Le Siècle

by Alain Badiou

L'ORDRE PHILOSOPHIQUE

Le XXe siècle a été jugé et condamné : siècle de la terreur totalitaire, des idéologies utopiques et criminelles, des illusions vides, des génocides, des fausses avant-gardes, de l'abstraction partout substituée au réalisme démocratique.
Je ne souhaite pas plaider pour un accusé qui sait se défendre seul. Je ne veux pas non plus, comme Frantz, le héros de la pièce de Sartre Les Séquestrés d'Altona, proclamer : " J'ai pris le siècle sur mes épaules, et j'ai dit : J'en répondrai ! " Je veux seulement examiner ce que ce siècle maudit, de l'intérieur de son propre devenir, a dit qu'il était. Je veux ouvrir le dossier du siècle, tel qu'il se constitue dans le siècle, et non pas du côté des sages juges repus que nous prétendons être.
Pour ce faire, j'utilise des poèmes, des fragments philosophiques, des pensées politiques, des pièces de théâtre... Tout un matériel, que d'aucuns prétendent désuet, où le siècle déclare en pensée sa vie, son drame, ses créations, sa passion.
Et je vois alors qu'au rebours de tout le jugement prononcé, cette passion, la passion du XXe siècle, n'a nullement été celle de l'imaginaire ou des idéologies. Encore moins une passion messianique. La terrible passion du XXe siècle a été, contre le prophétisme du XIXe, la passion du réel. Il s'agissait d'activer le Vrai, ici et maintenant.

A. B.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Theory, Cultural Studies, Politics, Art

264 pages, Paperback

First published January 7, 2005

About the author

Alain Badiou, Ph.D., born in Rabat, Morocco in 1937, holds the Rene Descartes Chair at the European Graduate School EGS. Alain Badiou was a student at the École Normale Supérieure in the 1950s. He taught at the University of Paris VIII (Vincennes-Saint Denis) from 1969 until 1999, when he returned to ENS as the Chair of the philosophy department. He continues to teach a popular seminar at the Collège International de Philosophie, on topics ranging from the great 'antiphilosophers' (Saint-Paul, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Lacan) to the major conceptual innovations of the twentieth century. Much of Badiou's life has been shaped by his dedication to the consequences of the May 1968 revolt in Paris. Long a leading member of Union des jeunesses communistes de France (marxistes-léninistes), he remains with Sylvain Lazarus and Natacha Michel at the center of L'Organisation Politique, a post-party organization concerned with direct popular intervention in a wide range of issues (including immigration, labor, and housing). He is the author of several successful novels and plays as well as more than a dozen philosophical works.

Trained as a mathematician, Alain Badiou is one of the most original French philosophers today. Influenced by Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Jacques Lacan and Gilles Deleuze, he is an outspoken critic of both the analytic as well as the postmodern schools of thoughts. His philosophy seeks to expose and make sense of the potential of radical innovation (revolution, invention, transfiguration) in every situation.

Reviews

[مسعود قادری آذر · Rating 4 out of 5]

١. بياييد قرن بيستم را از دريچه نگاه يك قرن بيستمى ببينيم
قرنى كه مالارمه و اينشتين و پروست و فرويد و شوئنبرگ و ويتگنشتاين و پيكاسو و لنين و هوسرل و پسوآ را در آغاز خود معرفى مى كند اما اندك زمانى بعد دو جنگ جهانى خون بار عرضه مى كند
.
فهميدن اين ها تنها با انديشيدن اين قرن ميسر مى شود اگر بشود
بعد از اين مرحله است كه در ذهن خواننده نسبتى با قرن كنونى برقرار مى شود و قرن بيست و يكم جلوه پيدا مى كند
.
٢. اين قرن كار درخشانى است از آلن بديو. با اين وجود فيلتر ترجمه، مطالعه ى نسخه ى فارسى اين كتاب را دشوار ساخته است. مانند برخى ديگر از كتاب هاى نشر بيدگُل كه فهم را فداى وفادارى به متن اصلى مى كنند. اين مترجمان به حق به واژه سازى در زبان فارسى مى پردازند اما تثبيت نشدن واژه ها در كتب مختلف و نيز اولويت بخشيدن واژه بر جمله، مخاطبان اين ترجمه ها را محدود نگه مى دارد. طورى كه گاه تصور مى كنم براى اطرافيان مترجم خود، ترجمه كرده اند
.
البته كه اين كتاب را بخوانيد و حتى اگر برخى از سخنان آلن بديو رو نفهميديد، گفتگو را قطع نكنيد، چراكه در صفحات آتى از نو و با كلمات جديد، همان مفاهيم را مطرح مى كند
.
اين نويسنده آنقدر دقيق و سنجيده سخن مى گويد كه سهل انگارى مترجم را جبران كند

[Parnian · Rating 4 out of 5]

واقعا چرا امروز هیچ‌گاه مسئله انسان مطرح نیست مگر در فرم شکنجه‌دیده، قتل عام شده، قحطی‌زده، و نسل‌کشی شده‌اش؟
می‌توان گفت آن‌چه دموکراسی‌های معاصر می‌خواهند بر این سیاره تحمیل کنند یک انسان‌گرایی حیوانی است. در آن انسان تنها به‌عنوان چیزی وجود دارد که لایق ترحم می‌باشد. انسان حیوانی ترحم‌انگیز است.


بی‌نظیر بود.

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

My experience was a 3-(minus) until the unexpectedly fitting conclusion (and one bolstered surprisingly by the Afterward from Alberto Toscano) with Badiou's subsummation: the 20C was Sartre and Foucault. Finishing the book, I considered Timothy Morton and his beloved (accursed) Hyperobjects. Something as vast as the last century would intimidate most efforts of synopsis, much less those of prescription.

Badiou considered the I vs We element of ideology and opted for a poetic explanation. He opts for Brecht, Pessoa and Mandelstam to offer a primary text without much success. It is the concluding framework, an adjustment of Sartre and Foucault to estimate whether God and Man (their terms) have been eclipsed/replaced or transcended? That sort of query strikes me as dated.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

ترجمه پره از غلط های ریز و درشت. اگر می تونید ترجمه انگلیسی کتاب رو بخونید، به زحمتش می ارزه.
برای مثال، صفحه پنجاه و سه
-mortality rates are decreasing rapidly-
ترجمه شده: نرخ مرگ و میر به سرعت در حال رشد است!
یا صفحه پنجاه و چهار
-This will add up, more or less, to the amount of money-
ترجمه شده این کم و بیش بالغ بر میزان پولی می شود.
صفحه پنجاه و شش racial، رادیکال ترجمه شده!
صفحه هشتاد:
-as masks of “a real” that they both denote and conceal-
ترجمه شده: به منزله ماسک هایی “واقعی” تلقی شوند که هم که هم حاکی از آنند هم پنهانگرش

[Ani Hakobyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

20-րդ դարի արվեստի, գրականության, քաղաքականությա , փիլիսոփայության, դարի մարդու ու փնտրումների մասին ընտիր աշխատություն է։

Շատ բարդ ընթերցանություն էր։ Հաստատ կարիք կա ավելի ուշ, որոշակի բագաժ հավաքելուց հետո, նորից վերադառնալ այս գրքին։

Գլխավոր խմբագիրը Մարկ Նշանյանն է, ինչն ավելի է արժեւորում այս գիրքը։

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

badiou writes beautifully about art-- particularly poetry-- and does a rather masterful recap of the 20th century's overarching ideologies. the book is at its best when he reckons with the unfinished business of the century-- in particular, how modern, free market democracies either repress or awkwardly maintain many of its earlier urges. that said, a number of his philosophical conclusions are disappointingly familiar, and perhaps even a bit nostalgic. his call for a turn towards 'the passion of the real'-- a hybrid of the lacanian real and nietzsche's will to power, i guess-- is more convincing as a personal mentality than a political ideology. i'd have liked a real reckoning with current economics systems, instead of his often reactionary rhetoric about "democracy" and "human rights". i'm no humanist myself-- and i share some of his reservations-- but the venom badiou feels toward "human rights" as a concept seems a little needlessly brutal. at its worst, he sounds like another white guy that feels persecuted by multi-culturalism. the good outweighs the bad, though, for the most part. the early chapters are really quite beautiful.

[Narjes Dorzade · Rating 4 out of 5]

زخم ناسور حقیقت از زبان بدیو

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stellar read. Badiou deals more with tangible material from the twentieth century to explore his concept of truth-procedures, but more so, how the twentieth century thought itself. Some fiery philosophical declarations ensue regarding the struggle against hermeneutics by means of formailisms. Badiou also sticks it to Aristotle pretty hard in the last chapter, a meditation on radical anti-humanism via Sartre and Foucault.

[Zohreh Avatefi hafez · Rating 4 out of 5]

به تدريج پي برده ام كه زنان با ژرفاي بيشتري نسبت به مردان خود را با اين بي قيدي ريشه بركن هم خوان مي كنند،درست به همان نحوي كه،به طور معكوس ،به هنگام احتياط و محافظه كاري صريح تر و لجوج ترند.امر زنانه همان چيزي است كه ،وقتي از سازمان دهي امنيت و پروا در خانه دست مي شويد،در پايان دهي به هر گونه جبني تا نهايت به پيش مي رود.
فلسفه هميشه برايم تلخ است
اما اين كتاب را به جامعه شناسان و علاقمندان به جهان شناسي توصيه مي كنم

[Mihai · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the most complicated book I read. Well read is an overstatement. Let's just say, partially experienced.

I have no doubt that Badiou is an intellectual institution and I am but a nobody to question his ideas. My main grief resides with the form he chooses to pack his philosophy.

There is something very disappointing when failing to understand because of style and obfuscation and the blame goes both ways. On one hand it's my limited capacity to unpack his text. This happens because I jump into his work without any sort of research and preparation. On the other hand I still believe that a highly intelligent author should be able to produce and actually strive for simplicity and conciseness.

Random parts from the book where my brain had mini-seizures: "...the finite is what comes out of itself only in order to remain within itself...the finite is what surpasses itself with itself...in other words, it is what, coming out of itself in order to produce the Other, remains within the element of the Same...instead of an alteration of the self there is only an iteration...the formalization of the mathematical act is the enunciation of the mathematical real and not an a posteriori form stuck onto an unfathomable material"

/me puts on some King Crimson...Confusion will be my epitaph!

[valentín]

"Entre 1917 y 1980 el siglo se propuso crear algo indestructible. ¿Por qué esa aspiración? porque la indestructibilidad, la no finitud es el estigma de lo real. Para crear algo indestructible hay que destruir mucho. Así lo saben muy en particular los escultores, que destruyen la piedra para que a través de sus vacíos se eternice una idea. Lo real es lo imposible de destruir, lo que resiste, siempre y para siempre. Sólo se hace obra si se tiene la impresión de medirse con esa resistencia"

[David Barrera Fuentes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cada día me gusta más este viejo, por esa mezcla de maoísmo, platonismo y su retorno a categorías totales como Infinito y Acontecimiento. Aguante la totalidad y basta, BASTA, de contentarse con migajas y con ganar peleas chicas.

[Kuszma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alain Badiou XX. századi kulcsszövegekből (Mandelstam, Brecht, Freud, Celan, Pessoa stb.) kiindulva igyekszik megfogalmazni, hogyan határozható meg (művészet)filozófiai értelemben a század, mint olyan. Én meg azt tanácsolnám mindenkinek, ha kedves az élete, hogy soha ne kérjen meg filozófust verset elemezni. Személyes tapasztalatom ugyanis, hogy a kérdésre, miszerint „Mire gondolt a költő?”, számos válasz adható, köztük olyanok, mint a „Basszus, holnap lapzárta, és még három versszak hiányzik!” vagy az, hogy „Azt a kutyaúristenit, hogy én mekkora zseni vagyok, megírtam hexameterben egy szimpla fogmosást!” Ezek az alternatív (de hihető!) válaszok azonban egy filozófus magyarázataiban valamiért egyáltalán nem merülnek fel, viszont bemelegítés nélkül képes eljutni egy töltelék jelzőből egészen a költő fiatalon elhalt dédapjának Weltschmerz-éig. Itt voltaképpen arról van szó, hogy a „Mire gondolt a költő?” kérdés átalakul az elemző fejében a „Mire kellett volna gondolnia a költőnek?” kérdéssé – fontos látni persze, hogy a két kérdésre adott válaszok ideális esetben akár meg is egyezhetnek, ha feltételezzük a művész abszolút tudatosságát (bár tulajdonképpen feltételeznünk kéne a művész és az értelmező elméjének teljes azonosságát is), csak hát… miért is kéne feltételeznünk?

Persze ez valahol minden értelmezés sajátja, így Badiou munkáját sem ekézném ezért – helyenként kifejezetten eredeti javaslatokat tesz a század tematikáinak meghatározására. Számára a századot a valóság iránti elementáris vágy jellemezte, aminek törvényszerű következménye volt, hogy igyekezett azt megtisztítani az ún. „látszatoktól”. Ez az „ők” és a „mi” dialektikus elkülönítéséhez vezetett, és nemritkán ahhoz, hogy kinyilatkoztatta a „jó háború” szükségességét a „rossz háborúk” végleges megszüntetése érdekében. A század kulcsszava pedig az anabázis, vagyis az akarat és a tévelygés szintézise, ami némi egyszerűsítéssel úgy magyarítható, hogy csináljunk már valamit, mindegy is, hogy mit. A végén aztán van egy átkötés az új századhoz, ami egyben felhívás a „formalizált emberiség” elleni védekezésre – az ilyesmit amúgy mindig elég rezignáltan szoktam fogadni. Elképzelem a filozófust a szomjas szemű diáklányok sűrűjében, amint a dehumanizált és uniformizált tömegről szónokol, de én csak annyit hallok ebből, hogy „Bezzeg én! Bezzeg én!” Amit el tudok fogadni (már hogy bezzeg ő) csak éppen nem látom, hogy az önfényezésen kívül miféle filozófiai alakzatot lehet építeni egy ilyen közhelyből.

A szöveg amúgy természetszerűleg, mint a hasonló szövegek általában, egy mentális konstrukció életrevalóságáról szól. Itt annyiban bonyolódik is a helyzet, hogy van ugye egy elsődleges mentális konstrukció – vagyis az a kép, amit a század nevezetű absztrakcióról alakult ki a fejekben. Ez annyifelé osztódik, ahány idézetszöveg jelenik meg a könyvben, hogy aztán létrejöjjön belőlük egy többé-kevésbé koherens másodlagos mentális konstrukció Badiou fejében, ami aztán vagy találkozik az én (harmadlagos) mentális konstrukciómmal a századról, vagy nem*. Bizonytalan ügy: szellemi lutri. Nabokov mondta volt, hogy a költészet érzékelésének egyetlen szerve az ember megborsódzó háta – ilyen értelemben a filozófiai szövegek érzékelésének egyetlen módja, ha az ember agyát megpöcögteti a szöveg. Nos, az én agyamat nem pöcögtette meg. Érdekes, érvényes modellt vázol fel, de sehol nem éreztem, hogy hűha, most aztán új fényben fürödnek a dolgok. Inkább valami összegzési kísérletnek tudtam látni, mérsékelt sikerrel – olyan fejtegetésnek, ami önmagába kanyarodik vissza, nem érintkezik a világommal. Nem érzem a pontokat, ahol tovább lehetne gondolni, ennek lehetősége nélkül pedig nem is igen tudom méltóképpen értékelni.

* Aztán az egészről írok egy értékelést, ami meg találkozik annak a (negyedleges, ötödleges, satöbbi) mentális konstrukciójával, aki elolvassa – de ebbe már bele se menjünk.

[annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

i'm perplexed and intrigued. not my favorite by badiou though.

[Ceena · Rating 3 out of 5]

در مورد کتاب: شیوه درسگفتار بدیو در بعضی فصل ها کمی منقطع به نظرم آمد ولی فصل های آخر به ویژه "قساوت ها" با دو مثال از نمایشنامه برشت و شعر پسوآ بسیار جالب بود و خطوط فکری نویسنده را به خوبی ترسیم می کرد. به نظرم این فصل و فصل بعدی (آوانگاردها) که بیشتر به نقاشی در قرن بیستم می پرداخت قابلیت بسط یافتن به کتابی مستقل دارند، با عنوان "پرسش اساسی: چگونه ترسو نباشیم؟". کتاب خواننده مصمم را به مطالعه بیشتر پیرامون فلسفه، شعر، ادبیات، تاریخ و تفکر در مباحث مطرح شده فرا می خواند و آخری قطعاً هدف غایی این قرن است.

در مورد ترجمه: در کل ترجمه مقبولی بود. ای کاش مترجم برای واژگان تخصصی معادل های مناسب پیدا می کرد (آکسیوم، آکسیوماتیک، کورئوگرافی، ژنریک . .). در چند فصل نارسایی هایی دیده می شد به ویژه در فصل "آناباسیس" و امیدوارم کتاب در چاپ های بعدی ویریاست بشه.

[Chelsea Szendi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Badiou tucks me in at night. I've been reading one of these collected lectures on the twentieth century just before bed for the past week or so. For those of us who opened "Theory of the Subject" and felt like giving up any sort of theoretical pretensions, this book is a much more friendly read. Badiou sets himself the mission to think about how the century thought itself. His close readings of literary works and his musings on major philosophical themes are both lyrical and thought-provoking.

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like this book. The 20th century as 'passion for the real' explained through debunking of neoliberal illusions, nostalgic recapping of radical moments, and insights on avant-garde art and literature.

[Hosein Rahmatizade · Rating 1 out of 5]

ترجمه خیلی بد. از بیدگل بعید بود.

[Maximiliano Albornoz Torres · Rating 4 out of 5]

No es un libro fácil. No sólo por las referencias filosóficas que requieren un mínimo de bagaje previo (o unas cuantas preguntas al chatGPT) de lecturas, sino porque hay algo en su prosa (muy francés diría una profesora mía de teoría sociológica a propósito de Durkheim) que de tan rococó se pierde el hilo argumental y obliga a volver una y otra vez sobre los propios pasos para apropiarse del hilo argumental.
Dicho esto, y habiéndome referido a la IA de manera tangencial, considero que es una lectura fundamental sobre todo por haber sido escrita a caballo entre el siglo XX y el XXI: es decir, escrito a caballo de los vertiginosos cambios políticos y técnicos del "entre-siglos", que visto a la postre era una premonición del mundo actual, con los ascensos de las nuevas derechas en forma de neo fascismos tech.
Un material ineludible para pensar ambos siglos como una historia de las ideas que los sustentan, y que nos permite comprender política y epistemológicamente la coyuntura actual que atravesamos, como las continuidades (y no rupturas) entre un siglo XX de raudas matanzas y los gritos desesperados que claman sangre del XXI, como si el espectáculo del horror no solo no hubiese sido aprendido, sino que sistemáticamente olvidado, en pos de una racionalidad técnica que es incapaz de pensarse más allá de las 24hs que dura una story. Sobre este peligro presente-centrico nos alerta está obra, entre otras sutilezas más, para no caer presa de la vorágine impuesta por una racionalidad tecnológica que amenaza con llevarse puesto todo, desde las democracias actuales hasta los sueños más recónditos de un mundo más justo y empático.

[Panou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Secolul XX (european) descifrat prin lectura lui Mandelștam, Brecht, Freud, Celan, Pessoa, Sartre, Foucault... Evenimentele, idealurile și realitatea unui secol complicat; un secol al suferinței și al manifestației, un secol dominat de „pasiunea pentru real”, care a încercat să elimine romantismul veacului precedent (și nu a izbutit) și a ajuns azi (adică, în/ca secolul XXI) să caute să reînvie (desigur, fără succes, dar cu consecințe dramatice)... umanismul clasic. Ultimul capitol arată că ceea ce practicăm azi e mai curând un fel de umanism animal, de specie, „jalnic”, întrucât ne „impresionează” (la modul superficial; din rațiuni de marketing sau lobby) crimele, cruzimile, distrugerile când, de fapt, noi suntem într-o eră situată după moartea lui Dumnezeu și după moartea Omului, și ar trebui să ne plasăm la un alt nivel al gândirii lumii. Altfel spus, în ciuda antropologiei, filosofiei și gândirii ființei desfășurate de tot ceea ce a generat reflecția occidentală, nu am reușit să integrăm omul în desfășurarea secolului și acționăm fie incriminator (față de proiectele ratate ale umanității), fie regresiv (față de logica emancipării sale).

[blondie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mια βαθιά στοχαστική και προκλητική απόπειρα ερμηνείας ενός αιώνα που συχνά προσεγγίζεται μονόπλευρα, ως εποχή φρίκης, αποτυχιών και καταρρεύσεων ουτοπιών.

Σε αντίθεση με την κυρίαρχη τάση απαξίωσης του 20ού αιώνα, ο Μπαντιού δεν τον εξιδανικεύει ούτε επιχειρεί την αποκατάσταση μιας χαμένης ιστορικής «τιμής».

Αντιθέτως, τον «ακούει» μέσα από τα ίδια του τα δημιουργήματα, τα ίχνη της σκέψης, της τέχνης και της πράξης που άφησε πίσω του.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed it, but I have doubts as to its durability. I get the sense that Badiou wants to make points advocating a particular political stance but, rather than allowing the literature speaks through him, gets caught up in too-clever wordplay and the grandiose poetic architecture of his essays. I wouldn't re-read it by any means. Just OK, three stars.

[Subdee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read for school and didn't type up my notes... but I liked this more than Ethics. The weirdest thing about this book is how it analyzes the century through cultural products, but only poems & plays & opera (!!), not even movies (and forget TV shows). Well, I guess that's what Zizek is for.

[Bookfreak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Διαλέξεις του Μπαντιού για τον 20ο αιώνα, πολύ πυκνό, με καταπληκτικές ιδέες και εμβάθυνση στα κείμενα συγγραφέων, ποιητών, επιστημόνων που πραγμάτωσαν τη κύρια ιδέα του αιώνα, την πρόσβαση στο πραγματικό, την υλοποίηση όλων αυτών που υποσχέθηκε ο 19ος.

[Alan Dean]

feels kind of pointless to rate and review theory, like.......i think he's right??? thumbs up

[Barto Lina · Rating 5 out of 5]

ALAN BADIOU TU SANTO NOMBRE

[Jared]

I need a Vogue 76 questions but all 76 are asking Badiou what are events and what aren't.

[Homayoun Hamedmoghadam-Rafati · Rating 2 out of 5]

I prefer not to review the book on its subject told on its coverو as I believe the manuscript is a personal statement of Badiou on what has gone wrong in the past century and what he likes about it. All over this book I understood a trace of unjustifiable antagonism against Marxism and Socialism. There are numerous citing of Socialism-related movements alongside Fascism with almost no reason, also identifying Communism as a variation of war, and just to be fair the reasoning goes no further than listing some of Stalin's and Mao Tsetung's acts! There are also several wishful struggles to prove abjuration of eminent ones (writers and philosophers) known to be associated or influenced by Marxism. With maybe insufficient knowledge of Marx's philosophy and ignoring the basics of philosophical inference and logic, the author tries to make arbitrary conclusions from Marx's thoughts. I found many parts of the book interesting to read and useful but I think many readers might use warn to be more careful with the text and think more about the derivations they are fed with which are only author's opinion.

[GaiaP · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leggere Badiou è osservarlo danzare, lieve come una libellula, piroettando fra i concetti filosofici più complessi ed abbracciando con un unico, leggiadro movimento un intero secolo di storia. In poche pagine il nostro ballerino fissa in poche sintetiche figure il profilo del Novecento, inteso qui innanzitutto come un’epoca “in cui si è pensato”, “in cui c’è stato del pensiero”. Ed ecco che da subito si contrappone all’immagine classica del secolo dei totalitarismi e delle guerre mondiali il cangiante e multiforme caleidoscopio delle avanguardie artistiche, dei manifesti letterari, delle dispute fra filosofi e delle sperimentazioni politiche. Il teatro di Brecht, la poesia di Mandelstam, Paul Celan e Fernando Pessoa, il “Bianco su Bianco” di Malevich, l’arte come gesto assoluto ove l’opera si fonde con la vita, la psicanalisi di Freud, l’anti-umanesimo radicale di Foucault che s’oppone ma al contempo si richiama all’umanesimo radicale di Sartre: c’è dentro tutto, con grande maestria Badiou raccoglie i disparati fili che costituiscono “ciò che si è pensato” nel corso del secolo, facendoli convergere nella “sintesi disgiuntiva” della “passione del reale”. Non aggiungo altro per non togliere agli eventuali futuri lettori il piacere della scoperta di un testo così perfetto. Breve ed illuminante. La scrittura incede a passo di danza, si libra nell’aria, come sospinta dal vento, volteggia “come una scintilla, in cerca della polvere da sparo”…

[Karellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is a well respected professor of philosophy at the prestigious elite ENS in Paris. He's an important left wing intellectual of that typically radical French tradition influenced by among others Sartre Lacan Lyotard Althusser Deleuze Mallarme.
This book Le Siècle was written in 2005 as the millennium approached.
It's quite fascinating to read his thoughts on how the 20th century should be assessed. On the one hand it was for many the century of totalitarianism and genocide of terror and hatred. And yet the advances made in those hundred years and in particular the last thirty years have seen an unprecedented rise in living standards in the developed world.
Historians like to speak of convenient structures like the short twentieth century : from WW1 to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Reading Badiou is to have ones eyes opened to the subtext of what is going on. As the century draws to a close he asks whether the creative energies that once thrived are dying out under the onslaught of Right wing market philosophy and the dumbing down of our culture. Absolutely.
One of the best books of the plethora of evaluations of the century.