What is Deleuze?

[poetix]

Are you actually claiming that only those who, knowingly or unknowingly, are in agreement with Badiou's recent ideas are capable of and interested in making decisions of political principle?

Oh, for fuck's sake. No.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Well, fair enough, but what were you trying to say then? Once again I'm trying to understand the link between the second part of your post - the example of the teachers' strike - with the first part, where you outline the fallacious dismissals of Badiou that you've seen. The strike is supposed to to be a counter-example to these dismissals, no? But how? Honest questions.

 

[massrock]

I understand that it is an example of a cause and how people might decide to act upon it. Causes arise all the time and people decide to act upon them.

 

[Tentative Andy]

I understand that it is an example of a cause and how people might decide to act upon it. Causes arise all the time and people decide to act upon them.

Well yes, obviously. But that's exactly the point - what support does this insight (charitable description there ) give to Badiouvian theory in particular? Or more to the point of what Poetix seemed to be saying, who are the supposed masses of anti-Badiou figures who deny that there are important causes or that it is either possible or advisable for people to commit to them?

I'm really trying my hardest to avoid simplistic reduction of others' views here, but a lot of the rhetoric I've seen from the pro-Badiou side in this thread seems to follow the good old designation of one's self as among the only 'true revolutionaries' and everyone else of differing views as mere 'reformists'. Now of course there are people who are only interested in minor reforms, but it is also possible for people to be interested in genuinely radical changes, but hold differing views as to what changes and how to bring them about in relation to other influential groups. They may, for example, base their vision from the premises that you cannot force people to be free and that indiscriminate use of violence is never justifiable.

 

[massrock]

but a lot of the rhetoric I've seen from the pro-Badiou side in this thread seems to follow the good old designation of one's self as among the only 'true revolutionaries' and everyone else of differing views as mere 'reformists'

I don't really see that on this thread I have to say. Maybe it's somewhere else, in Badiou or on people's blogs. Who's the 'pro-badiou' side here apart from poetix?

It's not about some special cadre of human beings who place themselves above the moral codes that govern ordinary mortals. It's about the conditions under which ordinary mortals might commit themselves, with courage and anxiety, to an uncertain cause.

Seems fair enough on the face of it.

 

[four_five_one]

but a lot of the rhetoric I've seen from the pro-Badiou side in this thread

I've only been reading casually, but there seems to be only one defender of the 'pro Badiou side' in this thread. And he, ironically (or not), seems to be the least dogmatic and the least obfuscatory person involved in this 'debate'. I haven't read Badiou and as a commonsensical British empiricist, I'm disinclined to believe in any notion of universal ethical/political truths... but isn't it dangerous that the left should slip into nihilism and identity politics, whilst the right has the monopoly on 'truth and values'?

I do think there's some truth in the statement, that only dogmatism could properly oppose authoritarianism.

Also, I don't see how he can be criticized for philosophizing whilst Africa starves - I mean what exactly are the people that critize him for this, what are they doing for Africa (or another immiserated other)? It seems that Badiou might actually make you feel guilty for living out yr life of neurotic consumerist hedonism, whilst a Deluezian philosophy would actually probably affirm or at least suit that sort of lifestyle?

 

[Tentative Andy]

Phrasing it in terms of the 'pro-Badiou side' was probably unhelpful, as it has mostly been Poetix making that case in this thread. I wanted to put it so that it didn't seem like a personal attack on him, as I would agree that he has been honest and helpful in the way that he's gone about expressing himself. However, I do have some serious concerns about the wider views which he here represents.

Four-five-one, your phrase about 'living out yr life of neurotic consumerist hedonism' is quite revealing in relation to the point I'm trying to get at, I think. Whose neurotic consumerist hedonism? Certainly not mine, and I would argue that (a) the number of people whose lives are absolutely governed by those principles is actually rather small and (b) those that do idenitfy absolutely with this lifestyle tend just to get on with this, not bothering to assess it in relation to either Deleuze or Badiou. But the Badiovian contingent, or whatever we want to call them, insist on seeing these simplistic figures everywhere, so that they can define themselves against them (which brings out another unfortunate echo which I often get from this discourse, that of the attitude of the religiously 'saved' or born-again, c.f. Poetix casting of his personal narrative in the form of 'I was a typical complacent liberal, until....').

And massrock: of course it sounds reasonable, it is reasonable, but when the core of the position is reduced to something as obvious as this, where is the need to bring in any figure as weighty or as specific as Badiou to justify it? It should be true independently of that.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Quick question, that I have to answer for somebody...what are the main/leading UK and US philosophy journals, guys?

The European Science Foundation had a go at grading philosophy journals in 2007.

'A Grade' (High-ranking international publications with a very strong
reputation among researchers of the field in different countries, regularly cited all over the world)

American Philosophical Quarterly
Australasian Journal of Philosophy
British Journal for the History of Philosophy
Economics and Philosophy
Ethics
Journal of Philosophy
Kantian Review
Kant-Studien
Law and Philosophy
Nous
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
Philosophical Quarterly
Philosophical Review
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Philosophy and Public Affairs
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society
Social Philosophy and Policy
Synthese

obv this project attracted some criticism

 

[massrock]

And massrock: of course it sounds reasonable, it is reasonable, but when the core of the position is reduced to something as obvious as this, where is the need to bring in any figure as weighty or as specific as Badiou to justify it? It should be true independently of that.

Shouldn't the question be why not? I mean there might be good specific reasons why not so let's have them but names of authors and thinkers are commonly invoked because they have covered certain areas at length, even if, perhaps if especially the basic principle seems obvious and reasonable?

I feel pretty certain that poetix and maybe even a few other readers of Badiou are able to have their own ideas and read other stuff which may be more or less similar but Badiou was partly what was being discussed here so of course he's mentioned.

I don't really see why basically agreeing with something should be a reason to take massive exception to it? :slanted:

 

[massrock]

But the Badiovian contingent, or whatever we want to call them, insist on seeing these simplistic figures everywhere, so that they can define themselves against them (which brings out another unfortunate echo which I often get from this discourse, that of the attitude of the religiously 'saved' or born-again, c.f. Poetix casting of his personal narrative in the form of 'I was a typical complacent liberal, until....').

Isn't this supposed to be about addressing hidden ideology? Not certain Other people but those pernicious pervasive attitudes that are sometimes difficult to spot because they are so ubiquitous?

 

[poetix]

It wasn't, I assure you, my reading of the later chapters of Being and Event that politicised me.

 

[Tentative Andy]

Shouldn't the question be why not? I mean there might be good specific reasons why not so let's have them but names of authors and thinkers are commonly invoked because they have covered certain areas at length, even if, perhaps if especially the basic principle seems obvious and reasonable?

I feel pretty certain that poetix and maybe even a few other readers of Badiou are able to have their own ideas and read other stuff which may be more or less similar but Badiou was partly what was being discussed here so of course he's mentioned.

I don't really see why basically agreeing with something should be a reason to take massive exception to it? :slanted:

Yes, but again, the point is the implication there a large number of critics who somehow don't believe these claims, and that this is what it means to take up the anti-Badiou stance.
If all it takes to be a Badiouvian is reduced to simply believing in political commitment, then surely everyone involved in the debate is one already. It feels rather like a way of dodging criticism to me.

 

[massrock]

But what then is the criticism?

 

[Tentative Andy]

But what then is the criticism?

I need to go and do stuff now, sadly, but very roughly it would be directed at the content of the political commitment and the means by which it is accomplished. Perhaps the later especially. Will try and expand on this later. But to reiterate, no-one worth listening to has ever claimed that commiting yourself to a political cause is in iteself objectionable.

 

[massrock]

It seems evident that there are people who take exception to the idea it might be necessary to decide on some truths if we are to achieve certain aims in the face of others who have their own truths. That's not a hallucination.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, I don't see how he can be criticized for philosophizing whilst Africa starves - I mean what exactly are the people that critize him for this, what are they doing for Africa (or another immiserated other)? It seems that Badiou might actually make you feel guilty for living out yr life of neurotic consumerist hedonism, whilst a Deluezian philosophy would actually probably affirm or at least suit that sort of lifestyle?

Way to completely miss the point. The point is not that people should stop philosophizing, because Africans are starving. The point is that metaphysicians might want to stop their incessant self-righteous crusades against anyone who isn't for "total transformation" (whatever that means) if all they are doing for the world is philosophizing. It is entirely possible that philosophy is not the most politically viable or efficient activity.

Guilt--yes, that will fix everything. Just what the world needs. More witch hunting and priests to tell us what to feel guilty about.

 

[massrock]

the content of the political commitment and the means by which it is accomplished.

Yup, be interesting to see that. Thanks Andy. Of course I realise this is no doubt argued endlessly elsewhere but I don't see that made clear on this thread so as a reader it seems kind of obscure and a little spurious.

 

[nomadthethird]

It seems evident that there are people who take exception to the idea it might be necessary to decide on some truths if we are to achieve certain aims in the face of others who have their own truths. That's not a hallucination.

First, it seems you're missing the point of what Badiou means by a "Truth", since these only take shape metaphysically on the heels of events and such like. They are not articles of faith that people choose to live by, necessarily.

But either way, on what level are the statements in your post above not platitudinous? On what level is saying "we need truths", when obviously everyone already has them, not sort of redundant and point missing when it comes to the real problems at hand? You seem to be missing the fundamental "absolutism" that is supposed to come with Badiovian truths.

Truths are not going to halt global warming, very careful strategic planning and scientific investigation is going to do that. As far as I'm concerned, until we get a handle on that, nothing else matters, since we'll all be dead within a few hundred years if we don't anyway.

 

[massrock]

Wouldn't a truth be deciding that global warming is a bad thing?

Obviously a lot of people have done that and it allows them to move forward.

If you can't see a reason to act to mitigate global warming you probably wouldn't do much about it.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yes, but again, the point is the implication there a large number of critics who somehow don't believe these claims, and that this is what it means to take up the anti-Badiou stance.
If all it takes to be a Badiouvian is reduced to simply believing in political commitment, then surely everyone involved in the debate is one already. It feels rather like a way of dodging criticism to me.

But Andy, you have to first make it clear that all existing forms of political commitment are worthless because those engaged in them haven't been born again in Badiou.

Again, what people here seem to be missing is the fact that the Badiouvians I've encountered say in one breath that there are "truths" like the civil rights movement or the movements in the Warsaw ghetto (I don't know what those were), and then flatly deny the possibility that the next great Event of political Truth could be anything but a state communist revolution and total, global transformation of the political sphere.

History, if it's really so important, is littered with proofs that political change never happens as a global transformation, but instead is the product of incremental shifts that add up to larger movements that usually take place within the existing ideological-political framework. (as the civil rights movement did)