EDIT: there was some name calling here.. sorry about that. was stupid.
your conception of Good/Evil is a very basic humanistic moral one.. it has NOTHING to do with badiou. ill try again.. "The real question underlying the question of Evil is the following: What is the Good? All my philosophy strives to answer this question. For complex reasons, I give the Good the name ―Truths‖ (in the plural). A Truth is a concrete process that starts by an upheaval (an encounter, a general revolt, a surprising new invention), and develops as fidelity to the novelty thus experimented. A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity (which I call his generic humanity). To become a subject (and not remain a simple human animal), is to participate in the coming into being of a universal novelty. That requires effort, endurance, sometimes self-denial. I often say it’s necessary to be the ―activist‖ of a Truth. There is Evil each time egoism leads to the renunciation of a Truth. Then, one is de-subjectivized. Egoistic self-interest carries one away, risking the interruption of the whole progress of a truth (and thus of the Good). One can, then, define Evil in one phrase: Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests."
was there not any "Truth" to Lenin? not a WHOLE truth (what is a whole truth?), but a Truth in badious conception. this is the basic libidinal goo for badiou, the Truth-process.. there are 4 conditions for this process: love, science, art, politics. we're only talking about one example within politics.. i think we can find many Truths throughout history.
do i really have to apply this concept again? how many examples do i need to give just so you can begin to think about this clearly. im not trying to maintain distance from engaging in a debate, but this is pointless so far..
i keep thinking of that scene in 'white man cant jump': your listening to jimi, but youre not hearing jimi.
i even agree with your little shit-fits against the State, maaaaaaaan. but this argument is invalid here.
all i can say is, READ BADIOU.. its obvious you havent..
your conception of Good/Evil is a very basic humanistic moral one.. it has NOTHING to do with badiou. ill try again.. "The real question underlying the question of Evil is the following: What is the Good? All my philosophy strives to answer this question. For complex reasons, I give the Good the name ―Truths‖ (in the plural). A Truth is a concrete process that starts by an upheaval (an encounter, a general revolt, a surprising new invention), and develops as fidelity to the novelty thus experimented. A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity (which I call his generic humanity). To become a subject (and not remain a simple human animal), is to participate in the coming into being of a universal novelty. That requires effort, endurance, sometimes self-denial. I often say it’s necessary to be the ―activist‖ of a Truth. There is Evil each time egoism leads to the renunciation of a Truth. Then, one is de-subjectivized. Egoistic self-interest carries one away, risking the interruption of the whole progress of a truth (and thus of the Good). One can, then, define Evil in one phrase: Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests."
was there not any "Truth" to Lenin? not a WHOLE truth (what is a whole truth?), but a Truth in badious conception. this is the basic libidinal goo for badiou, the Truth-process.. there are 4 conditions for this process: love, science, art, politics. we're only talking about one example within politics.. i think we can find many Truths throughout history.
do i really have to apply this concept again? how many examples do i need to give just so you can begin to think about this clearly. im not trying to maintain distance from engaging in a debate, but this is pointless so far..
i keep thinking of that scene in 'white man cant jump': your listening to jimi, but youre not hearing jimi.
i even agree with your little shit-fits against the State, maaaaaaaan. but this argument is invalid here.
all i can say is, READ BADIOU.. its obvious you havent..
Last edited: