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

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 <...>