hmmm. well its by no means my area of expertise, but I did once read a very interesting paper linking D&G with geometry, Riemann, etc, and Derrida with algebra, Cantor, Mallarme's stuff on metaphor and number. I could try and remember who it was by if its of any interest (wasnt online though)I’ve never come away from any of Deleuze’s texts feeling that I understood any more (about) mathematics than I did when I started. There’s enough in Deleuze about differential calculus, Riemannian manifolds and so on to make you think that there ought, at some point, to be a settling of accounts with mathematical formalization; but the settlement never arrives, and the reader who undertakes (like Manuel DeLanda) to put things in some sort of scientific order must wrestle with the fact that Deleuze’s texts frequently resist such organization through a combination of willed incoherence and masterful pronouncements about the “nomadic” untameability of the matter at hand.
Nomad this, rhizome that, flavour of the month.Deleuze and Guattari teach people how to think for themselves.
Name two Badiouvians. Give examples of robotic articulation.Badiou teaches people how to obey, unthinkingly, the fatal seductions of intellectual authority. Which is why so many Badiouvians sound like robots.
I think this is a hallucination. The up-and-coming thing in academic philosophy is, by all accounts, speculative realism. Latour's getting some serious play at present. Badiou is where, exactly? Nowhere amongst artists, who find him inimical to their creative freedom (yuck! maths!). Nowhere in literature departments, which are still ostentatiously voiding the last traces of their former infatuation with Advanced Notions. Is there a Badiouian school of architecture? Of music? Ironically enough, he seems most popular with the theologians.Perhaps so. But Badiou is the leader of the emerging power-block
I think you'll struggle to find the thematics of "coldness" and affective withdrawal developed at length anywhere in Badiou. It's really not his tone., and the weapon of choice for puritanically-minded modern-day militant intellectuals, like yourself. Cold in here, no?
Well, I'm all for putting the boot into artists*. But not, I hope, in the name of academic philosophy.Deleuze vs. Badiou is in some sense a fight between the (academic) philosophers (and their colonized captives) and the (institutionalized) artists (and their curatorial allies).
Again this notion that what the "weighty demonstrations" demonstrate is supposed to be "the Truth" - that Badiou is gifting his readers with the esoteric knowledge of forms, elevating them to a position of supposed intellectual authority. This is a very severe, and I suspect malicious, misreading. What one gets out of slogging through such demonstrations may be sublime - it's great when the penny drops - but it doesn't, in my experience, leave one with the feeling that one now understands reality better than other people. What Badiou calls "truths" are not accessible through the solitary study of settled mathematical topics. They are the coming into being of new forms, not the private comprehension of elite knowledge. None of Badiou's books communicates, or claims to communicate, a single "truth" of this kind.But if you read Deleuze carefully, he doesn't take sides in this futile pseudo-war; Badiou does, asserting authority over other forms of creativity (15 Theses on Contemporary Art) in the name of his troops and the Truth, accessible through "weighty demonstrations" (Being and Event) in the teeth of his sophistic/running-dog enemies. Badiou says, once again: "Philosophy takes command." It takes command because finally it will always come back, with his blessing, to a language of sets, of "seizures" of "something that looks like a proper philosophical argument"; a master discourse of mediation in which neighboring fields can be tolerated, but in which the terms of engagement have been settled already. Arrogance, power, and willful self-delusion. Or do you disagree?