File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2002/lyotard.0201, message 58


Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:12:12 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com>
Subject: Re: some notes on Badiou




Eric/Shawn

I agree that we have insufficient information relating to Badiou's 
developing position - a pity given that I believe it's interest...

I agree with Eric that I want to think some more about Shawn's post 
 interesting....

regards
steve

Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:

>steve.devos wrote:
>
>>I differ in my perception of this statement. Because unlike Eric I
>>think that Ruth may be onto something here. The issue as I understand
>>this is related to the way that Badiou treats material situations as
>>specific sorts of mathematical sets. (see Manifesto and 127-128 of
>>ethics). The question being - can everything be reduced to the
>>mathematical order, founded as it is on a specific theory of sets.
>>
>
>steve,
>
>The main thrust of what I was saying was more concerned with whether or
>not Badiou's approach (Platonism/set theory) precluded questions of
>novelty.  
>
>I am not sure that his approach to using set theory to formulate
>ontology is necessararily reductionism in the way that you say, unless
>you are arguing that all thinking is inherently reductionist.  
>
>Actually, for me, the use of set theory is one of the attractive
>features of Badiou's thought and I also want to regard him holistically.
>which is to say that a single isolated confusion or contradiction is
>enough for me to dismiss him if I feel there is a richness to what he
>says overall.
>
>Part of the problem is personal for me.  I need to wait until I have the
>chance to read Being and Event before I start to critique him on these
>matters.  Why rush to judgment?
>
>Also, as you picked up, my own view of gender and feminism is somewhat
>tentative. However, I found Shawn's post provacative and it certainly
>seems to do justice to Lyotard's approach on other matters. I want to
>think about what Shawn is saying some more.
>
>erci
>
>


HTML VERSION:

Eric/Shawn

I agree that we have insufficient information relating to Badiou's developing position - a pity given that I believe it's interest...

I agree with Eric that I want to think some more about Shawn's post  interesting....

regards
steve

Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
steve.devos wrote:
I differ in my perception of this statement. Because unlike Eric I
think that Ruth may be onto something here. The issue as I understand
this is related to the way that Badiou treats material situations as
specific sorts of mathematical sets. (see Manifesto and 127-128 of
ethics). The question being - can everything be reduced to the
mathematical order, founded as it is on a specific theory of sets.

steve,

The main thrust of what I was saying was more concerned with whether or
not Badiou's approach (Platonism/set theory) precluded questions of
novelty.

I am not sure that his approach to using set theory to formulate
ontology is necessararily reductionism in the way that you say, unless
you are arguing that all thinking is inherently reductionist.

Actually, for me, the use of set theory is one of the attractive
features of Badiou's thought and I also want to regard him holistically.
which is to say that a single isolated confusion or contradiction is
enough for me to dismiss him if I feel there is a richness to what he
says overall.

Part of the problem is personal for me. I need to wait until I have the
chance to read Being and Event before I start to critique him on these
matters. Why rush to judgment?

Also, as you picked up, my own view of gender and feminism is somewhat< br>tentative. However, I found Shawn's post provacative and it certainly
seems to do justice to Lyotard's approach on other matters. I want to
think about what Shawn is saying some more.

erci




Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005