Admittedly I have not read the actual Badiou. So will someone brief me:

Why is "love" included in Badiou's list of the four "truth procedures" of which philosophy is necessarily independent--rather than, say, "anger," "attraction," "pleasure," "preference," "emotions," or "psychology"?

The other items in his list are politics, science, and art. "Science" and "art" seem reasonably self-explanatory. "Politics" and especially "love" seem arbitrary; it is hard to imagine why these, in particular, reach the status of counterparts to philosophy, whereas many other "disciplines" on a similar level do not.

I'm sure I could learn a lot by reading Badiou. Nonetheless, I ask this question :)


I've tried - he's difficult; and I find his mathematical orientation obfuscatiry; still his prefaces read well; and someone said, I can't now recall who; that most of philosophy is reading prefaces...

I'd suggest that it, in part, derives from what Unger calls the form of the encounter in (Modernist) literature; and what Badiou might call an event; it is a truth-procedure on the level of the 'two', the personal rather than the impersonal; it is disclosure and in unconcealment, where an essence shines forth (or Das Schein to take a Hegelian term).

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    It's a very "romantic" take in its way -- that Love is not really about communication or even a relationship (for Badiou); it is only the production of truth. – Joseph Weissman Apr 3 '15 at 13:17
  • 1
    @weissman: either that, or Don Quixote tilting at windmills of the mind. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 13 '15 at 7:18
  • It is always one or the other, isn't it? : ) Sometimes both... – user16869 May 16 '16 at 12:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.