Badiou argues that number cannot be defined by the multiform calculative uses to which numbers are put, nor is it exhausted by the various species described by number theory. Drawing on the mathematical theory of surreal numbers, he develops a unified theory of Number as a particular form of being, an infinite expanse to which our access remains limited. This understanding of Number as being harbours important philosophical truths about the structure of the world in which we live.
In Badiou’s view, only by rigorously thinking through Number can philosophy offer us some hope of breaking through the dense and apparently impenetrable capitalist fabric of numerical relations. For this will finally allow us to point to that which cannot be numbered: the possibility of an event that would deliver us from our unthinking subordination of number.
~Promotional material for a new book by prominent French philosopher Alain Badiou
Sick of politics 
January 25, 2010 at 5:30 am |
I never studied Philosophy formally at uni, except for half a Logic course. But the two History of Science courses I took in the HPSC department did more for sharpening my philosophical claws than any other course: The Origins of Western Thought went from Babylonian arithmetic (base 6) and cosmology up to Islamic mathematics, medicine, and astronomy, finishing in the European late middle ages, and Scholasticism; the second course was the bog-standard The Scientific Revolution, which quickly recapped the first course, before concentrating on Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, and ended briefly with Newton.
These two courses were an integrated education in history, epistemology, mathematics, physics, astronomy, medicine, with the added bonus of theology as well. As a result of these two courses, I have not come across any broader philosophical content and discourse – including the Badiou numberphobia above – that has intimidated me.
The two History of Science courses were taught straight up and down; no gobbledygook obiter dicta. Most of the readings were from the original scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians themselves. The assessment was quite traditionally focused on testing how much of these thinkers did we grasp, understand, and remember, not some trendy modern ‘deconstruction’. For example, we had a couple of mid-term quizzes, which asked us to write say 1,527 in Babylonian numerals.
What was particularly educative was the realization that it is only very recently that anybody considered Religion and Science to be totally different, unrelated, let alone contradictory, incompatible fields/modes of inquiry.
I think there are very good reasons for a third or so of all university degrees be devoted to a common core of Intellectual History type subjects, and I would vote for these two to be part of that common core.
January 25, 2010 at 11:04 am |
I’ve done a fair bit of philosophy; I find it interesting and fascinating, but like a coastal hanglider, philosophy is always a bit in danger of being blown out to sea and getting lost. There has been some really good stuff done on the philosophy of mathematics, but it tends to be done by people with a deep, strong grasp of mathematics who know what they’re talking about, understand the things that mathematics can do, and can spot some of its less obvious weaknesses.
I can’t take anyone seriously who thinks numbers are a capitalist plot.
January 25, 2010 at 2:09 pm |
Oh dear.
January 26, 2010 at 12:36 am |
dd
Hear! Hear! I found the stuff that Plato, the neo-Platonists, and especially Kepler were doing with Math, Philosophy, Theology, and Science to be mind-blowing, but as you say they were all trained in Math. I did a couple of years of Math as an undergrad, and occasionally could see some – what I at least thought were – philosophical issues.
On a couple of occasions, I raised them with my lecturer, and every time s/he’d say ‘we deal with that next year (or the year after)’. I quickly gathered, that my knowledge of Mathematics was nowhere near sufficient to start confidently probing deeper philosophical issues.
A friend who did a Ph.D in Pure Maths – set theory, incidentally – said that by the end of undergrad Honors, Pure Math becomes much more discursive and philosophical, but you need all the mechanical ‘monkey-see, monkey-do’ stuff of the first two to three years too see how everything ties together first.
I did a bit of set theory, which involved formal proofs, and even at that level the challenges of transcending the fuzziness of language were already creeping in on the Math, and suddenly the cognitive powers demanded moved – or added – into a totally different sphere, which quickly thinned the numbers of students enrolling each semester.
Badiou seems to be blagging off the old Marxist history/philosophy of science school that argued the Scientific Revolution occurred in western Europe because nascent capitalism reached some conceptual bottlenecks that were only released by advances in physics, technology, math, and astronomy.
Under this analysis the British Royal Society was consciously created as a capitalist imperialist stooge like a proto state-funded combination of MIT, Google/Microsoft, Goldman Sachs Quantitative Products Research. But this marxist historiography has been passe for many decades.
At this stage, Oxford and Cambridge were still embroiled in theological controversy, and for at least another century and more focused largely on Theology and Classics. Even Newton left Cambridge because he was bored, and had bumped up against the limits of Cambridge’s interest in and knowledge of Math and Physics (or ‘Natural Philosophy’ as it was known)
No, Msr. Badiou is clearly just another cloistered French marxist revolutionary hack 50 years behind the time. The reality is much more complex; and fascinating.
January 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm |
That’s terrible. An absolute shocker.
It’s also a problem when philosophers who don’t understand maths try to use maths to explain their points. There was some theorist I read who blathered about numbers, but really his analogies made no sense at all mathematically speaking. Can’t even remember who it was. It was one of those French dudes (Lyotard, Derrida, blah blah).
January 26, 2010 at 9:09 pm |
Theory of “number.” I’m with skepticlawyer on this one. For the purpose of critiquing this bugger I wish I went to one of those schools that were grammar-Nazis. Like most of our schools were in the 19th Century. If I was adept at breaking language down into various categories I could more easily explain what this pretentious Frenchie is doing. What does he mean by “number”. Does he mean something more than “numbers?” He’s trying to get fucking cosmic on us is what he’s doing. Its not the first time a Frenchman has acted pretentiously. I guess we ought not be shocked.
Once you get to talking this way, straight-forward philosophy goes out the window. Before reading further, we ought to assume that this fellow will be making yawning omissions in his thinking. Omissions rather than logical errors. The philosophy fraternity aren’t bad at weeding out obvious one-step logical error. But they’ll turn out one new Professor after another with the unique ability to write a thousand pages, without much in the way of logical error, yet able to ignore massive segments of real-world understanding. Like nearly every leftist philosopher in the world never coming to grips with economic life.
This is one reason I find blokes like David Stove and Robert Nozick so very good. Also Rothbard as philosopher. If you are not an anarcho-capitalist yourself, you can still work around Rothbards act, since he’s so straight-forward. Actually he may be the best if you are able to make your own adjustments. And also remembering that he does stand on Rands shoulders, no matter how upsetting it would have been for him to have to admit it.
Funny the fatwah Rafe has on Stove. I think Rafe is a marvelous intellectual. One of the most sound in this country. But his official epistemology dogma is not the way he actually operates. He has a personal religion which is mostly Popper. But his excellent habits of thought are more akin the the South African economist Hutt.
The reason I’m dredging up this old controversy is that I am of the opinion that you cannot get enough of David Stove. There is simply no way to overdose on David Stove and make a complete prick of yourself. I think Rand is last centuries most important philosopher. But some people can indeed get too much Rand.
Too much of a good thing. Like a diet exclusively of pickles in the morning and ice cream at night. But you cannot get too much Stove. This is why I say you ought to regard anything the Rafe says carefully and with much consideration. Where Stove and Rafe clash over Popper remember that Rafe is this countries leading Popper-scholar and not the late Stove. Stove is allowed to make mistakes with regards to Popper.
But having said that you ought not be hung up on Rafes version of epistemology nor on his fatwah against David Stove. Rothbard says that they always specialise in the things they are no good at. Rafe is a cool guy. And good at everything. Except for epistemology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Back to this pretentious frog. The idea in philosophy is to use words the way that Hemmingway determined to use words in his prose. Hemmingway may or may not have been an honest fellow. But he had a sort of ideology of prose. He was after choosing the most honest word. The most simple and closest in terms of what he was describing. I don’t know whether one ought do this in prose. But this ideology is a must for philosophy. For the philosopher not to try and gyp his audience, but still more importantly for the philosopher to refrain from gypping himself.
Pretentious language is the enemy of sound philosophy. Pretentious language may not always be the enemy of sound fiction. But it is always the enemy of sound philosophy. We ought to adopt the Hemmingway ideology of prose when we discuss philosophy.
There is an economics text. George Reisman’s “Capitalism”. In my view his way of doing things is not only appropriate for economics. It would also be just the best way to go about philosophy. Where you keep cycling all the tools at your disposal. Without sticking to only one too long. One wants to approach any one problem coming in from many angles and using many different tools.
The philosophers fraternity demands that one overuse certain tools and scrimp on others. They want you to have the pretense of using deductive bivalent logic …….. converted into prose. Not exclusively but as much is as possible. They want a mega-bias in this direction.
Unbelievable but true. So in philosophy you are supposed to go in for this pantomime where you have sussed everything out in your spare time strictly by staring out the window, and then when you gather your thoughts, converting them directly into symbolic logic, then converting that symbolic logic into books no shorter than Norman Mailers “Ancient Evenings.”
Page after page of straight conversion from the bivalent deductive logic, into endless prose on matters philosophical. This is more or less straight bullshitartistry and why I took to calling philosophers “Godless theologians.”
The above priesthood-biased, way of going about things, is all wrong for philosophy. Rather what is needed is a bit of an update of the Aquinas methodology. Where you approach the problem from one angle, then another, then another, then you add your own thoughts drawn holistically from all over the place. Then you lay down a summary wherein the truth of the situation is either clearly described, or a sort of boundary is made wherein the truth must lie somewhere within those bounds. Nozick was a force in the right direction. As was Stove.
Deductive bivalent logic is just so inefficient. It reminds me of this cartoon I saw where this fellow was carving out steps for a mountain-climbing party. One of the characters was saying that he was very slow but also very safe.
Juxtapose that lack of effectiveness to the kids game of twenty questions. A smart kid who really concentrates ought to be able to guess the man, woman, thing, concept or anything else you are keeping secret, in the space of twenty questions.
I’m no good at this game. I get frustrated and lose my patience and yell out “SHAKA KING OF THE ZULUS” But nonetheless a serious approach, should have the kids getting the right answer, no matter what it is you have in mind. A focused group of kids who are serious ought to almost always get the right answer, within the 20 questions.
The 20 questions deal shows the immense power, efficiency and effectiveness of tools other than bivalent deductive logic. In this case the 20 questions are analogous to Venn Diagrams. An awesomely powerful tool of philosophy if used right. Boolean logic is like Venn Diagrams at one step. And we see the power of Boolean logic each time we consult google.
The one tool that came and went and nobody took seriously outside of some makers of consumer products is fuzzy logic aka Multivalence logic. This is the way forward. This is the ultimate tool. Though we throw no tool away, fuzzy logic is the Rolls-Royce of conceptual tools and one that no-one is using.
Unfortunately fuzzy logic runs counter to every priesthood. It runs counter to the Philosophy priesthood, the computer programming priesthood. It runs counter to everyone. We need to go in for this most righteous of tools bigtime. Fuzzy logic is potentially the ultimate tool of philosophy, natural science and the humanities, and practical human life. And yet fuzzy logic has been rejected as some sort of 90’s fad that came and went, and is really old hat, and yesterdays news.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The correct technique in philosophy is therefore to not do what the priesthood does. Be aware of the laws of logic and even do the exercises in the Shaums outline. Go get the blackbelt in the formal stuff. But you aren’t going to use it that much. Mostly you need the straight logic background to help you know when you are being a complete prick and taking your mistakes along with you with the other baggage that you refuse to throw away.
Instead never throw any of your tools away. Always cycle your tools for any problem. Approach any problem from as many different angles as you can. Even going so far as to adopt the Edward De Bono, many hats, approach to matters as a subset of the convergence in methodology that you are looking for.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most of all read this very post many times. And as well read my defining essay on this subject, rudely excluded from the Club Troppo inaugural blog competition. Where it ought to have won. And where there can never be a way for the Club Troppo miscreants to make up to me for excluding the best blog post for that year.
Short of Club Troppo giving me a lifetime achievement award as soon as possible. I’m not after the Nobel prize. The Nobel prize has been horribly tainted.
January 27, 2010 at 12:44 am |
Is modern philosophy doomed?
Well, given that the winged-wanker considers himself a philosopher, and judging by the pile of meaningless drivel posted above, I would say almost certainly yes.
January 27, 2010 at 1:58 am |
You let this riff-raff on here Soon? Either my shadow goes or I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The philosophers, because of their lack of commitment, and due to their priesthood hanky-panky, then to have a bit of a inferiority complex when it comes to the physicists. Their lack of moxie when it comes to dealing with the physicists, runs in parallel with what we have seen from Bernanke. Bernanke’s utter gutlessness when it came to dealing with various numbers-raketeers. One day historians will scoff at the pretense that Hank Paulson had thinking of himself being a “banker.” Since in a well-run setup the banking function, more than any other undertaking, ought to attract the renaissance men.
Getting confident with ones economic understanding means never feeling like you need to take crap from an idiot banker who happens to have deep pockets. Likewise, getting the full spectrum of ones understanding of philosophical matters means never having to look at a physics insider, except downward and with the slit-eyes.
Just for arguments sakes how ought a philosopher talk to a physicist? Well we ought to talk with respect to eachother sure. But now that the physicists have somehow found themselves the ranking priests in the overall schematic, the only way a philosopher can go forward is to up front turn the tables on that unnatural situation. He must use a combination of condescension and abuse to reorder the status unto that which any just God could be happy with.
Below is a fictional example of how the philosophically adept might succeed in doing so, in the face of invasions by a person, nominally part of the physics priesthood:
“Don’t be ridiculous fatty. You are not able to weigh a single neutron. Nor will I bust into your place with the SAS and find you casually weighing a billion neutrons on your bathroom scales.
Any attempt you have on the fly to weigh a parcel of a billion neutrons, must as of necessity contain some element of circular reasoning and therefore be a thing awash in wishful thinking.
I’ve watched a bunch of your lectures and you are an excellent lecturer. But where you say parallax can give you the accurate distance of 200 stars or so, you assume (like a babe in the woods) that when that gig runs out, you still have the ability to deduce the distance of the other stars. But to suggest so, is to not be vigilante against circular reasoning. You have no such certitude.
Only CONVERGENT evidence gives us rightful certitude. Only ranking paradigms in parallel, shows us the way forward from the point of view of epistemology and the greatest detective story.
I thought you were just a stupid fucking fathead. I’m not flaying myself alive over that initial conclusion. Since I still think that. But clearly you have talent as a lecturer. No question. You are a natural teacher. But if you want to take your act further, you have to integrate parallel paradigms into your didactic schtick.
You ought not have run that lecture on stellar development, without running the electric universe jive in parallel.
Go forth and sin against epistemology no more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you see the above. The attitude of my fictional narrator, is one conducive to restoring the natural hierachy of things. Even an amateur philosopher ought hold rank against a lecturer in physics with a paid daytime gig.
That the philosophers last century let their ranking slip, just shows how lacking in commitment and aptitude for their field they were.
January 27, 2010 at 2:12 am |
I’ll expand on a few points that I made at Catallaxy:
1. Badiou is definitely not a ‘postmodernist’.
2. I could cite equally impenetrable passages from most major 20th Century philosophers – Russell, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, etc.
3. Badiou’s use of mathematics is entirely legitimate. He’s interested in set theory, which he, in turn, uses to explore ontology. I looked at a couple of pages on Amazon, and this appears to be the theme of this book (as well as a look at the axioms underpinning number).
4. There’s a long history in philosophy and mathematics of coming to grips with numbers – see Russell, Godel, etc.Philosophers don’t just borrow from maths – philosophy has done some favours for mathematics over the years.
5. The passage you’ve cited is a blurb, not the book itself.
6. Philosophy isn’t, and ought not to be written to please economists and right-liberal stooges. That’d be like making bikinis exclusively for the grossly obese.
The rest of the comments here are the standard moronic, kneejerk anti-intellectualism from people who are sufficiently stupid to mistake Spice Girl Ayn Rand for a ‘philosopher’.
January 27, 2010 at 2:14 am |
Dear god Graeme. More stream-of-consciousness psychobabble rubbish. If there were laws prohibiting crimes against the English language, you’d be locked away for a very, very long time.
Perhaps it’s time you went back to school and completed 3rd grade.
January 27, 2010 at 3:04 am |
THR
I don’t know who you’re trying to bamboozle by name dropping Russell and Godel here. I’ve read two books on Godel including the magisterial Godel, Escher and Bach. I’ve read Russell. I’ve read stuff on meta-mathematics and enjoy it. I know what an actual trained philosopher or mathematician grappling with the philosophical implications of math is like. Badious does a facsimile which may well impress some literati without any math background (which I should add a lot of economists have) but not the real deal.
January 27, 2010 at 3:06 am |
btw Russell and Godel were trained mathematicians. And Godel never set out to be a philosopher. His discoveries arose out of his math work. So you’ve got it the other way around. No literati wanker has ever made a contribution to maths.
January 27, 2010 at 3:09 am |
Badiou does have a math background, of sorts. He’s been lecturing on set theory for about three decades. And my point was that plenty of modern philosophers are difficult to read.
The problem here isn’t solely a mathematical one. I haven’t read the book, but I suspect that Badiou may be criticising the cack-handed, idiotic attempts to reduce everything to quantification (including ‘happiness’ itself). The obsession with ‘outcomes’, whether educational, psychotherapeutic or whatever betrays a reductive and imbecilic way of approaching the world.
January 27, 2010 at 3:17 am |
So you’ve got it the other way around
Mathematics needed philosophy to give it its axioms, so your wrong here. And none of the Badiou works I’ve read are actually an attempt to do mathematics per se – it’s more a case of using set theory to explore some philosophical ideas. How this makes him a member of the ‘literati’ is beyond me. If clowns like Rand are what paddles your gondola, then I can see how real philosophy might be experienced as something unpleasant.
January 27, 2010 at 3:28 am |
No THR
Badiou has as you say, tried to use set theory to explore philosophical ideas. He has no math background far as I have read from his bio entries. This is quite different from invoking Godel, Wittgenstein and Russell as doing similar work to Badiou. The 3 did actually know what they were talking about when they used math.
And no I don’t consier Rand a top ranked philosopher.
January 27, 2010 at 3:31 am |
I didn’t say Badiou was similar to Godel and Russell in terms of content, I said that, along with many modern philosophers, his prose can seem difficult. And what is set theory, if not mathematics?
January 27, 2010 at 3:38 am |
Set theory is mathematics. However to claim that Badiou has a ‘math background’ because he attempts to use set theory to explore his ideas is like saying Birdy has a math background because he might invoke some metaphor of an idea from math in illustrating his theories. Please understand the difference. Playing with an analogy from another discipline isn’t equivalent to doing that discipline.
He has made no important or original discoveries in math whereas you were suggesting earlier that philosophers like Badiou contributed to math. I showed your analogies were wrong because
(1) Godel’s contribution was actually in maths and it just so happened that his math contributions had philosophical implications. so in fact the contribution ran in the direction of math to philosophy
(2) Ditto with Russell. Russell worked in the area of mathematical logic which technically is an area of math.
January 27, 2010 at 3:38 am |
Does Bertrand Russell fit into this conversation somewehere?
January 27, 2010 at 3:39 am |
Oh sorry, I see that you’ve bought him up.
January 27, 2010 at 3:42 am |
btw
Russell’s Principia Mathematica was ‘difficult prose’ but that was because it was a work of mathematical logic.
His writings on the philosophy of mathematics on the other hand are pretty accessible.
January 27, 2010 at 3:51 am |
Now you’re backpedalling like Birdie at a salad bar.
I never said that Badiou was doing mathematics. My comparison with Russell and Heidegger was made with respect to difficulty of prose. If you don’t like those two, try Kant, Hegel, or Sartre for some difficult prose. it’d be just as absurd to quote their blurbs out of context.
Secondly, Badiou isn’t ‘playing with analogies’, as you’d know if you spent more than 5 minutes investigating his work. Lacan, for instance, uses knot theory and topology to illustrate points from another field. That is analogy. Badiou, on the other hand, uses set theory to write his insights into philosophy.
So what’s the real objection here? The fact that he’s French, the fact he’s a leftie, or the fact that you can’t read him?
January 27, 2010 at 4:03 am |
The ‘prose’ is difficult in that he doesn’t write clearly even though the ideas aren’t that sophisticated, you’ve summarised them up there already in far fewer words.
what makes you think I wouldn’t understand them? it’s the ratio of obscurantist prose to actual insights that makes me smell a rat.
January 27, 2010 at 4:05 am |
he seems to be saying ‘capitalism is bad because it has something to do with numbers’ or ‘the obsession with quantification can be bad’
sorry, this is just juvenilia compared to the actual insights of Godel
January 27, 2010 at 4:07 am |
anyway on philosophy I tend to agree with Charles Darwin that ‘the baboon has done more for philosophy than Aristotle’
That’s my bias, it’s a scientistic bias, not a hatred of French or lefties
January 27, 2010 at 4:12 am |
THR, there’s no getting around this:
“only by rigorously thinking through Number can philosophy offer us some hope of breaking through the dense and apparently impenetrable capitalist fabric of numerical relations.”
We’re not being anti-intellectual by mocking such a statement. Yes, it’s just a blurb, but its meaning is clear. Are you telling us that it’s inaccurate?
What am I missing?
January 27, 2010 at 4:19 am |
You let this riff-raff on here Soon? Either my shadow goes or I do.
err seeya, Birdie.
January 27, 2010 at 4:23 am |
Beat it woppy.
January 27, 2010 at 4:26 am |
“….anyway on philosophy I tend to agree with Charles Darwin that ‘the baboon has done more for philosophy than Aristotle”
But its not true Jason. Whereas Aristotle is the King of better philosophy, no Italian-wop has ever made any serious contribution to philosophy at all. They just hang around scratching their protruding orange assholes demanding more bananas.
January 27, 2010 at 4:30 am |
Yeah, FO Graeme. You have nothing to contribute to this dicussion but an endless stream of verbal diarrhea.
January 27, 2010 at 4:30 am |
“Now you’re backpedalling like Birdie at a salad bar.”
I like it. Great work THR.
You really don’t have any other point do you? I recognise that I ought to read him in the first hand. But from your feeble defense it may be that getting this done isn’t of the greatest “moment”.
I’ll read him when he gets on Kindle.
Can you please try and stick up for him a little better?
January 27, 2010 at 4:33 am |
Look. How old is this fellow. He’s probably just a child. I’ve probably forgotten more than he’ll ever know about epistemology.
THR. You must not confuse the idea of this fellow
1. Being a marxist and
2. Having a paid gig …….
with this joker having any real deeper understanding for his subject/
He’s just a youngster isn’t he THR?
January 27, 2010 at 4:36 am |
Soon. Its a little bit too much to have that stupid wop and Birdlab on your same thread.
Thats reminiscent of Moscow and all her satellites having the block vote at the UN. Why toady to this idiot Cambria in the first place? He’s a fucking inside-outsky.
January 27, 2010 at 4:45 am |
Graeme, your complete knowledge of just about everything wouldn’t even fill the label of a soup can.
Now stop smearing yourself with battery-acid you delusional freak.
January 27, 2010 at 4:49 am |
Soon can you get rid of this asshole? Cambria/Birdlab? Do the right thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The rest of the comments here are the standard moronic, kneejerk anti-intellectualism from people who are sufficiently stupid to mistake Spice Girl Ayn Rand for a ‘philosopher’.
No I’m sorry THR. Everything I said was quite correct. You yourself are well known for fudging the definitions of words mid-argument. So we can expect that you might be protective of some other philosophical light-weight who does the same.
January 27, 2010 at 4:53 am |
“Look. How old is this fellow. He’s probably just a child. ”
You fat fucking dope. Do a bit of basic research instead of just pulling things out of your backside for a change. Baidou is 73 years old.
You give morons a bad name.
January 27, 2010 at 4:55 am |
Right. So no excuses Cambria. He’s a light-weight. I wonder why it is that THR has a bee in his bonnet about this fellow.
Contrast THR’s unthinking toadying to this:
“Well they do f**k up everything they touch SRL”
There is my sweetheart right there.
January 27, 2010 at 5:00 am |
“Soon can you get rid of this asshole? Cambria/Birdlab?”
Give it up you pathetic whining sook.
January 27, 2010 at 5:06 am |
Soon. can you get rid of this asshole?
He’s just a big fat albatross around the neck of the freedom lobby. And his fat wallet is weighing the rest of us down.
January 27, 2010 at 5:14 am |
Suck it up bitch.
Always whining and forever running-off to mummy Soon. You’re hopeless. Utterly hopeless.
January 27, 2010 at 5:20 am |
There were a number of false assertions in this post and the comments thread, which is why I took the bait. You could’ve picked on any number of genuine obscurantists, but you picked Badiou instead. Or rather, you picked a blurb, pretending that this was sufficient to characterise Badiou. Let’s clear a few things up;
1. Badiou is not anti-mathematics, as dave seemed to think. He has his to say in one book:
‘Precision put into the razor of the Marxist barber, mathematics is that unalterable blade with which one ends up bleeding the pigs to death’.
2. Badiou is not using mathematics flippantly, as Legal Eagle seems to think. He has been discussing set theory since the late-70s, and I’ve never seen any mathematical objections to his work. He himself seems cognizant of the dangers of mixing mathematics and philosophy, and deals with this issue at some length in one of his more famous books.
3. Jason thinks the prose is difficult because it’s hiding its inadequacies. All this, based on a blurb. In any case, Badiou’s prose is pretty straightforward by the standards of most philosophy. Whether the insights are worth reading is a matter of taste, but he’s hardly obscurantist. Nor can he be said to be lacking in ideas – his basic project of reworking ontology through set theory is an important idea (insofar as ontology has any importance, at least).
anyway on philosophy I tend to agree with Charles Darwin that ‘the baboon has done more for philosophy than Aristotle
Charles Darwin knew Bird?
Everything I said was quite correct. You yourself are well known for fudging the definitions of words mid-argument. So we can expect that you might be protective of some other philosophical light-weight who does the same.
Where do we begin, Bird? The ‘convergent’ epistemology, the tinfoil theories on Obama, the reverse speech – which non ‘lightweights’ should we be discussing here?
January 27, 2010 at 5:30 am |
Perhaps we could start with the latest jackassery about male chest hair being the result of alien experimentation on humans?
January 27, 2010 at 6:05 am |
THR… so therefore, the blurb is wrong?
I refer to the goal of “breaking through the dense and apparently impenetrable capitalist fabric of numerical relations.”
January 27, 2010 at 6:08 am |
I thought the guy was anti-PoMo?
January 27, 2010 at 6:10 am |
THR… so therefore, the blurb is wrong?
I haven’t read the book. Like I said, I looked at a couple of pages on Amazon. The blurb may be badly-worded, and certainly isn’t enough to dismiss Badiou altogether.
And yes, Badiou is definitely anti-pomo.
January 27, 2010 at 6:18 am |
“Perhaps we could start with the latest jackassery about male chest hair being the result of alien experimentation on humans?”
Come on you stupid fucking wop. What do you have to say about that? I never made that claim Cambria you fucking low-IQ cunt.
But what is your take on it exactly you stupid cunt.?
Hey fucking dummy.
You don’t have a damn thing to say about it do you you fucking brainless cunt.
January 27, 2010 at 6:41 am |
So Bird, you reckon you never claimed alien experimentation on humans?
Exact quotes:
“How does natural selection account for most males having this inversion, wherein the hair is on their chest, rather than their back. That looks like a botched experimental job more than anything else. Some people in a big fat hurry.
“How does natural selection account for us having two less chromosones then primates? Thats pretty weird right there. Again it looks like a rushed and botched job at gene-mixing. You want to mix two species but you cannot because they don’t have the same chromosone number. So you do a bit of chromosone stitching. Something fast and nasty.”
“About our own evolution. I don’t think we can rightly exclude alien intervention.”
Comments by YOU Bird, at 12.29pm Dec 24, and 2.57am on Jan 2. Link here:
No need to thank me.
January 27, 2010 at 7:35 am |
THR
THR
Both Bertrand Russell and Kurt Gödel were mathematicians, and Wittgenstein was an aeronautical engineer, before turning to philosophy. Similarly, many of the greatest (and more humble) economists were/are mathematicians, most notably Lord Keynes.
January 27, 2010 at 7:51 am |
Interstingly enough I’ve just finished reading a book about mathemetician Paul Erdős. Interesting guy, if just a teeny bit weird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s
January 27, 2010 at 8:37 am |
“Perhaps we could start with the latest jackassery about male chest hair being the result of alien experimentation on humans?”
I never made the comment, Bird you freaking jackass red neck. However if you like just assume I did say that..that is .. if it makes you feel better.
In any event did you make the comment about cheat hair and resident aliens or not?
January 27, 2010 at 8:41 am |
Bird
I’m not Birdlab, if that’s what you’re suggesting.
Believe it or not there are people that think the same way about you. In fact let’s just say that there is no space coming through a space in terms of what Birdlab thinks and says about you. But I’m not him/her.
You fat, bald, red neck fuckface.
January 27, 2010 at 8:41 am |
oops there’s no light
January 27, 2010 at 8:45 am |
“How does natural selection account for us having two less chromosones then primates? Thats pretty weird right there. Again it looks like a rushed and botched job at gene-mixing. You want to mix two species but you cannot because they don’t have the same chromosone number. So you do a bit of chromosone stitching. Something fast and nasty.”
I have long ago explained to Mr. Bird how that is possible. No mystery required.
January 27, 2010 at 8:57 am |
Yes. I well recall that brave but ultimately doomed attempt at forcing Bird and reality inhabit the same space at the same time, JohnH.
Yet now he seems to be denying saying any such thing.
I suppose he occassionally gets confused about whether Battlestar Gallactica was actually a drama or a documentary.
January 27, 2010 at 8:58 am |
yes John, but Bird is really wanting to know, though not asking out loud, why he’s got an chromosomal abnormality obviously brought on as a result of generational inbreeding. Perhaps you could tell him what happens and why.
January 27, 2010 at 9:00 am |
Cross-breeding with sheep?
January 27, 2010 at 9:06 am |
Perhaps not a sheep, Birdlab. Perhaps a series of rabid dobermans and a couple of sheep chromosomes that finally entered the human chain and remained isolated as a result of a long line of close relatives having babies which in turn had babies as well.
January 27, 2010 at 9:17 am |
Graeme needs Ockham’s Razor, one about the size of a house.
January 27, 2010 at 9:24 am |
The psyche ward doesn’t allow him to have razors without supervision, John
January 27, 2010 at 9:25 am |
The psyche ward doesn’t allow him to have razors without supervision, John. Even if it belongs to Ockram.
January 27, 2010 at 10:30 am |
“I have long ago explained to Mr. Bird how that is possible. No mystery required.”
What are you claiming here John? Are you claiming that I said it was impossible?
January 27, 2010 at 10:32 am |
Butt out Cambria you stupid wop. You and Birdlab are too stupid for this conversation. You are a liar too. I never claimed that this was all definitely the case. I don’t know what demented tangent John H has gone off into right now.
January 27, 2010 at 10:34 am |
“Graeme needs Ockham’s Razor, one about the size of a house.”
What the fuck are you talking about John H? Don’t bring your head-damaged stupidity out in the open like this. Need I remind you that you have been a stooge for the global warming racket.
January 27, 2010 at 10:41 am |
Bird,
Why don’t you butt out and let the grown men talk amongst themselves? You can’t have a proper conversation because you are incapable of having one as you basically only know low brow conspiracy laden junk that you find at low rent websites and then parcel that crap out elsewhere.
Go away.
January 27, 2010 at 10:54 am |
No c-word Graeme. Guys stay on topic.
January 27, 2010 at 2:17 pm |
Get rid of this fucking moron Soon. Cambria/Birdlab is just a fucking moron. Tell him to fuck off. He;s such a dumb shit. You cannot explain the most simple concept to this stupid wop.
January 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm |
Its pretty simple. Just block the low-IQ wop. You don’t need this anti-intellectual deadhead on yet another website. What has he been able to say on the subject of philosophy? I’m sure its just powerfully insightful-NOT.
January 27, 2010 at 2:20 pm |
You know not to allow this stalking low-IQ wop cunt on this site. What good can come of it?
January 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm |
Right. I’ve read their input. There isn’t anything by Birdlab/Cambria on the subject of philosophy. Too fucking stupid to make a comment on the topic under scrutiny. Same on the other thread. Nothing by Cambria/Birdlab on the topic. Why allow this fucking traitor dog on the site at all?
January 27, 2010 at 2:52 pm |
How about a bit of the old philosophy Birdlab/Cambria. A dumb wop going to give us a bit of the old philosophy hey? Bit of the old basic philosophical analysis? Hey wop? Lets have a bit of the old philosophical analysis Birdlab/Cambria.
January 27, 2010 at 3:22 pm |
Bird;
Please control your angry emotions and stick to the topic.
January 27, 2010 at 4:44 pm |
Back on topic. How quickly things move from metaphysics to Bird dropping the c-bomb and abusing the enemies of his imagination, an amalgam of JC and Hank Paulson.
Here is a decent lecture explaining a bit about why Badiou matters:
http://www.themonthly.com.au/key-thinkers-justin-clemens-alain-badiou-1652
January 27, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
False advertising THR. Of course he doesn’t matter. You explain why you think he “matters”?
January 27, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
The lecturer does a pretty good job. Have a look at it before dismissing it. I’d even go so far as to say that Badiou is perhaps the only living philosopher who matters, at the moment. If the others were lost somehow, they could nonetheless be reconstructed, and bettered, from Badiou.
But please, Bird, watch the lecture. There’s no reverse speech in it, but it’s pretty good all the same.
January 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm |
“If you want to be free you have to have a master.” All I’m seeing is obscurantism, irationalism, pretension, and anti-religious polemics.
January 27, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
Its the obscurantism, irrationality and anti-religious polemics that you think is really neat huh THR?
How about you explain in your own words why you think he is important. He’s not the least bit important. His views are irrelevant and worthless.
January 27, 2010 at 5:35 pm |
Truth as universal? Reconciliation of ‘analytic’ logico-mathematics and ‘continental’ literariness? A belief that philosophy still has something to say? A recasting of ontology into mathematical formalisation?
If you were any kind of an audience, you’d at least pay attention to the sort of ‘master’ that Badiou has in mind. Freedom isn’t the given in Badiou (or in real life) that it is in Rand.
You haven’t engaged in any argument yet, Bird. It’s actually quite proper that Jason brought this to our attention. You can gauge a lot by the different responses. You have the ignorant vultures and mediocrities who hang around, waiting to kick those they perceive as lefty and pomo. You have folk like Padre Dave, who isn’t into it, but may be able to approach it from some standpoint. And you have people like yourself, who are perfectly capable, but who choose ignorance and dogmatism as a worldview.
You can do better, Bird. It’s not like the guy has an opinion on banking. Don’t let that dyspeptic stomach of yours reject everything that isn’t semolina.
January 27, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
I’m listening to it and its all unadulterated rubbish.
“Truth as universal?
OBVIOUS. GIVE HIM A CLAP Reconciliation of ‘analytic’ logico-mathematics and ‘continental’ literariness? WHY RECONCILE THESE TWO? A belief that philosophy still has something to say? PLATITUDE A recasting of ontology into mathematical formalisation? WHAT THE FUCK FOR?”
January 27, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
(Maths) is therefore anti-religious…. All rubbish.
Philosophy is about clarity. Not obscurantism combined with the tickling of irrational leftist prejudices. The philosopher must bring clarity to the nature of reality, the way of sorting truth and falsehood. He ought to audit various well-known beliefs to see if they have merit or not. He ought to point the way forward to a better world.
If you are a fan of this fellow how is it that you cannot do any of the above? You mention reverse speech. And yet you were incapable of recognising that real evidence was provided for this technique. You mention fractional reserve. Yet you were unable to see how this was a harmful practice.
If you realised that the philosopher was supposed to clarify matters and develop the right methodology for sorting truth from falsehood, you might have gotten to a stage where you were somewhat less useless and doing so yourself.
A good philosopher ought to have been able to investigate global warming and very quickly determine it to be a sham. Has Badieu done this? What is his point of view on other matters?
January 27, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
You’re degenerating into ignorance once again, Bird. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension of truth as adequation. This leads you to seek logic internal to itself. In philosophical terms, we might charitably term this ‘idealism’. In psychological terms, its psychosis. You never take an ‘external event’ as a referent, but merely as another demented sign within your own internal logic. Hence the defensiveness.
But as for global warming, here’s Badiou:
“It is a gigantic operation in the depoliticisation of subjects. Behind it there is the idea that with strict ecological obligations one can prevent the emerging countries from competing too rapidly with the established imperial powers…Ecology solely concerns me inasmuch as it can be proven that it is an intrinsic dimension of the politics of the emancipation of humanity. For the moment I do not see such proof.”
January 27, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
You mention reverse speech. And yet you were incapable of recognising that real evidence was provided for this technique.
Extremely poor evidence, that I wouldn’t consider empirical even after a bottle of whisky and a couple of plls.
You mention fractional reserve. Yet you were unable to see how this was a harmful practice.
You moan about ‘masters’, yet silently omit your own master, Capital. Anarchism is about having no rulers, including capital, however pure, or free from fractional reserve banking. Hence, neither you nor Rothbard are anarchists…
January 27, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
Truth as adequation?
You idiot I’m not confusing anything. Truth is truth. As opposed to falshood. Reality as it exists.
“Thus, while a truth procedure is required to access the real, the real also serves as an external limit on the possibility of its production of truth.”
He cannot seem to say even a simple thing without clarity. We establish truth through convergent evidence and by no other method. This is why we have 5 dull senses and not merely two sharp ones. As for his statement on global warming. Like everything else it lacks clarity. Its a silly and irrelevant statement.
“It is a gigantic operation in the depoliticisation of subjects. NO ITS NOT. NOT UNLESS HE’S REFERRING TO AN ATTACK ON SOVEREIGNTY AS “DEPOLITISATION”. Behind it there is the idea that with strict ecological obligations one can prevent the emerging countries from competing too rapidly with the established imperial powers HARDLY A DRIVING FORCE FOR YOU WHACKOS. Ecology solely concerns me inasmuch as it can be proven that it is an intrinsic dimension of the politics of the emancipation of humanity. TWO BARELY RELATED IDEAS For the moment I do not see such proof.” OF COURSE HE DOESN’T.
The fellow cannot make a straightforward statement that is not idiotic.
January 27, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
“Extremely poor evidence, that I wouldn’t consider empirical even after a bottle of whisky and a couple of plls.”
See you got that wrong. The evidence was good. But we would need to see whether it was a representative sample or whether it took ten thousand hours of taping just to get some tiny tidbits.
A straightforward analysis leading to the above conclusion was called for and you were totally not up to it. See you blew it. You didn’t want to believe that this was evidence. But it was. And good evidence.
January 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
No, Bird. You’re entertaining as a psychotic, but an utter bore as a dogmatist.
You’ve got an excellent lecture here, and you ignore it. You don’t merely disagree with it, but ignore it. Badiou is perfectly clear. Not necessarily easy, but then, nothing of value is easy. It’s straightforward all the same. Do the work, instead of embarrassing yourself like this.
You idiot I’m not confusing anything. Truth is truth. As opposed to falshood. Reality as it exists.
This is about as profound as a line from a Marisa Tomei movie. And you dare to ridicule Cambria. For shame, Bird.
January 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
See how useless this fellow is. He couldn’t look at the global warming racket and say to himself “Is this a true concern or not.” Rather he simply assumed it was a conspiracy with a hidden agenda, and wondered whether it was going to have an outcome that he was in favour with.
Look at this idiocy. Here you are habitually changing definitions mid-argument:
“You moan about ‘masters’, yet silently omit your own master, Capital.
I didn’t moan about masters at all. You are lying. I pointed out a typically stupid statement that this fellow made that you need masters to be free. Bizare and untrue. But a master was being used in terms of another human. And yet you, using sloppy technique, change that meaning mid-stream to make a non-point. Philosophy ought to tell you that this is unacceptably bad technique.
Also you don’t think to clarify what it is you mean by “capital”. Excellent economics means the near-maximisation of voluntary capital goods accumulation.
“Anarchism is about having no rulers, including capital, however pure, or free from fractional reserve banking. Hence, neither you nor Rothbard are anarchists…”
Typical irrationality. Making the exact same mistake again. Changing rulers from being a person to being a non-person. Or if you mean the banking system and freedom from the banking system, then getting rid of fractional reserve is precisely the means to be free of these guys. It would cut off their power decisively. Particularly if it was in conjunction with limited liability implying 100% equity financing. Such moves would greatly reduce international money power. The power to interfere in politics.
January 27, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
And here we turn full circle, and french epistemology ultimately boils down to fractional reserve banking. Circle of life, comrades.
January 27, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
“You’ve got an excellent lecture here, and you ignore it”
You are lying again. Good philosophical understanding would tell you that lying all the time is a disaster for clear thinking. I didn’t ignore it. I immediately began to listen to it as soon as you linked it. You know this. So you are lying.
I listened carefully even replaying part of it. I judged it to be worthless since this fellow is going for obscurantism and tickling leftist prejudices, as opposed to seeking truth, the better life, and clarifying good methodology.
In other words real philosophy is what I do at “A Better World”. Whereas this fellow is hopeless and is just there to fool idiot leftists into thinking they are smarter than conservatives, and so to look down on them.
You cannot find a statement of this fellow that isn’t as clearly expressed as it ought to be.
January 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
There simply cannot be a better advertisement for a philosopher than the fact that Bird hates him.
Or if you mean the banking system and freedom from the banking system, then getting rid of fractional reserve is precisely the means to be free of these guys.
No, you are an idiot. Look at the most oppressed classes of mankind, and the oppression has very little, and perhaps absolutely nothing to do with fractional reserve banking. Stop being oppositional for the sake of it and think a little. At this point, you’re basically a three-year old (chimp?) flinging poo about the enclosure. I’m sure it’s all a lot of fun, but you can do better, comrade Birdsky.
January 27, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
“And here we turn full circle, and french epistemology ultimately boils down to fractional reserve banking. Circle of life, comrades.”
The application of good epistemology leads to good, useful and practical conclusions. See you are incompetent at epistemology or its application. Philosophy is all about clear thinking. Epistemology ought know no national boundaries. Since good epistemology is simply the study of how to go about finding things out. How to differentiate truth from falsehood.
The methodology is about ranking paradigms in parallel. Never letting one get bogged down in the serial monogamy of paradigms.
Now read what I’ve written above? Could it be clearer? Not a great deal. Is it obscurantist? Not at all.
Obscurantist philosophy could not be more worthless and useless.
January 27, 2010 at 6:27 pm |
“No, you are an idiot. Look at the most oppressed classes of mankind, and the oppression has very little, and perhaps absolutely nothing to do with fractional reserve banking. ”
No you are wrong. Its got everything to do with fractional reserve. Thats not the only problem. But its an important one.
See you approach philosophy purely as an ego-driven thing. You don’t understand a damn thing about it. You don’t even understand what this fellow is saying. Understanding isn’t what you are after. You are after this fellow as a putdown to conservatives and to tickle your ego.
Let me prove what a fool this man is:
“Drawing on the mathematical theory of surreal numbers, he develops a unified theory of Number as a particular form of being……”
This is all rubbish. Since the study of “being” is the study of CONSCIOUSNESS.
Being is about being-conscious.
Now read what he wrote and compare it to what I wrote. He’s talking secular-mysticism. Whereas I’m talking clarity and reason.
January 27, 2010 at 6:31 pm |
“There simply cannot be a better advertisement for a philosopher than the fact that Bird hates him.”
More irrational idiocy. But we are too much regarding this fellow in the second-hand. Find me a quote of his that you find particularly valuable. Immediately I’ll be able to show up his foolishness. Unless the foolishness is coming from the philosophers followers. And not from him. He may sound better first-hand is what I am saying. Without mindless toady’s attempting to interpret him.
January 27, 2010 at 6:34 pm |
Being is about being-conscious.
The vast majority of what we do isn’t conscious. Ask John H.
This is your level of consciousness:
January 27, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
“‘Precision put into the razor of the Marxist barber, mathematics is that unalterable blade with which one ends up bleeding the pigs to death’.”
Foolishness. Mindless bigotry. Hate incitement. Mathematics is just a tool. It ought not be used as a butchers knife. The fellow sounds like a lunatic. A psychopath.
Whereas philosophy, properly considered, points the way forward to a better world. He appears to be from that wing of marxism obsessed with human blood sacrifice.
January 27, 2010 at 6:36 pm |
And this is you trying to talk to a philosopher:
January 27, 2010 at 6:38 pm |
“The vast majority of what we do isn’t conscious. ..”
This is neither here nor there. Consciousness is a complex thing. You are only merely referring to the plumbing within the building. Being is STILL about BEING CONSCIOUS.
What we are after in philosophy is clarity. This fellow is a failure at philosophy.
January 27, 2010 at 6:42 pm |
This fellow is a failure at philosophy.
And you’re a failure at life. Being conscious is not identifiable with being, except to an idiot. Buddhist monks came up with better retorts than you 2,000 years ago. And ‘clarity’ to an idiot is not the same as clarity to everybody else. Do the hard yards, Bird. Read a few philosophers. then come back to talk to us about being and consciousness. I’m told you’ve gained a few pounds in body. Don’t be an obese, sluggish soul as well, fit only for the Rand-Rothbard Donut challenge.
January 27, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
Whereas philosophy, properly considered, points the way forward to a better world.
Which philosophy? Marx? Sartre? A reverse-speech internet guy? David Icke?
January 27, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
Pour le Bird, avec l’amour:
January 27, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
Certainly neither Marx nor Sarte. As I said: philosophy-properly-considered. Got that yet dummy?
January 27, 2010 at 6:48 pm |
So who is a philosopher, according to dunce Bird? You’ve dances around the issue for a while now, time to do some singing.
January 27, 2010 at 6:49 pm |
dances=danced
January 27, 2010 at 6:50 pm |
Lets go over this “Being” business again. Because you appear to be confused about it.
“Drawing on the mathematical theory of surreal numbers, he develops a unified theory of Number as a particular form of being…”
You see. Meaningless jibber. Maths isn’t a form of “being.” Its a tool. “Being” is about being conscious.
Got it this time you stupid twat? Your confusion comes simply by having a stupid secular religion, a religion of hate and irrationality, which needs obscurantist philosophy to justify it.
Since your ideas cannot be justified by clarity and reason.
January 27, 2010 at 6:52 pm |
“So who is a philosopher, according to dunce Bird? You’ve dances around the issue for a while now, time to do some singing.”
I’m genius level smarts idiot. This fellow is a philosopher. Just a worthless one. Since philosophy, properly considered, is about clarity and not obscurantism. I’ve already mentioned some philosophers. David Stove for example. He exhibits the qualities of great clarity that you need for sound philosophy.
January 27, 2010 at 6:54 pm |
I’m pretty sure he didn’t say ‘surreal’, with reference to numbers. Use your opposable digits, if you have ’em. Or your ears.
You wish to lecture us all on Birdian ontology? Babidy-boobidy?
January 27, 2010 at 6:54 pm |
If your ideas had any merit whatsoever you would not need obscurantists or the practice of fudging definitions mid-stream to justify these ideas.
You are addicted to irrationality. This is the place this useless philosopher has in your act. You cannot justify your ideas through clarity and reason.
January 27, 2010 at 6:57 pm |
David Stoves, hey? What about Hans Oven? And the great Deutschlander, Friedrich Oven-Mitts? Give us some ideas, not pathetic name-dropping. Everybody here has already seen you stooged as a ‘being=consciousness’ affiliate. Give us some real philosophy, O ornithicis decepticus.
January 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm |
I’m not lecturing you on Birdian ontology. I”m lecturing you on EPISTEMOLOGY dummy. Got that now?
I’m always going over epistemology. The need to rank paradigms in parallel and to avoid the doctrine of the serial monogamy of paradigms. This sort of stuff. Highly practical gear that can get results.
You won’t get anything useful from this failed obscurantist philosopher. Philosophy ought not be about tickling leftist egos and Marxist bigotry and hate incitement. But go ahead. Lets have some more quotes. If this fellow is as important as you say, and not just for Marxist blood-lust, then you ought to be able to make good with more thoughts of his.
January 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
I recommended David Stove. I didn’t recommend these other fellows.
January 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
This is the place this useless philosopher has in your act. You cannot justify your ideas through clarity and reason.
The guy’s just given you an hour of ‘clarity and reason’. Birdian philosophy is something you have to scrub off your car windows.
January 27, 2010 at 7:01 pm |
Sound philosophy is not about general knowledge of leftist philosophers, if that is what you are driving at. Its a much more straight-forward thing then that. We are talking about the nature of the universe, and how to go about finding out this nature and separating truth from falsehood. All pretty straightforward stuff.
January 27, 2010 at 7:02 pm |
I’m always going over epistemology. The need to rank paradigms in parallel and to avoid the doctrine of the serial monogamy of paradigms. This sort of stuff. Highly practical gear that can get results.
Ranking paradigms, eh? So you’ve reduced philosophy to aesthetics? You’re like Oscar Wilde, but with 50% more repressed gayness. Badiou is giving you a mathematical basis for truth. You choose Jens Thermostat, or whoever you’re watching on the internets now.
January 27, 2010 at 7:04 pm |
See you are just being an anti-intellectual idiot THR. If you want to stick up for this fellow talk a little bit more about what he has said and his ideas.
Communism is the enslavement of everyone, via the theft of everything, in the context of an obsession with human blood sacrifice.
Clearly you can never justify this worst of all possible crimes with clarity and reason. Hence you need obscurantist philosophy.
Now could the above be expressed more clearly? Not a great deal more. Good philosophy is about clarity. Not obscurantism.
January 27, 2010 at 7:05 pm |
Sound philosophy is not about general knowledge of leftist philosophers, if that is what you are driving at. Its a much more straight-forward thing then that. We are talking about the nature of the universe, and how to go about finding out this nature and separating truth from falsehood. All pretty straightforward stuff.
Sorry big guy, but logic is itself ‘leftist’, by your own standards.
Here’s an example:
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
Lose the dogmatism, fella. You dare to quote Hemingway when the fucker fought for the anarchists (non-capitalist) in the Spanish civil war. Don’t pretend to be a virgin when it comes to ideological shysterism. Lift your game, Birdy.
January 27, 2010 at 7:07 pm |
“A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.
Alain Badiou
Evil is the interruption of a truth by the pressure of particular or individual interests.
Alain Badiou
Evil is the moment when I lack the strength to be true to the Good that compels me.
Alain Badiou
Liberal capitalism is not at all the Good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.
Alain Badiou”
Before we go through any of these I’ll just pause for leftist applause.
January 27, 2010 at 7:07 pm |
See you are just being an anti-intellectual idiot THR. If you want to stick up for this fellow talk a little bit more about what he has said and his ideas.
He says that the only real politics are egalitarian. And they definitely not market based. How about you deal with this point, before others?
January 27, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
Let’s go, Birdy. You fart with each movement you make, but let’s go.
January 27, 2010 at 7:10 pm |
“Sorry big guy, but logic is itself ‘leftist’, by your own standards.”
No you are lying.
You dare to quote Hemingway…..”
I didn’t quote Hemingway you are lying. The rest of what you said was irrelevant. What a totally worthless post. No philosophical value whatsoever.
Go again.
January 27, 2010 at 7:12 pm |
“He says that the only real politics are egalitarian. And they definitely not market based. How about you deal with this point, before others?”
A meaningless and confused statement. But I’d prefer to see the original. More evidence that he cannot say anything with clarity. But like I said. I’d like to see what he actually said. And not put him down on the basis of one of his mindless bigoted toadies.
January 27, 2010 at 7:15 pm |
You cite Hemingway, as an exemplar of good prose. He is a great writer. One can only imagine the caricature he would have drawn of you.
None of the quotes you cite have anything wrong with them. Graeme, in all seriousness, slow down, and read the material. You need to lift yolur game here. You’re belching ignorance with every breath.
January 27, 2010 at 7:16 pm |
But I’d prefer to see the original.
But why? He doesn’t write in sheep…
January 27, 2010 at 7:17 pm |
“A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.
Alain Badiou”
Secular mystic rubbish. Universal truth is where subjectivity ends. And truths are necessarily new for the love of stupid people everywhere. Truths can be old, in the sense of being known for a very long time.
Now surely things that are true and the fact that they are true may be of interest to many intelligent humans. But this is a stupid way to define what a truth is.
A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.
Alain Badiou”
Sorry Badiou you dumb shit. Not even a competent definition of what a truth is. He is claiming that a truth is subjective and therefore dependent on what puny sapiens think of it.
January 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm |
Despite your stupidity I still would like to see the original. I already know you to be an idiot and a liar. But to judge this fellow I want to see the original quotes so that I’m not really judging you when I ought to be judging him.
January 27, 2010 at 7:18 pm |
Okay, Birdy, I’ll be fair to you. Find me a contemporary philosopher who has 1/3 of what Badiou has to say. Just 1/3. Andrew Bolt doesn’t count.
Start searching!
January 27, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
See what a dummy this guy is? He claims that a truth is as of necessity new. Either that or he is incapable of expressing himself accurately.
A truth is NOT necessarily new. Actually truths can be old in terms of being understood for a long time.
I’m showing consistently that this fellow is worthless. If I do so in error it can only because of the atrocious low quality of the support he is getting.
January 27, 2010 at 7:20 pm |
Sorry Badiou you dumb shit. Not even a competent definition of what a truth is. He is claiming that a truth is subjective and therefore dependent on what puny sapiens think of it.
No, he’s actually saying that truths are universal, O Craven One. But who cares? Look, over there, a profit!
January 27, 2010 at 7:23 pm |
Yes he’s saying that also you liar. But he cannot get his definition right even of what UNIVERSAL means.
Truth is indeed universal. But notice how this dumb shit rearranges the meaning of universal:
“A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal. New: that which is unforeseen by the order of creation. Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.
Alain Badiou”
He’s saying that truth is subjective. He’s flat wrong about that. He’s saying that truth is universal. He would have at least had a 50% score if he had just shut up. But he’s 100% wrong. Since this is how he defines “universal”
Universal: that which can interest, rightly, every human individual, according to his pure humanity.
The fellow is an idiot.
January 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm |
Are we clear now that he is indeed saying that truth is subjective THR you moron?
“A Truth is the subjective development of that which is at once both new and universal…….. ”
Every constituent part of this sentence is incorrect. Its like saying that “The Better potato grows only on the highest branches..”
January 27, 2010 at 7:30 pm |
“Okay, Birdy, I’ll be fair to you. Find me a contemporary philosopher who has 1/3 of what Badiou has to say. Just 1/3. Andrew Bolt doesn’t count.”
Badiou may have a lot to say. He might type all day. That does not mean its worthwhile philosophy. So far its all been manifestly worthless. So show me some of his better stuff.
I’ve already recommended David Stove. I’d recommend Aquinas but there is too much to wade through before getting to the stuff that is relevant in the modern context. I’d recommend Machiavelli. Aristotle.
You aren’t going to make much capital with this recommendations schtick. Stove will do for now.
January 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
“Liberal capitalism is not at all the Good of humanity. Quite the contrary; it is the vehicle of savage, destructive nihilism.
Alain Badiou””
As opposed to what? Liberal communism? Capitalism, properly considered, is indeed a creative good for humanity. It represents liberty in economic life. But the way we do things now isn’t what I would call Capitalism properly considered.
So another dopey statement by Elain. Although it could be rectified down to being an outrageous exaggeration with the appropriate qualifiers.
See everything he says either lacks clarity or is outright foolish.
January 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm |
Stove? You still haven’t made a single worthwhile contribution to ontology.
But your recommending Aquinas. Dos Cl write your lines?
Graeme Bird = philosophical idiot
This is what even google searches will show.
January 27, 2010 at 7:36 pm |
You’re still yet t come up with a philosopher, except Stove. FAIL=Bird.
As opposed to what? Liberal communism? Capitalism, properly considered, is indeed a creative good for humanity. It represents liberty in economic life. But the way we do things now isn’t what I would call Capitalism properly considered.
Capitalism is your mother’s arse. Ontologically speaking,
January 27, 2010 at 7:44 pm |
David Stove will do for now. I wanted to emphasise CLARITY in philosophy. There is no requirement for me to drop names.
“Capitalism is your mother’s arse. Ontologically speaking,”
See you are an idiot fella. But you may be confessing that anti-Capitalism needs irrational and obscurantist philosophy to justify it.
Supposing we have 100% backing growth deflation. That limited liability means 100% equity financing. That we have a rules based approach to property rights. And that the rules clear and few and preempt the need to sort things out in court. Suppose we never have height restrictions on buildings. Suppose we have a patient scheme to partially reverse the enclosure movement. Suppose we have clear homesteading rules. That we have solved the problems of infrastructure.
With this version of capitalism what are your objections. They will be lies or incoherent. Wrong statements based on ignorance. This is where the obscurantist, irrationalist philosopher comes in. He saves the day in the service of your prejudices.
January 27, 2010 at 7:49 pm |
“Stove? You still haven’t made a single worthwhile contribution to ontology.”
Ontology? I was talking about PHILOSOPHY.
What is ontology in your book hey?
Is it trying to make the unreal real by endless words? Trying to prove something is real by typing rather than by examining the evidence?
By ontology do you mean conjuring the Yeti?
To suppose the Yeti is there you want evidence. Footprints. Banana peels. A big steaming shit in the snow. You cannot conjure the Yeti ontologically. But I see you might want to conjure justifications for anti-Capitalism that way.
I was talking about Philosophy. What do you think you mean when you use the word “Ontology”.
January 27, 2010 at 7:51 pm |
Supposing we have 100% backing growth deflation.
Swine, You just proved my point:
Capitalism is your mother’s arse. Ontologically speaking
your Tourette’s syndrome doesn’t disprove anything I’ve said, or anything in the video.
Capitalism is for the weak of mind. Hence, Graeme Bird puts up his flabby hand…
January 27, 2010 at 7:54 pm |
What do you think you mean when you use the word “Ontology”.
I mean ontos, as in philosphy of being. Pout toi:
January 27, 2010 at 7:54 pm |
That’s ‘pour’, not ‘pout’, of course…
January 27, 2010 at 8:10 pm |
See you are just being an idiot mate.
Quite apart from your idiocy, bad philosophy tends to produce endless meaningless drivel because of its unbalanced emphasis on bivalent deductive exactitude. Bivalent deductive logic is necessary tool but its an inefficient one. Its overemphasis leads to endless crapola.
I wouldn’t use the word ontology. But if I were to use it I would mean by it a sort of straight-forward taxidermy. Splitting things into categories. Concepts and objects. Objects have shape. Already we are into physics. There is not much left that is purely philosophical. And once we start talking philosophy, if we are any good, we cannot help but spill into other topics.
Now here we have an example of Stove wondering what has gone wrong with philosophy. The answer is how I describe it. Bivalent Deductive exactitude is a bad tool to over-emphasise. The attempt to do so leads to endless trash-talk of the sort that David Stove is looking at here:
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html
January 27, 2010 at 8:20 pm |
Capitalism is not your Mothers ass. See you are a just a shit-for-brains mate. A compulsive liar. With irrational views that you cannot justify. In steps irrational obscurantist philosophy to bail your stupid ass out.
Now concentrate. I think we have proved that this fellow’s ideas are worthless. But you go right ahead. Lets have some more Alain. Make your case. I don’t want to write this fellow off entirely. After all. I would not like stupid supporters like this fellow appears to have.
Once again. Philosophy ought to seek clarity. It ought to be about seeking and defending the truth. It ought to be about getting the methodology right to allow one to differentiate truth from falsehood.
Most of all it ought to DELIVER. Get the methodology right and you ought to be able to come to excellent and practical conclusions.
What is Alain good for?
You tell the story. But stop with the endless stupidity and spamming.
January 27, 2010 at 10:41 pm |
Can anyone else find any worthiness in this philosopher? Once a fellow shows that he’s playing fast and loose with definitions I’m just as likely to write him off as being pretty worthless. Life is too short to waste on obscurantist philosophers.
January 28, 2010 at 12:57 am |
hahhaahahahahah
Last time I looked the thread was at 58 comments. It’s now around 120. I guessed that the big fat Bird was dropping his turds all over the site.
January 28, 2010 at 1:11 am |
You are a brain dead wop mate. How about lets hear the total philosophical thoughts of Joseph Cambria?
How about lets hear them again? You got anything at all to add dummy?
January 28, 2010 at 1:13 am |
“I’m genius level smarts…”
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
Tell us again about the alien experiements on humans, you tool.
Birdie, you’re the only bloke I know who can grab a stick by both wrong ends.
You’re not genius level smarts, you’re cretin level dumb.
January 28, 2010 at 2:22 am |
Bird:
Unlike you I don’t touch areas that I have no expertise in. Which means you shouldn’t be going anywhere near philosophy, science, economics, banking and reverse speech.
You’ve basically found what you’re suitable for: stacking supermarket shelves during off hours when you can scare the customers.
So I wouldn’t be putting anyone down, “Mate”.
January 28, 2010 at 3:05 am |
You might say he’s risen to his own level of incompetence.
January 28, 2010 at 3:05 am |
You might say he’s risen to his own level of incompetence
January 28, 2010 at 5:28 am |
Right. So no philosophy from the dumb wop Birdlab/Cambria. Why do you let this stupid prick onto your site Jason. All you need to do is block this lunatic-traitor.
January 28, 2010 at 5:30 am |
What a fucking idiot you are Birdlab/Cambria. By your own admission you ought not have commented on this thread at all. Not a single post on topic. What a primitive form of life you are. What a waste of space. A special pleading welfare queen.
January 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm |
Once a fellow shows that he’s playing fast and loose with definitions I’m just as likely to write him off as being pretty worthless.
You haven’t shown a single instance of Badiou playing ‘fast and loose’ with definitions. In other words, you’re lying, and pig-headedly refusing to acknowledge any points at all.
Once again. Philosophy ought to seek clarity. It ought to be about seeking and defending the truth. It ought to be about getting the methodology right to allow one to differentiate truth from falsehood.
And Badiou does precisely that. Sure, he hasn’t written a treatise on fractional reserve banking, but then neither has any other philosopher I can think of.
January 28, 2010 at 12:57 pm |
The only primitive form of life around here is you , Bird. Mate! Get back to stacking supermarket shelves and stop pretending you even know the rudimentary on philosophy you fake.
January 28, 2010 at 10:43 pm |
“You haven’t shown a single instance of Badiou playing ‘fast and loose’ with definitions. ”
No you are lying THR. Scroll up you lying prick. But before you do that tell the boot-nigger to stay out in the cold.
January 28, 2010 at 11:43 pm |
And in other news, does anybody remember the thread of doom where the fat jerk was banging on and on about there being no such thing as photons?
Well apparently the dope has now changed his tune, citing an experiment that demonstrates the possibility of faster than light speed using, you guessed it, photons.
See comment at 10.22pm on Jan 28 here:
And his link to article here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126175921.htm
Comedy gold.
January 29, 2010 at 2:37 am |
There is no such thing as photons. But the fact is these guys have witnessed light moving faster than light-speed. That is to say they’ve found light moving faster than c.
What do you think you stupid moron Birdlab/Cambria? They cannot look at a photon under a microscope. And you are such a dumb shit you suspect that they have been looking at them across the galaxy.
Don’t even try Birdlab/Cambria you dumb wop. You are just too stupid.
Joseph Cambria. The stupidest man on the internet.
January 29, 2010 at 2:40 am |
Birdlab and Graeme – you can talk about photons in the open forum
January 29, 2010 at 2:42 am |
No-one has ever seen a photon Cambria. They are watching light move faster than c. They are measuring the speed of light. They are finding the speed of light can be faster than c.
They are talking about photons because they don’t want to start saying we measured light speed and it was faster than the speed of light. No prick is going to know what they are talking about.
January 29, 2010 at 6:32 am |
Why include me in this. I didn’t want to talk about photons. But the woppy doesn’t know a thing about philosophy, or photons, or anything else.
January 29, 2010 at 9:39 am |
Not a single post relevant by this primitive Cambria-Birdlab.
January 29, 2010 at 11:56 am |
You’re an idiot Bird. You’re just threadwrecking and trying to mask your intellectual shame by constantly invoking Cambria. The fact is, philosophy is wasted on you. It’s like giving pearls to swine. You’ve already indicated that you think you have unmediated access to ‘truth’ and ‘reality’, that everybody else is wrong, and that Badiou is changing definitions (without being able to give a single example of this).
February 1, 2010 at 12:41 am |
No mate you are an idiot. You claimed this fellow is an important philosopher. And despite getting me to listen to a video, quoting the fellow, and trying to argue for his case you came up with nothing to suggest that he is the least bit important.
As it turned out it seems you find him valuable as a result of obscurantism and leftist bigotry. You have no understanding of philosophy whatsoever.
February 1, 2010 at 12:43 am |
I showed many examples of him using definitions loosely. So thats a straight lie on your part.
Pretty much everything you say above is a lie. I have never claimed unmediated access to truth. So thats you lying again. Rather truth is to be found only by convergent evidence. As I’ve said many times.
See you just lie all the time. Slander people. Set up sock puppets all over the place. And so forth.
February 2, 2010 at 12:12 am |
Rather than understanding philosophy it appears you were taken in by it. But go ahead. Continue to make your case for this guy. I’m just glad my detractors are more stupid than my supporters. I wouldn’t like to be in this French blokes shoes.
February 2, 2010 at 12:37 am |
You have no understanding of philosophy whatsoever.
Coming from a clown who thinks that Ayn Rand is a ‘philosopher’.
Rather than understanding philosophy it appears you were taken in by it.
No – you rejected the guy for not sharing your position on banking and global warming. That should count as points in his favour, not the converse.
It’s you who is ignorant of basic philosophy. You think convergence is ‘evidence’, and every rightist conspiracist crank is on the same level as actual philosophers and scientists.
February 2, 2010 at 6:04 am |
Ayn Rand was in fact a philosopher. She had the typical faults that other philosophers have. Added to that she was a women.
Ayn Rand is probably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century IF NOT HER THAN WHO:?
No philosopher is more important than her. Name three.
I think that David Stove is technically better. Maybe Nozick too. Maybe Rothbard but he stands on her shoulders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fucking fact is that your support of him does not highlight him as even a COMPETENT philosopher. Perhaps it is his SUPPORTER who lacks competence.
You are a dummy mate. You have always been a dummy. And you will always be a dummy. What do you know about economics. Nothing. You cannot even stick up for the working man when you have the chance. Rather you are siding with the banking parasites. Like the lick-ball little house-nigger toad that you are.
February 2, 2010 at 6:32 am |
Ayn Rand is probably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century IF NOT HER THAN WHO:?
No. Ayn Rand is a shill and mediocrity, whose ‘philosphy’ is intended for those for whom Nietzsche is too much of a conceptual challenge. Ayn Rand is a ‘philosopher’ only for Young Liberals and shopkeepers with brain damage.
No philosopher is more important than her. Name three.
Sartre, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Popper, Russell, for starters. And that’s not mentioning thinkers who weren’t strictly philosophers, like Freud, or Foucault.
What do you know about economics.
What do you know, other than being a monetarist crank? Your political economy would, if put into practice, be basically fascism but with your hand on your heart when talking about markets. That’s all.
Rather you are siding with the banking parasites.
Where’s your evidence, pig-fucker Bird? I opposed the bailouts. It’s you who is continually sucking up to bankers, except, due to your own issues, you need a ritual denunciation of FRB to do so. Pathetic Bird.
February 2, 2010 at 6:44 am |
Nicely played THR. Very nicely played indeed.
February 2, 2010 at 10:34 am |
No no. The fact is that Ayn Rand is probably the most important philosopher of the century. None other had anything like the general influence that she has had. Particularly through her books.
I know a lot about economics. You don’t know anything about economics. The fact is you were soft on this bank bailout. You didn’t object to it at all. You don’t object to it now. You are in favour of continuing bank subsidies.
February 2, 2010 at 10:35 am |
Particularly through her bestselling fiction books. No other philosopher has had the general public reading their works in this way.
February 2, 2010 at 10:38 am |
You were attempting to pretend that this Frenchie was an important philosopher when the fact is you don’t even so much understand he jibber-jabber. Wake up to yourself mate. You are a cretin.
February 2, 2010 at 10:59 am |
The fact is that Ayn Rand is probably the most important philosopher of the century. </i
No you are lying.
I’d go so far as to assert that there isn’t so much as one single philosopher of note, or even one serious intellectual who can claim to have been influenced by Rand. Her fiction is even more embarrassing than heer ‘philosophy’.
The fact is you were soft on this bank bailout. You didn’t object to it at all.
I’ve objected to it on Catallaxy a number of times, you gibbon with a typewriter. Every time I get the retort that it wasn’t actually a bailout, since the banks had to pay it back.
You are in favour of continuing bank subsidies.
Evidence, please. Perhaps by ‘bank’ you meant ‘hospital’.
You were attempting to pretend that this Frenchie was an important philosopher when the fact is you don’t even so much understand he jibber-jabber.
The evidence says that he is important. At the very least, he’s got the other French philosophers to put down their Derrida and pick up some set theory.
You are a cretin.
You don’t have an argument, just lies and baseless assertions. You can’t even abuse properly anymore, you bloated sheep-fondler. You’re out of shape, intellectually speaking, and no doubt in other ways as well. Too bad Channel 10 don’t have a Biggest Loser for those carrying the sort of intellectual blubber that’s made you obese.
February 2, 2010 at 9:09 pm |
I can see you are just going to filibuster this thread you complete cunt. And try on the leftist reversal. Here you are. A known compulsive liar. Running one sock puppet after another, and projecting that behaviour onto Iian Hall.
Now you have shown you don’t know a fucking thing about philosophy. You are not up to arguing with me about philosophy. You don’t want to talk about philosophy. And you will do the lying cunt reversal instead. If you try that I simply have to repost, to show that I was talking about philosophy and you had no answer to it, you know-nothing brainless cunt marxist.
Either start talking about specific on-topic points of philosophy or fuck off you moron. What is this place getting to be? A meeting place for low-IQ flotsam and jetsam?
February 2, 2010 at 9:13 pm |
Telll me what you think is so great about Badiou. Pretty fucking simple. But the reality is you don’t understand him and you don’t understand philosophy.
February 2, 2010 at 9:18 pm |
I now see that Jason made some very good points early on. And all you do is come in and bluster:
“Now you’re backpedalling like Birdie at a salad bar.”
I thought that was a good line, but it turns out its just you being your normal idiot self and refusing to listen to Jason. He wasn’t backpedaling at all. He was making an argument which seemed to indicate good reasons to be unimpressed, at least by comparison with other philosophers.
You are just full of shit THR. Change your ways before you do lasting damage to your younger girl.
February 2, 2010 at 9:22 pm |
I SEZ:
“I’m always going over epistemology. The need to rank paradigms in parallel and to avoid the doctrine of the serial monogamy of paradigms. This sort of stuff. Highly practical gear that can get results.”
SO LUNATIC SEZ:
Ranking paradigms, eh? So you’ve reduced philosophy to aesthetics?
WHAT SORT OF A DUMB SHIT WOULD MAKE THAT INFERENCE? You’re like Oscar Wilde, but with 50% more repressed gayness.
YOU ARE JUST A FUCKING MORON MATE.
Badiou is giving you a mathematical basis for truth.
NO HE’S NOT. YOU ARE LYING OR YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You choose Jens Thermostat, or whoever you’re watching on the internets now.
SEE YOU DIDN’T EVEN COME HERE TO TALK ABOUT PHILOSOPHY YOU STUPID CUNT.
Jason. You’ve got to start thinning out these really brainless posers like THR. He’s just a fucking blockhead. He is not fit to talk on any subject.
February 2, 2010 at 11:34 pm |
“Jason. You’ve got to start thinning out these really brainless posers like THR. He’s just a fucking blockhead. He is not fit to talk on any subject.”
Graeme, why do you even bother? Nothing you says makes sense, you’re a dope who can’t spell, you have the reasoning ability of a slug, and (thankfully) none of your mad ramblings has the slightest chance in hell of overcoming reality.
Go back to fucking sheep. I understand it’s the only thing you’re good at.
Ayn Rand. Pffffft.
February 3, 2010 at 12:01 am |
Exactly, Birdlab. Birdy wants to talk twentieth century philosophy, then he brings up Ayn Rand. It’s like bringing a cheese stick to a gunfight, or a lawnmower to a grand prix.
thought that was a good line, but it turns out its just you being your normal idiot self and refusing to listen to Jason.
I think part of Jason’s objection here was a perception that Badiou was using mathematics in a cavalier and ignorant fashion. I’ve expressed my disagreement to that.
Telll me what you think is so great about Badiou.
I’ve given you a summary. I’m happy to go through a text line-by-line, but it looks fairly pointless, since you’re just playing the game of filibuster and rejectionism. And that’s before we get to your illogical commitment to ‘convergence’ and your faith-based economics.
February 3, 2010 at 1:34 am |
She’s easily the most important philosopher of the twentieth century. No question. No-one has her reach. If some of you dummies imagine that she is too absolutist in many areas, thats common to virtually all philosophers. Look at Popper. Gets a good idea like falsification and then pushes the idea way beyond its valid usage.
“I think part of Jason’s objection here was a perception that Badiou was using mathematics in a cavalier and ignorant fashion. I’ve expressed my disagreement to that.”
You moron. You didn’t make a valid argument. Who gives a flying fuck about your unreasoned disagreement? We know you are a fucking moron already. You have to make reasoned arguments about philosophy. And you never did so. Your posts have been philosophy-free. You don’t understand this fellow and you don’t understand philosophy.
You explain to me this Frenchie’s reasoning and what you find so good about it. See you cannot do it. You just being a partisan leftist dope. You weren’t thinking at all.
February 3, 2010 at 1:35 am |
Lets go over it again.
What is it that you think is so good about Badiou?
Pretty simple. If he has some good ideas, lets have your thinking on them. Its not complicated. But if you are just being a partisan moron, and you don’t understand him at all, well thats you being your usual dishonest, moronic self.
February 3, 2010 at 1:53 am |
Crank.
February 3, 2010 at 4:36 am |
About as nice a description of Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” as I’ve come across:
“Atlas Shrugged is twenty pounds of shit in a 1200 page book, which makes it less than desirable or “totable” as beach reading. Not that it doesn’t have its uses at the beach if, say for example, you needed to weigh down a canvas duffel containing the lifeless body of a libertarian who brought up John Galt one time too many and you needed that bag to stay submerged few nautical miles south of the Coronado Islands…but let’s not talk about wish fulfillment.”
http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2009/03/04/youre-going-to-miss-me-when-im-gone-no-no-i-wont-why-are-you-still-here/
February 3, 2010 at 4:53 am |
Right. Well no thats all rubbish. Hopeless critique.
You are not in a position to make a decent post on any topic at all are you Birdlab/Cambria. Just too ignorant of every last subject.
February 3, 2010 at 5:11 am |
You’re trying on the old switcheroo again, Birdy.
Why don’t you tell us three non-retarded philosophers who can claim Rand as an inspiration?
Now, if you’re serious about discussing Badiou, I’ll see if I can find a suitable online text, otherwise, it’s just shadow boxing. And please, let’s not pretend that merely because you don’t understand something that it’s therefore rubbish. You not taking to him is a point n Badiou’s favour, if anything.
February 3, 2010 at 9:51 am |
Oh you stupid idiot . Its the old switcheroo of the switcheroo. My goodness.
No this is not a thread about Rand. Its about Badiou. Now what do you have to say about the philosophy of Badiou. Nothing we subsequently found seemed to gainsay the initial first bad impression that we get from the quote Jason chose.
February 3, 2010 at 9:52 am |
Stop filibusting and lets have the justification for your defense of this fellow.
February 3, 2010 at 10:04 am |
No this is not a thread about Rand.
Yet a couple of comments earlier, you were regaling us with:
She’s easily the most important philosopher of the twentieth century. No question. No-one has her reach.
So clearly, it’s you doing the filibusting.
Trying to discuss Badiou with you has been like trying to teach a retarded chimp to play the piano. But like I said, if you’re not happy with my summaries of what I think is worthwhile in Badiou above, then we’d have to look at his work in more detail. I’m happy to do that, but it seems rather pointless. Rather than discuss things, you’re more interested in running through the blogosphere with your nappy off, smearing poo everywhere.
BTW, the ‘quote’ in the post is not a quote, but was taken from the blurb.
February 3, 2010 at 10:21 am |
Here is your incompetence with philosophy right here:
Are you actually admitting to being a Communist?
I don’t have a problem with the label, though of course, I don’t advocate Maoism, or Sovietism. The term itself has a long history, and since the Cold War is long since finished, we needn’t get too hysterical about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you think you understand Badiou, and you claim that he is an important philosopher, then its a simple straightforward story of explaining him and why.
So stop the filibuster and get on with it, or admit you are full of shit.
February 3, 2010 at 10:54 am |
Your cowardly and snivelling backdown on Rand has been noted Bird. No apology is necessary.
Have a look at Birdlab’s link, and you’ll find some good summations of Rand.
As for why Badiou is important – here are some thoughts:
His work throughout all phases seems to me to be an attempt to make philosophy about truth again (this was relatively unusual in the context of Parisian postmodernism) and make that truth have something to do with radical politics.
The form that this has taken varies very widely. He has three major works, and a large number of minor works. The three major works tackle the above project in three very different ways, which makes it difficult to speak meaningfully about them, except in detail. (Each work is densely written, and hundreds of pages long, so don’t expect the bullet-point style suitable for a man of your intellect). I wouldn’t say that I’m across all of it, but I do think it deserves better than the glib dismissals above.
Badiou’s essay on the ‘war on terror’ is probably the best on the topic around. It doesn’t seem to be available online. His book on ethics is, among other things, a succinct attack on the discourse of ‘human rights’ that has come to dominate the post-communist era. He also ties together a number of influences dear to my heart – psychoanalysis, radical politics, aesthetics and philosophy.
I’m happy to go into more detail, but if you’re going to continue to play the buffoon, I won’t bother.
February 3, 2010 at 11:59 pm |
“No this is not a thread about Rand. ”
Read the headline retard. Of course Graeme, as usual when challenged to provide actual evidence rather than ridiculous misguided opinion, seeks to change the subject. In this case THR’s question:
“Why don’t you tell us three non-retarded philosophers who can claim Rand as an inspiration?”
Of course he can’t.
But as his head’s filled with the equivalent of monkey shit, and since he has the verbal and mental dexterity of a stapler, it comes as no surprise.
February 4, 2010 at 11:00 am |
‘His work throughout all phases seems to me to be an attempt to make philosophy about truth again…”
What the fuck is that supposed to mean you moron?
February 4, 2010 at 10:39 pm |
“‘His work throughout all phases seems to me to be an attempt to make philosophy about truth again…””
Here we see THR claiming that philosophy was once about TRUTH. And that it stopped being about TRUTH. And that Badiou, coming out of a clear blue sky, “seems to be attempting” to make philosophy about truth again. Again being like it was at some prior date.
Will THR tell us this prior date? So the rest of us were arguing in the context of a philosophical environment which was not about truth right? Well I could imagine that? Sure. But do go on and explain it. Philosophy was about truth. Then it came to be about lies. And Badiou, in his awesome originality says to himself, or he appears to have:
“Hey I know. Lets make philosophy about TRUTH!!! Its such a crazy idea. But we could make philosophy about TRUTH again. Perhaps basing philosophy on lies has gone on just a tad too long, says Badiou to himself in a moment of inspiration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keep talking THR. Clearly what you have said has to be ridiculous, unless there is more to come to flesh out this picture a bit better.
February 4, 2010 at 11:02 pm |
Bird, you have the philosophical understanding of a cardboard box.
Ayn Rand. What a joke.
February 5, 2010 at 12:53 am |
Idiot. The opposite of truth is not lies. Lies presuppose truth. If you must be a lunatic, at least be a less facile and stupid one.
Philosophy has often ignored truth altogether. You’ve heard of the Sophists, right?
Philosophy has different branches – metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, etc. There are also a range of different schools, particularly in the twentieth century.
As for more recent examples – it’s not self-evident that Wittgenstein, for example, is philosophising about truth. He’s using philosophy to clarify language, but that doesn’t necessary imply any relation to truth.
Many of Badiou’s more significant predecessors and contemporaries in Paris didn’t make Truth (with a capital ‘T’) a centrepiece of their philosophy. Sartre’s existential philosophy proceeded from being and consciousness. Althusser focused on ideology, on the ‘process without a subject’, and on purifying Marx of Hegelian contamination. Derrida was ‘deconstructing’ binary oppositions based on what he called the ‘metaphysics of presence’. Foucault was dissecting a kind of nexus between power, knowledge and discourse, that expressed itself in what he called an ‘episteme’, which changed over different times and places. Lacan was certainly speaking of Truth later in his teaching, but Lacan said that Truth could never be fully expressed, and he came from a position that explicitly called itself anti-philosophical.
Any money you make from any online bet should be siphoned off to pay for your tuition online. You can fix me up for philosophy and politics. You owe John H for scientific method, Mark Hill for monetarist economics, and Birdlab for deportment.
February 5, 2010 at 12:59 am |
If a philosopher is not making the search for the truth the centrepiece of their discussion they are not a philosopher. They are just some fool mucking about.
You are the idiot pal. I’m sure that Wittgenstein would be mortally offended by your barbs.
February 5, 2010 at 1:08 am |
If a philosopher is not making the search for the truth the centrepiece of their discussion they are not a philosopher.
What rubbish. I wasn’t criticising Wittgenstein. But clearly, in the Tractatus, for example, it isn’t a straightforward search for Truth that one sees on the page. Not to mention somebody like Nietzsche, for whom much ‘trrth’ is a matter of perspective, and a function of grammar.
February 5, 2010 at 1:16 am |
What is he doing if he is not searching for the truth? Mucking about then?
No specialist, or generalist for that matter, ever admits that they are not interested or not presenting the truth of their subject of enquiry. Me and you might rightly suspect that most of these guys aren’t the least bit committed to what it is they are enquiring about.
Do you really think the economist SOON gives a fuck that I’m right and he is wrong about fractional reserve? No he doesn’t care. He played silly-buggers and proxy war with it. Then he avoided it. Then he and Humphreys and others formulated an excuse based on stray Hayek pronouncements and they ran behind the cover that it was a subject of 20th order importance.
But what they didn’t do is come out and say that they didn’t give a rats ass about the truth of the subject. I know they don’t. That aren’t committed economists. But they are not going to say that.
Same goes for every subject. Though many if not most philosophers and intellectuals are far from committed to truth this is not going to be their official opinion. You have to judge the jaded philosopher and the tired teacher for yourself.
February 5, 2010 at 1:18 am |
Does the economist Sinclair give a flying fuck whether the Keynesian multiplier is a valid concept or not? No of course he doesn’t. He doesn’t spell out his lack of commitment to economic science to all and sundry. But there can be no doubt that the study of every subject is specifically the study of the truth of that subject.
February 5, 2010 at 1:23 am |
See your confusion may be that like the Christians you are using reification in your definition of the word truth.
It may be you are using truth in the sense that some folks said that Jesus said that I am the way, the truth and the light. This is reification. Its a no no in philosophy. I think you may have been practicing it.
“Philosophy has often ignored truth altogether.”
No thats not right. Philosophers yes. But they at least pretended to be investigating the truth. “You’ve heard of the Sophists, right” you are one of them. They never came out and insisted they were playing silly-buggers. They played silly-buggers and kept a straight face about it.
February 5, 2010 at 1:25 am |
I know that Bahnisch isn’t interested in the truth. He’s not going to say that. Its the same all the way down the line. You have the committed scholar. Then you have the silly-buggers. But they all at least make a show, convincing or not, of being interested in the truth of their subject.
February 25, 2013 at 5:02 am |
THR? Its about the time I asked you this. Are you a Jew?