nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
In fact, I don't know if anyone here is capable of hitting me back to my satisfaction. I keep trying, though, like a dog returns to its own vomit.
So he proposed a sort of approach to politics that privileged immanence, direct action, almost reckless action without thought, action toward something that you don't know what it is...
poetix said:Find me one.
Even homosexuals, bearers in the century, as we've just seen with Gide, of a part of the protest, today demand their insertion within the familial frame, the tradition, citizenship. See how far we've come! The new man, in the real present of the century, stood first of all, if one was progressive, for the escape from family, property and state despotism. Today, it seems that modernisation, as our masters like to call it, amounts to being a good little dad, a good little mom, a good little son, to become an efficient employee, to enrich oneself as much as possible, and to play the responsible citizen. This is the new motto: Money, Family, Elections. Even if the money is that of the net-economy, the family that of two homosexuals, the elections a great democratic feast, I can't really see the political progress.
Our duty, supporting ourselves on Lenin's work, is to reactivate in politics, against the morose obsession of our times, the very question of thought. To all those who claim to practice political philosophy, we ask: What is your critique of the existing world? What can you offer us that's new? Of what are you the creator?
He still apologizes for Mao, and was a supporter of Pol Pot at the time - in fairness to him, perhaps before all the facts were in, though I think it says something about his political judgment.
It is always possible that no truth will ever come to pass, and that none ever has. This is why Badiou argues that "the philosopher" must keep "the sophist", the nihilist debunker, on hand: there can be no ultimate triumph of the one over the other.
Does it exist?Has anyone heard that experimental LP he did with Faust?
Must we accept, on the contrary, that chaos is the only appropriate figure of the real, the alpha and omega of every (temporarily) stable form?
Is Bourdieu worth reading or does he just say stuff everyone knows and gets paid for it? I'm thinking specifically of 'Field of Production' and 'Rules of Art'.
You'd like him, I think... he's sort of that kind of post-Weber sociologist who is so popular and widely read that if you've set foot in academia for a day you've already heard most of his arguments and more obvious theses. (so you might not be shocked by what you read)
It's so weird I've not heard of him before. Maybe I have and I just thought they were mispronouncing Badiou lol, thanks, I'll see if I can find em second hand.