Who is "Bad Badiou"? (with Andrew Culp [author of 'Dark Deleuze'] and Alexander Galloway)

[@l1m1n4l_n01se]

Falling asleep with this gets me into other worldy dreams

[@Undisciplined]

It's great to see this, thanks for turning me onto their series! I hope Andrew does with Badiou what he did with Deleuze.

[@Willzp360]

Enjoyed this one. Here's to Bad Badiou >:)

[@pliorius]

I think maths as ontology, or science of being, precisely because it's subtractive, opens up for the event. It's of pure multiplicity, and with empty set, void, being part of every set by definition, you could say that being is open to event. Now some worlds etc might be as closed as possible, at least in their historical appearing, but as long as there are chances for bringing together open multiplicitues no world will ever be fully complete in principle, outside of science of being, which is maths. Event is extra. Event is where shit pops up through void inherent in every multiplicity, and then the whole process starts of interrogating the world where it appeared through quite unforgiving subjectivisation, through truth process. You could say that philosophy, I. E, badiou, is trying to do that for ontology through translating maths as a form of pure being/multiplicity, for ethics through political choices, for esthetics through art. I. E. Ontology to maths is like esthethics to poetry. You still break your headbone doing set theory formulas, and transcribing what it might have opened there (I don't know if axiom of choice is of use there, but, yeah, through chance/choice) by following through, hm, decision that maths is form of being, and at the same time by there being multiplicities for things like love, art, ethics/politics, is it compatible with necessary opening, otherness of events in these expressions of truths. So badiou's ontology is self referential or feedbacking, maths as form of being/pure multiplicity and maths as open to and, hm, faithful to being multiplied so to say with addition of new axioms, new infinities, I. E. new spaces and forms for new being(s). So, maths is a form of being qua multiplicity, a register, blueprint of subtractive lines through which you can, as philosopher, attest that there's always new things and this is non negotiable, it is like complete and infinite space, I. E. what's formally possible will inevitably be open to be mathemathised, but can't formalize events as such only conditions where events might occur. So in a sense maths as site of events of possible being as such, can only go that far. Being is infinite, thinkable, formalizable, yet the event is fact of otherness, via other truth procedures. So in a sense maths there has an other of philosophy to proclaim maths as ontology. Other person as lover for love event, noise, as generic of sound, to music event etc. Not sure if I make sense but that's for deleuze to figure out.

[@Jaylicelizpectre]

I got the chance to compare Marx and Badiou on the event in an undergrad class last year. That really helped me understand how Badiou is a Marxist; I read specifically into his “Ethics”

[@nadim.bakhshov]

Interesting comments about set theory and Badiou's choice/use of it - but does not Badiou abandon set theory and shifts the ground to Category Theory in Logic of Worlds? It's a fascinating concept 'mathematics as ontology' but there's something neoclassical about it - I find it very much like a secularisation of Descartes 'Mathematics is the thought of God'. He just can't decide which mathematics is the discourse of ontology!