This is too convoluted. I’m continuing to pursue the subject of my previous post. This is how a secondary text begins, with a quote from Badiou on a Beckett play
This is a book on Beckett?
Badiou takes set theory to be massively significant for modernity. This is because it gives an account of an actually existing, accessible infinity. The concept of actual infinity is central to this study.
This, for them, is how you fix the death of god. You don’t have to “wait for Godot”, because Godot already has arrived, with set theory. So is this what those elitist mathematicians are hiding?
Both the writers in question are opposed to theological leaps. It’s claimed that with set theory such a leap is not required.
I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out how to “think the infinite” and having trouble, then I realized that’s probably not supposed to be an easy thing to do. There’s an infinity of infinities apparently, and they’re not all equally infinite. This is no solution to the death of god for the average person, that’s my initial impression.
This is a subject for another day when I’m feeling masochistic
That’s an interesting possibility though. I’m sure it will be appealing to some who are uneasy with both theological leaps and merely philosophical “proofs” for God’s existence.
I wonder why someone like me who seeks to reverse the death of god has gathered so many haters, it’s such a mystery. I think Kierkegaard is right that radical evil is the conscious defiance of the Good. And he’s a Christian so that’s not the only way he phrases what is defied. God didn’t really die per se, people just have a zoomorphic one now. Sick of talking to you Maoists about anything. The improvement of the demos is the Godot I eternally wait for.