This is a pretty rough engagement with Badiou. One especially wrong idea is that the philosopher uses a truth-procedure, which is not the case. It’s important for Badiou that philosophy does not produce any truth of its own. The philosopher is the one who argues for the existence of truths (against the sophists and their opinions) but also for the compossibility of the four conditions of truth (art, politics, science, and love). The antiphilosopher uses the thinking apparatus of a philosopher but not in the service of truth. Ya’ll should really read the Badiou by Badiou book, he addresses much of the confusion floating around here in 80 pages.
Also, Heidegger suture philosophy to art, hence the recourse to the poem as the only space for thinking of Being against science (which does not think).
Exciting, cutting-edge stuff. I wish I had a few hours extra, to properly muse over and assimilate this. Thank you, guys!
This is a pretty rough engagement with Badiou. One especially wrong idea is that the philosopher uses a truth-procedure, which is not the case. It’s important for Badiou that philosophy does not produce any truth of its own. The philosopher is the one who argues for the existence of truths (against the sophists and their opinions) but also for the compossibility of the four conditions of truth (art, politics, science, and love). The antiphilosopher uses the thinking apparatus of a philosopher but not in the service of truth.
Ya’ll should really read the Badiou by Badiou book, he addresses much of the confusion floating around here in 80 pages.
Also, Heidegger suture philosophy to art, hence the recourse to the poem as the only space for thinking of Being against science (which does not think).
first