Wouldn’t this be nice to learn about?

Badiou has a study on him. He used to be one of my favorites, and I distanced from him because of perceived nihilism. Was I wrong? Funny the other day I read that he is the textual equivalent of Bacon’s paintings. Anyway, Badiou can show you things about certain writers you never would’ve expected, as you might have noticed from his Pessoa. Thinking back though- is he actually wrong about “waiting for Godot”? It’s not nihilistic if he’s not wrong.

There it is, the very word. This is how he conceives of his oeuvre

To tell you the truth I’m going to need some convincing.

I think of these two characters

This IS a real challenge

I feel trolled by his darkness. Same with Bacon in a way actually. Do they express the true Celtic ethos?

Whoa, Badiou says the “worst understood” and much-overlooked text of Beckett is the one that happens to be my favorite- How It Is. He divides his oeuvre into two distinct periods with How It Is representing the shift between them. People usually focus on the prose trilogy that precedes it.

Badiou looks at art as truth-producing. What does it make us think that has never been thought before? And he believes it can make us think things that haven’t been thought in philosophy.

He formulates this? I formulate it too

Not being part of the blob, that’s the condition, in my mind.

Remembering Beckett after years is making me laugh. This is typical for him

That’s what a cathedralist is to me- nothing. Living among them, that’s what I’m surrounded by- nothing. How do I feel myself in such a situation- like nothing. What do I hear when those people who used to eat their own grandmothers speak? Nothing. Speaking of “The Real”.

Huh, I can see that

Preparing for the irruption of novelty, in Badiou’s lingo. You have to accept that’s “how it is” before you can proceed. All the darkness you have to face.

There IS something Buddhistic rather than sadistic about the ending of Waiting for Godot, now that I think about it. Is Beckett secretly an “amor fati” writer? I’d say he’s actually something of a “confessional” writer himself.

I confess that this can happen on the internet in a paltry form

It is also with the event – with beauty, love, and the Other – that a novelty beyond the ordeal of speech can make itself known.

Badiou is similar to Deleuze in his definition of philosophy I showed you the other day regarding it as one of three in the form itself with the arts and sciences, except he adds a couple- love and politics

Those four produce truths. In this post I am trying to show you how he uses philosophy as the go-between to produce truths from Beckett’s art.

Heh, the “truths” produced from lust, political correctness, lowbrow entertainment, and SCIENCE!™… that’s called “living in an illusion”, only illusions are produced from those. Be gone, harlot.

This is what lots of people want it seems

“How do you do it, how do you do it?!” Badiou claims Beckett’s books are those inventions.

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: