Scan barcode
len_schaller's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
Having a bit more information on Badiou's thinking might be helpful to truly appreciate this text. I wanted more context to each of the lectures, but it is a nice introduction to some of bis ideas. Enjoyed the combination of philosophy and poetry.
cryo_guy's review
4.0
So this was a nice slim little volume with 3 tiny lectures by Badiou. Definitely my least favorite of the Badiou that I've read so far. However, that isn't to say it isn't worth checking out. It's so short that if you're into Badiou, you might as well.
First off, let's discuss the title. So in the preface the translator is frank about it: the title of the French book is the much more straightforward: The Enigmatic Relationship Between Philosophy and Politics, which as it happens is also the title of the first lecture (the other two being: The Figure of the Soldier and Politics as a Nonexpressive Dialectics). He says that Badiou balked at the change by the publisher but eventually came around on it because he felt he could back the sentiment and so the translator also agrees with Badiou. I don't disagree with them. I think it's a clear move by the publisher to rope in people by sensationalizing it. However, I also trust the intentions of Badiou. The problem is that the content just doesn't match up with the title, even if Badiou is willing to tout philosophy for militants as one of his prime missions. The lectures themselves have some overlap with militancy and the idea of philosophy for militants, but I think it's just too much of a stretch, content-wise, to warrant the name it has. Whew okay now that that's over with...
The first lecture is great and talks about exactly what it says. This is one of the reasons the title change sticks in my minds because surely "The Enigmatic Relationship of Philosophy and Politics" is a altogether too wordy title (Or is it??), but at least it tells me what I'm gonna read. In the lecture there are some interesting suggestions about what Philosophy is and how we use it (no doubt elaborated on further in his other readings). They're clear and palatable explanations of pieces of Badiou's framework. "Philosophy is the act of reorganizing all theoretical and practical experiments by proposing a great new normative division, which inverts an established intellectual order and promotes new values beyond the commonly accepted ones." A neat definition of Philosophy to engage with. And, as always, there are some nice artistic bits: "In this way, the future of philosophy, like its past, is a creative repetition. It will forever be the case that we must endure our thoughts for as long as the night lasts." I love it! He mentions Plato and Heidegger because of course, but they tie into this interesting point about how to properly account for values, old and new. Some might say Philosophy is primarily concerned with valuation by way of moral evaluation and decision.
He uses the notion that philosophy is an inherently democratic activity to differentiate it from politics which has designs on objectivity. "In short, if there exists something like a political truth, this truth is an obligation for any rational spirit. As a result, freedom is absolutely limited. Conversely, if there exists no limitation of this order, there exists no political truth. But in that case there is no positive relationship between philosophy and politics."
And a few pages later, he indicts Rorty with a much-needed indicting: "Richard Rorty has declared: "Democracy is more important than philosophy." With this political principle, Rorty in fact prepares the dissolution of philosophy into cultural relativism. But Plato, at the start of philosophy, says the exact opposite: philosophy is far more important than democracy. And if justice is the philosophical name of politics as truth of the collective, then justice is more important than freedom." Plato later gets his own indictments.
He ends with a philosophical proposal on what to call Communism, which resolves the relationship between Philosophy and politics. I'm leaving a lot out (of a very short lecture), but it's interesting and even better all together.
The second lecture (The Figure of the Soldier) is not bad. It's a more literary and poetic meditation on soldiers. Features Wallace Stevens' "Transport to Summer"
The third returns to a more political subject (Politics as a Nonexpressive Dialectics). It basically builds on ideas from the first lecture to make a more pointed assertion about the dangers of expressive dialectics and the social construction of key issues involved with politics.
When I read Badiou I often get the feeling that I'm missing something, or I don't know enough about his framework or vocabulary to say I understand everything he's saying, but for this short selection of lectures, that was a less frequent occurrence. A nice short read for all the Badiou fans out there. Looking through the book again to write the review I changed from a 3 to 4 star so maybe that's something in itself.
First off, let's discuss the title. So in the preface the translator is frank about it: the title of the French book is the much more straightforward: The Enigmatic Relationship Between Philosophy and Politics, which as it happens is also the title of the first lecture (the other two being: The Figure of the Soldier and Politics as a Nonexpressive Dialectics). He says that Badiou balked at the change by the publisher but eventually came around on it because he felt he could back the sentiment and so the translator also agrees with Badiou. I don't disagree with them. I think it's a clear move by the publisher to rope in people by sensationalizing it. However, I also trust the intentions of Badiou. The problem is that the content just doesn't match up with the title, even if Badiou is willing to tout philosophy for militants as one of his prime missions. The lectures themselves have some overlap with militancy and the idea of philosophy for militants, but I think it's just too much of a stretch, content-wise, to warrant the name it has. Whew okay now that that's over with...
The first lecture is great and talks about exactly what it says. This is one of the reasons the title change sticks in my minds because surely "The Enigmatic Relationship of Philosophy and Politics" is a altogether too wordy title (Or is it??), but at least it tells me what I'm gonna read. In the lecture there are some interesting suggestions about what Philosophy is and how we use it (no doubt elaborated on further in his other readings). They're clear and palatable explanations of pieces of Badiou's framework. "Philosophy is the act of reorganizing all theoretical and practical experiments by proposing a great new normative division, which inverts an established intellectual order and promotes new values beyond the commonly accepted ones." A neat definition of Philosophy to engage with. And, as always, there are some nice artistic bits: "In this way, the future of philosophy, like its past, is a creative repetition. It will forever be the case that we must endure our thoughts for as long as the night lasts." I love it! He mentions Plato and Heidegger because of course, but they tie into this interesting point about how to properly account for values, old and new. Some might say Philosophy is primarily concerned with valuation by way of moral evaluation and decision.
He uses the notion that philosophy is an inherently democratic activity to differentiate it from politics which has designs on objectivity. "In short, if there exists something like a political truth, this truth is an obligation for any rational spirit. As a result, freedom is absolutely limited. Conversely, if there exists no limitation of this order, there exists no political truth. But in that case there is no positive relationship between philosophy and politics."
And a few pages later, he indicts Rorty with a much-needed indicting: "Richard Rorty has declared: "Democracy is more important than philosophy." With this political principle, Rorty in fact prepares the dissolution of philosophy into cultural relativism. But Plato, at the start of philosophy, says the exact opposite: philosophy is far more important than democracy. And if justice is the philosophical name of politics as truth of the collective, then justice is more important than freedom." Plato later gets his own indictments.
He ends with a philosophical proposal on what to call Communism, which resolves the relationship between Philosophy and politics. I'm leaving a lot out (of a very short lecture), but it's interesting and even better all together.
The second lecture (The Figure of the Soldier) is not bad. It's a more literary and poetic meditation on soldiers. Features Wallace Stevens' "Transport to Summer"
The third returns to a more political subject (Politics as a Nonexpressive Dialectics). It basically builds on ideas from the first lecture to make a more pointed assertion about the dangers of expressive dialectics and the social construction of key issues involved with politics.
When I read Badiou I often get the feeling that I'm missing something, or I don't know enough about his framework or vocabulary to say I understand everything he's saying, but for this short selection of lectures, that was a less frequent occurrence. A nice short read for all the Badiou fans out there. Looking through the book again to write the review I changed from a 3 to 4 star so maybe that's something in itself.
breadandmushrooms's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.75
ziki's review against another edition
I propose to call ‘communism’, philosophically speaking, the subjective existence of the
unity of these two meanings, the formal and the real. That is to say, it is the hypothesis of a
place of thought where the formal condition of philosophy would itself be sustained by the
real condition of the existence of a democratic politics wholly different from the actual
democratic State. That is, again, the hypothesis of a place where the rule of submission to a
free protocol of argumentation, open to be debated by anyone, would have as its source the
real existence of emancipatory politics. ‘Communism’ would be the subjective state in
which the liberatory projection of collective action would be somehow indiscernible from
the protocols of thinking that philosophy requires in order to exist.
seannflyn's review against another edition
4.0
Disappointed by the misleading title, not disappointed with the content...
Simple and blunt about the current failures of democracy and the possibility of renewing a political democracy through communism
Simple and blunt about the current failures of democracy and the possibility of renewing a political democracy through communism
andreaschari's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
matthew4's review against another edition
3.0
The focal point of this book - although slightly obfuscated by Badiou’s poetic style of writing - is the necessity of the unity of political thought and practice. I’m doing so, he presents a somewhat symbiotic relationship between the practice of militants and their philosophy. Have given three stars, as even though I mostly agree with the ideas presented, the style of writing can make it difficult to understand.