Another “What is” question
The lawnmowers, does he mention the lawnmowers? That’s the worst problem.
Settle for a Straussian reading of a 1725 text? How about ones written in the 2020s? “Shut up, I’m not going to talk about the lawnmowers.”
“Just get this Maoist out of here!” No, he can still be learned from. I’m just rubbing my temples saying Don’t trust French people Don’t trust French people. That revolution seems to have frozen them in time in a certain way. They need another revolution.
It’s not something that should be perceived as insulting- Badiou just seems like a wise grandpa to me, and just because he’s wise doesn’t mean he’s not a grandpa.
Two types of State Philosopher, and I wonder if they’re aware of it on some level (I’ve never seen any sign that they are)
Then Zizek’s appeal is that he’s a “silly Eastern European”. That’s part of the dissimulation, that you feel bad for him. Just because you can’t take him seriously, that is what allows him to be taken seriously. I relate to these two more than 99% of people so it’s not like I hate them or something.
With people like them you could never know if they’re “Straussians” because they know that being an actor is part of the act of philosophy. Do I know what that is myself? I don’t think so, I see it as something that needs to be left behind for everyone’s sake.
They must know on some level–at least I speculate–what “being perceived as a demon” is. They don’t want that to happen to them so they don’t do it, and they just accept the limits of the time. I know anons who understand that. If some random kid can understand that then they definitely can.
With these cloudpeople at least they’re better muses than most. I see that one fragment I quoted above and go off on a tangent. You want to talk about “offensive”, Badiou? Where is there innovation that can ever get you in trouble? There’s something non-innovative about that. Most people “offend” me in this regard. Great, the same shit everyday, I guess we’re all supposed to be content with that. And it’s brown-nosers like Badiou and Zizek that legitimize that behavior on the intellectual level. You have not done that for me, I am immune. ~Marxists~ who are subordinate to Capital is all I see. That’s something that should cause quiet reflection, hence they will never debate anyone who brings it up in a direct manner. I wouldn’t fight an old man anyway, that’s disrespectful.
Some of you should really read that Slezkine, he believes the Jews are like Hermes, the trickster god. Hermeticism, hermeneutics. I just don’t see it, I’m still waiting for a convincing response from them. If you can’t answer simple questions then you are not Hermes. That’s the real “state philosopher”. The one that the surface ones can’t even question. The only innovation that is allowed has to presuppose your tenets, I don’t think so. Tell me about Babylon. You think those were objective “scribes” who created your blueprint? “Babylon doesn’t exist, the PALE doesn’t exist.” Why would you doom all the world for your own self-preservation? “Because I’m a Jew.”
And Badiou might as well say the same thing, he doesn’t innovate anything that could cause a real revolution, from what I can tell so far. I’ll still read him though, for Confucian reasons. Respect for elders seems to be one of the only things that can’t be innovated away from. At least ideally. If people depart from that then they’re likely to not integrate into the normal order, and I understand that myself. It’s a matter of bringing the elders who are not alive today to this order. And for all Badiou’s pretenses about being a Platonist I’ve yet to see any real Socratic behavior from him. “Yes, I’m a Platonist, there’s a difference.”