Национальный цифровой ресурс Руконт - межотраслевая электронная библиотека (ЭБС) на базе технологии Контекстум (всего произведений: 520142)
Консорциум Контекстум Информационная технология сбора цифрового контента
Уважаемые СТУДЕНТЫ и СОТРУДНИКИ ВУЗов, использующие нашу ЭБС. Рекомендуем использовать новую версию сайта.
Личность. Культура. Общество  / №2 (71-72) 2012

THE POLITICS OF THE EVENT (part 2) (100,00 руб.)

0   0
Первый авторDainotto Roberto
Аннотация“...The world we live in is a vulnerable, precarious world. It is in no way a world stabilized within the unity of its history... Its material, ideological, and intellectual foundations are disparate, disunited and largely inconsistent. This world does not announce the serenity of a linear development, but rather a series of dramatic crises and paradoxical events. Take two recent examples, the Gulf War and the fall of bureaucratic socialism. Add to these the war in Bosnia and the Rwandan massacres... Philosophy is required to ensure that thought can receive and accept the drama of the event without anxiety. We do not fundamentally need a philosophy of the structure of things. We need a philosophy open to the irreducible singularity of what happens, a philosophy that can be fed and nourished by the surprise of the unexpected. Such a philosophy would be a philosophy of the event”
THE POLITICS OF THE EVENT (part 2) [Электронный ресурс] / R. Dainotto // Личность. Культура. Общество .— 2012 .— №2 (71-72) .— С. 84-98 .— Режим доступа: https://rucont.ru/efd/545163

Предпросмотр (выдержки из произведения)

Акцент на новизне и разры ве, которого требует теория, принижает степень политической организации и под готовки Коммуны как события. <...> Все это – пустое сотрясение воздуха, ведь философия Бадью – не историческое исследование, а наука бытия. <...> Как наука – математическая или иная – она должна отказаться от собственной имманентности в исторической случайности, которую устанавливает (если не описывает). <...> ROBERTO DAINOTTO THE POLITICS OF THE EVENT (part 2) “. <...> Take two recent examples, the Gulf War and the fall of bureaucratic socialism. <...> Add to these the war in Bosnia and the Rwandan massacres. <...> The first, foundational category, is Cantor’s “set”: “By set what is understood is the grouping into a totality of quite distinct objects of our intuition or our thought,” Badiou quotes from Cantor [2, 38]. <...> Peter Haward summarizes: “Which sort of number comes first, the one or the many, unity or multiplicity? <...> Ever since Plato’s Parmenides, Badiou maintains, classical meta physics has been unable to reconcile these two categories. <...> Badiou’s way out of this conceptual quagmire is to accept that be ing is not one, while recognizing nevertheless that ones are made to be. <...> Since “a multiplicity (a set) can only correspond to certain properties and certain for mulas at the price of the destruction (the incoherency) of the very language in which these formulas are inscribed” [2, 40], Badiou concludes that “the one is not” [2, 42]: only the multiple is; while processes and operations – logical, linguistic, mathematical processes – “set” and represent the multiple as One. <...> The scientific revolution of Cantorian set theory elaborated by Paul Cohen, quite a case of a Bachelardian rupture, signals the event of a multiplicity that can now be presented in thought, although not represented in language: “can ontology produce the concept of a generic multiple, which is to say an unnameable, unconstructible, indiscernible multiple? <...> That such multiplicity cannot be represented, on the other hand, does not concern the philosopher of the event: “Badiou,” Hallward observes, “is quite happy to admit that we cannot. <...> Such “happy” admission of an impossibility may <...>