BADIOU’S INVOLUNTARY HUMOUR: projection and self-irony

Badiou’s involuntary humour (1): His article “On Contemporary Obscurantism” is not a tearful self-critique of his own ponderous pontificating prose but an attack on Michel Onfray for daring to criticise Freud… to add to the obscurity, Onfray is nowhere mentioned by name.

Badiou’s involuntary humour (2): His article “Attacks on Freud or Philosophizing with a Bulldozer” does mention Onfray, it still has no arguments in reply to those of Onfray, but it is signed by Badiou, Balibar, Michel Déguy, and Jean-Luc Nancy. The only bulldozer one can see here is the one driven by the magisterial foursome.

Badiou’s involuntary humour (3): “Camus pleases because he gives a solemn and dignified pose to great platitudes”.

Badiou’s involuntary humour (4): “I was never really impressed by Camus. From my childhood I was too Sartrean for that”.

Badiou’s involuntary humour (5): Monist Pluralism. “The only ontology faithful to the Multiple is the mathematics of the pure Multiple”

Badiou’s involuntary humour (6): inspired article, here. Badiou can’t help himself, evoking: “the neo-racialist and crudely nationalist intellectuals, who patiently covered over the void left inside the people by the temporary eclipse of the communist hypothesis”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to BADIOU’S INVOLUNTARY HUMOUR: projection and self-irony

  1. landzek says:

    You are such a vehicle for openness. I’ve been looking into all these people and writings you mention. I feel that the problems, particularly with Badiou, but Harman also, but also their critique-ers. stems from, as I put it, ‘the description’s rebuttal to the critique that reifies the mistake of the route of the critique’. This implicative of your recent post on Laruelle as to sufficiency. Especially witnessed, it seems, of Badiou, being ‘not so keen for arguments’. I see this stumbling ( say) as an indicator of one who has been come upon by the Siginifant Event. One day maybe. I’ll push a book out and have the honor and luxury of being so critiqued. Well see, but I tend to think that the philosophical aristocracy will pay my book little attention. Perhaps I’ll have to rely on others. As I say, well see. We can only do that we do.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s