I consider Alain Badiou’s Deleuze — the Clamour of Being to be one of the highlights of this third category — a sentiment that I seem to share. On Alain Badiou’s Manifesto for Philosophy, Deleuze: The Clamor of Being, and Ethics. The Rights of Simulacra: Deleuze and the Univocity of Being. Deleuze: The Clamor of being is one of the strongest readings of Deleuze that exists, and Badiou does an incredible job of synthesizing and presenting an.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||28 September 2012|
|PDF File Size:||12.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.97 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
By targeting, with analytic fury, each thesis exposed by Badiou, Roffe aims at showing — by means of a deluge of textual evidence — what a ‘correct’ reading of Deleuze supposedly is.
The expressed virtual thing does not change, it only changes its relation to other virtual things.
Alain Badiou, Deleuze: The Clamor of Being – PhilPapers
My aim has been to show the paradoxical nature of this singular book, which dramatically fails in the endeavour that its title announces the philosophical analysis of the perspective line uniting Badiou’s thought with Deleuze’s oeuvreand which, by means of the creation of an indefensible ‘personnage conceptuel’ ‘Badiou, the sloppy thinker’ actually becomes one of the most serious and meticulous philosophical introductions to Deleuze’s thought to date. Badiou seems to recognize this when he understands that for Deleuze there is no chance of chance — that Deleuzian concepts like the fold only operate as a way of interiorizing the exterior; the becoming of concepts through their own vitalism.
Descending are analytic statements that are produced by combinatory machines that are open at the single point in the square. This said, almost every single thesis of Badiou’s book, according to Roffe, is fake; as a consequence of this, Roffe constructs his ferocious text in the form of a “procedure of testing” p. As an example of the second outcome, one can consider the very precise analysis regarding the historical genesis of the concept of the event that occupies chapter 6.
Rui Ramos rated it really liked it Jul 26, The Same is chaotic difference. For Badiou, chance is not the contingency of the One, but is the contingency of all possible events, while for Deleuze what emerges is a virtual doctrine of contingency — chance of the One itself is radical contingency of being.
Deleuze: The Clamor of Being
The key difference between Badiou and Deleuze is around the multiple as one. One can call these books ‘adversaries’ — books that cannot be avoided, as they constantly torment us, thus forcing us to the infinite attempt to destroy them.
Monthly downloads Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart. In doing so, I suppose, there’s nothing to lose but Deleuze.
So from the view of a given transcendental, a certain relation may not be available. Badiou will allow that for BD, one must, as in the work of Kierkegaard, choose to be chosen, accept the terrifying responsibility of deeuze that the One offers some beings. Badiou compellingly redefines “Deleuzian, ” throwing down the gauntlet in the battle over the very meaning of Deleuze’s legacy.
BD holds that univocity does away with the need for philosophical grounding in the Platonic sense.
The fold implies that thought can only serve as an apprehension of an established world. Such an approach — Roffe doesn’t seem to find relevant its possible inconsistency with both Deleuze’s and Badiou’s notion of fact – pushes him to claim that: I was still wrestling with the ideas. The badioy of the two classes arose from discriminated differences in experience. Notify me of new comments via email.
In this sense, what Badiou calls “logic” would be concepts that are always present for Deleuze, although they may be inexpressed. It is there that Deleuze gets interlacement of thought and being. Mallarme, Beckett, Pessoapolitics, and love.
Badiou concludes by characterizing Deleuze as a pre-Socratic thinker- one for whom philosophy is a physics. But only on this last round have I really begun to grasp Badiou’s own work. As long as I’ve been reading post-structuralism, I have pursued an understanding of Deleuze’s work.
celeuze Badiou identifies Deleuze’s multiplicity with a unique principle of ontological difference that implies that all actual beings are mere manifestations of it, provided only with modal difference between them and, most importantly, limited to the expression of difference, rather than its production.
To put it simply, Badiou is saying that Deleuze does in fact rely on depeuze grounding in a Platonic sense, but does so clumsily. Indeed, rather than an ecstatic subjectivity, thought demands a rarified ability to overcome the self and submit to the process demanded by the machinations of the One-All. Paperbackpages. One must also mention here how the last chapter displays a brilliant reading of the existence of a specific concept of the subject in Deleuze, by distinguishing it from the Kantian transcendental subject, from the psychological subject of consciousness, and ultimately from any identification with the empirical figure of the ‘human’ see in particular pp.
Deleuze would think the substance-relations at their contingency, in a sense, sacrificing consistency for thw recognition of the virtual teh. Thus, Badiou’s move to equate one rhetorical form with another is a falsity that Badiou himself imposes but reads onto Deleuze. These passages — and all the carefully built arguments and analysis upon which they rely — while attacking the unfairness of Badiou’s critique, at the same time paradoxically confirm the reasons for Badiou’s choice.
Or anyway one Deleuze among the morass; which is also what Badiou finds, after planting him there–a slender strain of monism, somewhat brutally cultivated, bonsaied according to Badiou’s blueprint. Deleuze told Badiou that he found his ideas interesting, but saw no correlation between their two philosophies. The secret of the eternal return is that it is an affirmation of chaos, and what returns is the universal value of interferences of virtualities, and thought as inflections of the One.
Badiou accepts that each Event cannot be the same Event even if it meta-functionally works in a similar fashion as the last.