This is so dishonest of Badiou to say- either that or naive I don’t know
I’m dying of starvation for something profound. Heidegger has a lecture which he gave in Normandy actually, also titled What is Philosophy? No I’m not cynical about the fact that it was given in 1955, that’s crazy talk.
Badiou’s lectures do have a Christian smell to them. You have to be meek and forgiving to thrive in that kind of environment. “Monster philosophy” isn’t allowed.
This is illegal ultimately
“What’s what? You’re not supposed to know what that is.” You sound crazy. 1955 and he says it’s guided and ruled by Christian concepts. That’s a good one Marty. A meek Christian would say that wouldn’t they? It’s purely oedipal when I attack Heidegger.
“What is — ?” questions are starting from square one. You can’t get more fundamental, that’s why it’s important to study what this is when we talk about “What is — ?” and that’s why I’m reading books titled What is Philosophy? today because that’s the only way to get more fundamental than that. If you want a “cultural reset” then you have to ask this stuff. Otherwise you’re not starting at square one, you’re not having a true revolution, because you’ll just be taking the old unexamined presuppositions with you to the “new” order. Asking What is philosophy? is a path to the most originary being. Will you make it to that goal? Possibly not. That’s the question to ask to get to it though. Revolutionaries who don’t ask it aren’t revolutionaries. Just look at the case of Badiou- he asks the question and I’m not sure he made it to the goal given how much of a system-man he seems to be.
Synchronicity from Heidegger
we still have no guarantee thereby that we are immediately enabled to pursue this path in the right way. We cannot even determine at once at which point on this path we are standing today.
One thinks that one is not giving a lecture in 1955. One thinks one knows which point on the path one is standing.
To say that this Greek questioning is guided and ruled by Christian concepts is an error. You don’t have to be a “historicist” to note that that’s what he would say in that year.
What is philosophy? How about something that cannot be answer precisely due to political reasons. Nothing like that in either Heidegger or Badiou. Indeed, Badiou emphasizes the apolitical nature of his lecture. HAHA!
Look how Badiou frames his biography in this lecture series
I’m talking about a reality, a structural reality in people’s mind, when I bring that war up, sorry if you get sick of it. It’s who people are. Even the wisest minds!
Heh after he says that he goes on to talk about the actual philosophy of Structuralism. When he talks about that I don’t think he’s aware of “the point on the path he’s standing”. That’s why structuralism arose as a response to phenomenology. You don’t have pure awareness. And this is the “structure” of our time which I continually point out. And people still proceed as if they have pure awareness. No…
Then he says “This is why deconstruction is infinite.” Pretty much, old man.
As annoying as this sounds it’s true
The English word for this sequence is post-post-modernity … post-post-modernity. Is it possible that the sequence after this is post-post-post-modernity?
It’s true. Often denizens of the internet, that’s where they are. People try to go about their day and pretend it’s not true. Then you have the standard response, which I’ve noted a few times, where the post-post-moderns can only appropriate post-post-post-modernism into their post-post-modern framework, while telling themselves that they’re post-post-post-post-modern. It’s true! As annoying as it sounds. It’s a form of self-deception they have in order to not be ostracized from the post-post-modern world. You following this? “Yes, my self-deception is following it.”
Jumping back to Heidegger’s, another synchronicity