/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9075831]

Why did this silly bastard support the Khmer Rouge back in the day? Did he actually like some of their ideas (or theory if you can call it that) or was it just some silly "oy they communists, solidarity a-hoy!" thing

Can't quite figure it out myself.

[Anonymous No.9076031]

>>9075831
I don't know about the KM, but I've read some Badiou and he's a hard-core Maoist since '68. Interesting philosopher, too.

But yeah, he's an old-school militant. And apparently still kind of a big deal in France.

https://thenewinquiry.com/essays/not-the-one/

https://vimeo.com/43703770

[Anonymous No.9076079]

>There is no evidence that I can find in Being and Event that the author really understands what he is talking about when he invokes (as he constantly does) Georg Cantor's theory of transfinite cardinals, the axioms of set theory, Gödel's incompleteness proof or Paul Cohen's proof of the independence of the continuum hypothesis. When these things appear in Badiou's texts it is always allusively, with fragments of symbolism detached from the context that endows them with sense, and often with free variables and bound variables colliding randomly. No proof is clearly stated or examined, and the jargon of set theory is waved like a magician's wand, to give authority to bursts of all but unintelligible metaphysics.[19]

>Rather than being defined in terms of objects previously defined, ex is here defined in terms of itself; you must already have it in order to define it. Set theorists call this a not-well-founded set. This kind of set never appears in mathematics—not least because it produces an unmathematical mise-en-abîme: if we replace ex inside the bracket by its expression as a bracket, we can go on doing this forever—and so can hardly be called “a matheme.”'