One of my primary resistances to Badiou is the fact that he seems to be marketted so much -- as though his followers are basically engaged in arguing from authority, but an authority who is not really established (unless being a French philosopher suffices as a source of authority). To that extent, I prefer the Lacanians, because while they advocate the theory, they more often seem to also do it, rather than simply making these empty gestures of saying "The entire field of philosophy needs to be restructured along Badiouian lines, which I will gladly share with you now in the same expository form you have heard a million times by now." Do it! Actually do it, rather than simply making these obnoxious declarations! Zizek is the only person I have ever seen (other than, perhaps, Kotsko) who has made any concrete use of Badiou aside from just asserting that Badiou should be accepted tout court.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 03.28.05 - 12:38 pm | #

You can filter out the insufferable arrogance in that parenthetical remark if you wish and just respond to the rest.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 03.28.05 - 12:39 pm | #

Discard, I do intend to comment on your post. But right now I have to dispatch this cantankerous young upstart in a blog post.
Jared | Homepage | 03.28.05 - 1:52 pm | #

For The Weblog?!

I dare not hope...
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 03.28.05 - 2:00 pm | #

Here is Jared's post, for those who wish to see me dispatched.
Adam Kotsko | Homepage | 03.28.05 - 2:29 pm | #

Adam, you are right to note my frustration, and i do appreciate that Zizek is using Badiou for his own project. But i also just want to clarify what i was getting at. First, i want to circumscribe my remarks - i've not done sufficient surveying of journals, etc., to be able to judge how well Badiou has been used, debated, etc. It was just the 'ecology' of this past Saturday in Durham that i was noting. Second, i am not a priori against defenses of Badiou. In fact, i had hoped to indicate that a defense of Badiou over against _______ would be good. Antagonism does not necessarily fall short of construction and/or use. Third, even a rigorous commentary would have sufficed for improvement (for example, and as i noted, something like "Badiou and Cohen"). I think i agree with you that tinkering or marketing are to be avoided, but at the same time i do not think that "use" of Badiou is the only other option.
discard the name | 03.28.05 - 2:34 pm | #

Thanks for a more thorough review of the conference than I am capable since I am really not fully engaged in the issues involved. Morieras piece interested me more than it did you, though it was hard to follow at that time of the day and for other reasons. I think I'll ask him for a copy and look at some of his other work. I would have preferred more along such political lines than I would the math you would have liked. I do agree that a straight up paper which clashed Badiou and Deleuze would have been of interest. Why did Surin not only not present anything, but also ask/say nothing at the conference other than a few intro remarks? I do hope that you are able to push the power question, and are able to get a Badiou partisan to respond.
Old | 03.29.05 - 7:40 am | #

Well, i didn't mention the political question so much, but i think it is probably as important to me as the math question. At stake, most fundamentally, is a question of political ontology. All i'm trying to do is emphasize the importance of set theory to Badiou's ontology, and thus to push the question of ontology in that way. But this is already a matter of politics. Indeed, that someone like Negri has an ontology of constituent power, or someone like Deleuze will virtualize ontology and push the role of creation, drawing on this, as expressive-constructive - in this way, both politics and ontology are presented. I am pushing the question of set theory precisely because i feel it provides an ontology which lacks the best politics - this is what i was getting at with the foregrounding of representation and the impossibility of a molecular power or micropolitics. As for Ken, that's just his style. He tends not to push antagonism in a public way - this is probably part of the reason he tends not to be recognized to the degree that his thought demands.
discard the name | 03.29.05 - 10:20 am | #

With respect to Negri, only one mention at the conference (in passing w/Hardt). He didn't even get a couple of sentences in Hallward's sparky string cite.
Old | 03.29.05 - 11:00 am | #