We are familiar with the old Gramscian division of the intellectual field between organic and traditional intellectuals. Deleuze and Foucault have their own divisions. Althusser, in Machiavel et nous, proposes his own: he talks about the litterateurs, whose mission is presumably the interpretation of a given state of ideology, the ideologists, whose mission is the reproduction of the system, and the political thinkers proper, whose mission is of course the transformation of the world. The reference to the thesis on Feuerbach on transformation as the task of materialist philosophy was crucial for Althusser, as we know, and the proper content of his notion of epistemic break. So, within that classification, what about infrapolitical thinkers? Neither interpretation nor reproduction nor transformation—or rather, all of them, necessarily, but not as thematic for the endeavor. Infrapolitics is inhabitation, and the infrapolitical thinker is a thinker of inhabitation. We are far from the aesthetics of existence, or the ethics of existence, or the politics of existence, or the ideology of existence—or rather, those are all factors, but not thematic. We want to reflect on the conditions of existent dwelling on earth—no less, no more. This does not close off reading, it opens it to possibilities the critical tradition has mostly left aside. Overwhelmed with distraction as it has been. Our contention: given that sad state of affairs, the infrapolitical thinker also dreams of a determinate absence, of an empty space one would hope to fill some day.