the ordinary and spectral dead
is preferable to Him. Meillassoux thus must combine the hope in resurrec-
tion and justice for the spectres with the inexistence of God. This is done
through his positing divine inexistence: God does not exist at all, but
there is no logical reason, given the omnipotence of hyper-chaos and the
invalidity of the principle of sufficient reason, that such a God might
not come into being.
The immortality granted the resurrected dead would not be unqualified
or final: it would constitute an eternal possibility or eternal eventuality,
which hyper-chaos could subsequently cancel. Meillassoux coins the
term eschaology (IWB, 463), an eschatology in a world dominated
by hyper-chaos, to describe hope for the advent of this potential fourth
World of justice and argues that such hope must inform practical ethics
and politics: if the world into which the dead were to be reborn were
dismal, their resurrection would only compound and not repair the origi-
nal injustice; this ethic of immortality (IWB, 444), which makes possible
essential grieving, ultimately mandates a transcendence of the political,
whereby we love life beyond war, violence and sacrifice (IWB, 473):
those who desire this immortality for the dead, reborn in a world where
their basic material needs are met, Meillassoux calls vectorial subjects,
and claims their vectorization equates to a magnetic attraction to uni-
versal justice (IWB, 463).
100 i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t u i t i o n

INTELLECTUAL INTUITION

Daniel Sacilotto
In its original, Kantian formulation, intellectual intuition designates a pos-
sible apprehension of an object or entity that does not depend on sensible
receptivity. For Immanuel Kant, this power is contrasted with the finite
intuition of the human subject, for which all apprehension of being must
remain submitted to the receptivity of the senses, and which thus anchors
the subject on a reality which the subject did not itself produce. In con-
trast, the intellectual intuition attributed to Gods infinite mind conveys
the idea of a thought that is immediately productive of its object. Thus,
unlike the human mind, Gods mind is not separated from things-in-
themselves; his thought of the thing produces the thing itself, and so the
gap between thought and being that accounts for the subjects enclosure
in the world of appearances does not obtain. In its subsequent elaboration
throughout the history of German Idealism, intellectual intuition is
postulated as required in order to ground even the subjects knowledge
of itself and the objects of experience. Canonically Fichte proposes that
the grounding principle of human knowledge consists in the intellectual
intuition of the free subject itself, as necessarily grounding the identity of
the agent on whose basis every knowledge is acquired. And yet, since this
ground is not itself an empirical datum yielded by sensory experience, it
is thereby identified as the pure practical power of the subject to identify
itself as the agent of every positing, as the condition of possibility even for
our apprehension of appearances.
In his own appropriation of the idea, Meillassoux attempts to wrest the
thesis of intellectual intuition from its idealist and correlationist iterations,
so as to adapt it for his speculative materialism. In the first instance,
it is supposed to be coeval with our grasp of the facticity of the correla-
tion as given, which Meillassoux then uses to derive the contingency
of being itself. In a next step, intellectual intuition would be essentially
connected to the rationalist thesis that, following Alain Badiou, proposes
to reactivate the distinction between primary and secondary properties
in the way of trying to think the absolute.More specifically, Meillassoux
follows Badious ontologisation of mathematics, and claims that it is
through mathematics that we are capable of grasping primary proper-
ties that pertain to being-in-itself, in so far as mathematical discourse
thinks its objects without appeals to phenomenological givenness, and so
irrespective of any experiential relation to a given subject. Put differently,
mathematics thinks the absolute precisely in so far as it thinks being qua
being, by rendering any subjective or phenomenological mediation trivial,
 i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t u i t i o n 101

and with it any problematic concerning the representation of being by

thought. Consequentially, Meillassoux holds that mathematical discourse
provides an intellectual intuition into the structure of being, and allows
us to grasp the reality of an absolute no longer limited to the domain of
subjective agency (as it is for idealists) or to the agency of a divine intellect
(as it is for correlationists).
Fundamentally, Meillassoux must thereby tether his account of factic-
ity, which is foundational for the proof of the principle of factiality and
the necessity of contingency of all beings, to the possibility of such an
intellectual intuition into the structure of being through mathematical
discourse. In other words, the contingency of being that is supposed to
be the result of Meillassouxs speculative proof for a materialist absolute
must be compatible with the thesis that mathematics thinks being qua
being. Already in After Finitude, Meillassoux announces:

We must project unreason into the thing itself, and discover in our grasp of factic-
ity the veritable intellectual intuition of the absolute. Intuition, since it is well
and truly in what is that we discover a contingency with no bounds other than
itself; intellectual, since this contingency is nothing visible, nothing perceptible
in the thing: only thought can access it as it accesses the Chaos which underlies
the apparent continuities of phenomena. (AF, 111)

Yet, although the arbitrariness of the meaningless sign seems to

provide for Meillassoux a first clue as to how mathematics proper can
think beings contingency in the desired sense, the integration of these
two aspects of the speculative materialist programme remains merely
a promissory note for the moment. In this respect, Ray Brassier has
levelled the critique that Meillassouxs appeals to intellectual intuition
threaten to vitiate the stringency of the materialism he proposes against
the transcendental closure of correlationist philosophies (Brassier 2007:
Chapter 3). According to Brassier, Meillassouxs appeals to intellectual
intuition surreptitiously continue to depend on an irreducible distinction
between the realm of meaning and that of being, and the transcendence of
the latter with respect to the former. For Meillassoux must explain how it
is that the thought that everything is contingent is not itself a contingent
factum, lest it fall into the contradictory position according to which even
contingency is contingent.
To insist on this difference, Meillassoux must appeal to a distinction
between the meaning of the statement declaring the contingency of being,
and the fact of the contingency of being. Yet it is precisely this dimension
of Meillassouxs discourse that, Brassier argues, delivers Meillassoux right
back into the transcendental trap of postulating a gap between thought and
102 i r r e l i g i o n

being. Furthermore, this is a one for which the thesis of intellectual intui-
tion seems to work as a palliative that cannot but ultimately render the
contingency of being dependent on the factical determinations of thought,
which is the thesis that speculative materialism has sworn to abjure. For
reactivating the transcendental split between being and thought can only
secure access to the former by according to the self-reflexive subject an
exceptional ontological status.

IRRELIGION

Leon Niemoczynski
Irreligion is a speculative condition required for access to the divine.
Irreligions opposite is fideism, characteristic of a postmodern religiosity
that critiques absolutes instead of speculating upon the absolute. In other
words, against fideism, Meillassoux states that only through thought about
the absolute, not a critique of absolutes is access to the divine possible
(IWB, 444). The challenge of irreligion, Meillassoux claims, is to consider
an eschatology of immortality. This immortality is associated with the
possible future appearance of a divine being and its resurrection of the
dead. Hence one strives for a philosophy of immanence that attains not to
finite knowledge, as in postmodernism, but to knowledge after finitude,
not just to the gods of the masses but to the nature of the true gods (IWB,
450).
In The Immanence of the World Beyond, Meillassouxs main target
is post-Kantian transcendental (and no longer speculative) philosophy.
Meillassoux claims that irreligiosity ought to stand against those post-
Kantian philosophers who prohibit the right of access to the real or
absolute in favour of a defense of rights to belief about the real (IWB,
449). The outcome of defending rights to belief over speculative access
entails preserving an unthinkable transcendence that is beyond the limits
of knowledge. Meillassoux claims that since the philosophy of Immanuel
Kant, a restriction upon the rights of reason has only increased, result-
ing in todays postmodern anti-metaphysical philosophy, making Kant a
distant forefather of postmodernism. The restriction of reason has made
possible the recent Continental return to religion wherein all truths reign
equally and thought or reason is left without power to determine with
complete impunity our relationship to the absolute (IWB, 450). Thus,
postmodernism has secured religious fideism in place of speculation.
Meillassoux states that in its current postmodern form, religious fideism
is best evidenced by the weak thought of Gianni Vattimo. According to
 k a n t , i m m a n u e l 103

Vattimo, the end of metaphysics allows a decisive return to religious

concern, since no one can seriously argue that we can know that God does
not exist (IWB, 450). Here, however, Vattimo prohibits any speculative
access by enabling a de-absolutization of knowledge. That is, Vattimo
follows Kant in placing sceptical or critical limits upon knowledge but also
secures those limits with the very open-endedness of possible hermeneuti-
cal interpretation. Meillassoux claims that this move opens the floodgates
for relativism as we can know nothing absolutely of God, whether Gods
existence or non-existence.While postmodern fideism promotes a piety
concerning that which is unknown, Meillassoux claims that this is not
an immanent form of piety concerning what is truly possible or what is
truly in potential, that is, the virtual. Meillassouxs irreligious standpoint
advocates for the unbounded limits of speculation and reason, to speculate
upon the absolute and its contingent conditions that may issue a future
divine being. This requires a standpoint returning to the immanent,
though it would be an immanence that is of a world beyond, namely the
fourth World of justice.

KANT, IMMANUEL

Steven Shaviro
Immanuel Kant (17241804) is not the inventor of what Meillassoux calls
correlationism, but he is its central and most important figure. For it is
Kants Critique of Pure Reason (1781) that decrees, once and for all, that, as
Meillassoux puts it, we only ever have access to the correlation between
thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the
other (AF, 5). Or in Kants own words, thoughts without content are
empty, intuitions without concepts are blind (A51/B76).
Kant sought to resolve the great philosophical impasse of his day: the
confrontation between rationalist philosophies derived from Leibniz, on
the one hand, and the sceptical, empiricist thought of David Hume, on
the other. On one side, there was the dogmatic claim that the world could
be understood through reason alone; on the other side, the doubt that we
could know anything beyond the limited data provided to us by our senses.
Kant resolved the impasse by declaring that neither thought alone nor
intuitions (sense-data) alone were sufficient for knowledge. Rather, Kant
104 k a n t , i m m a n u e l

says, the two must always come together. He proposes a compromise, or a

compact, between rational necessity and existential contingency.
For Kant, phenomena (the facts of experience) are contingent, and
can only be learned through experience. To this extent, the empiricists
are correct. But these facts of experience must nevertheless fit together
rationally and coherently, in ways that empiricism itself cannot account
for. For instance, phenomena always have a location in time and space,
and they always follow the rules of cause and effect. As Hume pointed out,
we do not ever directly experience causality itself. Rather, causality, like
spatial and temporal location, is always already presupposed by whatever
experiences we do undergo. Kant argues that, since these presuppositions
do not exist in things themselves, they must be imposed upon experience
by the activity of our own minds. In this sense, the rationalist followers of
Leibniz are also partly correct. There is a rational ordering to the world
that we experience. But the order which the rationalist philosophers
attributed to the world itself in fact only applies to the world as we experi-
ence it. Things in themselves, apart from our experience of them, are radi-
cally unknowable. We can say that they exist, but we cannot say anything
particular about them. As Meillassoux puts it, after Kant necessity is
never absolute, but only ever for us (AF, 31).
The outcome of Kants great compromise is therefore double. We can
have rational certainty about phenomena or about things as they exist for
us. But the price we pay for this certainty is that we have no access whatso-
ever to things-in-themselves, or to things as they exist independently from
us. Whenever a Kantian thinker hears a statement about the world itself,
Meillassoux says, he will simply add perhaps only to himself, but add
it he will something like a simple codicil, always the same one, which he
will discretely append to the end of the phrase: event Y occurred x number
of years before the emergence of humans for humans (AF, 13). There
will be no getting away from this addition. After Kant, we are forever
trapped within the correlational circle.
Kant describes his own thought as a Copernican Revolution in
philosophy, a reorganisation of our very understanding of the universe.
But Meillassoux suggests that Kants Critical philosophy is rather a
Ptolemaic counter-revolution. Recentring the universe around the
human mind is much like recentring it around the Earth. Kant guarantees
the objectivity and rationality of physical science only by revoking all
the non-correlational knowledge that such science might provide (AF,
118). Meillassoux therefore identifies Kantian critique as a catastrophe
for thought, one that consists in renouncing every kind of absolute along
with every variety of metaphysics (AF, 125). Nonetheless, Meillassoux
does not think that we can simply dismiss or ignore Kant. It is no longer
 l a r u e l l e , f r a n o i s 105

possible to regress to a merely dogmatic position, such as existed in phi-

losophy before the Kantian revolution (AF, 8). Kant indeed established,
once and for all, the disqualification of every argument intended to estab-
lish the absolute necessity of an entity (AF, 51). This is why Meillassoux,
in his quest to discover a new sort of absolute knowledge, insists that
we can only escape the correlationist circle by working through it, and
pushing it to its utmost consequences. It is only by way of such a process
that Meillassoux is able to establish the only absolute necessity available
to non-dogmatic speculation the necessity for everything that is to be
a fact the necessity, therefore, that everything be contingent (AF, 79).
Meillassoux does not refute Kants correlational argument, so much as he
establishes that this argument, or the correlational circle that it establishes,
is itself necessarily contingent.

LARUELLE, FRANOIS

Anthony Paul Smith

Franois Laruelle (b. 1937) is a French philosopher who since the early
1980s has been developing the syntax and methods for what he claims is
a new practice of philosophy. He has called this project non-philosophy
and most recently non-standard philosophy. While the names often lead
readers to confuse Laruelles claims with those who proclaim the end of
philosophy, Laruelle is explicit that the term non-philosophy does not
signify a negation of philosophy. Taking non-Euclidean geometry as his
model, Laruelle holds that a completed non-philosophy would be the gen-
eralisation of philosophy just as non-Euclidean geometry is not the nega-
tion of geometry but instead broadens the practice of geometry through
the selective suspension of some of the axioms underlying Euclidean
geometry. Laruelles project attempts to broaden philosophys practice
through the negation of what he calls the principle of sufficient philoso-
phy: for whatever there is, there is a philosophy that can capture it within
thought. Like non-Euclidean geometry, Laruelle carries out this negation
of philosophys principle of self-sufficiency through a change of axiom.
Whereas Laruelle claims all standard philosophies are predicated
upon either thinking Being or Alterity, non-philosophy attempts to think
from a radical identity that philosophy is unable to think of. This radical
106 l a w s o f n a t u r e

i dentity takes various names, though primarily referred to as the One and
the Real. These names are chosen for their highly abstract character in
order to signal that radical identity cannot be philosophically represented
without erasing the identity by relating the One or the Real to Being
or Alterity, thereby erasing the radical nature of this identity. Laruelle
attempts to show how this change in axiom allows for two complimentary
projects: a science of philosophy and the fostering of a democracy (of)
thought. The first refers to the ability to treat philosophy as an object
with an identity that can be described. This flows into the second, which
refers to the idea that philosophy can be treated as one material equal
amongst others before the Real or the One. This, for Laruelle, opens up to
a more productive relationship between philosophy and science and other
regimes of knowledge.
Laruelles non-philosophy is presented by Ray Brassier in his Nihil
Unbound as a corrective to Meillassouxs appeal to intellectual intui-
tion in his speculative materialism. Meillassoux responds to this in
his contribution to the Speculative Realism event held at Goldsmiths in
April of 2007 by contrasting his and Laruelles readings of Fichte. While
Laruelle described his project in its early phases as a transcendental
realism, in recent years he has spoken of being in favour of the Real rather
than realism. Meillassoux charges Laruelle precisely on this point with
an inability to respond to correlationism. On Meillassouxs reading
LaruellesReal is merely posited by a philosopher rather than expressed
in-itself. As Meillassoux claims mathematical qualities provide the in-
itself (see Cartesian in-itself) he sees Laruelles discursively posited
Real as unable to respond to the varieties of the correlationist argument
that confuses to different degrees being and thought.

LAWS OF NATURE

Fintan Neylan
Perhaps one of the better known facts about speculative materialism
is that it conceives the laws of nature to be contingent, subject to possible
change. However, what is less known is that Meillassoux conceives them
as contingent yet stable laws. He advances such laws as a response the core
question of After Finitude: how is the discourse of the mathematical sci-
ences possible? Along with clarifying mathematical discourse about ances-
trality, to answer this question demands an account of the stability found
in the universe, for it is on the basis of this regularity that the sciences can
postulate their various predictive theories.
 l a w s o f n a t u r e 107

Because the arche-fossil shows that the literal sense of the math-
ematical sciences discourse cannot be admitted within the framework
of correlationism, clarifying how it is possible requires we find an
alternative route to that taken by philosophy influenced by the Kantian
legacy. This compels one to reconceive completely the apparent law-like
regularity that we find in the universe, for to reject Kant is to relinquish
his nuanced critical account of why the world around us appears to be
ordered. With the critical route barred, one is left to think the regularity
of the universe as the result of mind-independent laws, but this is a path
that has traditionally posited such laws as necessary and eternal entities.
This might be a problem for Meillassoux, for one of the core tenets of
After Finitude is that a necessary entity is not possible. But while he refers
to his programme as classical, speculative materialism does not consist
in a dogmatic embrace of the traditional account of eternally fixed mind-
independent laws. Rather, in reformatting the account of the laws into
one where they are not backed up by any necessity, factial ontology claims
to offer an alternative to both the metaphysical and critical accounts of the
order found in nature.
The thesis that the laws of nature, along with every other entity, are
absolutely contingent occupies the first part of After Finitude. It rests on
the argument that contingency is intellectual rather than phenomenal.
While factiality holds that the laws of nature are immanent and con-
tingent, Meillassoux still admits that it is impossible to phenomenally
discern whether we exist in a world governed by necessary rules or one
governed ultimately by lawless chaos. This impossibility lies in the fact
that for every apparently chaotic occurrence we might discover, there
may be operative a hidden law to which we have been blind. Yet despite
this limitation of the empirical, it is still always conceivable that things
may be otherwise. As his analysis of strong correlationism shows, this
ability to conceive otherwise is not due to our finitude, but is provided
to us by the fact that we can grasp contingency as the absolute. This
ability to grasp the world in its contingency is named as the modicum of
the absolute which we possess. To speculate is to accede to this absolute,
meaning that regardless of our empirical limits, by way of this modicum
we may recognise the absence of necessity in any situation. Through this
speculative capacity, even apparently necessary laws can be grasped in
their ontological contingency.
Having established their contingency, difficulties arise with the quali-
fication that contingent laws may also be stable. The main obstacle posed
is the thesis from probabilistic reasoning that one can allow for contingent
laws or stable laws, but not both. Tackling this challenge takes up the bulk
of After Finitudes latter half, and it is only surmounted by demonstrating
108 l a w s o f n a t u r e

that the means by which we derive this stable contingent status is beyond
the scope of probabilitys logic.
This objection runs as follows: if the laws of nature are contingent,
why have they not changed? For every moment that the laws do not
alter, the fact that they are contingent seems all the less likely. Given
the undeniable stability of the world around us, probabilistic reasoning
states that it is far more feasible that there is a hidden necessity opera-
tive that we have yet to discover. In order to undermine this argument
that some form of o ntological necessity can be assumed from probability,
Meillassoux takes pains to show that the logic of probability is limited
to the p henomenal. Herein lies his utilisation of set theory. He draws
upon it to show that probability cannot be used to make any ontological
statement about the universe and its possibilities. This limit of probability
restricts it from either advancing laws probable necessity or disqualify-
ing their contingency. While it is applicable to particular closed cases
within the universe, his use of m athematics shows we have no grounds
to make the assumption that probability can be extended to the universe
and necessity in general. In relation to laws, mathematics serves two
purposes in After Finitude, with the first being this rejection of probable
necessity, including the implication that stability entails a hidden neces-
sity. Through it Meillassoux establishes that probability can determine
nothing about entities nature in general, that is, their ontological con-
tingency. But by his own admission, establishing this does not positively
prove that the laws are stable, only that it is thus both conceivable and
not unreasonable that there be contingent yet stable laws operative in the
universe. Having fought off a priori disqualifications of the possibility of
laws that are both contingent and stable, Meillassoux turns to outlining a
positive account of laws by introducing a condition on mind-independent
existence: if the laws of nature are to exist, they must exist as stable enti-
ties. This qualification demands that a law is not subject to flux for the
duration of its existence, even though its existence is subject to the radical
contingency of chaos. For as long as a law exists in a possible world, it
will exist as stable, thereby maintaining a minimum amount of regular-
ity that a science of that world would require. Yet even this qualification
still does not establish their existence. This point is to be accomplished
as part of his strategy of d
eriving what he calls figures, invariant truths
which hold across all possible worlds. As conditions of hyper-chaos,
these allow a non-metaphysical account of mind-independence. The
stability of laws is supposed to be entailed by one such Figure, namely,
the ability of m
athematics to make statements that pertain to the in-itself
(see Cartesian in-itself). Proving it would open a third route to account
for stable laws: not a result of metaphysical necessity or a transcendental
 m a l l a r m 109

subject, they are guaranteed by the absolute scope of mathematics being a

condition of chaos.
Demonstrating the possibility of mathematical sciences thus relies on
the proof of this second purpose of mathematics; as well as enabling sci-
ences ancestral discourse, it also accounts for the contingent order found
in the universe. But by Meillassouxs own admission, After Finitude does
not accomplish this task. While it does outline various requirements for an
alternate framework which accounts for the order found in the world, the
derivation of mathematics absolute scope and the framework of laws this
would entail is reserved for a later work. In terms of its accomplishments,
After Finitude opens the door for contingent laws, ones which would
account for the stability of the phenomenal world; but in the absence of a
proof such laws can only be as one possibility among others.

MALLARM

Adam Kotsko
Stphane Mallarm (18421898) was a French poet and literary critic
best known for his experiments with poetic form. Mallarm is considered
a leader of the Symbolist movement, which also included Paul Verlaine,
Grard de Nerval and Arthur Rimbaud, among others. This movement
was distinguished by its embrace of free verse over against the more tra-
ditional poetic forms that dominated mainstream French poetry and by
its use of evocative, indirect modes of communication. Mallarms own
style emphasised the importance of the way the words were laid out on the
page and the exploitation of the many homonyms in the French language
in order to produce ambiguity. This latter quality makes his poetry excep-
tionally difficult to translate, and this has arguably limited his influence in
the English-speaking world.
Meillassoux devotes his second book-length work, The Number and the
Siren, to a decipherment of Mallarms enigmatic final poem, Un Coup
de Ds jamais nabolira le Hasard (A Throw of Dice will never abolish
Chance). As Meillassoux summarises it, Un Coup de Ds centres on
the aftermath of a shipwreck, which leaves a mysterious Master with
one seemingly meaningless final choice: whether or not to throw a pair
of dice. It is never directly revealed whether he actually does so, and he
110 m a l l a r m

is ultimately pulled into a whirlpool. Along the way, we are treated to an

enigmatic vision of a siren, who destroys the rock that presumably led to
the shipwreck, along with various reflections on the unique Number that
cannot be / another. The poem closes with the suggestion that a new
stellar constellation may, perhaps, have been set in motion by the Masters
dice-throw. All of this is presented in a unique layout, with lines stretching
across two facing pages, varied typography, and virtually no punctuation.
In Meillassouxs reading, Mallarm is reflecting on the task of the poet
in the wake of the shipwreck of traditional poetic form occasioned by
the rise of free verse. Where he breaks with most contemporary interpret-
ers, however, is in seeing Un Coup de Ds as part of Mallarms attempt
to create an artistic form that could found a modern ritual with all the
power and meaning of the Roman Catholic mass. This project centred
on the composition of a liturgical poem called the Book that would be
part of a numerologically structured ceremony of public reading. Many
critics regard this interest as a passing phase on Mallarms part and
would strongly dispute that it informed the composition of his great final
poem. Meillassoux, however, not only claims that Un Coup de Ds is a
continuation of the project of the Book, but that, thanks to Meillassouxs
own investigation, which effectively unlocks the meaning of the poem,
Mallarm has in fact actually succeeded in an achievement that could
found a new poetic religion that would be secular modernitys answer to
Christianity.
The argument of The Number and the Siren is an interpretive tour
de force that defies summary. Indeed, the book has a literary quality in
itself, filled as it is with twists and turns and big reveals and so it is the
rare work of literary scholarship that is vulnerable to spoilers. What I
would like to clarify in the remainder of this entry is the works place in
Meillassouxs overall project. On a superficial level, it seems natural that
Meillassoux would be drawn to Mallarms meditation on contingency
and chance. In his first major published work, After Finitude: An Essay on
the Necessity of Contingency, he argues for a view of the world centred on
contingency rather than necessity, that is to say, for a universe ruled by
chance rather than by any supreme being or foundational laws. There is
no necessary being other than contingency itself. The universe is founded
not simply on chaos, but on hyper-chaos, a chaos so radical that it has
no necessary reference to order. If our world appears to be regulated by
immutable natural laws, thats just a coincidence, a state of affairs that
could easily change.
What may strike readers of After Finitude as surprising or even disturb-
ing are the Christian overtones of Mallarms project and of Meillassouxs
celebration and appropriation of it. The ground for this aspect of the work
 m a t e r i a l i s m 111

was laid in The Divine Inexistence, sections of which have been published
in Graham Harmans book on Meillassoux (DI). These selections, which
build off of the argument for contingency found in After Finitude, repre-
sent an ambitious attempt to account for all of reality within Meillassouxs
philosophical scheme, from matter and organic life to humanity and what
might come to supersede humanity. In the latter regard, he embraces
a possibility that resonates strongly with the Christian doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead, involving a human figure who somehow comes
into possession of divine power but gives it up after returning all those
who have died to life and bestowing upon all of humanity the gift of a new
immortal form of bodily existence.
For Meillassoux, Mallarm has obviously not achieved this miracu-
lous feat, but he could be viewed as a kind of forerunner in so far as his
poetic achievement represents a successful attempt to concretely grasp
the infinite. The Number and the Siren, then, clarifies what Meillassoux is
doing in The Divine Inexistence. It is inaccurate to say that Meillassoux is
embracing or appropriating Christianity. What hes really trying to do is
much bolder and, one might say, more insane: he wants to do Christianity
one better. He wants to create something more powerful than Christianity,
something that would radicalise Christianitys wildest hopes and that
would deliver on them, in so far as its based on the radical contingency of
the universe rather than on the illusion of a transcendent God.

MATERIALISM

Nathan Brown
Meillassoux names his philosophical position speculative materialism.
In After Finitude he offers a concise determination of this term:

Every materialism that would be speculative, and hence for which absolute reality
is an entity without thought, must assert both that thought is not necessary (some-
thing can be independently of thought), and that thought can think what there
must be when there is no thought. The materialism that chooses to follow the
speculative path is thereby constrained to believe that it is possible to think a given
reality by abstracting from the fact that we are thinking it. (AF, 36)

This determination includes two conditions:

1) the materialist must hold that thought is not necessary (something can
be independently of thought);
112 m a t e r i a l i s m

2) the speculative materialist must assert that thought can think what
there must be when there is no thought.

A materialist position thus meets an ontological criterion: the independ-

ence of being from thought. Speculation abides by an epistemological
criterion: it affirms the capacity of thought to access an absolute. Note
that these are formal criteria: they do not commit Meillassoux to a defini-
tion of matter, to any stance on the composition of bodies or the existence
of elementary corpuscles, nor to the eliminative reduction of emotional or
intellectual phenomena. They do not tether Meillassouxs philosophy to
one or another model of physical reality. We can say that materialism, for
Meillassoux, is a minimal, formal philosophical condition concerning the
relation between being and thought.
The materialist condition of Meillassouxs itinerary does, however,
have specific consequences for the relation between speculative philoso-
phy and empirical science. The problem of how to think beings anterior-
ity to thought the problem of ancestrality is posed to philosophy by
the data of empirical science. The materialist philosopher must account
for the ancestral statements of empirical science in such a way as to grant
their literal sense. That is, the materialist will respect the chronological
anteriority of being to thought as the primary sense of an ancestral state-
ment, rather than performing a logical inversion through which the cor-
relation between thought and being becomes an anterior condition of any
claim concerning chronological anteriority. Against correlationism, the
materialist will hold that the chronological anteriority of being to thought
is the material/generic precondition of any correlation between thought
and being, including any philosophical argumentation concerning the
latter. The problem for the materialist becomes that of sustaining this
position in a rational and non-dogmatic fashion: upholding this position
by refuting correlationism through argument rather than simply ignoring
it or submitting it to various forms of ad hominem or institutional critique.
In After Finitude, the heuristic burden of the problem of ancestrality is to
foreground the stakes of sustaining a materialist position which is at once
rationalist, speculative and non-dogmatic. Meillassouxs exposition of the
problem is intended to show that a rational refutation of correlationism is
necessary in order to respect and account for the revisable truth claims of
empirical science as a condition of philosophical reflection.
For Meillassoux, the bond between speculation and materialism has
both ancient and modern roots. Classically, Epicureanism is the paradigm
of all materialism (AF, 36) in so far as it asserts that thought can access the
absolute nature of all things through the notions of atoms and voice and
also that this nature is not necessarily correlated with an act of thought,
 m a t h e m a t i c s 113

since thought emerges through the contingent composition of atomic

compounds. If Epicureanism supplies the classical paradigm of materialist
philosophy, it is the speculative import of the Copernican Revolution of
modern science that assigns to modern philosophy its materialist v ocation:
Modern science discovered for the first time thoughts capacity to accede
to knowledge of a world indifferent to thoughts relation to the world
(AF, 118), and this eminently speculative character of modern science,
its non-correlational mode of knowing (AF, 119), should have oriented
philosophy toward a speculative materialism capable of showing how
thought can think what there can be when there is no thought (AF, 121).
The task of modern philosophy is thus to make explicit the ontological and
epistemological implications of scientific statements, and particularly of the
use of mathematics, in those statements, to formulate physical properties
and relations unavailable and irreducible to sensory manifestation. The
speculative import of G alilean-Copernican physics is that what is math-
ematizable cannot be reduced to a correlate of thought (AF, 117). It is this
irreducibility of mathematical knowledge to correlational knowledge that
speculative materialism seeks to affirm and to theorise.
Note that the recent provenance of this materialist position is Althusserian:
against idealist epistemology, materialist philosophy s upports the sponta-
neous materialism of the scientists. We can thus situate Meillassouxs mate-
rialism in a line running from Epicurus through Descartes to Althusser
and Badiou: a materialist tradition whose parameters are assigned by the
philosophical requirements of affirming the formally speculative import of
physics, its claim to make revisable statements concerning the properties of
things-in-themselves.

MATHEMATICS

Sean Dudley
Since the time of the pre-Socratics, philosophy has enjoyed an inti-
mate relationship with mathematics.Indeed, the histories of both disci-
plines, when not directly intersecting, have always run parallel with one
another, sharing methods and developments and exchanging questions
and answers. The cause of this courtship should not be surprising when
one considers that in its essence mathematics provides what philosophy
seeks as its raison dtre: certain knowledge. However, for all the epistemic
riches and gifts that the mathematician has lavished upon the philosopher,
she cannot explain to him just what all this mathematical knowledge
amounts to or what it is about.
114 m a t h e m a t i c s

Every philosopher, if not equally every mathematician, must decide

how he will interpret the meanings of these often enchanting mathemati-
cal discoveries.In fact,to a large extent the history of mathematics can
be read as an ongoing dispute between various groups of scholars who
derive very different philosophical views from the very same mathemati-
cal findings. Platonism or nominalism? Intuitionism or logicism? Who
is to adjudicate and to what criteria does one appeal in support of ones
own favoured understanding? We will see that the very undecidability
of the meaning of mathematical statements will play an important role in
Meillassouxs speculative philosophy. To understand why Meillassoux
adopts the philosophy of mathematics it will be worthwhile to rehearse
briefly the history of the tradition that he is responding to.
As is largely the case within the history of metaphysics, philosophi-
cal interpretations of mathematical truths have gradually shifted from
firebrand Platonism, the belief in the reality of numbers, to what might
now be called pragmatist anti-realism, that is, the utilisation of math-
ematics for thinking the real without any ontological commitments about
that reality in terms of number. No longer are mathematical construc-
tions believed to put the thinker in touch with a divine realm of timeless
reality but rather mathematical knowledge is widely believed to be self-
contained and ultimately unrelated to the world as it is in-itself. From
Plato to Galileo, from Galileo to Kant, and from Kant to David Hilbert,
the ontological appetite of the mathematician has shrunk in intensity:
first taking itself to rule over the Platonic heavens, then restricting itself
to the bodies of the earth and stars, mathematics now finally confines
itself to describing the pure and empty form of the set that many philoso-
phers take to be a pure and therefore arbitrary construction.This repeal
of jurisdiction is ironic given that it occurred simultaneously with an
expanding application of mathematics to nearly every field in the sciences
and the humanities from branches as far away from each other as cosmol-
ogy and sociology.
This metaphysical restriction is the fallout of the work of Immanuel
Kant, whose Critical philosophy relegated all mathematical knowledge to
the spatio-temporal realm of sensible intuition and ipso facto relegated the
sense of mathematical statements to the realm of possible anthropocentric
experience.What Kant could not anticipate, however, was the extent to
which new discoveries in science and mathematics, like the invention of
non-Euclidean geometry and general and special relativity, for example,
gave rise to new synthetic a priori knowledge that was nevertheless beyond
the purview of possible experience, as Kant had defined it. No longer
could philosophy say with a straight face that mathematics must confine
itself to the kingdoms of Euclid and Newton. The pathological functions
 m a t h e m a t i c s 115

of Weierstrasss calculus, the curved manifold of Riemannian spheres, the

transfinite numbers of Cantors continuum, and other counterintuitive
developments pushed the Kantian from the tightrope of the transcenden-
tal back into the bleachers of dogmatism. For to claim, after the progress
of the great minds of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries such as
Cantor, Dedekind, Frege, Gdel that mathematics teaches us only about
the world of possible experience is to commit what Meillassoux calls a
Ptolemaic regression,rolling back the endless frontiers of epistemic poten-
tial to the near-sighted horizon of human phenomenology.
So influential has Kants conservatism been over the last centuries of
philosophical activity that it is only recently that the transcendental hang-
over has begun to wear off and that philosophers have had the courage
to once again claim knowledge of reality outside of the life-world.It is in
many respects the mathematicians who have led the way.For if one thing
needs to be scrapped from the canon of wisdom and committed to the
flames it is certainly the self-stultifying conviction that mathematics only
treats of the objects capable of being given in sensible intuition. Far from
being so limited, mathematics extends leagues and leagues beyond the
bounds of sense and puts us in touch with the nothing less than the actual
infinite. To see why, well take an example pertinent to Meillassouxs
overall philosophy, Cantors theory of transfinite numbers.
Prior to Georg Cantor, philosophy and mathematics only had the
formal machinery required to deal with potential infinities and never
with the actual.The potential infinite requires the positing of some non-
terminating process or algorithm such that infinity is approached but
never attained given an infinite amount of time. From Aristotles treat-
ment of Zenos paradox to Peanos axiomatisation of arithmetic,infinity
was only conceptualised as a potentiality, but never as a real entity.With
Cantors introduction of set theory, however, infinity was revealed to be
a real mathematical entity, or at least this is the interpretation taken up by
Meillassoux, which is incidentally also how Cantor himself interpreted
his own work. It is only since Cantor that mathematics and philosophy
alike have felt warranted to reason about the actual as opposed to merely
possible infinite. Cantors derivation can be glossed quite simply: take any
set A, count its elements,and then compare this number to the number of
possible groupings of these elements. This second sub-set B, will always be
bigger than A even when A itself has an infinite number of elements.This
means that it is possible to construct an infinite series of infinite sets, each
bigger than the last though all of them exemplifying the same concept of
infinitude.From this it follows that it is strictly impossible to render this
series of transfinite numbers totalisable since any proposed totality will
always be smaller than the set of its proper subsets.
116 m a t h e m a t i c s

Like his predecessor Alain Badiou, Meillassoux takes Cantorian

set theory to have established the infinite as a concept determinate of
the world in-itself and not merely, as Kant and Aristotle had held, as a
regulative or guiding principle of human reason. In Meillassouxs own
work, this discovery is crucial for establishing the contingency of the
laws of nature in the face of their unwavering stability. By applying
transfinite set theory to Humes Problem, that is, how to explain the
stability of the laws of nature once we have proven their contingency,
Meillassoux shows that Kants indirect appeal to probability is inade-
quate since aleatory reasoning only makes sense in the context of a totality
of possibilities.However, if the absolute is comprised of an actual infinity
of possible universes then our world with its short menu of stable laws is
no more probable than any other possible configuration. After Cantor,
it is not necessity but rather contingency that pure reason establishes
as an a priori principle of being: the lawfulness of nature is an empirical
fact capable of being overthrown at any moment by another roll of the
infinitely sided dice of hyper-chaos.
Now, it may be objected that Meillassoux is drawing metaphysical
conclusions illicitly from a branch of mathematics that has no bearing on
ontology.Just as Kant saw that the discoveries of Euclidean geometry and
Newtonian physics had to be anchored to the phenomenal domains of
space and time, shouldnt we make sure not to cast the net of set theory too
far lest we pull it back empty?What, anyway, is the proper domain of set
theory?Meillassouxs answer is characteristically audacious: every domain
is the proper domain of set theory. For having abstracted from all deter-
minate content, set theory ensures that it can be validly applied over all
domains that include beings or existents of any kind. Set theory describes
being qua being. Like Kant, Meillassoux asks how mathematics is pos-
sible but unlike Kant he does not conflate this question with Kants other
thematic inquisition, concerning how experience is possible, since the pos-
sibility of mathematics is not dependent on the possibility of subjectivity.
This is where Meillassoux follows the formalist project of Hilbert in the
search for afoundationof mathematics in pure syntax, without content
or meaning. Unlike the formalists, Meillassoux ontologises the emptiness
ofthe set and uses it to develop a novel metaphysics of contingency on top
of the mathematics of meaninglessness.
Consider the following: the set of worlds that can accommodate
human life is a subset of all possible worlds mathematically describable.
Thus, laws of nature and certain laws of logic necessary within human
or correlationist worlds are not included within all possible worlds (for
example those of hyperbolic geometry,quantum mechanics and relativity
theory or even the multidimensional worlds of string theory). In other
 m a t h e m a t i c s 117

words, there are an infinite number of real worlds not experienceable

by humans but still describable by mathematics. Thus, the set of cor-
relationist worlds does not share the same particular extension as the
set of mathematisable worlds though they do share at least one member,
namely this world, and they are both infinite. Now consider this fact
anew once we have abstracted away from any and all of the semantic
content of each set. They are both infinite and they are both identical
in their construction. They are identical in their respective tokenings of
infinitude but nonetheless differ when compared since one is a subset of
the other.As particular tokens of the same universal type (the infinite set)
A and B are indistinguishable. They manifest the same conceptual inten-
sion and extend equally over an infinite number of objects. And yet, they
are different iterations of the same structure in so far as they extend over
different infinities.
In a strangely similar way to that in which enantiomorphs (incongruent
counterparts) are conceptually identical but spatially distinct, it seems as
though the infinite sets are semiotically identical but nonetheless distinct
as separate iterations of the same meaningless sign.Unlike Kantian geo-
metric incongruent counterparts, Meillassouxs reiterations do not require
sensible intuition to be apprehended by the thinker but only require the
intellectual intuition of difference itself. The only medium required
to record this process of minimal differentiation is time; however, this
is not a time of phenomenal experience (or becoming) but an absolute
time of unprincipled pure change. Another way to look at this is to take
Meillassoux to have proven, somewhat informally, the familiar dictate
that existence precedes essence. This would no longer be only a trite
existentialist truism but could now be offered as a necessary law of being.
This it turns out is just another formulation of the principle of unreason:
the only thing that is necessary is absolute contingency. In the words of
Cantor himself: The essence of mathematics lies in its freedom. What
we get in Meillassoux is a novel form of overturned Platonism, one in
which necessity and stability are properties of the transient phenomena of
human experience and where contingency, chaos and pure differentiation
are properties of the absolute which, like Cantors transfinite set, is unto-
talisable but actually and not merely potentially infinite.If the essence of
mathematics is its freedom then the essence of freedom is its inhumanity.
118 m a y - b e

MAY-BE

Paul J. Ennis
On occasion Meillassoux evokes Mallarms peut-tre from the poem
Un Coup de Ds (A Throw of Dice) a favoured poem of Meillassouxs
mentor Alain Badiou. Ray Brassier translates this in Time without
Becoming as the may-be, but Robin Mackay in The Number and the
Siren chooses the PERHAPS (this is how it appears in Mallarms
poem). Alyosha Edlebi also chooses the PERHAPS in the translation
of Badiou and Mallarm. The term does not appear too often, but does
occur in at least two significant places. In The Immanence of the World
Beyond we are asked to consider the may-be as a dense possibility (463).
In this context, the may-be names the intensive unification that arises
when factial ontology and universal ethics are thought through the vecto-
rial subject (see also TWB, 1011).

MEANINGLESS SIGN

Paul J. Ennis
Meillassoux argues that the meaningless sign is the unacknowledged con-
dition underpinning our capacity to think a mind-independent reality.
This is a sign considered prior to the intervention of meaning (IRR,
25). He takes it that the meaningless sign has the dual character of a type
and its token though he prefers to use occurrence over token. Take the
example of a written sign: here we have a mark on a piece of paper that
you see as a sign. You see the mark as an occurrence of the sign-type.
Although I can generate many tokens, say of the letter a, these are all
occurrences of the type a. When I read the letter a as a sign I see the
limitlessly reproducible occurrence of an intangible sign-type (IRR, 25,
italics removed).
Meillassoux wants to consider these types in their pure state, that
is non-semantically, and he introduces a technical term to reflect this:
the kenotype (IRR, 26). The kenotype is strictly arbitrary and in formal
languages any sensible mark is sufficient to perform its function (IRR,
27). Furthermore, on the basis of its non-semantic arbitrariness it can be
infinitely variable when it comes to its form (IRR, 29). Of especial inter-
est is how in quantitative iteration we grasp identical occurrences of the
same type (IRR, 32). During the process of iteration the meaningless sign
is both intemporal and non-spatialized as type and nonetheless indexed
 m e t a p h y s i c s 119

to a determinate material thing as occurrence (IRR, 33). Ultimately, it

is reiteration that leads us to the potential infinite and is to be considered
the source of arithmetic (IRR, 34). Iteration allows for reiteration, which
allows for augmentation, that is an arithmetical count, and this allows
for the idea of number. In reiterating I take the sensible mark and do not
remain with its qualitative register. I move past this such that I move
beyond perception and its limits toward the intelligibility proper to the
indefinite (IRR, 34). The meaningless sign brings us into contact with
what is eternally identical in all things and that is their shared investment
in absolute contingency: contingency is of such and such an empirical
particularity (IRR, 36). This allows one to index contingency indis-
criminately and granted this I am free to posit the identity of all entities as
occurrences and then engage in the differentiating process of reiteration.
Crucially the contingency of the sign does not belong to the register
of the facticity of the entity in terms of its perishability. The sign can
always be recoded and so can always be otherwise. Grasped as such we
can begin to iterate, and reiterate, them as occurrences of a kenotype in an
unlimited manner. Anything can stand in for anything else when we think
the meaningless sign. The factial derivation is now presented as follows:
one begins with a shift of ones mode of apprehension from the semantic
to the semiotic (IRR, 37). Here ones sense of contingency transitions
from the contingency of specific entities to the eternal contingency that
all things carry. Seeing this arbitrariness of entities I transform them into
occurrences of kenotypes and begin to see the possibility of iteration and
reiteration characteristic of the mathematical endeavour.

METAPHYSICS

Sean Dudley
Unlike other branches of philosophy, metaphysics is concerned not with
this or that particular domain of inquiry but with knowledge in its broad-
est and most general application. Thus, the task of the metaphysician is
to attain knowledge of the fundamental structure of reality or to think
pure being in its absolute and unconditioned form. At the same time,
the trial of the metaphysician is to lay hold of such knowledge without
thereby contaminating it with the vagaries and vicissitudes of her concep-
tual framework, and deliver metaphysical truths unto the world without
deforming them with the forceps of ones own epistemic apparatus. To
be related to truth as midwife is to child, as Socrates says; this has always
represented the metaphysicians highest aspiration. Thus, in order to do
120 m e t a p h y s i c s

metaphysics properly one must take caution not to distort the object to
be known with the tools thought employs in order to know it. This can
be stated in the form of an imperative: nothing may be posited about the
absolute that is itself not of the absolute.
The history of metaphysics then can be read as a cautionary tale detail-
ing all of the ways philosophers have tried and failed to live up to this
task. It is a task that has moved from being perceived as quite difficult
to being seen as demonstrably impossible. For once thought contem-
plates its own finitude, it is forced to conceive of metaphysics as a fools
errand. Running with the metaphor, we might also say that the history of
metaphysics can be divided into three stages: classical metaphysics, whose
model is Aristotle, and which came before finitude; critical metaphysics,
whose father is Immanuel Kant, and which might be called a metaphysics
of finitude; and now, in the philosophy of Meillassoux (and perhaps for the
first time) we get a glimpse of the possibility of what metaphysics might
look like after finitude.
The key to understanding Meillassouxs relation to the task of meta-
physics is to understand what in each prior stage he retains and what
he rejects. While Meillassoux is openly dismissive of the lions share of
classical metaphysics, it would be a profound mistake to read him solely
as a critical heir of the tradition he inherited. What Meillassoux dispar-
ages in classical metaphysics is its tendency to lapse into what is often
called onto-theology, or the positing of necessary beings either as some
first cause or deity or else as some necessary principle or law be it God,
Nature or Form. What all such dogmatic entities have in common is the
unlicensed order of their derivation: the movement from the apprehen-
sion of a contingent being or principle to the positing of a necessary cause
and sufficient reason for the existence of such a being. Indeed, the banner
of pre-critical philosophy (metaphysics before finitude) is the principle
of sufficient reason: that everything which exists has a reason for
being and for being the way it is. Following David Hume, Meillassoux
vehemently criticises the elevation of this principle, which is every-
where at work in the concept and perception of causality, to the level of
metaphysics and relegates it to realm of the psychological, that is, as one
of the many contingent habits of the mind which, though indispensable
as a tool of the finite understanding, must be dispensed with on the road
to understanding the infinite. Sufficient reason, though it manufactures
necessities, is itself the product of an entirely finite and hence contingent
structure.
No one demonstrated this to a more thorough and detailed degree than
did Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason of 1781 augured in the age of
finitude, turning metaphysics into a mere sub-discipline of the subject
 n e c e s s i t y o f c o n t i n g e n c y 121

of human cognition, forever orbiting the latter like an ancient satellite, a

monument to our hubris and a reflection of our essential and transcenden-
tal finitude. For ever since Kant, philosophy has been unable to think the
absolute except as a correlate of thought (see correlationism), unable
even to prove the existence of the thing-in-itself as noumenon apart from
its appearance as phenomenon for the thinking subject. According to
Meillassoux, the apparent necessity of the correlation between the phe-
nomenal and noumenal realms, a necessity which has been affirmed for
more than two centuries, can be overcome in much the same way that the
principle of sufficient reason was overcome by the Humean and Kantian
critique: that is, by demonstrating its essential contingency. To do this,
Meillassoux retrieves from the annals of cosmological science the concept
of the arche-fossil: the existence of a material universe predating the
appearance of the thinking subject by a temporal magnitude so vast that
its mere presence as a knowable fact challenges, if not openly ridicules
the notion that the correlation of mind and world is itself a necessity. For
though the arche-fossil is not the elusive thing-in-itself; it is a testament to
the contingency of the relationship of the phenomenal to the phenomeno-
logical. In other words, being does not need to be thought.
Unearthing the possibility of the contingency of the correlate,
Meillassoux believes himself entitled to affirm the necessity of not only
this contingency but of contingency as such. In so doing, he retrieves the
spoils of classical metaphysics though in a spectacularly inverted form:
there is only one necessary principle and that is the principle of unreason.
Likewise there is only one necessary being and its name is hyper-chaos, a
being capable of bringing forth any and all possibilities without reason and
without cause. No doubt Meillassoux has unearthed an absolute entirely
alien to the categories and principles of the rational mind. But such an
absolute, unsullied by the fingerprints of finite thought, is precisely what
philosophy has always sought.

N
NECESSITY OF CONTINGENCY

Pete Wolfendale
It is true that thinking beings evolved on Earth, and it is also true that
there are infinitely many prime numbers. Nevertheless, we can intuitively
122 n e c e s s i t y o f c o n t i n g e n c y

distinguish between the manner in which these statements are true using
so-called modal language, for example, could, might, cannot, must,
and so on. We would be inclined to agree that it might not have been the
case that we evolved, and thus that, in so far as it is possible that the world
could have been otherwise, the existence of human life is contingent. By
contrast, we would be inclined to deny that there might have been only
finite primes, and thus that, in so far as it is impossible that the world
could have been otherwise, the existence of infinite primes is necessary.
However, this seemingly intuitive distinction is merely the tip of the
modal iceberg, beneath which lies a variety of options for understanding
how we reason with modal statements (modal logic) and interpreting what
they tell us about reality (modal metaphysics).
Without digging too deeply into this topic, it is necessary to intro-
duce a few technical distinctions that help clarify the significance of
Meillassouxs claims concerning the necessity of contingency. On the
one hand, there are what Meillassoux calls real possibilities or ways the
world could possibly be in itself (see Cartesian in-itself). The technical
name for this is alethic modality, and it is often differentiated into further
kinds. For example, one can draw a distinction between logical necessity
and nomological necessity, or between those truths that are invariant
with respect to the laws of thought (usually including mathematics) and
those truths that are invariant with respect to the laws of nature (usually
defined by physics). This means that there can be a sense in which it is
nomologically necessary that planets orbit stars even though it is logi-
cally possible that they could do otherwise. On the other hand, there are
what Meillassoux calls possibilities of ignorance or ways the world could
possibly be as far as we know. The technical name for this is epistemic
modality and it is usually relative to shared certainty within discursive
contexts. For example, we might agree that JFK was actually assassinated,
but disagree about whether Oswald did it, and thus be inclined to say its
necessary that someone fired the fatal shot, but that its possible it was
Oswald or a gunman on the grassy knoll. Though alethic and epistemic
modals are related, they can diverge, such as when we say that Goldbachs
conjecture might be true (epistemic), even though if it is true, it must be
true (alethic).
Meillassouxs thesis regarding the necessity of contingency is first
introduced negatively as the principle of unreason. He opposes this to
the principle of sufficient reason, which for him is the essence of
metaphysical dogmatism in so far as the claim that there is a reason for
each state of affairs collapses into the claim that there is a reason for all
of them. This inevitably leads to the demand of onto-theology for a
necessary entity, for example, the God depicted by Aristotle, or a set of
 n e c e s s i t y o f c o n t i n g e n c y 123

entities, for example, Platos ideas; or an absolute capable of grounding

both alethic necessity and epistemic certainty. The critical philosophy that
followed from Martin Heidegger, for example, abandoned onto-theology
at the expense of qualifying sufficient reason and adopting a correlation-
ism that rejects the absolute. By contrast, Meillassoux aims to present
the unqualified absence of reasons (unreason) as a post-critical absolute,
thereby demonstrating the impossibility of necessary entities.
He does this by proceeding through the arguments supplied by corre-
lationism: the circle of correlation against naive realism and the argument
from facticity against absolute idealism. The former argument holds that
we can only have knowledge of things as they appear for us within the
correlation, never as they are in themselves. Absolute idealism responds
to this challenge by denying that what is in itself is distinct from what is
for us, thereby absolutising the correlation. The latter argument counters
this by insisting upon the facticity of the correlation, in so far as the
possibility that thought could cease to exist guarantees its distinctness
from the world it thinks. Meillassoux radicalises this by claiming that the
argument requires that thoughts non-existence be not merely epistemi-
cally possible for us, but alethically possible in itself, thereby absolutising
facticity. Furthermore, he holds that this implies a primordial power
capable of completely transforming the contents of the world from one
moment to the next without reason, which he names absolute time or
hyper-chaos.
The transition from an epistemological thesis about the availability of
reasons to an ontological thesis about the capacity for radical change is
consolidated in its positive reformulation as the principle of factiality.
The key to this lies in Meillassouxs subversion of correlationisms scepti-
cal procedure, which enables one to invoke the epistemic possibility that
the for us differs from the in itself in any discursive context so as to
undermine every claim to certainty. The general applicability of this pro-
cedure transforms the epistemic contingency it appeals to from something
relative to a given discourse into something absolute. However, there is
an internal limit to this applicability in so far as the procedure cannot be
applied to this absolute without undermining its generality. This non-
iterability of facticity constitutes the necessity of contingency and thereby
reveals the necessary conditions of contingency. These figures of factiality
are immune to correlationist scepticism in so far as they constitute the
ontological structure of contingent facts.
We cannot discuss the figures that Meillassoux actually derives, namely
the principle of non-contradiction and the necessary existence of
something rather than nothing, in detail, but it is important to note that
his ultimate aim is to show that logic and mathematics are factial, and
124 n i h i l i s m

thereby ground their scientific application to matters of fact. This indi-

cates that the absolutisation of facticity hinges upon the overlap between
epistemic modality and alethic modality when it comes to logical necessity,
in so far as it converts the epistemological conditions of factual disagree-
ment into the ontological structure of facts. In turn, this suggests that the
inference from absolute facticity to absolute time hinges upon the gap
between atemporal logical necessity and temporal nomological necessity
in so far as it converts the logical possibility that things could be otherwise
into the nomological possibility that things could become otherwise. The
question that remains for critics of Meillassouxs thesis is thus whether or
not it conflates the epistemic contingency of nomological necessity with
the logical necessity of nomological contingency.

NIHILISM

Sean Dudley
In the most general sense nihilism names a simple, speculative thesis: that
the order of human being, from morality, to phenomenology, to lan-
guage, reflects nothing, not even dimly, about the order of being in-itself,
taken either in the key of nature or in the key of a deeper cosmology.
Nihilism is the result of reasons continual penetration beyond the order
of the human into the order of non-human nature. In its most resound-
ing tenor, nihilism ushers in the collapse of any and all transcendental
philosophy whose topic, were there to be one, would be the excavation
and exultation of the supposedly necessary and therefore transcendental
categories of human thought as well as the phenomenological structures
of first-person conscious experience that underwrite it. Since the forms of
experience reflect the arbitrary and ad hoc morphological constraints of the
human brain, there is no longer any reason to believe that how we think
about and perceive the world has any relationship whatsoever to how the
world really is in itself.
On this view, human cognition is a process no more or less transcen-
dental than is perspiration or egg-laying. Our mental structure is no
more necessary than the structure of our vertebrae, both simply reflecting
the arborous and venal pathway of a by and large arbitrary evolution-
ary history of outward spreading ampliative mutation rather than the
exemplification of some sort of gradual unfolding of the absolute toward a
utopian kingdom of ends. The human categories of possible experience,
for instance as catalogued by Immanuel Kant, deserve no special standing
above or beyond the categories enjoyed by penguins or dust-mites. Our
 n i h i l i s m 125

epistemic powers provide us with a view of the world that aims not at truth
but at adaptive advantage within our own ecosystem. Judged this way, it is
not clear at all whether humans have been equipped by nature in any way
more favourable than have the cockroach or e. coli. Like the latter, we have
been armed with our own variety of experience or blooming, buzzing,
confusion in William James words, and we, like any other creature, use
the faculties given to us to gather energy, excrete waste and reproduce.
The rest is window-dressing.
Perhaps the most damning blow nihilism lays on philosophy is the
permanent foreclosure on the possibility of knowledge. In short, episte-
mology, the study of how we distinguish truth from falsehood, becomes
annexed into the ever-expanding microscope of the empirical scientist,
leaving whatever philosophers have said on the matter more or less a topic
for the history of anthropology.The noble and heraldic pursuit of truth
is transformed into the slow march of a slave caravan moving between
the carrot and stick of lust and anxiety, different only in degree from the
motivations that inform the movements of reptiles and microbial slime.
It is this implosion of the old-fashioned notions of universal truth and
knowledge that demote the philosopher from his former position at the
head of the academy of the sciences to the basement office of the library
in the role of the eccentric, broom-wielding custodian. For with truth no
longer on the table, the philosopher has nothing left to do but become
a kind of curator of concepts, polishing arguments here and there and
helping to facilitate and expedite interdisciplinary communiqus between
the sciences and humanities, mopping up any spills that happen in the
hallways along the way.
But what does Meillassouxian philosophy have to say about nihilism?
Any such nihilism, which yokes the frailty of mans cognitive pedigree to
an external necessity, even the necessity of natural law, is itself slave to the
principle of sufficient reason, a principle that Meillassoux explicitly
rejects as pure dogma. For nihilism taken as the narrative of mans drive
to extinction is itself a narrative following its own thread of ontological
necessity. Once we raise the contingency of the correlation between mind
and world from the level of mere possibility to the level of necessity, as
Meillassoux does, we unleash an infinite nihilism powerful enough to
shatter not only every concord between man and cosmos but also every
discord and schism. Paradoxically, nihilism after Meillassoux becomes a
principle strong enough to cradle even the most anthropocentric fantasies
of man who restores in thinking the absolute contingency of necessity, the
permission to believe that anything is possible.
126 n o n - w h o l e / n o n - a l l

NON-WHOLE/NON-ALL

Peter Gratton
Introduced in Lacans Seminar XX, pas-tout translatable as non-
all, non-whole, or even not every refers to the non-totalisability or
subsumability of subjects under a given universal. In Badious Being and
Event, this comes to mean the non-totalisability of the universe given the
outcome of set theory. For Meillassoux, until Cantor, what was possible
was thought under a set of possibilities, even if highly improbable. In each
set or World, there is a given range of chances. For example, for a die,
the chance of rolling a one is one out of six. But what Meillassoux says
is that there is no totalisable set of all possible sets or universes. As such,
while within this World we have a number of possibles, the universe itself
cannot be totalised in terms of its possibilities. This he refers to as world
(lower case) or the virtual, the illimitable non-Whole of possibilities of
creation in hyper-chaos.
This non-Whole rids us of the frequentialist implication, as discussed
in After Finitude. We look at the universes apparent stability and guess
that the chances would be extremely low that this universe could be stable
without some eternal set of physical laws. However, Meillassoux argues
that aleatory reasoning only works when you have a total number of sets
from which to judge (like the six sides of a die), but given his use of set
theory, there is no total set of all sets, and thus one cannot calculate any
probability for this stability, even a minute one. In this way, hyper-chaos
may, yes, have provided for an apparently stable universe, but it also may,
at any time, give rise to a new World out of this one. For Meillassoux this
has already occurred, with the physical laws changing to allow the move
from the World of matter to the World of organic matter, and then to the
World that allows thought, and, foreseeably, perhaps a World beyond this
one, a World of justice.
 o b j e c t o r i e n t e d o n t o l o g y 127

O
OBJECT ORIENTED ONTOLOGY

Rick Elmore
Object Oriented Ontology (OOO) is a branch of speculative realism
associated with the work of Graham Harman, Levi Bryant, Ian Bogost
and Tim Morton. Bryant coined the term in 2009, as a corollary to Object
Oriented Philosophy (OOP), a phrase Harman began using in the late
1990s to describe the trajectory of his own work (Harman 2010: 93).
Although the two terms, OOO and OOP, mark different moments in
the history of object oriented thought, they are today used more or less
interchangeably. Despite its relative youth, OOO has a following in the
fields of philosophy, media studies, ecology and cultural studies. Many of
the central proponents of object oriented philosophy have long-running,
influential blogs and their association with publishing companies like Zero
Books and the online publisher Open Humanities Press led to the rapid
release and distribution of works related to OOO.
Like all forms of speculative realism, OOO begins from the critique of
correlationism, that is, the belief that the humanworld correlate forms
the central element of all philosophical investigation (Bryant et al. 2011:
19). Against correlationism, OOO contends that the cosmos is entirely
made up of individual objects: all being is composed of objects (Bryant
2010). The humanworld relation is, from an object oriented perspective,
neither unique nor fundamental, but is rather just an example of object-
to-object interactions. In fact, for OOO, the universe exists as a collec-
tion of autonomous objects interacting through a process Bryant terms
Exo-relation, a process of foreign relations in which objects translate
one another in terms of themselves (Bryant 2010). Morton formulates
this process in his work on causality, where he describes interactions
between objects as a sampling in which, for example, a cup cups the
table, and the table tables the cup, and a human humans the coffee, and
so on (Morton 2013). Because of its central claim that reality is entirely
made up of objects, OOO is a flat ontology, placing all entities in the
universe on the ontologically equal footing of being equally objects. This
is not to say that, for OOO, there is no difference between objects. Rather,
OOO gives no ontological privilege to any particular object, a claim that
strikes to the very heart of correlationism, anthropocentrism and idealism:
128 o b j e c t o r i e n t e d o n t o l o g y

ositions that precisely ground themselves on the ontological superiority

p
of the human and its mind. It is this grounding of a critique of ontological
privilege on the basis of an object oriented, flat ontology that distinguishes
OOO from other variants of speculative realism. Of the original attend-
ees of the now famous 2007 Goldsmith conference that inaugurated the
speculative realist movement (Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, Ian
Hamilton Grant, and Harman), Harmans OOO is the only position that
takes objects to be the fundamental elements of the cosmos. Proponents
of OOO argue that this absolute focus on objects is essential to avoid what
Harman calls ontologies of undermining and overmining.
Ontologies of undermining see objects as merely the effect of deeper
more fundamental ontological forces. This includes, for example, any
ontology that sees objects as constituted by their relations or by some
more fundamental element such as water, air or fire, as in the ancient
Greek tradition (Harman 2011b: 89). Ontologies of overmining, con-
versely, see objects as falsely deep abstractions of more immediate forces.
This includes positions such as empiricism, where objects of experience
are characterised as bundles of qualities (Harman 2011b: 1011). The
problem with both these forms of ontology, from an object oriented per-
spective, is that they risk reestablishing the logic of ontological privilege
found in correlationism.
In so far as ontologies of overmining and undermining take some
entity or force to be more fundamental or immediate than objects, such
ontologies relegate objects to the secondary status of mere appearances
or accidents. From an OOO perspective, this risks reestablishing the
logic of ontological privilege found in correlationism, since any process
of abstraction is necessarily linked to processes of consciousness and,
therefore, idealism. This is, in a general sense, the object oriented critique
of most other forms of speculative realism, which, although akin in their
rejection of correlationism, do not, at least on the OOO account, forsake
correlationism entirely.
Despite the fact that the basic tenet of OOO is rather simple, requir-
ing only that one take the cosmos to be made up entirely of objects, the
positions most commonly associated with it are quite diverse, ranging
from Harmans Heidegger-based insistence on the recessional character of
objects to Bryants uniquely Lacanian notion of a democracy of objects,
as well as Bogosts video game theory inspired alien phenomenology and
Mortons ecologically focused concern for hyperobjects and aesthetic cau-
sality. In addition, OOO has had a number of offshoots including Object
Oriented Feminism and Object Oriented Architecture.
Key texts of Object Oriented Philosophy include Harmans Tool-Being
(2002), Guerilla Metaphysics (2005), and The Quadruple Object (2011);
 critiques ofmeillassoux 129

Levi Bryants The Democracy of Objects (2011); the edited collection

The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism (2011); Ian
Bogosts Alien Phenomenology (2012); and Timothy Mortons Realist
Magic (2013).

OBJECT ORIENTED ONTOLOGYS CRITIQUES

OFMEILLASSOUX

Rick Elmore
The critique by object oriented ontology (OOO) of speculative materi-
alism asserts that Meillassoux fails to articulate a form of correlation-
ism that does not ultimately fall prey to idealism (Harman 2011a: 124).
The clearest formulation of this critique appears in Graham Harmans
Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making (2011). In that work,
Harman contests Meillassouxs rejection of the principle of sufficient
reason, privileging of time over space, and commitment to the concept
of law (Harman 2011a: 14158). However, Harmans primary critique,
and the one shared by all proponents of OOO, concerns Meillassouxs
assertion that one cannot think what is outside thought and his reliance on
a notion of the meaningless to ground his escape from the correlationist
circle (Harman 2011a: 13940).
For Harman, Meillassoux accepts the basic truth of the correlationist
position, that one cannot think what is outside of thought. This claim
grounds his rejection of realism, Harman claims, as he contends that to
think what is outside thought necessarily leads to a performative contra-
diction: turning what is other than thought into thought (Harman 2011a:
165). Proponents of OOO find this argument relatively weak, as, for
them, the existence of any object necessarily exceeds all human thought
and knowledge about it. Were this not the case, our knowledge of objects
would be indistinguishable from the objects themselves, and absolute
idealism would win the day (Harman 2011a: 148).
For Levi Bryant, Meillassouxs insistence on performative contradic-
tion problematically assumes all thought to be self-reflexive (a thinking
about thinking). This assumption leads to an infinite regress, since, if one
cannot think something without thinking about it, then thinking becomes
nothing but a thinking about thinking and so on into infinity (Bryant
2010). Hence in order for there to be any possibility of accessing a world
outside thought, a possibility to which Meillassoux is committed, there
must be some form of thought that is not entirely self-reflexive, and, con-
sequently, immune to the claim of performative contradiction. Yet this is
130 o n t o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t

but one half of the OOO critique of Meillassoux on the issue of thought,
the other having to do with his rendering of what he dubs meaningless.
While committed to the importance of the humanworld correlate,
Harman claims, Meillassoux does not foreclose the possibility of some-
thing existing outside thought. In fact, he insists on it. This insistence
comes from his rejection of the notion that the meaningful must exhaust
the real. The fact that we cannot meaningfully think what is outside
thought does not entail its non-existence. It is this claim that Meillassoux
believes saves him from the charge of idealism, as Harman portrays it,
since it shows that something exists outside thought (the meaningless)
without falling into a performative contradiction (giving this outside any
meaning). Proponents of OOO critique this argument on the grounds that
Meillassoux cannot maintain a concept of the meaningless as necessarily
existing outside thought (Harman 2011a: 13940).
For OOO, it is not enough for Meillassoux to claim that something
meaningless exists in order to establish that it exists outside thought.
One can imagine all kinds of meaningless statements that do not
entail thought-independent existence, for example, non-white white
or square circle (Harman 2011a: 140). The meaninglessness of these
statements does not grant them existence as a real possibility. Hence, it
is not simply any meaningless statement at all that eventually does the work
of dethroning Absolute Idealism, [for Meillassoux] but a specific form of
meaninglessness (Harman 2011a: 140). For Harman, a truly meaning-
less statement would resist any determination of its existence. Hence,
Meillassouxs argument works only by making the meaningless actually
meaningful, ascribing to it the meaningful predicate of existence outside
thought.
Meillassouxs response to these critiques is that any attempt to cir-
cumvent the correlationist circle remains necessarily victim to the
vicious pragmatic circle of the performative contradiction outlined above
(Harman 2011a: 1645). For him, there is simply no ground outside the
humanworld correlate on which to initiate a critique of that correlate.
Hence, in so far as OOO argues for the abandonment of the humanworld
correlate entirely, it remains, for Meillassoux, a kind of naive realism.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Paul OMahoney
An ontological argument is one which derives and demonstrates the
existence of God using reason alone, unaided by observation. The most
 o n t o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t 131

famous instance of the ontological argument and the most important for
Meillassoux is that articulated by Ren Descartes in his Meditations on
First Philosophy (1641). The argument has a twofold purpose in Descartes:
first, the rational demonstration of the existence of God, aimed at those
for whom faith in revealed scripture is not sufficient; and second, and
more importantly, to furnish a guarantor of the reliability of reason and
human knowledge. The Cartesian God is conceived of as the sum of all
perfections. As existence is deemed superior to inexistence, existence is
a perfection. A perfect being must therefore of necessity exist. As the
idea of a perfect and infinite being could not have been produced by an
imperfect and finite being, such as the finite thinking thing or cogito, nor
encountered by it, the idea of such a being as God is innate: it is implanted
by God in the manner of a craftsmans stamp. The idea is present innately
in every person, and can be arrived at by sufficient reflection.
This perfect being has the three traditional attributes of God: omnipo-
tence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. The last is posited as wicked-
ness and deceit are construed as imperfections, and inimical to the nature
of a perfect being. This allows Descartes to overcome the most radical
hypothesis of his methodical doubt: that an evil demon, or God Himself,
is deceiving Descartes at every turn. Gods perfection implies that he is a
non-deceiver, and this fact allows Descartes to assert that it is impossible
that God Himself would actively deceive Descartes or that He would allow
an evil demon to do so.
God as demonstrated by the argument functions as an absolute: His
existence, though it can be made manifest upon reflection or demonstrated
to us, is not dependent on us. The most prominent precedent to Descartes,
and perhaps the first coherent articulation of the ontological argument, is
that put forth by St Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion (c. 1078),
where God is defined as that greater than which cannot be thought.
Anselms work occasioned what remains one of the most celebrated
ripostes to the argument. The Benedictine monk Gaunilos reply On
Behalf of the Fool maintained that if conceiving of a perfect being implied
its existence, this could be extended to a perfect island, and innumerable
other entities. The objection has not been widely accepted. Perhaps the
most famous twentieth-century version of the argument is that proposed
by Alvin Plantinga. Kurt Gdel also offered a proof which, though logi-
cally valid, does not suffice to demonstrate the existence of God.
The most pertinent criticism of the ontological argument for Meillassoux
is that offered by Kant. For Kant, existence cannot be counted as a predi-
cate. There is no contradiction in imagining that God does not exist, and
so the predicate exists is merely part of an analytic judgement and adds
nothing to the subject. For Meillassoux, the (Cartesian) ontological
132 o n t o - t h e o l o g y

argument is the natural outcome of modern philosophys embrace of

the principle of sufficient reason, which, though it was articulated by
Leibniz, he sees as already operative in Descartes (cf. Meditation III). It
is thus the natural culmination of dogmatic metaphysics, guaranteeing,
via the necessity of God, the real necessity of physical laws and beings. In
rejecting the principle of sufficient reason and positing a speculative rather
than metaphysical absolute, Meillassoux denies the arguments legitimacy
(AF, 2933; 40; 501; 60).

ONTO-THEOLOGY

Marie-Eve Morin
Metaphysics, according to Heidegger, seeks to answer the fundamental
question, why are there beings rather than nothing? This question seeks
the ground for beings, yet this project of grounding splits into two. First,
beings are interrogated with regard to their Being: what does it mean for
an entity in general to be? At the same time, beings as a whole are brought
back to a first cause or foundation, to an entity that can ground and
sustain in Being what exists as a whole. As such, metaphysics is both
ontology, the process of grounding beings qua beings in Being, and theol-
ogy, the process of grounding the Being of what is in a highest entity, that
is to say, God. In both branches, the ground or explanation for what
exists will be transcendent, yet it will be so in different ways. Metaphysics
has only one subject matter, beings, but it approaches its subject matter
from two angles: according to what is universal or common, and accord-
ing to what is ultimate or highest. Onto-theology is also essentially a
logic: because beings are questioned with regards to their ground (logos,
ratio), beings appear as what is grounded in, and as the grounding cause
of, Being.
The onto-theological structure of metaphysics, according to Heidegger,
is essentially related to the difference between essence and existence.
Metaphysics studies beings as such and as a whole, that is, it studies
beings with regards to their essence as beings and it studies the whole
of beings, the world, with regards to its existence. The two are related:
ontology determines the essence of the beings whose existence is explained
by theology. Essence (whatness) answers the question: What is x? while
existence (thatness) answers the question, Is there an x? While ontology
lays out the essence of something in so far as it is not only a specific thing
(a table or a chair) but a something in general, theology studies the cause
of the existence of beings. This cause takes the form of a being that is itself
 o v e r t u r n e d p l a t o n i s m 133

self-caused, i.e., the being for which existence is essential. Metaphysics

assumes the precedence of beings (in the determination of their essence)
and the self-evidence of Being (determined as the presence or existence of
beings).
Heideggers thesis about the onto-theological structure of metaphys-
ics does not only say that philosophy includes ontological as well as
theological considerations. The division between metaphysica specialis
and metaphyisca generalis already said as much. Rather, onto-theology is
characterised by the simultaneity and circularity of both ways of question-
ing beings. First, the and between theology and ontology is not that of
an addition (first this, then that) but of a doubling, a Zwiefalt. Second,
and more importantly, ontology and theology reciprocally determine each
other: each is the foundation for the other so that neither can rightfully
claim to be the ultimate foundation. The determination of the Being of
beings always implies the indication of the entity that best exemplifies
Being and can serve as the basis for the whole of beings, sustaining them
in Being. Inversely, the determination of a highest entity provides the
measure for all beings and hence lies at the centre of our determination
of Being (of what it means for an entity to be). It is only from an already
determined idea of Being that the highest entity can be identified and the
idea of Being can only be read off the entity that is most properly, that
displays Being most perfectly.
Metaphysics as onto-theology overlooks the ontological difference as
difference and instead names what is different: Being beings, ground
what is grounded. It actualises the ontological difference, sets Being apart
from beings as their ground but without being able to think the belonging-
together of Being and beings in this difference. The circularity of onto-
theology is the way in which this belonging-together appears within
metaphysics. At the same time, this belonging-together cannot be thought
within metaphysics but requires a step back into the essence of metaphys-
ics, into the differentiation that grants a between that holds Being and
beings together. It is from here, for Heidegger, that a non-metaphysical
thinking of the divine, where God is not the self-caused being that brings
into and sustains in existence the whole of beings, becomes possible.

OVERTURNED PLATONISM

Paul J. Ennis
On occasion Meillassoux uses the term overturned Platonism to describe
his intent to flip the traditional stabilitybecoming opposition (CLN,
134 p h e n o m e n o l o g y

326). In Potentiality and Virtuality he tells us that we should attempt to

think according to an inverted, rather than reversed Platonism, a Platonism
which would maintain that thought must free itself from the fascination
for the phenomenal fixity of laws, so as to accede to a purely intelligible
Chaos (SD, 273). For Meillassoux the idea is that rather than assume
that the world of phenomenal appearance is one of becoming and that our
task is to discover the intelligible stability lying behind it through reason
(apriori), we should revise this such that the a priori speaks to becoming
(as chaos) and phenomenal appearance is the site of stability (fixity,
consistency, etc.). The basic thrust of this inversion is influenced by Jean-
Ren Vernes Critique of Aleatory Reason.

P
PHENOMENOLOGY

Marie-Eve Morin
Phenomenology can be broadly defined as the study or science of phe-
nomena. As Heidegger points out in the introduction to Being and Time,
unlike other sciences such as biology or sociology, the name phenom-
enology does not name a specific realm of objects to be studied, such
as living things or social things, but is a purely methodological concept.
Phenomenon names that which shows itself in itself and logos originally
means letting something be seen. Putting both together, phenomenology
means, to let that which shows itself be seen from itself in the very way in
which it shows itself from itself (Heidegger 1962: 7), without any refer-
ence to a subject matter.
Husserlian phenomenology arises out of critique of both psychologism
and representationalism. Psychologism assumes that because all truths are
achieved by a conscious subject, then all truths are necessarily dependent
on factual conditions of thought. For example, the law of non-contradiction
does not say objectively that something cannot be bothA and not A, but
rather that it is not possible for us subjectively to think both A and not
A. For Husserl, this is a category mistake. When I say that 2+2=4, I say
nothing about counting, even though the truth of the result 4 can only be
achieved through an act of counting. The puzzle of phenomenology is how
subjectively individuated acts of consciousness can give rise to objectivity,
that is, to something that is or is true independently from consciousness.
 p h e n o m e n o l o g y 135

Objectivity is for Husserl an achievement (Leistung) of subjective con-

sciousness. The second target of phenomenology is representationalist
theories of outer perception. For Husserl, when I perceive a house, for
example, I am not in contact with mental representations that would veil
or distort the real house; rather, I see the house itself. This house is of
course given to me from a specific perspective, in a specific lighting, and so
on, that is, it is given to me through what Husserl will call an adumbration
or a series of adumbrations (Abschattungen). Yet, this mode of givenness
reveals the house itself; it is not some third thing that stands between me
and the house and mediates my relation to it. If the mode of givenness
were different, for example, if the house were given absolutely, all at once,
from no standpoint, then the house would be thought as Idea but not
perceived. Of course, the house can be perceived more or less well, but
this is something I can figure out by perceiving more of the house, that
is, by doing more of the same, not by accessing something other than the
perceived house.
In its Husserlian form, phenomenology studies what appears to con-
sciousness as it appears and only in so far as it appears, trying to bracket
all assumptions, including philosophical and scientific theories. This is
the meaning of the Husserlian motto back to the things themselves. The
things (Sachen) of phenomenology are not to be understood as physical
or material things. In fact, their ontological status cannot be presumed
but will have to be attested phenomenologically, that is, attested by the
way the thing shows itself. Another way of defining phenomenology is to
say that it studies intentional life. Consciousness for Husserl is defined by
intentionality: to be conscious is always to be conscious of or to intend
something. It should be noted that intentionality does not require volition
or intention in the normal sense of the word; rather volitional, explicitly
intentional conscious acts are one type of intentionality. If consciousness is
defined as intentionality, it means that consciousness is not a thing such as
a blank slate or a box, but a movement or an arrow. Hence the question of
how consciousness can reach out of itself in order to hit an object makes
no sense for the phenomenologist.
The method of phenomenology for Husserl consists first of a suspen-
sion of our natural attitude, called the epoch. The natural attitude is the
way in which we are normally conscious of or engage in the world, and it
forms the basis for the all sciences, including psychology. In this attitude,
we are focused on what is given (numbers, tomatoes, people, and so
forth) and overlook the mode of appearance or givenness of these things.
Because consciousness is a movement toward objects, we tend to overlook
the intentional relation between consciousness and what is given. To
study objects in their givenness we need to put out of play the object-pull,
136 p o t e n t i a l i t y

refrain from following through with the arrow that consciousness is.
Thanks to this suspension, we are led back and hence gain access to a
forgotten or overlooked dimension, that is, the consciousnessworld rela-
tion. This is the phenomenological reduction. Reduction here does not
mean that something has been removed, that is, that the object has been
lost, but rather that one is led back to (re-ducere in Latin). In the reduc-
tion, I still have the whole of my consciousness with everything that is
presented in it. Furthermore, what is presented is still presented as real,
as illusion, as ideal, and so on, but instead of being interested in what is
presented (what is it? is it real?), I suspend my judgement so that I can
focus on how it is presented as this or that, as real or illusory, and so on.
Hence, we cannot say that, because of the phenomenological reduction,
the phenomenologist does not have access to or disregards reality (or
real things). Rather, being-real now means being given to conscious-
ness in a certain way.
The field of study uncovered by the phenomenological reduction
consists of two interrelated poles, the noetic or act pole and the noematic
or object pole. Phenomenology studies the correlation between these two
poles, for example, how a perceived object gives itself in a perceiving,
how a modification of the perceiving into an imagining changes some
features of the perceived (it is not an imagined object but a perceived
one) but not others (it is still the same blue house, and so on). At this
point, the phenomenologist also needs to perform an eidetic reduction.
This is the reduction that leads from particular facts to essences. This
is achieved through imaginary variations: I vary the perception until it
is not a perception anymore so as to uncover the essential features of the
perceivingperceived correlation, and so on. Finally Husserl thinks that
the phenomenological reduction if correctly and radically performed will
necessarily lead to a transcendental reduction because consciousness (the
dimension uncovered by the phenomenological reduction) cannot itself
be a worldly thing that appears to consciousness. Such a circularity would
lead us to transcendental realism and we would be committing the same
mistake as psychologism.

POTENTIALITY

Leon Niemoczynski
Meillassoux is careful to distinguish between two cases of being: the
potential and the virtual. Similar to how Deleuzes ontology hinges on
a distinction between the virtual and the actual, Meillassouxs ontology
 p o t e n t i a l i t y 137

of contingency requires a fine distinction between virtuality as involv-

ing a realm of unpredictable hyper-chaotic creation, and potentiality as
a concept involving a realm of probabilistic, though predictable within
odds, chance.
In the article Potentiality and Virtuality, after refashioning David
Humes problem concerning the lack of causal connection between
events, which asserts a radical contingency refusing inductively estab-
lished laws subject to probability, Meillassoux focuses on the issue of why
probabilistic reasoning is said to be an option even though the laws of
nature themselves are subject to radical contingency. Meillassoux states
that a reasonable probabilistic chain of inference to law cannot take place
due to the fact that it is impossible to establish a numerical calculation that
could cover a total set of possible cases in which the calculation could take
place. If probabilistic reasoning considering chance were to be justified in
terms of wagering what may happen via established laws, it would need to
determine a set of possible universes within which a probability calcula-
tion could occur.
Traditionally, this meant that there is a sum total of possible worlds
where the set of all possible worlds would constitute a finite number from
which one could draw a probable case. However, as Meillassoux points
out, short of anyone other than Leibnizs God, no one has ever surveyed
that sum total of possible worlds. Meillassouxs argument concerning the
untotalisable nature of worlds stems from his engagement with Cantorian
set theory (see Georg Cantor). According to Cantor, infinities are multi-
ple as it is possible for there to be an infinite number of multiple sets, each
with varying cardinalities. Therefore, it is impossible to foreclose sets of
infinite multiples given that a set of all sets would involve contradiction.
As Meillassoux points out, the Cantorian revolution consists in having
demonstrated that infinities can be differentiated, that is that one can think
the equality or inequality of two infinites whatever infinity is consid-
ered, an infinity of superior cardinality (a larger infinity) necessarily exists
(PV, 66). Because there is no reason to choose one infinite over another, as
a closed set, there is no mean by which any number can probabilistically be
employed against a specific set. Reason cannot rely on an absolute totality
of possible cases, as any singular totality would be one closed set among
an innumerable order of other sets. Thus probabilistic reasoning, given
this infinite number of sets of infinity, would not make sense.
When a supposed law is considered to be determined from an ordered,
pre-given set of possibilities, Meillassoux states that we have fixed becom-
ing such that we can speak of a potential for some event to occur given a
number of other fixed cases that determine the probability of that event
occurring. On the other hand, by detotalising the possible as a result
138 p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y q u a l i t i e s

of liberating time from all legal subordination (PV, 71), it is possible

to speak of a deeper sense of the potential that is not subject to finite
totalisation and determination. This is the virtual. In sum, for Meillassoux
potentialities are the non-actualized cases of an indexed set of possibilities
under the condition of a given law whereas the virtual, supported by the
Cantorian decision to refuse totalising the thinkable, delineates the irrup-
tion ex nihilo of hyper-chaos, that is, a creation ex nihilo (PV, 712).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES

Francis Halsall
The opening sentences of After Finitude are an audacious declaration that
the theory of primary and secondary qualities will be rehabilitated. Hence
Meillassoux revisits an old philosophical theme that had become, he
claims, seemingly obsolete. This is his way back into a speculative meta-
physics that reconsiders the relation between consciousness and the abso-
lute. In short, primary qualities are those which objects actually have;
secondary qualities are produced in experience. They are utterly distinct
from each other. Secondary qualities are those features of the phenomenal
realm by which it is present to consciousness. They are sensible for us
and are not the necessary features of objects. The secondary qualities of
an object do not exist in things themselves; rather, they emerge from the
relation of consciousness to objects. The primary qualities of an object,
in distinction, are autonomous from sensible qualities. They are not part
of the relation of consciousness to objects but those elements of objects
which can be expressed mathematically.
The terms were most famously coined by Locke, although Meillassoux
identifies a significant pre-emption in Ren Descartes discussions of
sensations, such as pain, originating in a subjects relation to an object
and not in the object itself. By returning to a well-worn philosophical
topic Meillassouxs intention is to challenge the transcendental tradition
of post-Kantian philosophy. Hence, he wishes to sidestep both Kantian
arguments regarding the un-knowability of the noumenal world of things-
in-themselves and phenomenological attempts to negotiate these argu-
ments by returning to the primacy of objects in perception and moving
from these to analysis of noematic and noetic content. These philosophical
moves create a problem which is exemplified for Meillassoux in the corre-
lationist position, namely how the primary qualities of the world-in-itself
can be represented without them subsequently becoming available for us.
Meillassoux finds the philosophical route to de-subjectivated nature in
 p r i n c i p l e o f n o n - c o n t r a d i c t i o n 139

mathematics which is universal and objective. Hence, what is mathema-

tizable cannot be reduced to a correlate of thought (AF, 117)
Thus, Meillassoux seeks to isolate primary qualities from experience
in order to establish the primary object of his speculative metaphysical
project. Primary qualities are independent of thought yet available to it
through the abstractions of mathematics. The in-itself is mathematisable;
hence it not only exists but can also be demonstrated to exist indepen-
dently of consciousness. Meillassouxs argument is framed by the rhe-
torical flourish whereby he self-consciously returns to a topic supposedly
discredited by contemporary philosophy. He claims that this allows him
to return to a pre-critical or pre-Kantian metaphysics which lets him
step outside of the legacy of correlationist philosophy. This is, in effect,
Cartesian in so far as Meillassoux is attempting to restore thoughts access
to reality though mathematics. To do so requires two assertions regarding
the primary qualities of objects: first, that they are logically consistent, that
is, they are subject to the principle of non-contradiction, and second,
that they are contingent, that is, they could be otherwise. In short, math-
ematics is the route to his ontology.

PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION

Raphal Millire
Whether contradictions can exist or not in the world has been an impor-
tant philosophical issue since Aristotle, if not Heraclitus. Naturally, it
also occupies a central place in Meillassouxs work, since the ontological
principle of non-contradiction is the first of the non-trivial figures he
intends to deduce from the apodictic principle of factuality. Though
this proof appears in After Finitude (6771), Meillassouxs earliest treat-
ment of the principle of non-contradiction is to be found in his PhD
thesis, LInexistence divine (excerpts of which appear in DI, 12871).
Interestingly, it is also his lengthiest examination of this issue, although
it comes from an unpublished academic work. Meillassoux intends to
publish a revised and expanded version of LInexistence divine, which he
has been working on for more than a decade. Since this opus magnum still
remains unpublished, we will focus on the original version, which is in
line with his shorter development of non-contradiction found in After
Finitude. It is however possible that Meillassoux will revise part of his
position on the matter in forthcoming publications, since we may consider
he hasnt yet given his definitive thesis on this central theme.
Meillassouxs main thesis on contradiction is the following: it is
140 p r i n c i p l e o f n o n - c o n t r a d i c t i o n

impossible that there are contradictions in the world, because necessarily

everything is contingent (principle of factiality), and a contradictory
being would have to be necessary. We shall not discuss the former thesis,
since we will focus on the demonstration of the latter, which, as will
become clear, is not immune to criticism. Meillassouxs central claim is
that a contradictory entity would be immutable and necessary, since there
would be no alterity for it to change: it would have simultaneously every
property and its opposite, would be existent and non-existent, and thus
could not change or cease to exist. Therefore, such a hypothetical entity
would be a necessary being, which is impossible if we grant factiality:

Non-contradiction is therefore an eternal truth because it states that if something

is, it is determined, and that being determined means being actual as a reality
among other equally possible realities. Nothing can be what it is not, because
nothing can exhaust, as long as it exists, the universe of possibility. (DI2, 155)

This argument is not entirely clear nor is it unproblematic: why couldnt

there be local contradictions in contingent objects, such as a round square?
The extensive discussion of this issue in LInexistence divine casts some
light on Meillassouxs answer. In classical logic, if a contradiction is true,
anything is true. As medieval logicians put it, ex falso sequitur quodlibet,
that is, from falsity anything follows. This well-known characteristic of
classical propositional logic appears in the truth-table of material implica-
tion: P Q is always true if P is false.
Thus a local contradiction (P & P) would entail the truth of any
formula, including all contradictions. This so-called principle of explo-
sion has been, at least for some people, a major problem in logic for
several centuries, and the recent invention of a non-classical branch of
logic called paraconsistent logic, in which some contradictions are true
(without entailing the truth of anything) was mainly intended as a solution
to it. Interestingly, Meillassoux discusses the relevance of a paraconsistent
approach to his problem, but ultimately dismisses such an approach on the
basis that it does not deal with genuine contradiction but only with appar-
ent ones, giving credit to Quines statement that non-classical logics only
change the subject (Quine 1986: 81).
The author of LInexistence divine tells a small story, the tale of the
zebra, to explain the alleged misconception of the friend of paraconsist-
ence: he is like an explorer discovering an exotic animal which happens
to be a zebra and coming to believe it exhibits an authentic worldly con-
tradiction because it is both black and white. Obviously, the description of
a zebra as black and white can only be misinterpreted as a contradiction,
while it merely means that the animal is striped. Meillassoux implies that
 p r i n c i p l e o f n o n - c o n t r a d i c t i o n 141

each time a philosopher claims to have found a genuine contradiction,

what he really talks about is only the diversity of determinations (that is,
local properties, like the zebras blackness and whiteness). A real contra-
diction would involve a white-and-not-white zebra, or, for that matter, an
animal both dead and alive, like Schrdingers cat. As Meillassoux puts it,
the defender of real pseudo-contradiction ... mistakes the infinite speci-
fiability [prcisabilit] of the world for its contradictory nature (DI2, 152).
However the idea that real contradictions exist in the world is not
as absurd as it seems; it has indeed its promoters, called dialetheists.
Dialetheism is the metaphysical counterpart of paraconsistent logic; it is
the real target of Meillassouxs argument, since a formal calculus, whether
classical or non-classical, does not involve any ontological commitment
by itself. The tale of the zebra is supposed to exhibit a fundamental mis-
conception of dialetheism, showing that so-called true contradictions are
not bona fide contradictions. But what exactly justifies such a statement?
Graham Priest, one of the notable defenders of dialetheism, has shown at
length that his view is coherent and deals with genuine contradictions. For
example, Priest (1987) includes a lot of interesting applications of dialethe-
ism to metaphysical issues about change, motion and time. He claims that
there are some sentences ... , such that both and are true and
concludes that if some contradictions are true, then the world must be
such as to make this the case ... In this sense, the world is contradictory
(Priest 1987: 299). Elsewhere, he even tells a story of his invention about
a contradictory object, a box described as really empty and occupied at
the same time (Priest 2005: 127). Suppose there can be such a thing as a
box both empty and full: it does not follow from this local contradiction
either that the whole world is contradictory or that the box is a necessary
being it may well cease to exist. Even a contradictory object having all
properties at the same time (a maximal contradiction) would still be
subject to change, since it could still lose one of its properties.
Therefore Meillassouxs argument against dialetheism seems flawed:
not only is he is unable to show why dialetheism only deals with pseudo-
contradictions, but he also fails to justify the claim that a real contradic-
tion would entail the existence of a necessary being. While the reason
for this mistake remains unclear in After Finitude, a close examination of
LInexistence divine shows that it probably comes from a misunderstand-
ing of the real meaning of the classical principle of explosion which is
a formal law of (some) logical systems and has no bearing on metaphysical
issues.
142 p r i n c i p l e o f s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n

PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON

Sergey Sistiaga
The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) was first stated explicitly by
Leibniz (Monadology, 31), but was implicitly at work from the very begin-
ning of philosophy. It says that everything has a reason why it is, as it is,
rather than otherwise. As such it is the central principle of rationalism,
stating that everything admits theoretically of an explanation, is poten-
tially intelligible, and that the structure of being must be fundamentally
rational. Rigorously applied, as in Spinoza, it entails necessitarianism.
This means everything happens with metaphysical necessity and leads
to the postulation of a first cause or causa sui that had no previous cause,
which is supposed to end the infinite regress of reason/explanations/
grounds by means of a self-explanatory and self-grounding necessary
entity. These extreme c onsequences lead various philosophers to soften its
consequences. In Leibniz, God has the free choice of all possible worlds.
Some have condemned the PSR as unjustified metaphysical speculation, as
David Hume, Immanuel Kant and their post-metaphysical followers did.
Meillassoux explicitly rejects the PSR on philosophical grounds as
absolutely false (AF, 53, 60, 71), but sometimes hints at political motives,
where he claims an incompatibility between the PSR and the critique of
ideology (AF, 334). Proceeding from Leibnizs distinction of two inde-
pendent fundamental principles (Monadology, 31; AF, 71), the PSR and
the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), we find that Meillassouxs
rejection of the PSR is based on two different historically very influen-
tial arguments. Meillassoux uses a controversial Cartesian argument,
which today falls under the name of the conceivability argument, where
one concludes real possibility out of logical conceivability (Descartes,
MeditationVI). With Hume, Meillassoux argues that since the denial of
the PSR implies no contradiction, it is conceivable and therefore possible
that the PSR could be wrong, because the latter is not a necessary truth
or tautology. In addition Meillassoux generalises Kants critique of the
ontological argument into the thesis that every proof for a necessarily
existing entity is impossible. In extrapolating from the impossibility to
prove a necessary entity to the strong claim that no such entity could
exist, Meillassoux thinks the PSR cannot be maintained anymore because
no self-explanatory entity could stop the infinite regress of reasons (AF,
303).
Meillassouxs own argument is based on the Cartesian dualism between
thought and being, transformed through Berkeley and Kant into the
thesis that Meillassoux terms correlationism, which says that thought
 p r i n c i p l e o f s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n 143

can never access being in-itself, because then being would just be being
for-us, because thinking always turns the unthought into thought via the
correlationist circle (see Cartesian in-itself; Ren Descartes).
His rejection of necessary entities and the structure of the correlation-
ist circle, which does not allow us to think any de-correlated entity that
could be the hidden reason of this very structure, preclude the possibility
of absolutising the correlation itself. Having excluded all external and
internal reasons for the correlations existence, Meillassoux concludes
the facticity or groundlessness of the correlation. Rejecting with the PSR
brute and unexplainable facts, Meillassoux turns the only remaining fact
that doesnt fall prey to correlationism into an explanatory absolute, the
facticity of the correlation. If facticity is necessary, which he dubs factial-
ity, then the PSR as a metaphysical absolute is false, because its opposite,
the principle of unreason, a speculative absolute, is true (AF, 5060).
To counter the obvious objection, that this move would only render
thoughts inability to think the absolute into an absolute inability
(AF,52), Meillassoux argues that only by assuming ontological facticity
in the first place is one able to make sense of the distinction between the
in-itself and the for-us. Since for being to be different from thought it
needs to have the potential of being-other than it actually is for us, since
otherwise thought could think being in-itself. The possibility to think
the dualist basics of correlationism implies for Meillassoux that every
epistemic possibility has to be a real possibility, otherwise correlationism
itself would become unthinkable. In holding that everything that can be
thought can become real, Meillassoux denies against Leibniz the comple-
mentarity of the PNC with the PSR, by turning the former against the
latter.
To use the PNC to deny the PSR is no problem, because so far nobody
has come up with a demonstration that the PSR is a necessary truth
whose denial would involve a contradiction. Nonetheless, it could seem
that Meillassouxs argument for his principle of unreason is itself threat-
ened by a set of structurally similar contradictions. On several occasions
Meillassoux denies the premise, which as in the case of correlationism is
indispensable for his argumentation, in the conclusion of his argument.
He argues from the truth of correlationism to its falsity, from dualism to
monism, from the non-absolute to the absolute of the non-All, which may
in-itself be a contradiction. In all cases his conclusions contradict their
premises. Indeed, trying to convert correlationist dualism into an absolute
monism of unreason may well be an impossible task, as the absolute cannot
by definition be fundamentally divided in itself. Seen from this angle it is
not surprising, as Brassier observes, that Meillassoux never gets rid of his
initial dualism of thinking and being (Brassier 2007: 8594).
144 p t o l e m a i c c o u n t e r - r e v o l u t i o n

Ultimately, the idea of the whole project, to derive an absolute from

a dualist premise, could be said to be inconsistent from the start since
an absolute can by definition only be some type of monism. Therefore,
by necessity, one of the terms of the correlation has no place. Either
one reduces reality to thought or vice versa, and in any case, the
argumentation via the facticity of the correlation against the PSR would
be impossible even to conceive. Rather than an assault on the PSR,
Meillassouxs p hilosophy might be seen as a radical re-interpretation of
it under a dualist premise, because to argue rationally against the PSR
means to presuppose it already in its most general form. It is not so
much the content of the PSR that is in question, but more the form this
principle can take and whether or not, then, it is primary or secondary to
the PNC.

PTOLEMAIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION

Francis Halsall
The Ptolemaic counter-revolution appears in Chapter 5 of After Finitude
to name the philosophical response to the Copernican Revolution
in science. Meillassoux recognises that the Copernican revolution has
two meanings: a literal and genuine sense from which modern science
emerges; and a metaphorical use in philosophy. In this second sense it
is often used to name the transcendental turn to correlationism taken
by philosophy from Kant onwards. Meillassouxs decision to call this
second sense the Ptolemaic counter-revolution is rhetorical as it suggests
the tradition he ultimately wants to oppose is retrogressive. Meillassoux
recognises that the Copernican revolution in science does not refer to
astronomical modelling but rather the theoretical awareness, developed
also by Galileo and Ren Descartes, that fundamental features of nature
can be described mathematically. Hence the world, by virtue of its math-
ematisation, is separable from human consciousness and is not reducible
to being a correlate of thought.
This Copernican-Galilean revolution leads to the decentring of
thought relative to the world within the process of knowledge (AF, 115).
This creates the catastrophe that science replaces metaphysics as the
guarantor of knowledge, namely that simultaneous to the scientific
positing of a world independent to thought comes the realisation that the
claims of science are naive and secondary to philosophical thought for they
cannot guarantee their own truth. This, Meillassoux claims, is the violent
contradiction at the heart of the schism of modernity: that whilst science
 r a t i o n a l i s m 145

allows for the possibility of a mind-independent reality, philosophy insists

that thought about that reality in-itself is impossible.
Within philosophy the use of the Copernican Revolution as a metaphor
originated from a comment in the second preface to The Critique of Pure
Reason (1787) where Immanuel Kant proposes to do for metaphysics what
Copernicus had done for cosmology, namely effect a sudden revolution
leading to a paradigm shift. In On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres
(1543) Copernicus proposed a heliocentric system that reversed the com-
monly accepted Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe. Kant states
that whereas previously it had been assumed that knowledge conforms to
its objects he will develop a metaphysics that begins from the supposition
that objects conform to knowledge. From this emerges the transcendental
turn that modifies metaphysical questions directed toward things-in-
themselves, knowledge of which is claimed to be impossible, into ques-
tions of how knowledge of the world of appearances is possible.
Meillassoux recognises the shortcomings of this metaphor by claiming
that it gives rise to the paradox that its meaning is the opposite of what
was intended, as it positions the observing subject at the centre of an
epistemological system. In terms of their use in philosophical discourse
both the Copernican Revolution and the Ptolemaic counter-revolution
should be acknowledged as metaphors and rhetorical devices rather than
cosmological or epistemological models. Kants metaphor is less puzzling
and certainly not paradoxical, if it is recognised as not predicated on posi-
tioning humans at the centre of the cosmos but rather in identifying that
the movement of the universe is relative to the subjects perception of it
and not the movement of objects around the subject. This is, ultimately,
not as antithetical as it first appears to Meillassouxs project of focusing
philosophical attention back onto the world itself and his attempts to
reverse the catastrophe of the anthropocentrism of the transcendental
tradition.

R
RATIONALISM

Daniel Sacilotto
Rationalism is first thematised in distinction to empiricism in the context
of the modern philosophical enquiries about the connection between
146 r a t i o n a l i s m

mind and world. Thus understood, the germinal rationalisms attributed

to Ren Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza would be contrasted with the
empiricisms developed paradigmatically by Locke, Berkeley, and David
Hume. The crucial point of divergence between these thinkers concerns
the relative priority each side would accord to either thought or experi-
ence in accounting for the link between mind and world. Thus while
the rationalists generally ground our knowledge of the world on the con-
ceptual means endowed to us, typically the primary properties studied
by mathematics, the empiricists would contest the fundamental status
assigned to conceptually mediated thought and emphasise that knowledge
has to begin in experience. So the narrative goes, short of securing our
knowledge of the world, empiricists would then mobilise the resources
of sceptical doubt farther than Descartes himself, calling into question
the possibility of thoughts access to the Cartesian in-itself as well as
the necessity accorded to natural law. Even the essence of those primary
properties studied by mathematics, according to Berkeley, lies in our
perception of them; even the laws of nature, according to Hume, lie in
our mere inductive habits. To save rationalism from the sceptical doubts
raised by empiricism, while reckoning the constitutive link to experi-
ence, Immanuel Kant had thus to delimit thoughts cognitive powers
to the realm of appearances, resulting in weak correlationism, which
Meillassoux argues leads the way for absolute idealism.
In its contemporary appropriation by Meillassoux, following Alain
Badiou, rationalism becomes not so much opposed to modern empiricisms
or to the weak correlationist doubts concerning the knowability of the in-
itself. It addresses itself rather to the anti-realist positions exemplified by
strong correlationism, subjectalism, and even the idealism with which it
entered into complicity. Meillassouxs rationalism must be then understood
as complimentary to his materialism, in the integral pursuit to attest our
capacity to think the absolute. Thus while the exemplary strong correlation-
ist, the Heideggerian phenomenologist (see Martin Heidegger), insists on
the radical divorce between rational cognition and the pre-cognitive experi-
ence of being as such, Meillassoux dispels the reification of experience and
the anthropocentric prison it builds so as to recover a properly discursive,
even dialectical, access to the absolute. Similarly, resisting idealism and
the transcendental empiricisms proposed by vitalist subjectalists of which
Bergson and Deleuze would be paradigms, and rather than disseminating
thought into being or reifying the creative power of life ubiquitously in the
material, Meillassouxs rationalism seeks to defend the radical autonomy of
being with respect to thought and its conditions.
But how? First, Meillassouxs speculative method proposes to over-
come the impasses of correlationism and idealism by unravelling tacit
 r e a l i s m 147

assumptions in the former that ultimately yield a form of access to the

in-itself. This is the dialectical procedure that unfolds as a sort of informal
proof or derivation of the principle of factiality and its consequences.
Second, following Descartes lead, Meillassoux proposes to rehabilitate the
rationalist distinction between primary and secondary qualities, once
again identifying the former with what we think of being-in-itself through
mathematical discourse (AF, 109). Appropriating Badious ontologisation
of mathematics, speculative materialism thus defies the circumscrip-
tion of thought to appearances and experience by avowing the stringency
of formal discourse as it renders inoperative the empirical and phenom-
enological vocabularies on whose basis the correlationists, subjectalists and
idealists conflated thought and being or limited the latter to the former in
an inescapable circle. Still, Meillassoux merely anticipates the correspond-
ing proof that would testify to mathematics ontological status in his own
programme. For to say that mathematics endows us with a direct or intui-
tive access to being without further ado would be simply to revert to the
modern rationalist, that is, pre-Kantian, appeals to dianoetic intuition by
merely postulating rather than arguing for a privileged access to the real
through formal discourse. Antipathy to phenomenological piety can there-
fore not be a sufficient ground for ignoring the mediation of experience
on whose basis the empiricist raises sceptical doubts. Merely trivialising
or disavowing sensible affection, Meillassoux would obviate rather than
resolve the question of how experience and causal receptivity mediates our
epistemic grip and ontological belonging to the world as such.

REALISM

Lee Braver
If any question is distinctly philosophical, surely it is the question, what is
reality? The standard answer, so much a default position that it can sound
rather odd when explicitly stated, is that reality is just out there, regardless
of us mind-independent, to use the technical term. The particularities
of our beliefs, language, concepts and so on are to have no impact on the
existence or nature of the world beyond trivial instances of our actually
doing things to it of course. Any properties introduced by the mind are,
at best, a second-rate reality essentially tainted by subjectivity such as
secondary qualities or aesthetic values.
While mind-independence is generally taken to be its core component,
realism tends to bring other ideas in its wake. Truth, for instance, is
usually taken to be a form of correspondence: we must capture the world
148 r e a l i s m

the way it really is or the way it is anyway, as Bernard Williams has said.
Even sceptics agree on this definition of knowledge, only concluding that
it is impossible. Certain ideas about the mind also fit into this view: for us
to be capable of capturing reality, the mind must be able to remain still,
merely reflecting the world like an untroubled mirror or a blank piece of
paper. Some have attributed a certain determinacy to reality in the form of
bivalence: every claim about the world either is or is not true, regardless of
our ability to ascertain this.
Some form of realism has been tacitly assumed throughout the vast
majority of the history of philosophy, with disputes mainly concerning
which entities form the paradigms of reality the realest reality, if you
will: Forms, particular individuals, God, quantitatively measurable sub-
stances, noumena, and so on. It was Immanuel Kant who constructed
the first coherent, thorough alternative to realism with his Copernican
Revolution. Because the mind actively organises experience, necessarily
introducing certain forms and structures into it, he argues that we can
never capture or even encounter reality as it is in-itself, what he called
noumena. Instead, we can only experience and know the world for-us, as
our faculties have shaped it, phenomena. Meillassoux calls this view cor-
relationism because it shifts attention from studying reality in-itself to
studying reality in relation to us. He believes that Continental philosophy
has largely taken this Kantian approach for granted. It has almost consist-
ently operated on the view that we can only talk about the world as it
presents itself to us, in the ways that we talk about it. This idea, sometimes
called anti-realism, has displaced realism as the default, almost self-evident
philosophical view during the last two centuries of Continental thought.
Analytic philosophy in many ways arose from its rejection. Its found-
ers, Frege, Moore and Russell, all vehemently reject idealism, whether
in its Kantian, German, or British varieties. They return to a pre-Kantian
realism where we could achieve unmediated contact with the realist real,
which took the form of logic for Frege and Russell. By the mid-twentieth
century, however, analytic resistance to this naive realism took hold, with
philosophers such as the later Wittgenstein, Quine, Goodman, Davidson,
Putnam and Dummett all pushing back to varying degrees and in various
forms.
Anti-realism or correlationism maintained its dominance in Continental
philosophy, on the other hand, through the end of the twentieth century.
In his later work, Heidegger insists that being only is in relation to human
beings, for Foucault the historical forms various phenomena take exhausts
their reality, and Derrida (in)famously claims that there is nothing
outside the text, that is, that all of our experience and encounters with the
world are essentially mediated by language and other contextual features.
 r e s u r r e c t i o n 149

Perhaps the most interesting and important feature of the movement

known as speculative realism, with which Meillassoux has been associ-
ated, is its attempt to turn the page on Continental anti-realism without
retreating to a pre-Kantian naivety. Speculative realists want to be able to
talk about the world itself but by going through Kant rather than ignor-
ing him. Meillassoux raises two arguments against correlationism in After
Finitude, his anti-anti-realist manifesto, a fairly simple, straightforward
argument, and a rather complex one.
The complex argument, which I will only gesture at here, performs
a conceptual judo flip on the correlational. Meillassoux claims that even
the assertion of correlationism commits one to claims about reality as it
is outside of or independent of its connection with us, namely, its radical
contingency. The simpler argument raises a scientific common-sense
objection. When a correlationist hears a scientist talking about events that
took place before humans existed and hence outside of any correlation
with us in what Meillassoux calls ancestral time the correlationist
translates such claims into a more sophisticated version. Instead of the
naively realist claim, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4,000,000 years ago,
the scientist really means that, According to our way of computing such
things, in terms of our form of temporality, in keeping with evidence that
has surfaced within our experience, we posit that dinosaurs roamed the
Earth 4,000,000 years ago, for us. What initially appeared to be about the
world turns out to be about our present positing, hence remaining within
its connection to us.
Meillassoux argues that this correlationist translation does not simply
make it more sophisticated, but actually changes the meaning; indeed, it
contradicts the most relevant feature of the claim. If we are to preserve the
actual meaning of the claim, we must retain the common sense or naive
reading of such ancestral claims: they really are about the world as it was
before, and so independently of, us. Science does not go gently into that
correlationist reading so, unless we wish to reject vast swathes of science,
we must make our peace with its overt commitment to realism and so must
give up correlationism.

RESURRECTION

Leon Niemoczynski
In Meillassouxs divinology the dead must be bodily resurrected in order
for the most absurd conditions of death to be surpassed. According to
Meillassoux an absurd death is a death where the living have departed
150 r e s u r r e c t i o n

under unjust conditions: odious deaths, premature deaths, deaths of chil-

dren. A bodily resurrection is instituted by the divine being who may or
may not be produced under hyper-chaos. Resurrection may occur within
a fourth World of justice, a World preceded by the World of life, the
World of matter, and the World of thought.
In Spectral Dilemma Meillassoux sets out to argue that spectres, the
dead who have suffered horrible deaths, have suffered injustice due to the
fact that there is no reason to think why such an atrocious event could
occur; that is to say, those who have suffered such terrible deaths seemed
to not deserve such a terrible fate (SD, 262). Because an all good, all loving
God could not permit such deaths or has chosen not to stop them, the
theist cannot come to terms with the unjust nature of these deaths and the
corresponding spectres they have left behind. Likewise, the atheist, who
refuses the existence of God, cannot hope for justice for the departed if
there is no God to eventually bring justice about (see atheism/theism).
Meillassouxs resolution, arguing for the non-existence of God but
hoping that God may one day come to be, entails that this thought of the
future God allows me to hope for something other than the death of the
departed (IWB, 459).
Such an event, an advent where the dead are resurrected so that
the wrongs of past deaths are righted in the ability to live again, seems
improbable. However Meillassoux maintains that in the advent of a fourth
World conditions may be such that physical laws will be able to permit the
renewal of past human bodies. As Meillassoux states, The event in ques-
tion is really possible, eternally contingent, forever uncontrollable, and
completely improbablizable (IWB, 458).
The fourth World of justice is a World where an ultimate being can act
as a guarantor of universal equality, where equality stands for any being
who is aware of the absoluteness of contingence, knows his own contin-
gency ... and thereby arrives all at once at both a cognitive and tragic
dimension, which gives him his insurmountable worth (DI, 290). Justice
is the symbol of universality because it renders possible the surpassing
of even the most absurd conditions of death in the new World. In the
new World of justice there would still be the possibility of death, since a
necessary existence is impossible, but immortality would be involved by
the ability to indefinitely prolong death, for reinstituted bodies would no
longer be subject to biological laws and forced to die according to the laws
of nature that govern our current World.
 s c i e n c e 151

S
SCIENCE

Robert S. Gall
Science and a particular understanding of science lie at the heart of
Meillassouxs philosophical project. Meillassoux sees his task and the task
of philosophy as completing the Copernican Revolution in science. He
thinks that revolution calls for eliminating any consideration of the subject
within the process of knowledge; science has the last word about what
it says. This makes Meillassoux suspicious of post-Kantian critiques of
science, which he does not address specifically but characterises generally
as claiming that science harbours a meaning other than the one delivered
by science itself (AF, 119). This is why in After Finitude Meillassoux
undertakes an analysis of certain kinds of scientific statements, which he
calls ancestral statements, in an effort to undermine the coherence of all
Kantian and post-Kantian philosophies and their corresponding philoso-
phies of science. That analysis reveals a philosophy of science that dove-
tails with his own rationalist philosophy that seeks to explain how science
is able to give a description of the world uncontaminated by experience.
Meillassoux notes that science routinely makes statements about the
state of the universe prior to the existence of human beings, indeed,
prior to the existence of any life on earth. For example, scientists claim
that the accretion of the earth occurred roughly 4.56 billion years ago
and took place over the course of tens of millions of years, occupying
a certain volume in space that varied through time. Meillassoux argues
that Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy, which he calls correlation-
ism, cannot make any sense of such a claim. Since correlationism binds
together thinking and being, correlationism must say the ancestral state-
ment is only true after the emergence of thinking, even though it refers
to a situation prior to the emergence of thinking. That, Meillassoux says,
does not make any sense. This leaves only one alternative: the realist
meaning of the ancestral statement is its ultimate meaning, that is, an
ancestral statement only has sense if its literal sense is also its ultimate sense
(AF, 14, 17, his emphases).
From this we can see that Meillassouxs philosophy of science falls
under the heading of what is known as scientific realism. Generally,
scientific realism is composed of three commitments. First, it holds that
152 s c i e n c e

the world studied by the sciences exists independently of any mind.

Meillassoux refers to this mind-independent world as the absolute,
drawing on the original meaning of absolutus as severance to indicate a
being that is separate from and non-relative to human beings. Thus he
sometimes characterises his philosophical project as once more taking
up the thought of the absolute. Second, as emphasised by Meillassoux in
the quote above, scientific realism is committed to a literal interpretation
of scientific claims about the world. In Meillassouxs particular brand of
realism, given his commitment to a Galilean-Cartesian mathematisation of
nature, this literal sense is mathematical. Thus his thesis is that

all those aspects of the object that can be formulated in mathematical terms can be
meaningfully conceived as properties of the object in itself. All those aspects of the
object that can give rise to a mathematical thought (to a formula or to digitalisa-
tion) rather than to a perception or sensation can be meaningfully turned into
properties of the thing not only as it is with me, but also as it is without me.
(AF,3, his emphasis)

(This emphasis on mathematics shows the influence of Meillassouxs

teacher Alain Badiou.) Finally, scientific realism holds that our best sci-
entific theories give true or approximately true descriptions of observable
and unobservable aspects of the mind-independent world. So, recognising
that scientific theory is falsifiable, Meillassoux is not so naive as to think
that a current scientific description, e.g., of an ancestral event, is the last
word on what happened prior to life on earth. Nonetheless, he notes that
it makes sense to suppose that the current scientific description about
events is true so long as it has not been supplanted by another scientific
theory. Thus Meillassoux holds that referents of scientific statements can
be posited as real (mind-independent) once they are established by science
at a given stage of its development.
Meillassouxs analysis and views on science might be contested on two
fronts. First, a number of problems arise from the sweeping, abstract nature
of his criticism of post-Kantian philosophy and philosophy of science. For
instance, much of what Meillassoux has to say about the inability of post-
Kantian philosophy to make sense of scientific statements depends upon
the extent to which all post-Kantian philosophy can be labelled correlation-
ist. It is not clear that this characterisation is apt for all post-Kantian phi-
losophies, and certainly not all post-Kantian philosophy would accept such
a label. In addition, Meillassoux does not address specific post-Kantian
philosophies of science and their criticisms of scientific knowledge. This
is especially problematic in so far as some of these philosophies those of
Heidegger and Foucault are prominent examples are critical of the ways
 s e t t h e o r y 153

in which calculation dominates the contemporary world. These direct chal-

lenges to Meillassouxs emphasis on the mathematisation of nature are not
addressed in any specific way by Meillassoux.
Another set of issues cluster around Meillassouxs insistence on equat-
ing science with quantitative and formal discourse, that is, mathematical
discourse. This seems reductive at best, since most natural and social
science past and present is not completely reducible to mathemati-
cal reasoning. By Meillassouxs account of science, it would seem that
the results of scientific experiment in scientific fields in which methods,
objects and data are not exhaustively mathematised would be denied any
material/realist ontological status a strange, anti-empirical conclusion.
In short, it could be argued that Meillassouxs emphasis on quantita-
tive and formal discourse in science does not appreciate the historical or
current diversity of science and the richness of scientific knowledge.

SET THEORY

Sebastian Purcell
Set theory is a branch of mathematics that studies sets, or collections
of objects defined exclusively by their membership in that collection.
Because almost every mathematical notion can be defined in terms of sets,
set theory, in conjunction with predicate calculus, is understood to provide
the most basic foundation for mathematical investigation. Historically,
this area of mathematics was developed in the 1870s by Georg Cantor,
who produced the modern account of sets in order to settle questions of
number theory in relation to real numbers. In doing so he also established
the existence of different sizes or cardinalities of infinity, which serve as
the foundation for contemporary number theory. For Meillassoux, set
theory is significant because it expresses the most fundamental aspects of
ontology in-itself, or reality independent of human consciousness, since
he identifies the in-itself with whatever can be formulated in mathematical
terms.
In its initial naive formulation, set theory understands sets to be any
sort of well-defined collection, whether real or imaginary. The collections
of all trees or all unicorns are equally sets. The things that are in the sets
are called either the sets elements or its members, and the symbol is used
to denote the binary predicate is a member of. Thus, for example, if
a is a member of set X, then this would be denoted a X. There are two
common ways to name or denote a set. The simplest way is to use brace
notation. So, for example, the set {1, 3, 5, 7} is the set containing just the
154 s e t t h e o r y

members 1, 3, 5 and 7. This method of notation, however, suffers from

limitations: it can only name finite sets, and sets whose members we know
specifically. An alternative way of naming sets that avoids these problems
takes recourse to definition by abstraction. This method defines sets by
means of a predicate. For example, one could take the predicate is a
cat and define the set of all (and only) cats by writing: {x | x is a cat},
which can be read in English as the set of all x such that x is a cat.
In order to know whether two sets are the same, one needs what phi-
losophers call a principle of identity. In set theory, identity is specified
through the principle of extensionality, which maintains that two sets are
the same if and only if they share the same members. The binary predicate
= is used to signify that two sets are the same. Thus, for example, the set
X of all even prime numbers, and the set Y which contains the sum of 1
and 1 share the same members, namely {2}. Thus set X = Y.
The empty set (alternatively: null set, or void set) is a set with empty
or null extension. For example, there is no set that satisfies the predicate
x x. This set then is null and may be symbolised either by empty
braces, {}, or with the symbol . Because any two sets that share the same
members are the same sets (principle of extensionality), and because any
empty set shares the same members (namely none), all empty sets are the
same, which is to say there is only one empty set.
The reason there is a distinction between so-called naive set theory and
axiomatic set theory is that if one takes the definition of sets by abstraction
to be the only way of defining sets, as Cantor and Frege did, then one is
bound to run into self-contradictory paradoxes. Perhaps most famously,
Bertrand Russell in a letter to Frege pointed out that using this definition
it was possible to formulate the predicate x is not a member of x. One
may then ask whether the set of all x that are not members of themselves
is a member of its own set or not. The answer, infamously, is that such a
set would be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself,
which is a clear contradiction. In order to avoid this and related p aradoxes,
axiomatic versions of set theory were developed that would exclude
the possibility of ever encountering such self-contradictory sets. The
most standard form is the one formulated from insights by Zermelo and
Fraenkel, and includes the axiom of choice (abbreviated ZFC). Its basic
idea is to restrict the available universe of sets to what can be constructed
consistently, so that paradoxes are not resolved, but avoided. This is done
by ensuring that one can only apply rules to make sets out of existing sets,
and that the only two sets one is given in axioms are the empty set and the
smallest sized infinity.
Using these basic axioms and an operation to produce more sets out of
the two existing sets, John von Neumann produced what is now called the
 s p e c t r a l d i l e m m a 155

set-theoretical hierarchy, abbreviated V, which begins with and builds

up indefinitely. What is particularly important for speculative ontology
is that V is not itself a set of all sets (in which case it would it run into the
problem of Russells paradox) but a construction. It thus provides a vision
of the universe that is well-defined, but incomplete.

SPECTRAL DILEMMA

Leon Niemoczynski
Meillassouxs spectral dilemma pits the injustice of terrible deaths
(odious deaths, the deaths of children, violent deaths) against the exist-
ence or non-existence of God (SD, 262). Meillassouxs solution to the
dilemma does not appeal to theism (God exists) nor does it reject God
absolutely in a form of atheism (God does not exist). Meillassoux formu-
lates a third position which he calls divinology a position that features
divine inexistence (lInexistence divine), a virtual God, who is not cul-
pable for the injustice of deaths which have occurred in the past due to the
fact that it did not exist during the time of those deaths, but who may come
to be at some point in the future in order to create a new world where the
dead are resurrected and past injustices absolved (SD, 275). This would
be a world where our rational ends and universal aspirations involving
truth, beauty and justice are finally met (DI, 218).
In his article Spectral Dilemma Meillassoux identifies spectres, that
is, those dead who have not been properly mourned and therefore who
haunt us. Meillassoux is here referring to not only the terrible mass deaths
of the twentieth century Auschwitz and genocide, world wars, atomic
destruction but to the senseless and premature deaths throughout all
of history: children, innocents, and deaths with which we cannot come
to terms. Properly mourning these deaths means forming a bond where
we would be able to live in a non-morbid relation with the departed
(SD, 263). Meillassoux asks whether or not it would be possible on the
traditional alternatives of theism and atheism to face properly the sorts of
deaths that have befallen those who have died without life hearing their
complaints (SD, 262). A spectral dilemma becomes apparent: one is either
to believe in the existence of God or not believe in the existence of God
given the injustice of these terrible deaths throughout all of history. (It is
also possible of course to not believe in an existing God in the sense that
one simply revolts against God, thus choosing not to follow God. But
this is more of a matter of disbanding faith in God rather than outright
denying Gods existence.)
156 s p e c u l a t i o n

Both of the traditional alternatives, theism and atheism, lead to despair

according to Meillassoux. Without Gods existence, the atheist cannot
hope for any redemption for the dead as there is no God and no afterlife.
Life becomes an absurdity where it is impossible to bring justice for
the departed. On the other hand, a theist posits God and believes in an
afterlife where there may be justice in the next world. Yet this God has
allowed these terrible deaths to occur despite being able to stop them.
But why would a beneficent, omnipotent God allow the injustice of such
odious deaths to occur in the first place? The traditional answer to the
problem of evil is that the sufferings of life and the reality of death are a
mystery, or that they contribute to a greater good, or that they are self-
inflicted. For Meillassoux these alternatives are perverse (SD, 264). But
Meillassoux also states that both the theists position and atheists posi-
tion are unsatisfactory. The theist enters into despair upon having hope
for the dead with a God who has allowed unjust deaths to take place; the
atheist enters into despair believing that another life is impossible and
that there is no God to offer the dead a chance to live again. Cynicism and
sadness result. Only the third option believing in a God that does not
exist now but someday may exist makes sense. God is not held blame-
worthy for the injustice associated with terrible deaths and a resurrection
of the dead is possible.
Regarding the third option, one may legitimately hope for the appear-
ance of a divine being given the nature of the radically contingent ground
or hyper-chaos responsible for issuing any event. The details of how a
divine being may emerge and the sort of the future world of justice that
is to be brought about with its emergence are developed in Meillassouxs
dissertation LInexistence divine (The Divine Inexistence). According to
Meillassouxs thesis of radical contingency, a contingency responsible for
whatever appears in the world, because there is nothing preventing the
emergence of a future divine being there is no reason why a virtual God
could not appear in the future. Thus human beings cannot be prohibited
from hoping for it. As Meillassoux writes, a contingent effect of Chaos,
God can once more be desirable (SD, 275).

SPECULATION

Steven Shaviro
Meillassoux defines his own speculative philosophy in opposition both
to classical metaphysics and to modern critical and relativist thought.
Speculation seeks to discover an absolute through the exercise of
 s p e c u l a t i o n 157

pure reason alone. This was the metaphysical project of the great pre-
critical thinkers, from Ren Descartes through Leibniz, who claimed
to deduce the necessity of an absolute outside, one that was not relative
to us (AF,7). But all such metaphysical speculation was put to an end
by Immanuel Kant, who questions the limits of thought and seeks to
draw the boundary beyond which thought is unable to go. Kant turns
thought back upon itself, and denies that thought can ever get beyond
or outside itself. We can only know things in the world, Kant says, in so
far as they exist for us; we cannot know anything about how these things
might exist for themselves, without us and apart from the ways that we
think of them. Any attempt to go beyond the limits of thought is sheer
arbitrary dogmatism: metaphysical statements that spin out the empty
forms of rationality, without any actual content to which these forms
might apply. In this way, Kant de-absolutises thought, and outlaws
speculation.
For Meillassoux, Kant succeeds in refuting every proof that would
presume to demonstrate the absolute necessity of a determinate entity,
whether that entity be God or something else (AF, 32). In this way, Kant
outlaws speculative metaphysics. And Western philosophy since Kant
has largely repeated this dismissal. There is a clear line, for instance,
from Kants rejection of the ontological proof of Gods existence to
Heideggers rejection of all forms of onto-theology. Meillassoux does
not seek to overturn such arguments. Rather, he seeks to open the way to
another form of speculation, one that is not dogmatic or metaphysical: We
must uncover an absolute necessity that does not reinstate any form of
absolutely necessary entity (AF, 34). Indeed, Meillassoux concedes that
all metaphysics is speculative by definition (AF, 34). But he denies
the inverse of this proposition: our problem consists in demonstrating,
conversely, that not all speculation is metaphysical, and not every absolute
is dogmatic (AF, 34).
Meillassouxs speculative project therefore leads him to develop an
idea whose elaboration and defence require a novel kind of argumentation
(AF, 76). It is only in this way that he can posit an absolute without an
absolute entity (AF, 34). Meillassoux finds his absolute in the seemingly
oxymoronic form of a reason emancipated from the principle of reason a
speculative form of the rational that would no longer be a metaphysical reason
(AF, 77). Meillassoux seeks to discover an absolute necessity that does not
posit that anything in particular is necessary; and he finds this precisely
in the claim that everything is necessarily non-necessary, or contingent.
In this way, Meillassoux succeeds in, as it were, squaring the circle; he
achieves an absolutizing thought that would not be absolutist (AF, 34).
He obeys the letter of Kants ban on speculation, while c ircumventing its
158 s p e c u l a t i v e m a t e r i a l i s m

spirit. He restores the rights of speculation, without thereby lapsing into

metaphysical dogmatism.

SPECULATIVE MATERIALISM

Ben Woodard
Speculative materialism names the proper response, according to
Meillassoux, to the widespread anti-realism of philosophy following the
progressively tighter correlationism between thinking and being. This
deabsolutisation amounts to the prohibition of thinking the absolute (or
anything for that matter) in a place in which there is no thought (AF, 36).
Furthermore, this deabsolutisation applies not only to the limits of our
knowledge but to the relational model as such (AF, 37). As Meillassoux
argues it is not merely that our knowledges relation to the world is
ontologised but that this relation is crystallised as facticity. Given that
Meillassoux wishes to think an absolute, a world without thought (AF,
28), he constructs speculative materialism to combat the devils of correla-
tionism and other pernicious forms of idealism, by transforming the logic
of strong correlationism from within. Why the conjunction of the terms
speculative and materialism?
For Meillassoux the term speculative names the spirit of the origi-
nal and properly scientific Copernican turn whereby the conservative
structures of thought were challenged at base. Kants absorption of this
lesson, according to Meillassoux, necessitated a reversal of the reversal,
a Ptolemaic counter-revolution in which knowledge is protected
from those claims which would potentially mark its frailty (AF, 119).
Philosophically adapted, speculation is that form of thinking which makes
any claims to an absolute (AF, 34). However, Meillassoux claims that a
particular form of speculation is desirable in order to avoid both dogmatic
and metaphysical speculation. While dogmatic speculation assumes an
absolute entity or set of entities (AF, 78), metaphysical speculation, which
Meillassoux aligns with Kant, asserts that the absolute exists as things-
in-themselves and can be described as forms or necessary properties (AF,
76). In opposition to these forms Meillassoux argues that a properly non-
dogmatic and non-metaphysical form of speculation must assert that the
absolute is the very structure of facticity (that we can purportedly claim
that things are a particularly way through description and not foundation)
(AF, 39). As a further step, Meillassoux then applies speculation to the
structure of facticity itself and arises at factiality, namely that facticity is
not factual (AF, 80).
 s p e c u l a t i v e r e a l i s m 159

The upshot of this formulation of speculation is that Meillassoux is

able to argue that contingency and contingency alone is necessary but that
this contingency leaves derivation intact as a means of making existential
statements such as There is X. Following this, Meillassoux asserts that
such a lean articulation of speculation allows one to explain manifest
existential stability in a world without necessity (AF, 101) but not neces-
sarily without mathematically coherent and therefore noetically derivable
structure. Hence the speculative philosopher is the one who simply states
that the transition is possible (AF, 56).
Only following this exposition of the speculative can we attempt to fuse
speculation with materialism. For Meillassoux, the figure who represents
the form of materialism he wishes to endorse is Epicurus, whose material-
ism simply states that thought can access the nature of things through
the construction of concepts such as atom, swerve and void (AF, 36).
This form of materialism, however, would still remain too metaphysical
for Meillassoux as it would state that particular entities are necessary.
Meillassoux argues that materialism is simply the thesis in which we
assert that there is a-subjective matter (AF, 38). Whereas Meillassoux
engages in impressive mental acrobatics to arrive at his formulation of
speculation, his conception of matter is largely an assertion that matter
does not necessitate thinking, that thinking is an eventual accident which
occurred after the formation of matter. This formation functions as a pri-
mordial ontological order in a positive sense and a lifeless mass to which
we return in a negative sense.
In so many words, speculative materialism names the form of thinking
by which thought can propel itself outward, deriving the mathematical
structure of ontology speculatively in conjunction with the materialist
constraint that matter is the contingent demonstration of such order. It
is for these reasons that toward the end of After Finitude, Meillassoux
reiterates that speculative materialism is his self-description of the most
desirable form of philosophy in the wake of idealisms long and errant
reign (AF, 121).

SPECULATIVE REALISM

Rick Elmore
Speculative Realism (SR) is a broad term encompassing an array of
philosophical positions all of which share a general resistance to what
Quentin Meillassoux calls correlationism, the belief that the human
world correlate forms the central element of philosophical investigation
160 s p e c u l a t i v e r e a l i s m

(Bryant etal. 2011: 3). Ray Brassier coined the term in 2007 as the title of
a workshop held at Goldsmiths College. This workshop brought together
Quentin Meillassoux, Ray Brassier, Ian Hamilton Grant and Graham
Harman, thinkers that have, in many ways, become representative of SR.
In addition, SR is intimately tied to a number of online communities and
open access publishing, which have contributed to the rapid distribution
of SR related works (Bryant et al. 2011: 67). Although SR is not a
homogeneous philosophical school, a brief review of the work of the orig-
inal Goldsmiths attendees gives one a sense of its philosophical terrain.
Meillassoux is often credited with catalysing SR with his notion of cor-
relationism (Harman 2011a: vii). In addition, he is the only thinker from
the original Goldsmiths conference that does not abandon the correlation-
ist circle outright. Rather, Meillassouxs work attempts to radicalise the
correlationist project from within, showing that one can have a rational,
mathematical basis for the existence of things outside of human thought
(see Cartesian in-itself). It is on the basis of this claim that Meillassoux
argues for the necessity of contingency, sketching the contours of a
world in which anything is possible including the resurrection of the dead
and the reign of pure justice (Bryant et al. 2011: 8).
Graham Harmans object oriented ontology is perhaps the best-
known school of thought within the SR universe. In connection with the
work of Levi Bryant, Ian Bogost and Tim Morton, Harman develops a
realism based on the inherent inaccessibility of all objects, suggesting a flat
ontological universe in which objects interact only indirectly by translat-
ing one another (Bryant et al. 2011: 8). Ray Brassiers transcendental
nihilism takes the positive project of the Enlightenment to be the destruc-
tion of meaning (Bryant et al. 2011: 7). For Brassier, the realist assertion
that there is a world independent of the human mind leads to the nihilists
conviction that such a world would be necessarily indifferent to our exist-
ence and oblivious to the values and meanings which we would drape
over it in order to make it more hospitable (Brassier 2007: xi). Hence,
nihilism is a speculative project aimed at undermining all that might make
humans feel at home or important in the universe.
Ian Hamilton Grants work returns to the nature philosophy of
Schelling in order to provide a transcendental and ontological foundation
for science (Bryant et al. 2011: 7). Grant takes seriously the insights of
natural science, particularly physics, as a means to push philosophy to
redefine the transcendental and the conditions of thinking in the wake of
a thoroughgoing naturalism (see Iain Hamilton Grant, http://naught-
thought.wordpress.com, 6 September 2012). Hence, his work sketches
a dark reserve of pure productivity that undergirds and produces the
phenomenal world (Bryant et al. 2011: 7).
 s u b j e c t a l i s m 161

In addition to the authors listed above, SR has been shaped by the

work of thinkers as diverse as Bruno Latour, Alfred North Whitehead,
Franois Laruelle, Slavoj iek, Alain Badiou, Manuel DeLanda and
Isabel Stengers to name but a few (Bryant et al. 2011: 2). This diversity
of approaches explains both the influence of SR in fields such as ecology,
queer theory, political theory, feminism and architecture, as well as the
difficulty of defining SR in a strict sense. On this second point, there has
been a growing dissatisfaction with the term SR, on the grounds that it
fails to capture these different and often oppositional approaches. Hence
today, SR is becoming more of a historical term, marking the turn in
twenty-first-century philosophy toward questions of realism.

SUBJECTALISM

Daniel Sacilotto
For Meillassoux, the term subjectalism designates one of the two basic
kinds of absolutism, and is introduced to clarify the distinctions between
materialism, idealism and correlationism as characterised in After
Finitude. In essence, subjectalist philosophers hold that it is possible
for thought to access the absolute, at the price of identifying this abso-
lute with some dimension of subjective existence itself. According to
Meillassoux, these absolutisms do not dispute the closure of thought
upon itself, but rather go on to identify thought, or an aspect of thought,
as the very absolute that is within our grasp. Rather than seeing the
correlation as the sign of an epistemic impasse, the subjectalist sees the
correlation as an ontological fact. Historically and in spite of substantive
differences in their specific contents, the variety of positions associated
with subjectalism rest on a fundamental agreement that, after Berkeley,
there could be no question of returning to the totally a-subjective reality
of Epicurean materialism (IRR, 3). But, unlike correlationism, which
simply forecloses the possibility of metaphysics in the name of an inves-
tigation of the epistemic, existential, historical or discursive conditions
for thought, the subjectalist wishes to preserve the speculative ambition
of philosophy, by marking subjective mediation as part of reality, that is,
by absolutising thought and so the correlation as such, either in its totality
or partially.
To avoid confusion, however, some terminological remarks are in
order. In After Finitude, Meillassoux had used the term correlationism
more broadly to include both positions that de-absolutise thought through
the correlation, and those that absolutise the correlation itself. Refining
162 s u b j e c t a l i s m

his position, however, it is only the former that is now to be squarely

identified with correlationism, while the latter comprises the variety of
positions advancing a post-Berkeleyan subjectalist metaphysics. The
salient exemplar that Meillassoux used to illustrate what he now calls
subjectalism in After Finitude was idealism, and particularly the absolute
idealism attributed to G.W.F. Hegel, according to which the correlation
of thought and being through the Concept (and thus reason) was identi-
fied with the absolute itself. Although the absolutising of the correlation
remains an invariant feature in all its forms, in its most recent elaboration,
subjectalism acquires an amplified scope to target a variety of positions
that absolutise different aspects of thinking: Sensation was absolutized
(Maupertius and Diderots hylozoism), as was reason (Hegelian ideal-
ism), freedom (the Schelling of 1809), perception (Bergson and the image
in itself, in the first chapter of Matter and Memory), will (Schopenhauer),
wills in their mutual conflict (Nietzsches will to power), the self in its
initial germ state (Deleuzes larval selves in Difference and Repetition),
etc. (IRR, 3).
In short, subjectalism would be the genus of which every variety of
idealism, vitalism or hylozoism would be a species. Even if vitalism and
hylozoism perceived themselves on occasion in sharp antagonism to ideal-
ism proper, Meillassoux notes, in rejecting materialism, they ultimately
resemble each other in so far as they see no other alternative than to
subjectivise matter, and so inscribe subjective mediation as necessarily
implicated in the world. Similarly, every variant of subjectalism which sets
itself against its counterparts will usually question the privilege accorded
to a certain aspect of subjective life, only then to reify a different aspect
of it. Taken together, subjectalism and correlationism designate what
Meillassoux now proposes to call the era of correlation (IRR, 3).
Consequentially, Meillassouxs own speculative materialism would
be set against not only naive materialism, idealism and correlationism,
as After Finitude overtly suggests. It proposes to advance an absolutist
alternative that is neither naive/dogmatic materialist, correlationist, nor
subjectalist. It would have to be absolutist without thereby being dogmatic
and yet insisting on the possibility an a-subjective reality. This is precisely
the purported import of Meillassouxs speculative hypothesis through the
thesis of factiality.
We should note that, under Meillassouxs strictures, absolutism is
therefore not synonymous with realism, at least as the latter term is com-
monly used in the literature. Canonically, a position will be called realist
if it upholds the existence or knowability of something which is inde-
pendent of thought altogether. In Meillassouxs terminology, it is rather
materialism, in both its dogmatic and speculative variants, which seems
 s y m b o l 163

to be closer to the meaning of realism proper, in its classical sense in so

far as it designates every thought acceding to an absolute that is at once
external to thought and void of all subjectivity (IRR, 2). Absolutism, in
turn, designates more broadly any position where one claims not just that
some X is merely epistemically relative to thought, but is ontologically
in-itself. However, this term is broad enough to cover both dogmatic and
speculative materialist views for which the absolute is a-subjective, as well
as those subjectalist views according to which the absolute is the subjective
itself, or an aspect thereof. Thus, for instance, even Graham Harmans
object oriented ontology, which proclaims to be realist in so far as it
claims to speak of non-human relations, is, Meillassoux argues, in truth
subjectalist since, like its vitalist and hylozoist predecessors, it continues
to conceive the absolute by analogy to the aspects of thought, specifically
in Harmans account, the account of intentional mediation and withdrawal
that he adapts from Heidegger and Husserl.
That said, while materialism usually designates either a naturalist thesis
according to which scientific description provides the lever for metaphysi-
cal insight, or in its Marxist historical form as coeval with the becoming
of socio-economic relations of production, as Meillassoux uses it it simply
designates any non-subjectalist realist position. Adapting Badious own
rationalist Platonism in taking mathematical discourse to be the lever for
metaphysical insight, Meillassouxs own speculative materialism overtly
positions itself against naturalism, as he claims that the laws of science
and the latters description of the world remain subject to the absolute
contingency of hyper-chaos (IRR, 11).

SYMBOL

Fintan Neylan
Rejecting traditional ideas of what philosophy should be, for example,
a handmaiden of the sciences, Meillassoux conceives philosophy as that
through which we can orient ourselves toward the universal. In his view,
the philosopher is tasked with explicating the universal in a system where
it can have coherence in the face of sophistries, religious obscurantism,
and the despair of existing in a cold world.
This task is accomplished by means of the symbol, Meillassouxs name
for that in which the philosopher situates the universal as real. There is,
however, a problem with such orientation: the universal does not imma-
nently exist, so one can either conceive it as part of some transcendent
realm, or deny its existence altogether. As transcendent foundationalism
164 s y m b o l

is ruled out for Meillassoux, it would seem the philosopher must orientate
herself to something which does not exist. Factial ontology provides a
further option: the possible universal. Here the universal can be conceived
as a value which may be realised, thus existing as a real possibility, but one
which is not presently actual. This is known as symbolisation: the act of
representing a universal value as a real possibility in order to give a philo-
sophical account of the world, but without committing to the existence
of the transcendental. For humans, the universal is manifest as justice.
Symbolisation constitutes what Meillassoux calls a rational guarantee of
this universal: despite the fact that justice does not currently exist, it is
guaranteed as a possibility to which the philosopher can rationally assent
and thus orientate herself.
A value may serve as a symbol: a rationally demonstrable possible truth
concerning the immanent world. Because of this possibility for values,
Meillassoux rejects the idea that they are but useful linguistic construc-
tions with no ontological traction. The importance of the discourse of
value is that it expresses the universal. This is distinguished from the
discourse of being, which discloses the impersonal world we find around
us. In symbolisation, the philosopher performs what Meillassoux calls
an immanent inscription of a value in being, an elaboration of the world
in which a universal value (justice) has coherence as a possibility. The
inscribed value, for example the symbol, serves as an ontological link
between the universal and being. Philosophy consists in the discovery of
an ontological link through symbolisation, for it serves as a bond upon
which any theoretical account between being and value is tenable. The
symbol, as a link, is thus the cornerstone of any philosophy.
The history of thought is read as a series of divisions and reunifications
of these two discourses. In these divisions the current system of values
which explicates the universal becomes untenable and is forsaken. These
displacements come in light of a radical shift in thinking, such as the
supplanting of myths in favour of mathematical concepts ability to
explain the world. Though these new conceptual discourses open up an
original way to envision existence, they are devoid of the universal. Born
from this original schism between mathematical concepts and myths in
Ancient Greece, philosophys task is to engage in a reunification of the
two discourses of value and being through a new symbolisation. In the
destruction of a symbol by a new discourse of being, philosophy must
reinscribe the universal back into the world, giving it a renewed rational
coherence without attempting to disavow or reverse the content of the
new discourse.
Meillassoux reads in the history of thought numerous attempts to
reinstall the universal, but only what he calls the factial symbolisation
 t i m e 165

can fully guarantee the universal as immanently possible, and bring the
two discourses back into alignment. Gathered under three headings (the
Cosmological, the Naturalist, and the Historical symbol) these types all
aimed to place the universal as justice in immanence, but relied on some
form of metaphysical necessity. In their orientation to the universal, the
admission of metaphysics placed justice beyond the reach of any pos-
sible immanent actualisation, fixing it instead as transcendental. Properly
speaking, they were attempts at symbolisation, as they could not meet the
requirement of pure immanence.
Factial symbolisation is different because justice is conceived in a
non-metaphysical manner. The symbol for Meillassoux is a universal
value (justice) inscribed not as established actuality, but as a real possibil-
ity. Afactial symbol is a link which allows one to fully acknowledge the
current world as a brutal and cold one, while still rationally assenting that
the very same world harbours the possibility of becoming a better one.

T
THING-IN-ITSELF/THINGS-IN-THEMSELVES

See Kant, Immanuel and Cartesian in-itself.

TIME

Michael Austin
Meillassoux discusses time in two different ways: in terms of chronol-
ogy (past, present, and future) and in terms of time-itself. The former
appears most prominently when discussing advent, ancestrality or the
futural God. The latter is closely connected to his conceptions of virtual-
ity, contingency, and hyper-chaos. Meillassouxs conception of time
requires a basic retelling of important historical precedents, since his own
work operates within the tradition, while also attempting to invert and
radicalise it. The most significant figure in this respect is Plato, specifically
his distinction between the eternal (the forms outside of time) and the
temporal world of becoming and decay. The distinction between eternal
and temporal finds common cause with the theology of the Middle Ages,
166 t i m e

where the eternal forms are replaced or superseded by God, and the shift-
ing world of becoming becomes the realm of creation. Both Platonic and
Christian conceptions of time are grounded on a beginning, an event of
creation out of the eternal, while Neo-Platonism and its Christian heirs
add to this a return to the eternal through contemplation or death.
Immanuel Kants Transcendental Aesthetic is a watershed for philo-
sophical conceptions of time, transforming the exterior, eschatological
and theological conception of time of the Middle Ages into the Modern
conception of subjective duration and the rhythm of thought. Conceptions
of time are radicalised from here, taken to their critical extremes in Anglo-
American debates concerning the reality of time and their subjective
extremes in Heidegger and, most importantly for Meillassoux, Bergson.
While Kant maintains that space and time are coextensive and equipri-
mordial, both beyond empiricism and the basis for rationality, Bergsons
superior empiricism (through the method of intuition) radicalises Kant
by removing space from the equation, determining it to be a derivative
idea and not, as Kant claimed, immediately given to consciousness. It is
time alone, understood as pure duration, that is the ground of conscious
thought. Meillassouxs basic challenge is to invert or Platonise Bergsons
dure, leading to a time outside of universal laws, to an eternal time of pure
contingency and absolute chaos.
There are then essentially two modes of time at work in Meillassoux,
that of worldly time and that of absolute time. When he speaks for instance
of the arche-fossil or ancestrality, this is intra-worldly time, since it
is still governed by our physics. Underlying this chronological time,
however, is the possibility of another time, or perhaps better put, a time
of other possibilities. Time, thus, is capable of transgressing its own laws;
it is the indeterminate par excellence. Time-itself, in opposition to the flow
of past to present, is the absolute power of contingency, the capacity for
being-otherwise at the heart of Meillassouxs ontology, and the source
of all change. When novelty irrupts within the cosmos, it is an irruption
of time-itself. It is not the case however that time-itself for Meillassoux
is equal to Platonic forms, containing all possibilities and pre-existing
the world. Rather, time is the capacity to bring forth situations that were
precisely not contained in the past. While our perception of time remains
tied to various strata (the emergence of matter, life and thought for
instance), such stratification, when viewed through the rational grasping
of contingency, reveals time as the creator and destroyer of all, a power
only understood when there is precisely no continuity between past and
present. In order for there to be novelty in the advent of thought, there
must be not only the principle of contingency, but an excess already at
work within the universe, or else all would remain static and unchanged.
 u n i v e r s a l 167

This power to destroy what once was and to create ex nihilo is time-itself.
Pure time contains nothing, no past and no future. It is neither beholden
to what once was, nor is it determined by a goal. Time is pure chaos and
absolute illegality.

U
UNIVERSAL

Fintan Neylan
In Meillassouxs view, the task of the philosopher is explicate the uni-
versal in a system where it can have coherence in the face of sophistries,
religious obscurantism, and the despair of existing in a cold world. As
committing to the universal is traditionally seen as either admitting a form
of metaphysics, or accepting ourselves as within a subject conditioned
world, the presence of the universal seems to go against Meillassouxs
ontology. However, his conception of the factial offers another option: the
virtual universal. Unlike a metaphysical universal or one bound up with
the transcendence of a subject, through factial ontology the universal can
be conceived as that which may be realised at any moment, but one which
is not presently actual. Given the worlds disenchantment, the philosopher
must accomplish her task by finding the possibility of the universal in a
universe void of it. She discovers this possibility as the symbol and thus
builds a philosophical account of the world around it. Whereas previous
philosophers situated it in transcendence, the factial placement of it in the
virtual allows Meillassouxs philosopher to rationally assent and orientate
herself to the universal, while not committing to its current existence.
In their orientation to it, the universal is manifest to humans as justice.
Meillassoux maintains this has been the case for all of philosophy: no
matter how it is phrased, the explication of the universal throughout
history has always been that of justice. In his system, the realisation of the
universal would thus be the emergence of a just world. This manifestation
of an eternal possibility of universal justice is part of Meillassouxs prior-
itisation of the ethical. Its status as a virtual possibility serves to under-
write just acts in the present world of pain as just, rendering the concept of
ethical action both meaningful and rational. For even if it is not realised,
through the factial humans may orientate themselves to the universal: this
allows them to fully acknowledge the current world as a brutal and cold
168 v e c t o r i a l s u b j e c t

one, while still rationally assenting that the very same world harbours the
possibility of becoming a universally just one.

V
VECTORIAL SUBJECT

Peter Gratton
Meillassoux argues that there has not been just the world as we currently
see it, but previous worlds of matter and organic matter. The current
world of thought is one given over to painful injustices. This leads
Meillassoux to posit the spectral dilemma: if I believe in an existing,
personal God, then I make that God responsible for the evils of the
world, including the deaths of children and massacres of whole peoples.
But if I dont believe in that God, then I affirm a hellish existence in
which those who have died in horrible ways have no chance for redemp-
tion. Given the vicissitudes of hyper-chaos, Meillassoux argues that we
cannot foreclose the coming of a fourth World of justice, one in which
a God comes to be who resurrects the dead and oversees a communist-
like community of equals. The vectorial subject is also the eschatological
subject who sees her way past the spectral dilemma, acknowledging that
while God does not exist now, that does not mean God will not come to
exist. Magnetically attracted by the vector of the emancipation to come,
the vectorial subject works in this world without the despair that weighs
down so many others (IWB, 463). Filled with rational hope for a world
that is not yet real, but foreseeable, the militant universalist, the vecto-
rial subject, is led not by an ideal but by a possible world of equality to
come (IWB, 465).
The vectorial subject, however, faces a second challenge more difficult
than the spectral dilemma, namely a true nihilism in which she does not
wish the immortality of the world to come, since it could be unending
creative ineptitude or dissolving loves, and so on. The vectorial subject
would also face the end of the meaning of her existence: she comes forward
in the name of equality and emancipation to come, but if it arrives, then
her meaning as a subject dissolves. Transcending this nihilism means
thus seeing that we must at some point transcend politics, the brutal and
costly ways in which the work for equality occurs. Having faced these two
tests, the vectorial subject moves past potential hatred for existence, as
 v e r n e s , j e a n - r e n 169

in the spectral dilemma, and a hate for her fellow beings, as in the test of
nihilism.

VERNES, JEAN-REN

Peter Gratton
Vernes Critique of Aleatory Reason (1982) provides a key resource for
Meillassouxs argument against the frequentialist implication. The fre-
quentialist implication goes as follows: if the laws of nature could change
without reason, since they are not necessary given hyper-chaos, they
would do so frequently. But since the laws do not evidently do so the
world appears stable after all the laws cannot change for no reason
they are necessary (AF, 94). Vernes text is important for Meillassoux
as he identifies the probabilistic reasoning behind the claim, since the
idea is that it would be extremely improbable without necessary laws that
we would have stability in the universe. But, as Meillassoux asks, what
warrants the claim that the constancy of experience opens onto genuine
necessity, whereas the a priori does not open onto veritable contingency?
(AF, 95). Meillassoux uses the example of a set of dice, where we take it
that a priori one side of the dice are to come up more than any other. From
this we calculate the probability that, say, snake eyes (two ones) can occur
one out of thirty-six throws, and if you were getting snake eyes several
times in a row, you are being had by a set of loaded dice.
Now, Vernes takes this to a cosmic level and millions of chances, all of
which we assume are equal, concerning the contingencies of the universe,
where we remain getting the same outcome (a stable world). We assume,
then, that we have a loaded universe, that is, a set of laws that cause it
necessarily to be stable. Meillassoux believes David Hume and Immanuel
Kant take it for granted that the necessity of the laws is self-evident, just
like someone who thinks they are more than unlucky on a bad night at
the casino and blames the craps dealer. But Hume and Kant have merely
extended this probabilistic thinking to the universe as a whole, or better,
construct this universe as one among a total set of conceivable universes,
and then think the changes of this stable universe against that universe of
all universes and consider it highly improbable that this universe would be
a stable one: the nub of the argument consists in registering the immense
numerical gap between those possibilities that are conceivable and those
that are actually experienced (AF, 97). Yet, the whole consideration of
chance requires stable physical laws: the dice remaining the same during
the throw and so on.
170 v i r t u a l , t h e

Having found the presupposition for the thinking of necessary physi-

cal laws, Meillassoux can then move to critique what is at the heart of it:
that that universe is a whole (see non-whole/non-all) from which a
(yes, extremely high) number of probabilities follow. Wedding Vernes
account to Georg Cantor, however, Meillassoux argues that we have no
grounds for maintaining the conceivable is necessarily totalizable given the
teachings of set theory regarding the transfinite (AF, 103). Since there is
no total of all possible sets, the universe cannot be amenable to aleatory
reasoning, since there is no whole from which to deduce any probabili-
ties, as one can do with a die (where there are a total of six faces). This is
the improbable though rational turn Meillassoux makes in After Finitude
given Vernes critique of aleatory reasoning.

VIRTUAL, THE

Michael Austin
In order to understand Meillassouxs use of the term the virtual the
concept must be understood in the context of twentieth-century French
thought as employed by Bergson, and the term must be differentiated
from both the actual and the potential. First and foremost, the virtual is
not opposed to the real, as in the phrase virtual reality, but to the actual.
The virtual and the actual are logically and necessarily opposed, while also
being necessarily connected and coming into being simultaneously. The
virtual is as real as the actual and grants us a glimpse of the possibilities
of actualisation. The prototypical case of virtuality for Bergson is that of
memory, which is real but not actual, yet affects us as if it were actual.
Memory is a capacity of matter for Bergson, the carrying forward of the
past into the present, a display of the fluidity of time.
While it seems in some cases that Bergson will speak of the virtual as
something of a reservoir of potentiality from which the actual emerges
and argue that the virtual and actual are synonyms for process and
product, nevertheless the virtual does not pre-exist the actual. Nor
should we believe that the virtual is the target of true ontology, while the
actual is determined to be illusory or somehow false once its conditional-
ity is grasped. The virtual is an emergent product of the actual, granting
the observer insight into the power and possibilities of becoming. For
Meillassoux, the virtual maintains this capacity for knowledge, as the
epistemological arm of After Finitudes ontology of hyper-chaos, and
LInexistence divines advent. While potentiality defines the realm of
possibilities concerning intra-worldly affairs, that is to say, possibilities
 v i t a l i s m 171

under a given set of laws, the virtual is the realm in which all laws or
sets of laws are possible. For example, while certain actions are possible
given the law of gravity, Meillassoux maintains that it is possible for new
laws to take its place, that is, for a new World to come into being. The
example given by Meillassoux in Potentiality and Virtuality is helpful
here: while the roll of a die presents us with six intra-worldly possibili-
ties, that is to say, given the six-sided nature of a standard die all sides
are equally probable, the virtual nature of the die is infinite; the die could
burst into flames, melt on impact, or present us with A Tale of Two Cities;
while none of these results are as probable as the numeric sides, all are
equally possible given the contingent nature of reality. The virtual is the
index of the possible, or to state it even stronger, the virtual is the infi-
nite set of all possibilities. Virtuality is the possibility for total universal
ungrounding, the power and potentiality for creation and annihilation at
the heart of time itself.

VITALISM

Rodrigo Nunes
For Meillassoux, only the materialist absolutizes the pure non-subjective
the pure and simple death, with neither consciousness nor life, without
any subjectivity whatsoever, that is represented by the state of inorganic
matter that is to say, matter anterior to and independent of every subject
and all life (IRR, 6, his emphasis). It follows that vitalism, as he under-
stands it, is inherently anti-materialistic: it absolutises the correlation
through the hypostasis of some vital term (Nature, Will, Memory, Habit,
Life), thus ascribing human and/or organic traits to the inorganic/
non-human. Ironically, this is often done in the name of de-centring the
human, which makes vitalism into a humanism-in-denial (IRR, 5).
Vitalism falls under the general heading of subjectalism, meaning
all those positions that absolutise the correlation. While correlationism
proper absolutises facticity, subjectalism may select from among various
forms of subjectivity, but it is invariably characterized by the fact that
it hypostatizes some mental, sentient, or vital term (AF, 37). The term
therefore encompasses both the absolutisation of the subject that After
Finitude also calls speculative idealism (Fichte, Hegel) and vitalism; and
even in those cases where the vitalist hypostatization of the correlation
(as in Nietzsche or Deleuze) is explicitly identified with a critique of the
subject or of metaphysics, it is still equivalent to speculative ideal-
ism in understanding that nothing can be unless it is in some form of
172 v i t a l i s m

relation-to-the-world, and that this proposition is not merely relative to

our knowledge, but absolute (AF, 37).
For Meillassoux, the critical force of the term lies precisely in putting
into the same camp currents that claim to be radically opposed, and
which are ultimately in the camp of Berkeley himself (IRR, 6, his
emphasis). Yet the possibility of collapsing the two appears to depend on
the equivocity of his idea of de-subjectivized matter (IRR, 6). We can
understand the phrase de-subjectivized matter in two ways: as referring
to matter in itself, taken in abstraction from any correlation or human
mediation of any kind (mental, sensible, etc.); or to matter as devoid of
anthropomorphic traits, or any continuity with human or subjective life.
The two, which respond to an idealist and a vitalist subjectivisation of
matter respectively, are not synonymous. Meillassoux suggests that vital-
ism, even if not always in full consciousness, accepts the idealist principle
that we always experience subjectivity as a necessary, and hence eternal,
principle, and thus that thought thinks thought as the absolute (IRR, 8).
Yet he does not support the claim, and it is unclear that he can.
It is one thing, as idealisms from Berkeley to phenomenology have
done, to take as a starting point that Being is only accessible to us as
subjectively mediated, and thus reduce the question of Being (in-itself)
into that of givenness or appearing (for-us). It is another to start by refus-
ing pre-eminence to the subject in order to think a Being in which it is
included, not as exception, but in some sort of continuity, as the likes of
Deleuze and Whitehead have done. The latter can no doubt be criticised
for engaging in imaginary anthropomorphising projections, to the extent
that they ascribe to Being elements that would be proper to human
subjectivity. Yet that is done precisely by overstepping the boundaries of
the reduction of philosophical enquiry to subjectivity or to the conditions
of appearing; if anything, vitalist subjectivisation seems to run counter to
idealist subjectivisation.
Conversely, showing that matter is thinkable outside of subjective
mediation (not subjective in the idealist sense) does not in and of itself
say anything about whether it is devoid of all subjectivity (IRR, 2) in the
anti-vitalist sense. Obviously, I must be able to think or know matter as
it is in itself so as to assert that it is discontinuous with life/subjectivity;
but I cannot deduce this discontinuity from the mere fact that matter is
thinkable or knowable in-itself. Here, Meillassoux merely begs the ques-
tion: what evidence does he have that the continuities between Being and
subject asserted by vitalism are erroneous projections of the properly
subjective, and not in Being itself? The failure to establish what he
assumes is indirectly acknowledged: If we posit that the inorganic real
is non-sentient, we save ourselves the very complex task of adding to
 w o r l d 173

matter a very problematic sentient capacity (IRR, 14, my emphasis). Yet

not only is his preferred alternative (creation ex nihilo) hardly less prob-
lematic, the statements conditionality (if we posit) raises the question of
whether speculative materialism can really differentiate itself from the
postulative, hypothetical nature of hyperphysics (IRR, 1314).

W
WORLD

Peter Gratton
For Meillassoux the World (Monde) (with a capital letter) is a given uni-
verse of particular laws, which he also calls orders (ordres). These Worlds
were created ex nihilo. The utter contingency of hyper-chaos means the
appearance of these Worlds can occur without reason. That is, each World
comes about as an effect unexplainable from a given previous World.
Meillassoux argues that there have been at least three different Worlds:

So far there seem to have been three [Worlds] of irreducible facts: matter (reduc-
ible to what can be theorized in physico-mathematical terms), life (understood
more specifically as a set of terms, that is, affections, sensations, qualitative per-
ceptions, etc., which cannot be reduced to material processes), and finally thought
(understood as a capacity to arrive at the intelligible contents bearers of eternity,
and which as such is not reducible to any other terms). (IWB, 461)

Meillassoux will use the word world (monde) (lower-case w) to desig-

nate the non-Whole of what is. Hes a bit unclear on what this means:
Worlds arise suddenly from the world, and if these have a right to a
majestic capital letter for the first time, it is because there is more in the
World than in the world, since there is more in what ensues than there is
in the origin (more in the effect than in the cause) (DI, 189). This
suggests that Meillassoux thinks of the world as the factial or the virtual,
the hyper-chaos that gives rise to new Worlds. As he notes, the laws of any
one World provide no reason to think that they will continue:

Laws have no reason to be constant, and nothing entails that they will not contain
new constants in the future. Such cases of advent [surgissement] can be divided
into three orders [that is, Worlds] that mark the essential ruptures of becoming:
174 world

matter, life, and thought. Each of these three appears [my emphasis] as a Universe
that cannot be qualitatively reduced to anything [my emphasis] that preceded it.
(DI2, 284; DI, 187)

Finally, the intra-Worldly (intra-Mondaine): what occurs and is possible

within a determinant World. For example, in a World in which life exists,
evolution of new species can occur; in a World where thought is available,
we can witness creative invention. Describing the intra-worldly and the
facts of this World falls to science, as Meillassoux makes clear in his argu-
ment from the ancestral. However, it is the task of speculative philosophy
to describe what may be, that is, the possibilities opened up by the hyper-
chaos of the world, one possibility of which is a coming God impossible
in this World but rationally foreseeable coming to us as a fourth World
of justice.
 B i b l i ogra p h y

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS OTHER

THANBYMEILLASSOUX

Badiou, Alain (2007), Being and Event, trans. Oliver Feltham, London:
Continuum.
Brassier, Ray (2007), Nihil Unbound: Enlightenment and Extinction,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brassier, Ray (2008) The View from Nowhere, Identities: Journal for
Politics, Gender, and Culture, 8:2, pp. 723.
Brassier, Ray (2011), Concepts and Objects, in The Speculative Turn,
ed. Levi Bryant, Nick Snricek, and Graham Harman, Melbourne:
re.press.
Bryant, Levi R. (2010), Lexicon of Onticology, Larval Subjects (blog),
<http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/a-lexicon-of-
onticology> (accessed 1 September 2013).
Fichte,J.G. (1982), The Science of Knowledge, ed. Peter Heath and John
Lachs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grant, Iain Hamilton (2006), Philosophies of Nature after Schelling,
London: Continuum.
Hallett, Michael (1986), Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size,
Oxford: Clarendon.
Harman, Graham (2010), Toward Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures,
Winchester: Zero Books.
Harman, Graham (2011), The Quadruple Object, Winchester: Zero Books.
Heidegger, Martin (1962), Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and
Edward Robinson, New York: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, Martin (1969), Identity and Difference, trans. Joan Stambaugh,
New York: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, Martin (1973), The End of Philosophy, trans. Joan Stambaugh,
New York: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, Martin (1982), Nietzsche IV: Nihilism, ed. David F. Krell,
trans. Frank A. Capuzzi, New York: Harper & Row.
Husserl, Edmund (1965), Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, New
York: Harper.
Husserl, Edmund (1981), Husserl: Shorter Works, Notre Dame: University
of Notre Dame Press.
176 bibliography

Husserl, Edmund (1983), Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and

to a Phenomenological Philosophy, First Book: General Introduction
to a Pure Phenomenology, trans. F. Kersten, The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Lewis, David (1998), Papers in Philosophical Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Livingston, Paul (2012), The Politics of Logic: Badiou, Wittgenstein, and the
Consequences of Formalism, London: Routledge.
Moore, A.W. (2001), The Infinite, London: Routledge.
Morton, Timothy (2013), Realist Magic: Objects, Ontology, and Causality,
London: Open Humanities Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1954), The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufmann,
New York: Viking.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1974),The Gay Science, trans. Walter Kaufmann,
New York: Random House.
Priest, Graham (1987), In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent,
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Priest, Graham (2005), Towards Non-Being, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Quine, W.V.O. (1986), Philosophy of Logic, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vernes, Jean-Ren (1982), Critique de la raison alatoire, ou Descartes contre
Kant, Paris: Aubier.
Zahavi, Dan (2003), Husserls Phenomenology, Stanford: Stanford University
Press.

SECONDARY LITERATURE

Ayache, Elie (2010), The Blank Swan: The End of Probability, United
Kingdom: Wiley.
Brassier, Ray (2007), The Enigma of Realism: On Quentin Meillassouxs
After Finitude, in Robin Mackay (ed.), Collapse Volume II: Speculative
Realism, Oxford: Urbanomic, pp. 5581.
Brown, Nathan (2011), The Speculative and the Specific, in Bryant et al.
(eds), The Speculative Turn, pp. 14263.
Bryant, Levi, Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman (2011) (eds), The
Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism, Melbourne:
re.press.
Burns, Michael ONeill (2010), The Hope of Speculative Materialism,
in Anthony Paul Smith and Daniel Whistler (eds), After the Postsecular
 b i b l i o g r a p h y 177

and Postmodern: New Essays in Continental Philosophy of Religion,

Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 31634.
Corby, James (2013), Style is the Man: Meillassoux, Heidegger, and
Finitude, in Ivan Callus, James Corby and Gloria Lauri-Lucente
(eds), Style in Theory: Between Literature and Philosophy, London:
Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 16386.
Critchley, Simon (2009), Back to the Great Outdoors: Review of Quentin
Meillassoux, After Finitude: An Essay on the Nature of Contingency,
Times Literary Supplement, February 28.
Crockett, Clayton (2011), Review of Quentin Meillassoux: After Finitude
and Graham Harman, Quentin Meillassoux , International Journal for
Philosophy of Religion (2012), 71:3, pp. 2515.
Cutler, Anna and Iain Mackenzie (2011), Critique as a Practice of
Learning: Beyond Indifference with Meillassoux, towards Deleuze,
Pli, 22, pp. 88109.
Delancey, Craig (2012), After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity
of Contingency, by Quentin Meillassoux, The European Legacy, 17:3,
pp. 4034.
Ennis, Paul J. (2011a), Continental Realism, Winchester: Zero Books.
Ennis, Paul J. (2011b), The Transcendental Core of Correlationism,
Cosmos and History, 7:1, pp. 3748.
Galloway, Alexander R. (2013) The Poverty of Philosophy: Realism and
Post-Fordism, Critical Inquiry, 39:2, pp. 34766.
Gironi, Fabio (2011), Meillassouxs Speculative Philosophy of Science:
Contingency and Mathematics, Pli, 22, pp. 2560.
Gironi, Fabio (2012), Assessing the French Atheistic Turn, Speculations:
Journal of Speculative Realism (2012), 3, pp. 473490.
Gratton, Peter (2009), After the Subject: Meillassouxs Ontology of
What May Be, Pli, 20, pp. 5580.
Gratton, Peter (2009), Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude: An Essay on
the Necessity of Finitude, Philosophy in Review, 29:6, pp. 4279.
Gratton, Peter (2012), Meillassouxs Speculative Politics, Analecta
Hermeneutica, 4, pp. 114.
Gratton, Peter (2014), Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects,
London: Bloomsbury Press.
Hgglund, Martin (2011), Radical Atheist Materialism: A Critique of
Meillassoux, in Bryant et al. (eds), The Speculative Turn, pp. 11429.
Hallward, Peter (2011), Anything is Possible: A Reading of Quentin
Meillassouxs After Finitude, in Bryant et al. (eds), The Speculative
Turn, pp. 13041.
Harman, Graham (2007), Quentin Meillassoux: A New French
Philosopher, Philosophy Today (2007), 51:1, pp. 10417.
178 bibliography

Harman, Graham (2011a), Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making,

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Harman, Graham (2011b), Meillassouxs Virtual Future, Continent, 1:2,
pp. 7891.
Johnston, Adrian (2009), The World Before Worlds: Quentin Meillassoux
and Alain Badious Anti-Kantian Transcendentalism, Contemporary
French Civilization, 33:1, pp. 7399.
Johnston, Adrian (2011), Humes Revenge, Dieu, Meillassoux?, in
Bryant et al. (eds), The Speculative Turn, pp. 92113.
Morelle, Louis (2012), Speculative Realism: After Finitude, and Beyond?,
Speculations: Journal of Speculative Realism, 3, pp. 24172.
Moshe, Josef (2011), Correlationism Reconsidered: On the Possibility
of Ignorance in Meillassoux, Speculations: Journal of Speculative
Realism, 2, pp. 187206.
OMahoney, Paul (2013), Humes Correlationism: On Meillassoux,
Necessity and Belief, Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy,
XXI, pp. 13260.
OSullivan, Simon (2012), On the Production of Subjectivity: Five Diagrams
of the Finite-Infinite Relation, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Padui, Raoni (2011), Realism, Anti-Realism, and Materialism, Angelaki,
16:2, pp. 89101.
Purcell, L. Sebastian (2010), After Hermeneutics?, Symposium, 14:2,
pp.16079.
Riera, Gabriel, (2008), Review of Quentin Meillassoux, After Finitude:
An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, Notre Dame Philosophical
Reviews, 10, no pagination.
Roffe, Jon (2012), Time and Ground, Angelaki, 17:1, pp. 5767.
Saldanha, Arun J.J. (2009), Back to the Great Outdoors: Speculative
Realism as Philosophy of Science, Cosmos and History, 5:2, pp. 30421.
Smith, Anthony Paul (2011), A Stumbling Block to the Jews and Folly
to the Greeks: Non-Philosophy and Philosophys Absolutes, Analecta
Hermeneutica, 3, pp. 116.
Thorne, Christian (2012), Outward Bound: On Quentin Meillassouxs
After Finitude, Speculations: Journal of Speculative Realism, 3, pp.
27389.
Toscano, Alberto (2011), Against Speculation, or, A Critique of the
Critique of Critique: A Remark on Quentin Meillassouxs After
Finitude (After Colletti), in Bryant et al. (eds), The Speculative Turn,
pp. 8491.
Van Houdt, John (2011), The Necessity of Contingency or Contingent
Necessity: Meillassoux, Hegel, and the Subject, Cosmos and History,
7:1, pp. 12841.
 b i b l i o g r a p h y 179

Watkin, Christopher (2011), Difficult Atheism: Post-Theological Thinking

in Alain Badiou, Jean-Luc Nancy and Quentin Meillassoux, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
iek, Slavoj (2012), Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of
Dialectical Materialism, London and New York: Verso (Interlude 5).
 N ote s on C on tri but o r s

Jeffrey Bell is Professor of Philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana

University. He is the author of several books and numerous articles,
including Deleuzes Hume (2009) and Philosophy at the Edge of Chaos
(2006). Jeff is currently working on two manuscripts: a critical intro-
duction and guide to Deleuze and Guattaris What is Philosophy? and
Truth and Relevance: An Essay on Metaphysics. When not immersed in
philosophical texts, Jeff and his wife are busy with raising two wonderful
daughters.

Lee Braver is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of

South Florida. He is the author of A Thing of This World: A History of
Continental Anti-Realism (2007), Heideggers Later Writings: A Readers
Guide (2009), Groundless Grounds: A Study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger
(2012), Heidegger: Thinking of Being (2014), and editor of Division III of
Being and Time: Heideggers Unanswered Question of Being (forthcoming),
as well as number of articles and book chapters.

Nathan Brown is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English

and the Program in Critical Theory at UC Davis. His first book, The
Limits of Fabrication: Materials Science and Materialist Poetics, is forth-
coming with Northwestern University Press. With Petar Milat, he is
the editor of The Art of the Concept (2013), a special issue of Frakcija:
Performing Arts Journal. He is currently finishing a book manuscript
titled Absent Blue Wax: Rationalist Empiricism in Contemporary French
Philosophy while beginning a research project on the problem of measure
in modern science, philosophy and poetry. His articles have appeared in
journals such as Radical Philosophy, Qui Parle, Parallax, and Mute.

Levi R. Bryant is a Professor of Philosophy at Collin College. He is the

author of Difference and Givenness: Deleuzes Transcendental Empiricism
and the Ontology of Immanence (2008), The Democracy of Objects, Onto-
Cartography: An Ontology of Machines and Media (2014), and co-edited
The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism (2011), with
Nick Srnicek and Graham Harman.He has written widely on speculative
realism as well as contemporary French philosophy.
 n o t e s o n c o n t r i b u t o r s 181

Sean Dudley is a graduate of Simon Fraser University in the Department

of Philosophy where he is currently studying metaphysics, free will and
morality. Sean blogs regularly at hochestepunkt.wordpress.com.

Rick Elmore received his PhD in Philosophy from DePaul University in

2011. He works primarily in the areas of contemporary French philosophy
and Critical Theory with a focus on ecology, violence and animal studies.
Rick is currently a visiting Faculty Fellow at Colby College and is writing,
with Peter Gratton, a manuscript entitled The New Derrida.

Daw-Nay Evans is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Lake Forest

College in Lake Forest, Illinois. He has published in such journals as
the Journal of the History of Philosophy, Philosophy and Literature, The
Classical Review, The Philosophers Magazine, and The Journal of Nietzsche
Studies.

Robert S. Gall is an independent scholar who has taught at a variety of

colleges and universities in the United States. He is the author of Beyond
Theism and Atheism: Heideggers Significance for Religious Thinking (1987)
and numerous articles on philosophy of religion and contemporary
European philosophy.

Fabio Gironi recently completed his PhD at Cardiff University, with

a dissertation on Alain Badious ontology and analytic philosophy of
science, and is an editor of the journal Speculations: Journal of Speculative
Realism. His research interests include comparative approaches to the
philosophy of science and its history, neo-Kantian epistemology and the
study of conceptual creativity.

Francis Halsall is a Lecturer in the History/Theory of Modern &

Contemporary Art at National College of Art and Design, Dublin, where
he is director (with Declan Long) of MA Art in the Contemporary
World (www.acw.ie). In 2014 he will be visiting Critical Studies Fellow
at Cranbrook School of Art and Design. His research practice is situ-
ated across three main areas: The history, theory and practice of modern
and contemporary art; Philosophical aesthetics; and Systems-Thinking.
Publications include the books Systems of Art (2008) and the edited
volume Rediscovering Aesthetics (2009). Recent work, ideas and publication
details can be found at www.alittletagend.blogspot.com.

Robert Jackson is a PhD student at Lancaster University. His research

incorporates computational art, computer science, art theory and speculative
182 notes on contributors

realism. He is the author of several essays and a forthcoming publication

with Zero Books, BioShock: Decision, Forced Choice, Propaganda. Robert
is also an associate editor of Speculations, an independent peer-reviewed
journal dedicated to speculative realism and he writes regularly for the
digital arts collective Furtherfield.org as well as the Chicago-based art blog
Bad-At-Sports.org.

Adrian Johnston is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the

University of New Mexico at Albuquerque and a faculty member of the
Emory Psychoanalytic Institute in Atlanta. He is the author of Time Driven:
Metapsychology and the Splitting of the Drive (2005), ieks Ontology: A
Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity (2008), Badiou, iek,
and Political Transformations: The Cadence of Change (2009), Prolegomena
to Any Future Materialism, Volume One: The Outcome of Contemporary
French Philosophy (2013), and Adventures in Transcendental Materialism:
Dialogues with Contemporary Thinkers (2014). He is the co-author, with
Catherine Malabou, of Self and Emotional Life: Philosophy, Psychoanalysis,
and Neuroscience (2013). With Todd McGowan and Slavoj iek, he is a
co-editor of the book series Diaeresis at Northwestern University Press.

Adam Kotsko is Assistant Professor of Humanities at Shimer College

in Chicago. He is the author of iek and Theology (2008), Politics of
Redemption: The Social Logic of Salvation (2010), Awkwardness (2010), and
Why We Love Sociopaths: A Guide to Late Capitalist Television (2012), and
the translator of several works by Giorgio Agamben. He blogs at An und
fr sich (itself.wordpress.com).

Paul Livingston is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of

New Mexico.He works on phenomenology, philosophy of mind, philoso-
phy of language and the history of twentieth-century philosophy, among
other topics. He has published three books: Philosophical History and the
Problem of Consciousness (2004), Philosophy and the Vision of Language
(2008)and The Politics of Logic: Badiou, Wittgenstein, and the Consequences
of Formalism(2012). He is currently finishing a book on Heidegger, tenta-
tively titled The Logic of Being: Heidegger, Truth, and Time.

Sean J. McGrath is a graduate of the University of Toronto specialis-

ing in phenomenology, metaphysics and psychoanalysis, and a native
of Newfoundland, where he currently works as an Associate Professor
of Philosophy. His first major work was on the early Heidegger and
Medieval Philosophy, Phenomenology for the Godforsaken (2006). He was
a Humboldt fellow at the Universities of Bonn and Freiburg from 2008
 n o t e s o n c o n t r i b u t o r s 183

to 2011. The product of that research is his The Dark Ground of Spirit:
Schelling and the Unconscious (2012). He is currently working on a book on
Western spirituality and a major study of the contemporary relevance of
Schellings Philosophy of Revelation.

Paul OMahoney completed a PhD inPhilosophy at University College

Dublin, focusing on the work of Jean Baudrillard and postmoder-
nity. He has published a number of articles on Baudrillard, as well
as on Plato, Descartes, Nietzsche, Leo Strauss, James Joyce, Jacques
Derrida and Samuel Beckett. His article Humes Correlationism: On
Meillassoux, Necessity and Belief appeared in Journal of French and
FrancophonePhilosophy, 21:1 (2013).

Raphal Millire is a graduate student at the cole Normale Suprieure

in Paris. In 2011 he created a weekly workshop of contemporary meta-
physics and ontology where he discusses with other graduate students and
invited professors important metaphysical issues drawing from both the
analytic and the Continental tradition. He has since given in a few papers
and talks including a critical assessment of Meillassouxs thesis from a
logical standpoint.

Marie-Eve Morin is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University

of Alberta. She received her PhD from the University of Freiburg,
Germany, with a dissertation on the concept of community in Jacques
Derrida and Jean-Luc Nancy. She is the author of Jean-Luc Nancy
(2012) and co-editor, with Peter Gratton, of Jean-Luc Nancy and Plural
Thinking: Expositions of World, Ontology, Politics, and Sense (2012).

Leon Niemoczynski teaches in the Department of Philosophy at

Immaculata University near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He specialises
in both the American and Continental philosophical traditions, and his
interests include the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of nature, logic
and metaphysics, aesthetics, German Idealism, environmental philosophy
and philosophical ecology.

Fintan Neylan is an independent researcher currently living in Dublin.

He studied philosophy at University College Dublin and is a co-founder
of the Dublin Unit for Speculative Thought.

Christopher Norris is Distinguished Research Professor in Philosophy

at the University of Cardiff, Wales. He has written more than thirty books
on aspects of philosophy and literary theory, among them Badious Being
184 notes on contributors

and Event: A Readers Guide (2009) and Derrida, Badiou and the Formal
Imperative (2012). His most recent publications are Philosophy Outside-In:
A Critique of Academic Reason (2013) and The Cardinals Dog (2013), a
collection of verse-essays on philosophical, musical and literary themes.

Rodrigo Nunes is a Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy

at PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He coordinates a countrywide research
group on the intersections between contemporary ontology, science and
politics called Materialismos (http://materialismos.tk), and is a member
of the editorial collective of Turbulence (http://turbulence.org.uk).

Sebastian Purcell is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at SUNY

Cortland. He has published numerous articles on moral and political
philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and contemporary Continental
philosophy.In this last domain, his interests concern the ways in which
recent developments in non-classical logic might open new possibilities
for speculative ontology.

Daniel Sacilotto is a doctoral student in the Comparative Literature

department at UCLA.

Steven Shaviro is the DeRoy Professor of English at Wayne State

University. He is the author of Connected, Or, What It Means to Live in
the Network Society (2003), Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze,
and Aesthetics (2009), and The Universe of Things: Whitehead in the Light of
Speculative Realism (2014).

Devin Zane Shaw teaches in both the Department of Philosophy and the
Department of Visual Arts at the University of Ottawa. He is currently
writing a book on Jacques Rancire and philosophy, which is a loose sequel
to his Freedom and Nature in Schellings Philosophy of Art (2012).

Sergey Sistiaga studied philosophy at the University of Freiburg and

the Sorbonne, Paris. He translated Graham Harmans On Vicarious
Causation into German. His areas of research are metaphysics, rational-
ism, philosophy of science and nihilism.

Christina Smerick is Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy

and the Chair of the Philosophy and Religion department at Greenville
College. She is also Shapiro Chair of Jewish-Christian Studies. Her most
recent publication is Bodies, Communities, Faith: Christian Legacies in
Jean-Luc Nancy, in Analecta Hermeneutica, 4 (2012).
 n o t e s o n c o n t r i b u t o r s 185

Anthony Paul Smith is an Assistant Professor in the Department of

Religion at La Salle University. He is the author of A Non-Philosophical
Theory of Nature: Ecologies of Thought (2013) and the translator of numer-
ous works by Franois Laruelle including Principles of Non-Philosophy and
Future Christ: A Lesson in Heresy.

Pete Wolfendale is an independent scholar with a PhD in philosophy

from the University of Warwick. His work focuses on the methodology
of metaphysics and the structure of rationality, and the relation between
the two, for which he draws from a cross-traditional set of influences
including Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Deleuze, Quine, Sellars and Brandom.
This work can be viewed on his long-running philosophy blog http://
deontologistics.wordpress.com.

Ben Woodard is a PhD student at the Centre for Theory and Criticism
at the University of Western Ontario. He is currently writing his disserta-
tion on the connection between speculative physics and the intuition of
space in the work of F.W.J von Schelling. He has published two short
monographs, Slime Dynamics: Generation, Mutation, and the Creep of Life
(2012) and On an Ungrounded Earth: Towards a New Geophilosophy (2013).

Bart Zantvoort is an IRC Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholar

at University College Dublin, currently working on his doctoral thesis
on inertia and resistance to change in complex structures. Current
research interests include German Idealism, particularly Hegel, early
Frankfurt school Critical Theory, twentieth-century French philosophy,
and systems theory.