Alain Badiou: Down with Death!

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name[hzui\⚋g♲fFPZ'XL♋atJ8)5M☸o☁bcW;^\|` ,pG}e*H+&QE☃@ !y:Kw
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1608528333045.webm (2.94 MB, 480x360, Wyschnegradsky - Twenty-f….webm)

Alain Badiou: Down with Death! Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:25:33 No.92

>So we could say that nihilism is the negative subjectivation of finitude; it is fundamentally the organised or anarchic (either is possible) consciousness that because we die, nothing is important. The most classic figure of nihilism is the statement that everything is devalued, de-symbolised and untenable in the face of death. It is an equalisation of the totality of everything that could be valued, faced with the radical ontological finitude that death represents. This question of the relation between nihilism and values is, as you know, a central question in Nietzsche’s philosophy, which takes up this theme of nihilism in order to make a very important diagnostic and critical use of it.http://mariborchan.si/text/articles/alain-badiou/down-with-death/

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:25:35 No.100

So which conception of /death/ do you find appropriate?Heidegger's 'immanent death' or Badiou's external one?Am I too opportunistic for seeing them as compatible (one an existentialist approach, and the other as logics)?

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:25:41 No.149

Zizek criticizes this very articles by Badiou in part 2 of his newest seminar, titled "Surplus-Value, Surplus-Enjoyment, Surplus-Knowledge":Part 1: http://mariborchan.si/audio/slavoj-zizek/surplus-value-surplus-enjoyment-surplus-knowledge/Part 2: http://backdoorbroadcasting.net/2016/04/slavoj-zizek-masterclass-2-surplus-value-surplus-enjoyment-surplus-knowledge/He reasserts the Hegelian/Freudian immanence of limitation, that is, he denies the Heiddegerian conception of death as something exterior. (Death drive.)Highly recommended.

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:25:41 No.150

File: 1608528341594.jpg (79.71 KB, 800x600, gulyas.jpg)

&gt&gt188>he denies the Heiddegerian* conception of death as something exteriorBadiouian* conception of death as sg exterior!Sorry, for mixing that up!Also: fuck this fucking site: THIS IS THE ONLY PROPER THEORY THREAD AND NOBODY GIVES A FUGG :^(

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:25:41 No.151

File: 1608528341726.jpg (130.65 KB, 1024x637, 452cc1c2-97e7-11e3-a71e-e1….jpg)

&gt&gt189gimmie a few hours and I'll post something.

Comrade 2020-12-21 (Mon) 05:25:41 No.152

File: 1608528341850.jpg (173.43 KB, 698x564, Aglibol-Baalshamin-and-Mal….jpg)

Ok let's see here.First off, I consider myself a Freudian and Todestrieb is an integral part of that theory.So my real criticism (in which I agree with Zizek) is that humans are inherently complex and contradictory creatures, we are self-sabotaging. Thus I'm generally critical of this Spinozist notion of conatus, it seems to imply a certain rationality in our drives that might be more based on how we want to perceive ourselves rather than the actual behaviour. This can be seen in as everyday circumstances as our fear to act. We fear the pain of rejection more than the pain of an unrealized fantasy - in the latter we console ourselves with temporal possibilities (if I could just go back in time…).We're to a certain extent creatures that enjoy our life's tragedy.On a side-note, I still generally consider a Spinozist reading of (at least young) Marx to hold a lot of weight. I'm currently reading The German Ideology but even in Capital we can find a certain idea of labour as conatus.This becomes even more noticeable in the 'culture' of later Marxists, just look at the ideas of socialist realism (necessary labour into an act of pleasure)!&gt&gt139&gt&gt189Wait don't Badiou continue from Heidegger? Now I need to re-read it.

Unique IPs: 1