Alain Badiou. The Event of Truth. 2002 1/7

[froezel]

If all truth is something new, what is the essential philosophical problem pertain truth. Appearance and Becoming. Truth is a process in the real.

[TheagesTyrannos]

"Is the definition of a circle new?"

It was at one point.

[jhayn002]

What a genius! come on, pure BS

[stagesix6]

which language is this? (hahahahah)

[Kchnk789]

But why MUST a truth be "somesing new"? Is the definition of a circle new? I pains me to say it, but Badiou has BS'ed me for the last time. The above film is emblematic of so much Badiou (including the "St. Paul"):-- just a [useless] commentary-on/ pastiche-of Ricoeur (who really was brilliant). Profuse apologies to the pop-philosophy superfans... Don't ever give up on your dreams!  XD

[Krelianx]

It's a matter of definition. Why must the word 'gold' refer to a particular kind of metal? The connection of the word and the role it plays on an axiomatic system has no further 'reasons'. Strategically, Badiou wants to pair subjectivation with truth in order to subtract it from objectivity and knowledge, for which it is a matter of veracity but not of truth. You should read and keep your mouth shut before passing such gross veredict on these important intellectual figures.

[GuruGoodwin]

This type of argument from language, the old words giveing light to the current usage is perhaps suitable to a time before the advent of linguistics. Ideas change. There is no pure antecedent. A theory of language hides and limits Truth to the unknown and asserts that in some fashion it is still meaningful. But if it is, does it matter at all. Is it a difference without a difference. I understand the idea of a meaning event. But to ascribe a special category of Truth like this is very BS.

[Krelianx]

Your response is obscure beyond comprehension. What 'argument from language' are you referring to? And what is 'old words giving light to current usages' referencing? Badiou is not advocating hermeneutics, nor a hollistic philosophy of language. What do you mean by " 'a' theory of language hides and limits truth to the unknown". Difference without a difference? What?

I would be careful about calling anything 'bs' if you are going to be proposing this ephermal nonsense in return.

[GuruGoodwin]

An argument from words alone is suitable to fiction. Where is the structural requirement of logic. Oh but it is something new. Not bound by logic which can only give from the known that which is implicit in its existent understanding already. It is something new, But is it a thing at all. Is is perhaps only the idea of a thing such as Tom Saywer. Who we can refer to by his actions and being, yet he has neither, he is a work of fiction.

[victor1eremita]

@GuruGoodwin "An argument from words alone is suitable to fiction." Yes, very nice premise to introduce your argument with. an argument which, I might add, is 'an argument from words'.

[GuruGoodwin]

But by asserting the existence of Truth (capital T) and the separation of truth from knowledge, we end up with something essentially unknowable. Of course, for an argument with a foundation in Hegel and Heidegger we should expect no less. How do we end up at a point where this kind of nonsense is taken seriously. Where is the epistemological foundation for this type of reasoning. Where for that matter is the reasoning.

[eydos]

If you think Heidegger is nonsense I advise you to go back and read only american empiricists and analitical philosophers. If you genuinely wish to know how this kind of philosophy works, you have to study it a bit more closely. The main thing to know about continental philosophy is that it pressupposes a lot of knowledge being known by whom she adresses to, and believe me there are a lot of more basic works you can get your needed epistemological foundation. Peace.

[simulachra]

Which "american empiricists and analytical philosophers"? I wonder if you know anything about the history of analytic philosophy.

[abigpinetree]

who cares about analytic philosophy?

[Krelianx]

Truth does not existent, since the former is an ontological category related to generic procedures, while the latter is a question of objective distributions secured by Transcendental logic. Truth cannot be known, because it is not a thing, or state of affairs, it is a process. And for you to think there needs to be an 'epistemological' foundation goes to show how little you actually understand Heidegger, Hegel or philosophy tout court. This rubbish you're posting impresses no one.

[GuruGoodwin]

I call this an example of philosophy by assertion. He asserts that there is some thing called truth with certain qualities. There is no argument toward that assumption. This is an ontological flaw, as in the same flaw that exists in all ontological arguments. The fact that we can concieve of something being a certain way doesn't make it so. There is no inherent reason to believe something on the basis of its assumption.

[pilkingtonphil]

There is an argument - its called Being and Event. Clocks in at about 550 pages. Runs through the history of philosophy and reads it through set-theory. Read it prior to re-iterating eight line arguments (assertions) about philosophy...

[Krelianx]

Truth is exceptional, truth is forced into the situation as a purely generic procedure. You say there's no argument towards this? Well, Cohen's description of generic subsets is the ontological basis, and Badiou develops it quite clearly in his Being and Event. Your pretentious attempt to debunk Badiou's thought through sucha lax argumentation shows only your blatant ignorance and lack of reading.

[DaimonTheFallen]

Possibly the most Brilliant philosopher alive today.

[Ovahheah]

Possibly, but not actually, since William Desmond also lives.

...just sayin'.

[Ovahheah]

Possibly, but not actually, since William Desmond is also alive and well....

...check him out.

[rpbertp13]

Calla la boca Sacilotto

[Krelianx]

Las Papayas.

[shambor]

i don't get it

[Krelianx]

What don't you get? Maybe I can try clarify something for you.