1

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 :)

1 Answer 1

2

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).

3
  • 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
    Commented Apr 3, 2015 at 13:17
  • 1
    @weissman: either that, or Don Quixote tilting at windmills of the mind. Commented Apr 13, 2015 at 7:18
  • It is always one or the other, isn't it? : ) Sometimes both...
    – user16869
    Commented May 16, 2016 at 12:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .