Friday, May 10, 2013

alain badiou's "three amigos"


atRifF

coming back to badiou's Logic of Worlds. i'm revising a number of badiou's redundancies. this post is forthcoming. i'd like to take a look at this one:

p 220.  under the heading "definition of an object", badiou declares (I):
Appearing is nothing else, for a being --initially conceived in its being as multiple-- than a becoming object.
let's suspend all the metaphysical problems in the history of recent philosophy associated with such a problematic term as "becoming," which badiou takes for granted here.

he writes: "But object is also a fully ontological category in that it only composes its atoms of appearing in accordance with the mathematical law of belonging, or pure presentation."

that's 1, 2, 3: the three amigos of appearance! "appearing" hangs on to "belonging," and both to "pure presentation" (keep in mind that "to belong," an atom, by definition, has to "appear" as a "part" of something else). as per "presentation" (let's leave "pure" aside for now), "to present" is a first cousin of "to (make) appear".  so, appearing features the three compadres. 

"appearing" is a "becoming" of, well, appearance. we're back to where we started. but for whom? badiou always addresses these conundrums from an axiomatic mathematical voice, which promulgates absolute truths from a platonic valhalla (the unspoken secret is that "the One," this mysterious cipher all over LoW).

do you buy it?

of the three amigos, "appearing" is the trademark of redundance, badiou's definition of object rest-ing on it. 

let's go back to (I):

appearing is... a becoming. and isn't "becoming" a form of "appearing"?

badiou has a way of getting out of the quicksands of ontological redundancy. @ the end of this section he writes with characteristic rodomontade:
The only inflexible truth regarding the intimate decomposition of the worldy fiction of being there is that of being-qua-being. The object objects to the transcendental fiction, which it nevertheless is, the 'fixion' of the One in being. 
badiou now puts the pleonastic hat on the ontological mannequin: the object objects! who would expect any less?

do you buy it?

5 comments:

Malagodi said...

in a word, yes.

Anonymous said...

Bombastic,
pleonastic,
insuffferable.

Anonymous said...

Your little piece is pitiful. Who are you to put into question Badiou's prestige?

Alfredo Triff said...

frankly, nobody. no prestige.

Alfredo Triff said...

malagodi: tx, so you buy it.

tx, anon.