7:53 Baudiou doesn't seem to remember that there is more than one century between Ananximander and Empedocles, and that it is very doubtful that Parmenides ever used a reductio to prove that non-being cannot exist. I conjecture that for American ex-jobless workers Trump's positions are far more rational than Badiou's Frenglish criticism.
I don't know. While there is still debate, majority of Pre-Socratic scholars agree that Anaximander, Empedocles, and Zeno who was Parmenides's student, were all very much in conversation for each other, for not just single moment, but a good chunk of time. Also, most do see Parmenides doing something special in his arguments and alot identify him as one of the first to demonstrate the use of the law of non-contradiction to prove his argument. As well, the uniqueness in Parmenides work is even more pronounced in his student Zeno who's work is showing contradictions and absurdity in the views of those who oppose Parmenides.
Badious makes a unforgivable simplification in separating poetry and mathematics in this vulgar style, as if they are of different origin. The correct position of mathematics is not just pure total opposition to poetry, but dialectical genealogy - Matheamtics are a subset of the spoken language, and the formalisation is only a condensation of language to symbolic entities, however every equation can be translated to pages of logical sentences, which however would be so gramatically dense and at the same time long and repetitive, they would be hard to comprehend in that form. Mathematics is a subset of poetry(the name we give to the most general language) and it emerges as a structure within the structure of poetry, like a hidden dimension of poetry, or a dimension dispersed, dimension of different scale then we are used to in experiencing spoken/written language. Remember - dialectics is not so much a logic of opposition, but the logic of opposition of phenomena that succeed each other in time, there is undiscardable element of time-arrow in every dialectical opposition, which always tells us one of the two preceded AND directly gave possibility for the other, as the other is possible only through the first one. This is, I think, occluded in this talk, even if Badious conclusions on the math/poetry opposition are dialectically acceptable. To underline this time/genealogy dependence within the dialectical movement is extremely important,.Without time-orientation thinking ends up with precisely metaphisics rooted in some timeless binary tautologies.
Why is this important? Because we can call mathematics a study of the INFORMATIC dimension of Real. Description is not just a pure newtonian reaction - within the act of description, which leads to language, (and language leads to mathematics), lies the very nature of time-space-information itself, Information is the fifth dimension of what we call in the Lacanian sense Real. The reason why mathematics can expose all the possible and impossible forms of the Real, is because the real is mathematical, it is linguistic, informatical - born of the act of description. But what is the act of description? Badious "event" does not answer this question in my opinion. There is still work to be done to "describe the act of description" - you see the problem here, we are at the tautological level here, just like in mathematics we can't describe the notion of unity (the module) with mathematical terms, so we are not prepared to describe the act of description - as a result of performance of that act of description - because description is always the RESULT of act of description, not the act itself. RESULT, as the Truth is a result of act of experiment. The only thing we can do is raise a theory, that just as act of description gives us descriptions, the act of unification (recognition of module) gives us mathematics. We can examine the relation between language and mathematics and create linguistic description of the origin of unity, and claim it mimicks the emergence of description from act of description (Real) - but in order to prove it, we have to make parallel experiments on the act of description /and/ the act of unification and if the results of those experiments are consistent - we can assume the rise of descriptions from the Real (the act of description) follows the same rules as the rise of mathematics from language of descriptions (act of unification/modularisation). Of help would be here Taxonomy, which combines the notion of a module (species) with reality of biological life. The relative shallowness and otherproblems of taxonomical description are mirroring the shallownes and problems of description in general. For example - we assume some group of genomes with certain features associated with them (like a feather colour, beak shape, etc.) - represent a taxonomical unit - a species. But we can see that each bird within that species is in reality different below this general taxonomical level. We should therefore assume in quantum physics exists a dimension which differentiates every particle, which we will never be able to see within the modular language of quantum dynamics.
That is why we are able to claim, based on the theory of unified Real, that of time-space-information, that Real in the act of description meets itself, and the natural language is indeed a subset of informatics "polluted" with space-time, when the real folds it's informatic extremum over it's space-time extremum. It is not a very common situation in universe in fact, till the existence of computers the nervous system was the only known example of that phenomenon in nature.
@@m92-h5r Sorry, these are my personal reflections after studying Hegel and Badiou in my spare time. I am not engaged academically and haven't been given opportunity to publish or even find time to write anything above such online comments. My economic and social situation solidified a deep and profound disgust with the entirety of the world I inhabit therefore as a point of personal ethics I refuse to contribute anything to it. This world simply has bad luck that it put my mind in a setting which compels me to use it for mindnumbing slave labour in a Chinese factory. While the outdated petit-bourgeois holds the chairs of all the major philosophical institutes around the world. Badiou is old, and his thoughts are already old. His mind was not trained on computer science and his mathematics are extremely superficial, not to mention he has a very little regard for their application which is physics. Ultimately he builds a body of his personal ideology because his generation have been heavily politically indoctrinated. He has a political compulsion and sense of civic duty no philosopher can ever befoul himself with. Philosophy is the ultimate freedom of thought in communion with truth which looks upon this world as a weak hypothesis. And my cynicism is just the only shape available to human dignity in the dehumanising conditions I have been made to endure. It is the limbo of the modern educated lower middle class which has all the access to essential knowledge to develop their minds but no opportunity to use them. What we are bound to engage with is a shadowplay of power struggle at best, or numbing slavery at worst. Just filth. It's like being trapped in a cage with wild animals. This world does not need humans or human philosophy, and certainly it does not deserve it. Ultimately what was written two years before on this obscure forum will become obvious in the mind of everyone. But then it already will be powerless as a point of reflection, since the natural processes extrapolated into industrial feudalism of today will solidify their mechanisms of tautological reproduction which treat knowledge and truth as another empty object. Even the prophetised advent of spiritual machine can not solve this implicit paradox of intelligence that is fundamentally unnecessary for this material reality and unless a realm of pure thought becomes sustainable and inhabitable for some supercomputers of the future, intellect still remains an unnecessary appendix in the completely mechanical reproduction of nature and technology. I won't experience it, You won't experience it, and we should not care about it, because nothing in this world is propelled by human care, except maybe it is the grease of exploitation.
@@chodnejabko3553 I am so sorry to read this. You clearly have a brilliant mind, it would be a waste not to write something. I hope you break free of the situation you are in, education is a human right and you are way above the level of the average philosophy student, even working in a factory all day. All my respect Sir, if you want to discuss philosophy or maybe the situation in your country I think I could learn a lot from you.
He is hypnotic like a zen master
I love the Minimalist soundtrack in the back nice touch
It is always insightful to listen to Alain Badiou. The clearness of his thought gives food for thought. Thank you for the videos, Gerhard (Jhb, SA).
Nous laimons bien, professeur Badiou.
I wonder if this paper about which he's commenting is available....
7:53 Baudiou doesn't seem to remember that there is more than one century between Ananximander and Empedocles, and that it is very doubtful that Parmenides ever used a reductio to prove that non-being cannot exist. I conjecture that for American ex-jobless workers Trump's positions are far more rational than Badiou's Frenglish criticism.
I don't know. While there is still debate, majority of Pre-Socratic scholars agree that Anaximander, Empedocles, and Zeno who was Parmenides's student, were all very much in conversation for each other, for not just single moment, but a good chunk of time. Also, most do see Parmenides doing something special in his arguments and alot identify him as one of the first to demonstrate the use of the law of non-contradiction to prove his argument. As well, the uniqueness in Parmenides work is even more pronounced in his student Zeno who's work is showing contradictions and absurdity in the views of those who oppose Parmenides.
The first guy ever to use a reductio ad absurdum was Parmenides
Badious makes a unforgivable simplification in separating poetry and mathematics in this vulgar style, as if they are of different origin. The correct position of mathematics is not just pure total opposition to poetry, but dialectical genealogy - Matheamtics are a subset of the spoken language, and the formalisation is only a condensation of language to symbolic entities, however every equation can be translated to pages of logical sentences, which however would be so gramatically dense and at the same time long and repetitive, they would be hard to comprehend in that form. Mathematics is a subset of poetry(the name we give to the most general language) and it emerges as a structure within the structure of poetry, like a hidden dimension of poetry, or a dimension dispersed, dimension of different scale then we are used to in experiencing spoken/written language. Remember - dialectics is not so much a logic of opposition, but the logic of opposition of phenomena that succeed each other in time, there is undiscardable element of time-arrow in every dialectical opposition, which always tells us one of the two preceded AND directly gave possibility for the other, as the other is possible only through the first one. This is, I think, occluded in this talk, even if Badious conclusions on the math/poetry opposition are dialectically acceptable. To underline this time/genealogy dependence within the dialectical movement is extremely important,.Without time-orientation thinking ends up with precisely metaphisics rooted in some timeless binary tautologies.
Why is this important?
Because we can call mathematics a study of the INFORMATIC dimension of Real. Description is not just a pure newtonian reaction - within the act of description, which leads to language, (and language leads to mathematics), lies the very nature of time-space-information itself, Information is the fifth dimension of what we call in the Lacanian sense Real. The reason why mathematics can expose all the possible and impossible forms of the Real, is because the real is mathematical, it is linguistic, informatical - born of the act of description. But what is the act of description? Badious "event" does not answer this question in my opinion. There is still work to be done to "describe the act of description" - you see the problem here, we are at the tautological level here, just like in mathematics we can't describe the notion of unity (the module) with mathematical terms, so we are not prepared to describe the act of description - as a result of performance of that act of description - because description is always the RESULT of act of description, not the act itself. RESULT, as the Truth is a result of act of experiment. The only thing we can do is raise a theory, that just as act of description gives us descriptions, the act of unification (recognition of module) gives us mathematics. We can examine the relation between language and mathematics and create linguistic description of the origin of unity, and claim it mimicks the emergence of description from act of description (Real) - but in order to prove it, we have to make parallel experiments on the act of description /and/ the act of unification and if the results of those experiments are consistent - we can assume the rise of descriptions from the Real (the act of description) follows the same rules as the rise of mathematics from language of descriptions (act of unification/modularisation).
Of help would be here Taxonomy, which combines the notion of a module (species) with reality of biological life. The relative shallowness and otherproblems of taxonomical description are mirroring the shallownes and problems of description in general. For example - we assume some group of genomes with certain features associated with them (like a feather colour, beak shape, etc.) - represent a taxonomical unit - a species. But we can see that each bird within that species is in reality different below this general taxonomical level. We should therefore assume in quantum physics exists a dimension which differentiates every particle, which we will never be able to see within the modular language of quantum dynamics.
That is why we are able to claim, based on the theory of unified Real, that of time-space-information, that Real in the act of description meets itself, and the natural language is indeed a subset of informatics "polluted" with space-time, when the real folds it's informatic extremum over it's space-time extremum. It is not a very common situation in universe in fact, till the existence of computers the nervous system was the only known example of that phenomenon in nature.
@@chodnejabko3553 sorry, i am two years late, but this really interests me...could you
reccomend me some books on which to find these theories?
@@m92-h5r Sorry, these are my personal reflections after studying Hegel and Badiou in my spare time. I am not engaged academically and haven't been given opportunity to publish or even find time to write anything above such online comments. My economic and social situation solidified a deep and profound disgust with the entirety of the world I inhabit therefore as a point of personal ethics I refuse to contribute anything to it. This world simply has bad luck that it put my mind in a setting which compels me to use it for mindnumbing slave labour in a Chinese factory. While the outdated petit-bourgeois holds the chairs of all the major philosophical institutes around the world.
Badiou is old, and his thoughts are already old. His mind was not trained on computer science and his mathematics are extremely superficial, not to mention he has a very little regard for their application which is physics. Ultimately he builds a body of his personal ideology because his generation have been heavily politically indoctrinated. He has a political compulsion and sense of civic duty no philosopher can ever befoul himself with. Philosophy is the ultimate freedom of thought in communion with truth which looks upon this world as a weak hypothesis. And my cynicism is just the only shape available to human dignity in the dehumanising conditions I have been made to endure. It is the limbo of the modern educated lower middle class which has all the access to essential knowledge to develop their minds but no opportunity to use them. What we are bound to engage with is a shadowplay of power struggle at best, or numbing slavery at worst. Just filth. It's like being trapped in a cage with wild animals.
This world does not need humans or human philosophy, and certainly it does not deserve it.
Ultimately what was written two years before on this obscure forum will become obvious in the mind of everyone. But then it already will be powerless as a point of reflection, since the natural processes extrapolated into industrial feudalism of today will solidify their mechanisms of tautological reproduction which treat knowledge and truth as another empty object.
Even the prophetised advent of spiritual machine can not solve this implicit paradox of intelligence that is fundamentally unnecessary for this material reality and unless a realm of pure thought becomes sustainable and inhabitable for some supercomputers of the future, intellect still remains an unnecessary appendix in the completely mechanical reproduction of nature and technology.
I won't experience it, You won't experience it, and we should not care about it, because nothing in this world is propelled by human care, except maybe it is the grease of exploitation.
@@chodnejabko3553 I am so sorry to read this. You clearly have a brilliant mind, it would be a waste not to write something. I hope you break free of the situation you are in, education is a human right and you are way above the level of the average philosophy student, even working in a factory all day. All my respect Sir, if you want to discuss philosophy or maybe the situation in your country I think I could learn a lot from you.