There is analytic clarity - the clarity that comes from looking,
reflecting, stitching together. This is very rare. No-one seems to
Then there's unclarity - the general condition of human thought, being
the social process that it generally is.
Then there's bogus clarity - the moralising clarity of polemics -
which is really just weaponised unclarity, in the hands of people
looking for something to browbeat each other with.
That said, I think there are what Badiou calls "points", where in
order to orientate oneself within the general fog of unclarity, in
order to start working towards clarity of any kind whatsoever, one
needs to start by saying "yes" to this and "no" to that. I hope I'm
not conceding too much to the bogus clarity of polemicists on either
side when I say "no" to the forced eviction of hundreds of people,
even people I'm not spontaneously inclined to sympathise with very
much, even from land to which the letter of the law does not entitle