Sod the lot of yer! I’ll defend Badiou to the last…
…er…
…hang on, where’s everybody going?
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 at 9:18 pm and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
I’m with Badiou.
St. Paul.
The subject.
The truth.
Don’t let yourselves overwhelme with his mathematics. Read him in the violent poetic way. Let it enter you, what he says. People who read Badiou are not accountants.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Quite.
Indeed, where are they going … neo-liberal defensiveness – and its irritatingly ponderous and increasingly hysterical academic apologists – moves in ‘mysterious’ ways …
[ie Between attempts to 'neutralize' Orientalism (so utterly defeating the point of the original defence), between attempts to re-formulate an unhinged neo-liberalism as a "weaponised non-dialectical negativity" or "Xenoeconomics", between dissmissing Badiou (and Zizek) for all the, at this point nauseatingly, wrong reasons, between ... the continuing refusal to confront ideology ... it's all getting a bit sad and passive on the blogosphere ...]
June 10th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Could philosophy boys be any sadder? Thinking that a philosopher can solve your minor weeny ego worries is as twattish as chucking their books down and flouncing off in a huff when they say something you don’t like. As for the group-think element of this…it’s all horrifically playground. Don’t people have slightly more complex thoughts than ‘I love it! It’s my thing!’ or ‘I hate it! Urg, get rid of it!’ It’s homosocial record-collecting for boys who are smart enough to understand bits of Kant and Hegel but not nearly smart enough to understand themselves or the groups they belong to.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Wow Beckett. Perhaps some of us just feel that ideology critique produces little or no change and is just a way for literary studies academics to rationalize writing papers on the movies and television shows they enjoy. In the case of Badiou we have the placement of political economy outside of politics, whereas Zizek, despite his discussion of a parallax between economy and politics almost completely ignores the political. The critique of Badiou/Zizek has nothing to do with “loving it!” or “hating it!”, but with the strong conviction that the conceptual tools they articulate actually diminish the possibility of change by directing attentionn in the wrong directions.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:15 am
I think this is the downside of blogs. People throw out insanely poorly argued reactionary crap for no good reason than trying to be more ‘anti’ and ’spectral’. It reminds me of being a teenager and disavowing my favorite punk band as soon as they went ‘mainstream’ and signed to a major label or something of that sort. I hate that the internet has produced this fan culture around philosophy. And I hate that because of one fairly odd disavowal post everyone else decided to make similar leaps. This never ending quest for dark obscurity will not end well.
June 11th, 2009 at 4:30 am
“Everybody, Out of the Sandbox!”
[Hey you Neo-liberals - you know who you are, you have been interpollated! - stay in the sandbox]
June 12th, 2009 at 8:22 am
nice jokes. but really a complete waste of time
June 13th, 2009 at 1:39 am
No, Levi. It’s your disavowal of ideology, your pretense of being free of it, of abandoning it altogether, of being ‘neutral’ (as both your “Orientalist” post and your recent hysterical response to my comments above at your blog starkly make clear, the problem with all ‘analytics’ and, increasingly, SR ) which provoked my remark above.