Starving for something profound so I resort to looking to see what the contemporary left geniuses are up to – Badiou.
Literally the first one I click from 2019 calls for violence against white men, explicitly! Please get a new act. First two pages that’s what it is, should I read more?
He has a Maoist translation of the Republic – is that something I should even let my enemies know about?
“Finally something you mention that I might actually read.” Leftist theory is closer to the Forms than what most people tend to consoom, so I’m not going to hate you for it.
Against the idealists- I bet some of you can relate to this
How about more vividly
I have got dirty hands. Up to the elbows. I have plunged them into shit and blood. And then what? Do you assume that one can govern innocently?
Yeah I’m thinking some of you can relate to this.
I only have the stink-eye for materialists. Maybe Badiou will change my mind?
Hands dirty with the blood of reactionaries is the indirect meaning above by the way.
Badiou’s idea of communism though seems similar to what I think of reactionism- the end-goal is everyone is a philosopher.
I’m looking at one of the dozens of secondary texts on him. It always strikes me how the most contemporary philosophy is stamped “kagal-approved”. This writer is a dirty non-idealist in ways I’m not sure he’s aware of.
The baziuo is too easy of a target, I should just stick with critiquing the galaxybrains. You’re tellin me that they tend to be baizuo too?
It’s a matter of whether I can stomach neo-scholasticism. It’s painful to see a baizuo being an idiot, even more painful to see some of the smartest people in the world being baizuo. I’m here frowning trying to read this.
They really did pull a Gramsci and march through the institutions- now as a result the smartest ones have distinctly liberal presuppositions. I refuse to call them leftist, they don’t deserve that when they’re merely the same exact type as the normie except with higher IQ.
One has to wonder about a certain trickle down effect from these ones. Are they the shapers of the typical liberal or do both partake of the egregore independently from one another? Probably a bit of both. The irony of Badiou wanting everyone to be a philosopher when his disciples are like this. Such an expected hypocrisy that it’s thoroughly dull.
The internet really did a number on some of our brains. We’re so distant from “Institutional Truth”. Put a smile on your face, aren’t you happy about that?
I can imagine a life where I stuck with the kagal-approved neechmeister. There’s a certain boundary one would never cross. Because then you’d be a ba-aa-aad person. Talk about getting dirty, these materialist praxis-ists don’t know what they’re talking about. Ba-aa-aad!
Badiouans love to use the word “radical”. Just looking at them and him at a glance, this is the way that the brilliant minds our captured by the state. Why are there are so few rightists worth reading? Because would-be savants were tricked into playing a status game. When you play that game you’re playing it with your fellow libs, and that’s only the least insulting term one can apply to them. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians have their own special nicknames for them. This is what is seen as high status today, having presuppositions indistinguishable from the western demos. Institutionalized demagoguery.
Note that missing one’s pre-internet brain is the direct opposite of what is meant when someone misses their pre-internet attention span. This technology has been misused by most. The internet has only made them even more drooling and servile than they would’ve been without it.
Badiou is considered a major philosopher of our century so I’m not claiming to offer a definitive encapsulation of him here to say the least, these are just my thoughts at a glance, because I usually can’t stand to read these types of what that Korean calls “state-owned” theorists for much time.
I’m taking a look at his book What is Philosophy? now because most of the other titles I see I find offputting.
Condensed, seems accurate
philosophy circulates between ontology, theories of the subject and its own history
Deleuzians hate Badiou, and they all seem so similar to me. Never see them deviate from Institutional Truth, and this of course rests on a certain ontology, theory of the subject and its own history. I’m only trying to relay to you why I prefer to read banned books rather than these thinkers. Speaking of that, and this is a cruel thought- in light of the alternate reading of the French Revolution what do you think of these thinkers?
philosophy has a very peculiar relation to time – including its own past
That feel when you give the game away
They have a way of redeeming themselves though. Again, they often offer the form which can be used in ways beyond them
After all, maybe it’s not a good world? Must philosophy be inside the world? It must, in some sense. It must because it is its world, this world of today! It’s a real problem. We shall examine in detail this very interesting question.
I can sense certain types accusing me- “You dare to question Badiou?” I’m a Schopenhauerian, all institutional philosophy is questionable.
This is how he begins this series of lectures at the European Graduate School
The first problem: why must we speak English?
That’s not the always-already “language” I would begin with and put into question. I would begin with, Do you think there are any constraints on philosophy when it’s in the context of being a lecture given at the European Graduate School? The financiers would not like that!
It looks like if one wants to get a grasp of the reasoning behind French arrogance, one might be able to go to him for answers
the three major languages of philosophy have been Greek, French and German, certainly. And so, English is not a philosophical obligation, not at all.
Anglos suddenly feeling a rush of ethnic pride which they usually lack?
This is such a typical belief-system Badiou is betraying here though- Anglo hate is mainstream and approved of. ~Radical~. Moldbuggians continue to be RADICAL like this today. Glorified ethnomasochism indistinguishable from progs at the end of the day.
This isn’t totally useless to point out, I’ll give him that
today philosophy exists in the dominant language of globalization, that philosophy accepts being inside the world as it is, and so speaks the universal language of today, which is a sort of English in fact, not a pure English, but a sort of jargon.
Whether he’s truly getting dirty in dwelling on this is another question.
Next he accuses Heidegger for being a fascist for saying that German is the philosophical language par excellence. The horizon shows itself. The language of anti-fascism is what Badiou truly speaks in- talking about “English” is cosmetic.
The English really played themselves in that war. Badiou can get away with marginalizing them in “their” supposed order. Notice that he prefers a certain pluralism by emphasizing Greek, German, and French philosophy and won’t go radically rangordnung. It seems inconsistent to stop there, illogical.
Reading these eminent philosophers while off the reservation is amusing
I understand, of course, that it is a necessity to speak English in business, but the law of philosophy cannot be exactly the law of business, after all – philosophy is not a business. This is a question for philosophy today, because today everything is business. And so the question is: is philosophy today able to be an exception?
Again, he redeems himself for even asking the question. I tend to forgive old men in general. “Fed on the bread of lies.”
I’ll go ahead and say it- Hebrew, Yiddish, Kabbalah have always been an “esoteric” language. And he is only pointing out the exoteric language of the dominant world of today. And philosophers aren’t supposed to be exoteric in my opinion. Like what is said above in this post- in order to avoid idealist navel-gazing one must dirty oneself with praxis. And I’ve never seen Badiou or his disciples do that once. State-owned. The students in this course were probably looking at him fawn-eyed- that’s how clones are made in the academy. The state churns out its copies. I began the morning looking for something profound and I haven’t found it in Badiou so far- a typical sell-out who pretends he isn’t one. Not someone a “Stalin” would want in their cabinet. And tragically, that’s the kind of person a future Stalin would install in his cabinet. His end-goal is for everyone to be philosophers- how can he bring that about when he seems like such a theologian of the status quo order?
Seeing him say this makes me laugh with disgust
The very nature of philosophy is here … the very nature of philosophy is here.
And all of the book is like that so far.