[D-G] mona has

sid littlefield falsedeity at lycos.com
Thu Jan 20 06:24:22 PST 2005


To these four we should add the fifth (5) Truth
 
1) The event
2) Ontology
3) Ontological role/importance of temporality
4) Majoritarian/minoritarian militant/ethico-aesthetic practice
 
I think this would be a very fruitful project. To begin I will suggest a reading: Daniel Smith has a wonderful essay on Deleuze v. Badiou in relationship to mathematics. I know that it was in the Southern Journal of Philosophy and I imagine that it is floating around in other places (Sorry to participate in the "capitalist desire to read texts but...)

These are just starting points...

(1) It strikes me that one difference in the way that D & B look at the event is in the question of the question of language.  It seems that Deleuze places the event at times into a linguistic enterprise. Of course, Badiou would be forced to reject this being the new non-linguistic philosopher.

(2) I am in the minority but believe that Deleuze was "to be done with ontology." The insistence that being is univocal seems to be great strike against ontology.  If ontological difference is located in the individual and not the species (if you all me to use the biological concept) then ontology is moved to becoming (mutation). This is the continuation of the Nietzsche project from Twilight. Badiou strikes me as almost equally skeptical of the ontology, not the concept, but being itself.  As with most disagreements between Deleuze and Badiou, it comes down to their understanding of multiplicity and difference.

(3) Nothing now.

(4) There seems to be some aggreement that D & G's politics would be different from Badiou's, hence not militant.  I am not sure if this true.  I do not see that D&G are not setting up a radical militant politics although it does take on a group dynamic that is absent from Badiou.  Although Badiou is highly involved with non-party politics, it still seems that processes that bring about the militant have a party look to them. If we think about is continually example Paul I think we see the party lurking in the background, or at least the shadow of party lurking in the background. I think this is what Zizek means when he says that Badiou is afraid to ex-cize Stalin.

(5) Deleuze was famous for his dis-taste for TRUTH, but Badiou's reworking of the term renders most of Deleuze's objections mute. Perhaps like not wanting to be surround by "scarecrows and suken faces" (Nietzsche "the Gay Science), deleuze's rejection of truth is just a matter of taste.

sid
-- 
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10




More information about the Deleuze-Guattari mailing list