On 17/02/13 19:41, Chris Jones wrote:
> The comments on Badiou are consistent with the Clamour of Being, the
> book on Deleuze, so they are problems posed by Badiou
Another confusion is the failure to closely read Badiou's claim that
Deleuze to the most important modern philosopher since Spinoza. Again
this is why Kant's ontological problem of dx and problems of infinity as
such, again a what question, can loose the question. I am becoming more
convinced that Badiou is better read as a pragmatic how question as the
question most universally concerned with events....
So I am not sure if it is a question of what sense? The Logic of Sense
has to be more universally a question of how is nonsense?
anyway... a lot more can come after this, I suspect? These universal
pragmatic questions seem more shared between Badiou and Deleuze as the
outside forces of Dasein.
... to quote Badiou ...
when the only way of saving – despite everything – the One, is by
resorting to an unthinkable Two, an indiscernibility beyond remedy…one
says to oneself that, most decidedly, the virtual is no better than the
finality of which it is the inversion (it determines the destiny of
everything, instead of being that to which everything is destined). Let
us be particularly harsh and invoke Spinoza against his major, and
indeed sole, truly modern disciple: just like finality, the virtual is
/ignorantiae asylum/. (Clamor of Being, 53).
|