i glanced at that review. maybe boudiou does believe in 'drect action' as opposed to 'parliamentarianism'. but as people like sokal or others in scien might criticize his basing his philosophy on set theory, the idea that someone who is a professional philosopher and in a very esoteric 'french' (eg derrida) style --- actually believes in 'direct action' may just be 'fronting' or 'posing'. Unless by direct action one means things like tenured radicalism, academic conferences, etc. (I actually dont have a problem with such a definition----sortuh like 'fuck anarchy, do what you want'.)
i do think there is much better, non-derivative stuff, less pretentuious, and much clearer stuff to read (some of it by the people boudieu refers to). (the same might go for deleuze and such, and likely derrida). but the other stuff is less trendy (and not in the art school). also, you may not really come to any different conclusions if you even get any.
anyway, i do feel basically discussion of this stuff is pretty much foreign or hostile territory. (perhaps people like frege or cassirer or even wittgenstein are the demilitarized zone, but why bother.)
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Dwayne Monroe <dwayne.monroe at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] reading badiou -- worth it? (was: Review of Badiou's Number)
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 10:32 PM
> shag wrote:
>
>
> ok. i've been noticing for awhile now that all the kewl
> kidz drop
> badiou's name. does this mean i should read the dewd, since
> people I
> admire are familiar with him?
>
>
> .......
>
>
> I certainly think Badiou's worth it.
>
>
>
> His philosophical works require and reward patience.
> It's tough
> however to get a robust sense of his thought via Anglo
> sphere Google
> search.
>
> In my opinion, there are far too many Internet available
> critiques
> posted by gun (or meme) slinging philosophy students.
> Mostly the very
> young who're sure the emperor has no clothes and are
> looking to make
> their bones by taking down a prominent figure. (Zizek
> faces this
> problem too. There are many, many attack articles,
> blog posts, etc
> based almost entirely on sound bites, film excerpts and pop
> press
> essays. Less common are sustained criticisms
> dissecting, at length,
> the content of Zizek's extended works).
>
> Of course, no one's above critique; Badiou's as susceptible
> to
> criticism as anyone else.
>
>
> Regarding Badiou's accessible political work, I'll mention
> again _The
> Meaning of Sarkozy_.
>
>
> Richard Seymour reviewed it here:
>
>
> <http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/02/badiou-on-le-petit-nicolas.html>
>
>
> You can order it here:
>
>
> <http://www.versobooks.com/books/ab/b-titles/badiou_a_sarkozy.shtml>
>
>
>
> This is a very useful book, a Swiss army knife for
> understanding the
> political impact of neoliberalism. Its message is as
> relevant to US
> concerns as those of the French left.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> .d.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>