Badiou does surprise me sometimes though

I affirm that in old China there was no philosophy at all, and I will try to justify this point of view.

A culture like that controlling the world? Hmm. This is a form of hyper-racism to bring philosophy into it. Did they use leisure to cultivate their minds? If not, is that something that is permanent or semi-permanent about them now? We’re going to have to have this conversation eventually so why not get it over with now? Are you going to still squeeze your anti-racism to your chest as you bawl your eyes out when the Chinese are beginning to impose their oriental values on us? “I can’t let it go, it’s more important than anything!”

Badiou claims that there were five conditions that allowed philosophy to emerge in Greece. This is what he says first

philosophy accepts as a law the examination of all its propositions by others. If you want, philosophy is discussion.

You lose nothing if you lose that, right? Not like we truly have that in our own culture. Let’s just say, one can’t expect it to improve with the Chinese in control. One might go further and expect that it will worsen.

What the “oriental despotisms” of both east and west do to cheat “the greeks” is examine that very law itself noted above and declare it unlawful. In fact this is only implicit, because they do not have a “discussion” about this law of philosophy. Their non-response in the discussion is to end the discussion before it starts. In both cases it’s a matter of a pre-philosophical people wanting to remove philosophy from discourse. Who else uses Badiou and the like to talk about this? Such a dismal planet, it turns and the living might as well be dead.

The mathematical-maoists observing this won’t understand what is being discussed, because they are already oriental, they are anti-philosophy to their very core. One of the more prominent qualities of what I described earlier as an “ugly soul”.

Backtracking a bit, isn’t it conspicuous how controversial it is, this idea of “examining propositions”? Who on earth would ever be opposed to that? Dearest reader, look around you- most people are opposed to that. The examination of propositions.

Even the most seemingly rational adults. Ironically, I am examining some of Badiou’s propositions right now and finding them hollow. Because they are marshaled in the context of a culture that does not recognize the said law of philosophy that propositions can be examined. Is he one of the “maoists” that enforces this? I often get the sense that he is. So at the end of the day even he does not recognize the law which he says is thee law of his ostensible specialty.

If this subject of What is Philosophy? is your cup of tea, the most difficult book of the four titled that which I’ve brought up, to me, is Agamben’s, and I’m still digesting that for now, though you might want to take a look at it in the meantime.

Just as a reminder, with books like this we are trying to tweak this cartoon even further

You cannot understand “Robinson Crusoe” without doing that. That’s because if you don’t and you read aesthetic theory on that, then you don’t ultimately know what aesthetic theory is. Robinson Crusoe is part of a broader picture, aesthetic theory is part of a broader picture, philosophy is part of a broader picture–and this last one, especially, in the books of Laruelle, even if he himself thinks within a broader picture as well! This is what the oriental despotisms are rabidly opposed to. They want you to read their version of “Robinson Crusoe” without understanding it on a more theoretical or critical level. And that’s just the beginning- one can go further from there and theorize about said theoretical level. None of this they like, and if they do it’s in ways that they approve of that aren’t critical at all.

Despite being a system-man Badiou is redeemable

He references Sophocles’ Antigone in this context – this is an old, timeless idea that is today “am NOT allow”. Seems to follow that we need some retellings of that old myth, some new Antigones, to change that. It’s in this way that art can be something divine. Why do you think I showed you that cartoon up there? Pure verbal discourse is not enough. A gesamtkunstwerk which demonstrated that something CAN be more important than the laws of any particular culture would itself be a sort of deus ex machina. And to think I’d ever actually see something like that seems miraculous! God would be speaking from the heavens. Humans ARE capable of that. I’m not an artist, I have my own way of trying to do that.

I feel like a rubbernecker watching how blind Badiou is

The King of France himself, and he IS quite French. Again, though, that is a certain sight, a certain non-blindness, he has, to say the above, even if he is unwittingly describing himself. This is how we can get a god’s-eye-view, by “joking” about these types, who are hailed as the geniuses of the age.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: