Abstract

This essay follows two lines - the one cinematic, the other philosophical - towards an intersection located in what we call 'the animal'. Be it the bleak picture of "bare life" drawn by Agamben, or the more positive image of the "animal that therefore I am" depicted by Derrida, philosophers of various hue have shown increasing interest in the idea of the animal as both a normative category (Derrida, Agamben) and a metaphysical one (as when Badiou depicts Deleuze's philosophy as one of "the Animal" in contrast to his own of "Number"). One question that arises from this attention is whether or not these myriad philosophies mediate the animal for their own philosophical purpose as only one, background, instance of aporetic différance (Derrida), proliferated becoming (Deleuze), bare life (Agamben), or even the very model of "bad philosophy" (Badiou). Is every philosophy of the animal a type of what might best be called "philosomorphism" refracting the animal through an image of itself? Adopting the stance of "non-philosophy" from François Laruelle, this essay asks whether, in its (unacknowledged) attempts to shape the animal in its own image, philosophy also succeeds in refracting itself. There is a circularity of philosophical explanations (as Laruelle finds in all philosophy, in fact) that is linked to this sub-species of anthropomorphism: be it positive or negative, inflationary or deflationary, such philosomorphism is indeed resisted by the Real of animals by mutating or morphing what counts as philosophy. The reduction of the non-philosophical presence of the animal to that of being a proxy for différance, rhizomatics, bare life, or whatever else, gains its apparent force in part only by ignoring other aspects of the animal that are placed in the background, namely those that do not fit (or resist) the philosopher and his/her favoured philosophemes. The background revolts. And cinema understood here as a kind of animal, visual-thinking in all of us provides just such a mutation of what we deem thinking to be. The force of cinema simply is the power of the animal that we (always) are when we think in images, or when images think immanently within us. Film images exist where a powerful, animal form of non-human thinking resides. In addition, this essay will argue that the visual-thinking of horror film in particular (or the horrific mode found in all film) demonstrates the monstrous, animal, background as a resistant manifestation of thought. This thought concerns those putatively inert entities that film allows to emerge from the background as living, background life itself, which, by refusing to be ignored any longer, may also reform (or morph) what we mean by philosophy and thought itself. The emergence of the cinematic background horrifies and "revolts" (in both political and affective senses), and this its new kind of thinking