What do you think?
Rate this book
اخلاق: رسالهای در ادراک شر
Alain Badiou aims to explode the assumptions behind the ethical turn in political and academic agendas which serve to reinforce the ideology of the status quo. He demonstrates particularly how an ethics conceived in terms of negative human rights and tolerance of difference cannot underpin a coherent concept of evil."
148 pages, Paperback
First published September 13, 1994
112 people are currently reading
4890 people want to read
About the author
Alain Badiou
368 books1,015 followersAlain 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews
February 1, 2021
Against Human Rights
Human rights is an idea dangerous to the human beings whom it is nominally meant to protect. These rights presume that what constitutes a human being is ‘self-evident’ as it says in the Constitution of the United States. This is, however, according to Badiou, a philosophical conceit made popular by Immanuel Kant at the time that document was prepared. The contradictions and inadequacies of the document and of its inherent philosophy have became apparent only subsequently.
The first problem is obvious once stated but not before. Rights are actually the recognition of evil, that is, they are the inverse statement of that which is deemed unacceptable. Rights presume that human beings are victims who must be protected from their victimhood. So, Badiou asks, “Who cannot see that this ethics which rests on the misery of the world hides, behind its victim-Man, the good-Man, the white-Man?” The idealist white knight fulfilling his fantasy of saving the honour of the virginal princess. This is not ethics but self-indulgence.
But there is an objective issue as well as this subjective fantasy in the defining of rights in terms of evil: “because if the ethical ‘consensus’ is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone to identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself.” This is a subtle but crucial point. The ethics derived from evil are at best a sort of “stodgy conservatism” much like the ethics of Christianity which has always found it preferable to enforce the ‘don’ts’ than the ‘do’s’.
Such an ethics derived from evil is a uniquely ‘Western’ phenomenon. It is an ethics of the armed benefactor, of the owner of possessions who does not want to lose them, of the cipher who is a person in the ancient Roman legal sense of a set of fixed entitlements, of human beings as bureaucratic statistics.
What Badiou proposes is an ethics grounded on the Good, on, perhaps, the Sermon on the Mount rather than the Ten Commandments. Clearly such a radical proposal is difficult to conceive in all its practical details, much less to implement in social institutions. But Badiou does provide an interesting series of ‘deconstructions’ aimed at rooting out many of the hidden presumptions that prevent us from formulating the collective Good.
These hidden presumptions are both religious (e.g. Levinas’s Other) and economic (the logic of Capital triumphant over the politics of government). The legacy of religion is primarily one of evil projected and hence to mutual terrorism. The effect of global capitalism is to reduce all human endeavour to the pursuit of GDP rather than the articulation and execution of new social possibilities. Together they trap ethics as an “ideology of insularity,” ensuring an inherent retrograde conservatism, a smug nihilism, in both public and private life.
Ethics, it should be clear, is very philosophical and very French. It follows a trajectory which is likely to seem alien to the Anglo-Saxon penchant for pragmatic solutions to current problems. But this is the real source of its value. Badiou‘s intention is to provoke the reader to thought, not to action. In prosaic terms, his suggestion is that the really important lesson to be learned about digging bottomless holes is to stop digging and consider alternative occupations.
Human rights is an idea dangerous to the human beings whom it is nominally meant to protect. These rights presume that what constitutes a human being is ‘self-evident’ as it says in the Constitution of the United States. This is, however, according to Badiou, a philosophical conceit made popular by Immanuel Kant at the time that document was prepared. The contradictions and inadequacies of the document and of its inherent philosophy have became apparent only subsequently.
The first problem is obvious once stated but not before. Rights are actually the recognition of evil, that is, they are the inverse statement of that which is deemed unacceptable. Rights presume that human beings are victims who must be protected from their victimhood. So, Badiou asks, “Who cannot see that this ethics which rests on the misery of the world hides, behind its victim-Man, the good-Man, the white-Man?” The idealist white knight fulfilling his fantasy of saving the honour of the virginal princess. This is not ethics but self-indulgence.
But there is an objective issue as well as this subjective fantasy in the defining of rights in terms of evil: “because if the ethical ‘consensus’ is founded on the recognition of Evil, it follows that every effort to unite people around a positive idea of the Good, let alone to identify Man with projects of this kind, becomes in fact the real source of evil itself.” This is a subtle but crucial point. The ethics derived from evil are at best a sort of “stodgy conservatism” much like the ethics of Christianity which has always found it preferable to enforce the ‘don’ts’ than the ‘do’s’.
Such an ethics derived from evil is a uniquely ‘Western’ phenomenon. It is an ethics of the armed benefactor, of the owner of possessions who does not want to lose them, of the cipher who is a person in the ancient Roman legal sense of a set of fixed entitlements, of human beings as bureaucratic statistics.
What Badiou proposes is an ethics grounded on the Good, on, perhaps, the Sermon on the Mount rather than the Ten Commandments. Clearly such a radical proposal is difficult to conceive in all its practical details, much less to implement in social institutions. But Badiou does provide an interesting series of ‘deconstructions’ aimed at rooting out many of the hidden presumptions that prevent us from formulating the collective Good.
These hidden presumptions are both religious (e.g. Levinas’s Other) and economic (the logic of Capital triumphant over the politics of government). The legacy of religion is primarily one of evil projected and hence to mutual terrorism. The effect of global capitalism is to reduce all human endeavour to the pursuit of GDP rather than the articulation and execution of new social possibilities. Together they trap ethics as an “ideology of insularity,” ensuring an inherent retrograde conservatism, a smug nihilism, in both public and private life.
Ethics, it should be clear, is very philosophical and very French. It follows a trajectory which is likely to seem alien to the Anglo-Saxon penchant for pragmatic solutions to current problems. But this is the real source of its value. Badiou‘s intention is to provoke the reader to thought, not to action. In prosaic terms, his suggestion is that the really important lesson to be learned about digging bottomless holes is to stop digging and consider alternative occupations.
December 17, 2016
This book contains probably the best introduction to Badiou's work written by himself in chapter 4, while chapters 1-3 are a sloppily argued, incoherent and self-contradictory denunciation of any ethics based on human rights and the recognition of the Other. There! I have used more or less as much logical, argument-based reasoning in criticising him as he uses for his opponents, mostly unnamed, mostly portrayed as caricatures. In all fairness, he is a bit more decent to Levinas, whom he simply does not understand. Quotations from Mao as an authority did not do much to warm me up to his attitude, nor his dismissal of Arendt. All of this does not mean that his own theory would not merit serious attention, even if it is a half-hearted justification of insurrection as the only possible politics. (While the subjects of science were named "scientists" or "researchers" throughout the book, of art "artists" and of love "lovers", the subjects of politics were consistently named "militants". If you intend to become one, look no further.)
November 10, 2010
Amazing. Badiou is one of the most important philosophers of our time, and his seminal text is an amazing introduction to his work. In Europe, this text is taught to high school students; the US should spend less time catering to standardized testing, and more time encouraging students to think critically about the world around them. This is a great text to gain a deeper understanding into contemporary philosophical issues.
April 2, 2021
Certainly not an easy read. Badiou takes apart modern ethics based on concepts of human rights, argues against the ethics of alterity found in Levinas. and then goes on to argue for an ethics based on the subject, the event, and fidelity. I started by thinking it was all loose and inadequately argued, but after a second read and a lot of deliberation, I began to see a solid and interesting argument. I still have questions about his ‘universalization’ and where it comes from, and what being 'human' is, but this short book gave me an immense amount of food for thought that will keep me going for quite some time. Asking for no more.
November 20, 2023
Do all that you can to persevere in that which exceeds you perseverance. Persevere in the interruption. Seize in your being that which has seized and broken you.
Radical to the degree it is rhetorical, Badiou tosses out late 20 C humanism and reverence for the Other. He pieces together something elegant if impossible. There's a call to keep striving. I can certainly appreciate such: he cites Spinoza's perseverance to being. Sounds good, considering the alternatives.
Radical to the degree it is rhetorical, Badiou tosses out late 20 C humanism and reverence for the Other. He pieces together something elegant if impossible. There's a call to keep striving. I can certainly appreciate such: he cites Spinoza's perseverance to being. Sounds good, considering the alternatives.
April 14, 2021
The first and only Badiou that I've read, but it's hard not to see this as a perfect introduction to his own thought. There's a part of me that wonders whether every 20 something should read this at some point.
July 26, 2012
I absolutely agree with his views on political correctness. The determination that the other needs to be more like the observer to obtain an acceptance of differences in culture/sex/status really needed to be addressed and I thought he did this very well. What he really didn't do as well, and what I felt like some of this book was driving towards was the juxtaposition of good and evil in taking it away from a religious/preconceived setting. This is fairly impossible to do in the manner he approached it in my opinion and needed much more fleshing out as the idea is a very old one that still deserves a lot of discussion. The problem of the concept of evil still remains after this reading in my mind, and I was not satisfied with this approach at all. The copy that I obtained did also include some discourses and discussions from an interviewer and Badiou. I found this enlightening as his vantage point from France and his younger days observing Cuba really helps to define where he was going with this.
March 24, 2023
The translator has written a 40-page-long introduction for a book that is no more than 100 pages (minus the appendix that contains an interview with Badiou). The introduction is both helpful, in the sense that it prepares the reader for what she or he will be up against in the text, and harmful, in that it delays direct encounter with Badiou's text so long that, in the case of a relatively impatient reader, one is tempted to give up on the book altogether.
However, it is worth not giving up on the book which has a lot to offer when it comes to ethics. I have to stress the fact that the book is difficult to read, although Badiou says he has written it for high schoolers! Familiarity with the ethics of Levinas and Lacan notion of the Real, will help immensely. Basically, Badiou's central thesis is built on a rejection of the Ethics of the Other, or moral alterity, toward an ethics of the same, or an ethics of truths, in the plural. One can't help but notice similarities between Levinas's ethical system and that of Badiou, though Badiou's four truths (political, artistic, romantic and scientific) lead the discussion toward his more general philosophical system of the event, which is where he really departs from former philosophers he has discussed. To be a (insufficiently) more precise, in Levinas we are dealing with an altogether-other, on Other in the capital, while in Badiou we encounter truths, each of which invites us toward a sameness that has previously been unknown to us.
In his subsequent discussion of the evil, he argues that "evil" exists only subsequent to the notion of the Good, and stipulates its existence with respect to an event.
The appendix at the end of the book contains a more or less long interview with Badiou, where he further highlights his philosophical system. Here, however, not much is found on the notion of ethics. Badiou's discussion of politics (as a call for a ground-breaking subversion of the status quo) as opposed to economics (technical description of the status quo incapable of bringing about real change in it) and the black and feminist movements (which require participation in the status quo rather than subverting it) was very interesting to me. So was his discussion of Plato and why he really likes him (because, among other reasons, for Plato, philosophy exists not as a science per se, but in terms of dialogue with other notions and fields).
However, it is worth not giving up on the book which has a lot to offer when it comes to ethics. I have to stress the fact that the book is difficult to read, although Badiou says he has written it for high schoolers! Familiarity with the ethics of Levinas and Lacan notion of the Real, will help immensely. Basically, Badiou's central thesis is built on a rejection of the Ethics of the Other, or moral alterity, toward an ethics of the same, or an ethics of truths, in the plural. One can't help but notice similarities between Levinas's ethical system and that of Badiou, though Badiou's four truths (political, artistic, romantic and scientific) lead the discussion toward his more general philosophical system of the event, which is where he really departs from former philosophers he has discussed. To be a (insufficiently) more precise, in Levinas we are dealing with an altogether-other, on Other in the capital, while in Badiou we encounter truths, each of which invites us toward a sameness that has previously been unknown to us.
In his subsequent discussion of the evil, he argues that "evil" exists only subsequent to the notion of the Good, and stipulates its existence with respect to an event.
The appendix at the end of the book contains a more or less long interview with Badiou, where he further highlights his philosophical system. Here, however, not much is found on the notion of ethics. Badiou's discussion of politics (as a call for a ground-breaking subversion of the status quo) as opposed to economics (technical description of the status quo incapable of bringing about real change in it) and the black and feminist movements (which require participation in the status quo rather than subverting it) was very interesting to me. So was his discussion of Plato and why he really likes him (because, among other reasons, for Plato, philosophy exists not as a science per se, but in terms of dialogue with other notions and fields).
March 25, 2018
کتابی برای دانشآموزان دبیرستانی که حداقل دوبار باید آن را خواند. کتاب با نقد اخلاقگرایی جدید شروع میکند و با بیان مواضع خاص نویسنده درباب فرآیند حقیقت، بنیان اخلاق جدید با تکیۀ بر پدیدۀ شر را وضع میکند.
August 15, 2018
خواندن این کتاب برای من مصادف شد با گذراندن کورس اخلاق پزشکی در دانشکده. بحثی که من با بعضی اساتید این درس دارم، (اینکه در اخلاق پزشکی، شما بجای «اخلاق»، به ما بیاخلاقی و شیوههای استفاده از جهل مردم برای پیشبرد اهداف بیمارستانی را یاد میدهید،) بدیو به شیوهای دیگر بیان کرده:
«در عمل، "کمیسیونهای اخلاقی" و افاضاتی در بابِ "هزینههای درمانی" و "مسئولیتهای مدیریتی"، چون کاملا بیرونِ وضعیتِ معینی قرار میگیرند که اساسا درمانی است، هنری ندارند جز اینکه ما را از وفاداری به وضعیت باز دارند... در واقع، نظام درمانی بوروکراتیک در ایدئولوژی اخلاقی بر طرز فکری متکی است که "بیماران" را به چشم آمار و قربانیانی نامعلوم میبیند... در نتیجه، کارکرد نظام درمانیِ "مدیریتشده"، "متعهد" و "اخلاقی" محدود میشود به تصمیمگیریهای سخیفی در باب اینکه در نظام درمانی فرانسه کدام بیمار را باید مداوا کرد و چه کسانی را --بنا به "ملاحظات مالی" یا خواستِ عقیدت عمومی-- به حال خود رها کرد تا در حلبیآبادها جان بدهند.»
«شبیه من شوید تا به تفاوت شما احترام بگذارم.»
«عقایدی ک�� ذرهای حقیقت، و البته کوچکترین خطایی در آنها نیست. عقیده فروتر از درستی و نادرستی است چرا که آنها وظیفهاش این است که مراودهپذیر باشد. در مقابل، محصول فرآیند حقیقت را نمیتوان دست به دست کرد. ارتباطات [انسانی] صرفا با عقاید مناسبت دارد. در هر آنچه به حقایق مربوط شود باید نوعی مواجهه وجود داشته باشد.»
«در عمل، "کمیسیونهای اخلاقی" و افاضاتی در بابِ "هزینههای درمانی" و "مسئولیتهای مدیریتی"، چون کاملا بیرونِ وضعیتِ معینی قرار میگیرند که اساسا درمانی است، هنری ندارند جز اینکه ما را از وفاداری به وضعیت باز دارند... در واقع، نظام درمانی بوروکراتیک در ایدئولوژی اخلاقی بر طرز فکری متکی است که "بیماران" را به چشم آمار و قربانیانی نامعلوم میبیند... در نتیجه، کارکرد نظام درمانیِ "مدیریتشده"، "متعهد" و "اخلاقی" محدود میشود به تصمیمگیریهای سخیفی در باب اینکه در نظام درمانی فرانسه کدام بیمار را باید مداوا کرد و چه کسانی را --بنا به "ملاحظات مالی" یا خواستِ عقیدت عمومی-- به حال خود رها کرد تا در حلبیآبادها جان بدهند.»
«شبیه من شوید تا به تفاوت شما احترام بگذارم.»
«عقایدی ک�� ذرهای حقیقت، و البته کوچکترین خطایی در آنها نیست. عقیده فروتر از درستی و نادرستی است چرا که آنها وظیفهاش این است که مراودهپذیر باشد. در مقابل، محصول فرآیند حقیقت را نمیتوان دست به دست کرد. ارتباطات [انسانی] صرفا با عقاید مناسبت دارد. در هر آنچه به حقایق مربوط شود باید نوعی مواجهه وجود داشته باشد.»
March 29, 2020
This is definitely an absorbing small treatise from the beginning to the end, though Badiou took great pains in the latter half of the book to sketch out "pre-eventally" the criteria for judging the authenticity of an event. We get caught up in the sublime of the moment. But of course, given the length of this treatise Badiou is hardly to be faulted. I'm fairly certain that the "big books" in his oeuvre would offer a more sustained articulation of how we can distinguish truths from mere simulacra.
It has also occurred to me that a point of comparison can be made between Zizek's understanding of the event as inherently retroactively-causal and Badiou's formalism of the event (how truths have the power to reorient the [knowledge of] situation to reinscribe themselves in the latter)
For a book written primarily for highschoolers Ethics is animated with an incredible sense of urgency and principled militancy and has inspired me to cultivate these affects in myself. For that reason, it deserves 5 stars.
"Do not give up on your desire"
It has also occurred to me that a point of comparison can be made between Zizek's understanding of the event as inherently retroactively-causal and Badiou's formalism of the event (how truths have the power to reorient the [knowledge of] situation to reinscribe themselves in the latter)
For a book written primarily for highschoolers Ethics is animated with an incredible sense of urgency and principled militancy and has inspired me to cultivate these affects in myself. For that reason, it deserves 5 stars.
"Do not give up on your desire"
July 22, 2008
This one is written by the polemicist Badiou not the set theorist Badiou - intended for a more popular audience it's written with a flourish which would be exasperating in a more scholarly work and is extremely readable for it. There's a lot of gloss over his ontology and his Lacanian fundamentals, which is appropriate I think but if you've never even heard of a 'multiple set' or a 'mirror stage' you might want to do a spot of research before picking up Ethics; I recommended it to some friends who had little experience with philosophy or critical theory and the exciting concepts for them all got completely eclipsed by intimidatingly unfamiliar phrases.
That said, it IS worth doing that research for the sake of the book, and if you're a postfreudian nut or seasoned ontologist there's no excuse whatsoever to avoid Ethics. I don't know anyone yet who swallows it whole but it contains nonetheless exciting, life affirming thought that does a lot to dispel tiring postmodern anomie.
That said, it IS worth doing that research for the sake of the book, and if you're a postfreudian nut or seasoned ontologist there's no excuse whatsoever to avoid Ethics. I don't know anyone yet who swallows it whole but it contains nonetheless exciting, life affirming thought that does a lot to dispel tiring postmodern anomie.
June 6, 2008
I don't generally read philosophy unless it comes in the form of an insightful piece of literature with stylistic brilliance and complex characters. (I'm looking at you, Dostoevsky!) I used to fancy myself the sort of philosopher that could tackle Kant or Kierkegaard (intellectually, not physically. I've never been quite that delusional), and it still shames me to admit it, but I'm not. I'm just not that type of reader. Which is probably why I struggle with literary theory so much. And why I struggled with Alain Badiou's Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil.
In Ethics, Badiou presents a cleanly written, non-convoluted text. (I can't make the same boast for Peter Hallward's introduction.) Nevertheless, I still limped through the text, stopping every sentence or two to wrap my head around what Badiou was proposing. You can take that as a humble disclaimer if you continue to read this review and encounter a variety of misguided conclusions and misinterpretations.
Badiou proposes to no longer center ethics around a sort of religious moral code, but instead around the discovery of truth. Don't look for a definition of truth though, since it is dependent on the person, situation, and specific moment in history. It is, however, significantly different than "knowledge". (Okay, good, that clears it up.) The point is that all previous construction of ethics have centered around religious morality which, Badiou argues, centers around the status quo. Badiou desperately wants to shake things up. Truth events force a person to acknowledge a new truth and change and stay open to change. This, according to Badiou, is ideal. While I'm as against the status quo as much as any Ralph Waldo Emerson and Dead Kennedys quoting English teacher, I feel like his ethics boil down to change for the sake of change. And while "Change" may be powerful enough to lure American voters, I want to know exactly what sort of change I'm signing up for, and Badiou's amoral and relativist Ethics just doesn't cut it for me.
Badiou does try to tackle the difference between "good" and "evil" change. After jeering other ethics for defining Good as simply "not Evil," in his book Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, Badiou outlines three main elements that make a "truth event" evil and, therefore, not in fact a truth event. Good truth events don't have these three evil elements. Though the rest of his Ethics seem pretty groundbreaking, he seems to follow the status quo (that he identified) on this one.
My favorite parts, admittedly, were when Badiou used his Ethics to comment on French politics. I tended to agree with his viewpoint, which he presented in an articulate and sometimes sarcastic manner.
In Ethics, Badiou presents a cleanly written, non-convoluted text. (I can't make the same boast for Peter Hallward's introduction.) Nevertheless, I still limped through the text, stopping every sentence or two to wrap my head around what Badiou was proposing. You can take that as a humble disclaimer if you continue to read this review and encounter a variety of misguided conclusions and misinterpretations.
Badiou proposes to no longer center ethics around a sort of religious moral code, but instead around the discovery of truth. Don't look for a definition of truth though, since it is dependent on the person, situation, and specific moment in history. It is, however, significantly different than "knowledge". (Okay, good, that clears it up.) The point is that all previous construction of ethics have centered around religious morality which, Badiou argues, centers around the status quo. Badiou desperately wants to shake things up. Truth events force a person to acknowledge a new truth and change and stay open to change. This, according to Badiou, is ideal. While I'm as against the status quo as much as any Ralph Waldo Emerson and Dead Kennedys quoting English teacher, I feel like his ethics boil down to change for the sake of change. And while "Change" may be powerful enough to lure American voters, I want to know exactly what sort of change I'm signing up for, and Badiou's amoral and relativist Ethics just doesn't cut it for me.
Badiou does try to tackle the difference between "good" and "evil" change. After jeering other ethics for defining Good as simply "not Evil," in his book Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, Badiou outlines three main elements that make a "truth event" evil and, therefore, not in fact a truth event. Good truth events don't have these three evil elements. Though the rest of his Ethics seem pretty groundbreaking, he seems to follow the status quo (that he identified) on this one.
My favorite parts, admittedly, were when Badiou used his Ethics to comment on French politics. I tended to agree with his viewpoint, which he presented in an articulate and sometimes sarcastic manner.
May 29, 2016
A mettre dans toutes les mains. Incontournable pour qui souhaite secouer un peu ses petits neurones. Attention: gros risque de révision de son système de pensée suite à cette lecture!
July 29, 2017
Written in popular form, this is a handy and accessible introduction to Badiou's philosophical project as opposed to contemporary conceptions of ethics (which ultimately serve to legitimize the status quo and demonize collective struggles to overturn it).
November 18, 2024
Beautiful deconstruction of how nihilism embeds itself into our pervading Western system of ethics, invalidating any sense of true ethics for all. Badiou proposes a system of ethics called the "ethic of truths" which basically suggests we should live in such a way that protects one another, wards of Evil (largely by approaching each "event" uniquely and flexibly"), and has hope for every person's potential for good. The maxim of this system is "Keep going!" which is an adorable and succinct way of suggesting that we stay vigilant, attentive (evade the illusion of simulacra, as well as Totality), and active (constantly learning, shifting, and revalidating existing truths). Badiou in his personal life spends a lot of time on a small team imagining an entirely new method of political life, L'Organisation Politique. What they are doing is very interesting, although I find myself a bit saddened that Badiou seems to be very contained in his positionality and vastly rejects any participation in politics, deeming all prevailing systems of politics essentially evil; i.e. he doesn't vote or recommend voting...
August 9, 2017
Моя основна проблема з цією книжкою в тому, що я її не зрозуміла. Як праця «для широкого загалу», на мою думку, вона занадто зловживає звичними словами у якихось «своїх» значеннях без належного поясненя. Тому все, що я скажу далі, звісно, стосується лише мого (недо)розуміння Бадью, а не самої його філософії. А розрив між цими двома може бути й справді великим.
Читаючи книжку під назвою «Етика» я очікувала одної з двох речей: або я погоджуся з автором і вирішу, що ось так і слід жити, і, в ліпшому випадку, отримаю трохи натхнення і запалу діяти по-іншому, аби бути добрішою; або не погоджуся і відкину запропоновані зміни до мого життя. Але ця праця наче й зовсім не стосується ні мене, ні мого життя. Добро в Бадью цілком залежить від випадкової «події», яка може з тобтою статися і прилучити тебе до якоїсь універсальної «Істини», після чого слід залишатися їй вірною, присвятити цій «Істині» своє життя. «Продовжувати!» — таке основне гасло. Але «подія» може і не статися, і тоді у своєму тваринному «існуванні до смерті» ти не можеш претендувати на такі поняття як Добро і Зло, вони не працюють на твому рівні. Чи означає це, наприклад, що бити песиків для задоволення, чекаючи на «подію», і гарно виховати кількох всиновлених дітей — однаково не-добрі-і-не-злі речі? Не знаю. Але мені не хотілося би так думати.
Читаючи книжку під назвою «Етика» я очікувала одної з двох речей: або я погоджуся з автором і вирішу, що ось так і слід жити, і, в ліпшому випадку, отримаю трохи натхнення і запалу діяти по-іншому, аби бути добрішою; або не погоджуся і відкину запропоновані зміни до мого життя. Але ця праця наче й зовсім не стосується ні мене, ні мого життя. Добро в Бадью цілком залежить від випадкової «події», яка може з тобтою статися і прилучити тебе до якоїсь універсальної «Істини», після чого слід залишатися їй вірною, присвятити цій «Істині» своє життя. «Продовжувати!» — таке основне гасло. Але «подія» може і не статися, і тоді у своєму тваринному «існуванні до смерті» ти не можеш претендувати на такі поняття як Добро і Зло, вони не працюють на твому рівні. Чи означає це, наприклад, що бити песиків для задоволення, чекаючи на «подію», і гарно виховати кількох всиновлених дітей — однаково не-добрі-і-не-злі речі? Не знаю. Але мені не хотілося би так думати.
August 10, 2024
Obv a minor sketch/polemic, but incredibly invigorating and inspiring. Interview w/ Hallward and Badiou at the end is nice and shows where Badiou wanted to continue fleshing out shortcomings in his thought through Being and Event 2.
February 18, 2015
Some very powerful and interesting ideas but very weak argumentations. Poorly written in general.
October 30, 2018
lol c’mon it’s pretty fun
September 17, 2024
En apenas poco más de cien páginas, el filósofo francés Alain Badiou da cuenta de lo peligroso que se han vuelto los llamados a la “ética” (la “moral”, los “derechos humanos”, etc.) en los tiempos que corren: nos permiten delimitar nuestro bienestar, por ejemplo, el de los “franceses” (sin aclarar de que se trata de un tipo muy particular de hombre blanco, europeo, pudiente, heteronormado, etc.) y el de “ellos” que, sin importar que gocen de la nacionalidad francesa, no tienen cabida en esta sociedad; o bien nos dan la oportunidad de lamentarnos por la muerte de los niños en Oriente Medio, contabilizando el número de víctimas como si fueran cacahuates, sin atrevernos a echar mano de recursos más efectivos para detener —de una vez por todas— cualquier masacre.
Y es que el problema está, diría Badiou, en que nuestra concepción de la ética tiene mucho de religioso y acrítico: pensamos en el Bien como un absoluto (y en el Mal como el enemigo evanescente que debemos perseguir a toda causa) sin percatarnos de que estas definiciones no solo preservan el status quo, sino que disponen a la mayoría mundial a ser simples recursos a los que se les dosifica la muerte bajo la tutela de lo “necesario”, es decir, el beneficio económico.
¿Cómo podemos, entonces, subvertir este orden de ideas y proponer (o impulsar) una nueva ética que haga eco de los tiempos “líquidos” (en el más puro sentido de Baumann) y se aproxime a una realidad donde privan las (sí, en plural) verdades de los acontecimientos? ¿Cómo podemos dejar de lado el patetismo inmovilizador que la categoría de “víctima” imprime en muchos círculos y devolver su dignidad al ser humano que arrostra la violencia y el sufrimiento selectivos? ¿Tiene cabida en este mundo la disyuntiva entre el Bien y el Mal?
La respuesta, a veces tentativa, otras, provocadora o vacilante, está en las páginas de este libro.
Y es que el problema está, diría Badiou, en que nuestra concepción de la ética tiene mucho de religioso y acrítico: pensamos en el Bien como un absoluto (y en el Mal como el enemigo evanescente que debemos perseguir a toda causa) sin percatarnos de que estas definiciones no solo preservan el status quo, sino que disponen a la mayoría mundial a ser simples recursos a los que se les dosifica la muerte bajo la tutela de lo “necesario”, es decir, el beneficio económico.
¿Cómo podemos, entonces, subvertir este orden de ideas y proponer (o impulsar) una nueva ética que haga eco de los tiempos “líquidos” (en el más puro sentido de Baumann) y se aproxime a una realidad donde privan las (sí, en plural) verdades de los acontecimientos? ¿Cómo podemos dejar de lado el patetismo inmovilizador que la categoría de “víctima” imprime en muchos círculos y devolver su dignidad al ser humano que arrostra la violencia y el sufrimiento selectivos? ¿Tiene cabida en este mundo la disyuntiva entre el Bien y el Mal?
La respuesta, a veces tentativa, otras, provocadora o vacilante, está en las páginas de este libro.
March 23, 2022
Этика как известно пытается понять как действовать правильно, "что я должен делать." Но в современном мире этика превратилась скорее в "как я не должен действовать", современное представление о Добре опирается на Зло (добро это не делание зла, существующего изначально, так��й вот гностицизм), а представления о правах человека - на правах человека прежде всего как живого существа, как животного.
Критикуя все это, Бадью связывает этику прежде всего с событием - с встречей с Истиной, в которой (встрече) человек перестает быть только животным, но становится частью Бессмертного. и этика, по Бадью, это быть верным этой встрече, это продолжать, несмотря ни на что, несмотря на свою животную природу, свою единичную смертность и привлекательность привычного течения жизни.
Этическое правило по Бадью «Никогда не забывай то, с чем ты повстречался». Это, конечно, "по большому счету", но иногда стоит вспоминать именно о "большом" счете, и продолжать, оставаться верным этой встрече. Потому что Зло - это искажение Добра, в том числе и предательством, - забыванием - этой встречи.
Критикуя все это, Бадью связывает этику прежде всего с событием - с встречей с Истиной, в которой (встрече) человек перестает быть только животным, но становится частью Бессмертного. и этика, по Бадью, это быть верным этой встрече, это продолжать, несмотря ни на что, несмотря на свою животную природу, свою единичную смертность и привлекательность привычного течения жизни.
Этическое правило по Бадью «Никогда не забывай то, с чем ты повстречался». Это, конечно, "по большому счету", но иногда стоит вспоминать именно о "большом" счете, и продолжать, оставаться верным этой встрече. Потому что Зло - это искажение Добра, в том числе и предательством, - забыванием - этой встречи.
November 26, 2021
Though this book contains important thoughts and critique concerning modern "ethics", Badiou (whom I respect very much) must have been delusional if he thought it could be easily understood by "secondary-school and university students". I (currently a graduate student) read at a pace of ten pages per week and simultaneously listened to my professor explain and at the end of it I still feel like I barely grasped the base of his arguments.
July 4, 2021
Не хватило философского багажа, что бы полностью понять книгу
November 13, 2023
Badiou schopt de hele conventionele ethiek onderuit.
Een echte handleiding voor de revolutionair, zowel op de barricade als in de liefde.
Een echte handleiding voor de revolutionair, zowel op de barricade als in de liefde.
December 19, 2020
কিছু জিনিস পরিষ্কার হয় নাই। ইভিলকে বিয়িং এর জায়গায় দেখতে চাচ্ছেনা উনি, এই যে 'পরটাই আউসাই' বিরোধী এটিচিউট এটা কোথায় থেকে আসলো বোঝা গেলো না।
এনালাইসিস- আর্গুমেন্টের এর একটা জায়গা পরিষ্কার। বাদিয়ু বলতে চাচ্ছেন ইভিলকে বিরোধীতা কিংবা মানুষ ইভিল হয়ে উঠতে পারে, এই জিনিস বিরোধীতা থেকে ওয়েস্টার্ন ইথিকসের এটিচিউট গড়ে উঠসে, উনি সেটা পজিটিভ দিকে নিয়ে যাইতে চাইতেসেন। ভালো কথা।
বাদিয়ু এখানে ফরাসী ট্রেডিশন থেকেই আলাপ দিতেসেন, উনি যে কোন কিছুর মধ্যে পাওয়ার খুঁজে পান। কিন্তু পাওয়ারের ফেনোমেনোলজিক্যাল বিশ্লেষন উনি করেন না, পাওয়ার যেন একটা মৌলিক এনটিটি! যেন তার রকমভেদ, প্রকান্তর নাই :/
সহজ ভাষায় উদাহরন দিয়ে বললে, মার্ভেল মুভিতে উনি এভেঞ্জারের পক্ষ না নিয়ে নিতেসেন থানোসের পক্ষ। উনি বলতে চাইতেসেন, থানোসের কাম কাজ খারাপ কিন্তু এই এটিচিউটটা, মানে এ প্রোগ্রেস ইন্টু দ্য ভার্চু এটা ভালো।
এনালাইসিস- আর্গুমেন্টের এর একটা জায়গা পরিষ্কার। বাদিয়ু বলতে চাচ্ছেন ইভিলকে বিরোধীতা কিংবা মানুষ ইভিল হয়ে উঠতে পারে, এই জিনিস বিরোধীতা থেকে ওয়েস্টার্ন ইথিকসের এটিচিউট গড়ে উঠসে, উনি সেটা পজিটিভ দিকে নিয়ে যাইতে চাইতেসেন। ভালো কথা।
বাদিয়ু এখানে ফরাসী ট্রেডিশন থেকেই আলাপ দিতেসেন, উনি যে কোন কিছুর মধ্যে পাওয়ার খুঁজে পান। কিন্তু পাওয়ারের ফেনোমেনোলজিক্যাল বিশ্লেষন উনি করেন না, পাওয়ার যেন একটা মৌলিক এনটিটি! যেন তার রকমভেদ, প্রকান্তর নাই :/
সহজ ভাষায় উদাহরন দিয়ে বললে, মার্ভেল মুভিতে উনি এভেঞ্জারের পক্ষ না নিয়ে নিতেসেন থানোসের পক্ষ। উনি বলতে চাইতেসেন, থানোসের কাম কাজ খারাপ কিন্তু এই এটিচিউটটা, মানে এ প্রোগ্রেস ইন্টু দ্য ভার্চু এটা ভালো।
December 30, 2018
Головним недоліком капіталізму, прав людини, парламентської демократії та інших панівних політичних, інтелектуальних і моральних явищ останніх 2-3 століть є не їхня неідеальність, несправедливість або поверховість. На мою думку головним недоліком всіх цих західних цінностей є те, що будь-який критик, особливо запеклий, від мистецтва, філософії чи політології, критик капіталізму та ліберальної демократії виглядає як правило зі своїми ідеями та альтернативними системами на порядки гірше, непереконливіше і іноді навіть аморальніше, ніж предмет його нищівної атаки. Я не знаю, чому так відбувається, але це якраз те, за що дійсно треба ненавидіти капіталізм, права людини і західні цінності.
Ален Бадью тут яскравий приклад. Він накидається на захід з його самовпевненістю, переконаністю у тому що таке Добро і Зло і готовністю боротися за ці переконання будь-де (особливо не в західних країнах) зі зброєю в руках, коротше, на горезвісну західну зверхність. Робить він це емоційно, концептуально цікаво, але постійно збивається на якийсь дешевий есенціалізм, мало не на фундаменталістський трансценденталізм, а іншими словами - на банальне і недолуге моралізаторство. В принципі, цього було б важко не припуститися, враховуючи тему, але десь вже на середині цієї праці, де Бадью жонглює такими поняттями як Смертність і Безсмертність, в мене складалося враження, що я читаю не переконаного прогресивного лівого теоретика-постмодерніста, а якого-небудь ультра-консервативного правого Шпенглера початку двадцятого століття. І - боже мій! - Бадью таки використав в "Етиці" термін "присмерк заходу".
Автор постійно посилається в своїх міркуваннях на Ніцше і Фуко та часто використовує термінологію Дельоза, акцентуючи цей перелік філософів, типу ось, були колись великі філософи, справжні критики сучасності, а зараз лише пристосуванці і прислужники панівної верстви. Поза сумнівом, Фуко і Дельоз одні з найголовніших філософів і скептиків сучасності, але, чорт забирай, їхня критика полягала зовсім не в тому, щоб так недолуго щось "пропонувати" навзамін капіталізму і сучасним доктринам західного світу. Їхня стратегія полягала у концептуалізації поточного стану речей, деідеологізації і деідеалізації західного погляду на історію, мораль і суб'єктність. Геніальна, тонка і єдино правильна стратегія, між іншим. А Бадью подає нам черговий фейк, псевдофілософський і неоригінальний маніфест ще одного західного самовдоволеного месії від гуманітарних наук.
Нічого цікавого. Читати не обов'язково.
Ален Бадью тут яскравий приклад. Він накидається на захід з його самовпевненістю, переконаністю у тому що таке Добро і Зло і готовністю боротися за ці переконання будь-де (особливо не в західних країнах) зі зброєю в руках, коротше, на горезвісну західну зверхність. Робить він це емоційно, концептуально цікаво, але постійно збивається на якийсь дешевий есенціалізм, мало не на фундаменталістський трансценденталізм, а іншими словами - на банальне і недолуге моралізаторство. В принципі, цього було б важко не припуститися, враховуючи тему, але десь вже на середині цієї праці, де Бадью жонглює такими поняттями як Смертність і Безсмертність, в мене складалося враження, що я читаю не переконаного прогресивного лівого теоретика-постмодерніста, а якого-небудь ультра-консервативного правого Шпенглера початку двадцятого століття. І - боже мій! - Бадью таки використав в "Етиці" термін "присмерк заходу".
Автор постійно посилається в своїх міркуваннях на Ніцше і Фуко та часто використовує термінологію Дельоза, акцентуючи цей перелік філософів, типу ось, були колись великі філософи, справжні критики сучасності, а зараз лише пристосуванці і прислужники панівної верстви. Поза сумнівом, Фуко і Дельоз одні з найголовніших філософів і скептиків сучасності, але, чорт забирай, їхня критика полягала зовсім не в тому, щоб так недолуго щось "пропонувати" навзамін капіталізму і сучасним доктринам західного світу. Їхня стратегія полягала у концептуалізації поточного стану речей, деідеологізації і деідеалізації західного погляду на історію, мораль і суб'єктність. Геніальна, тонка і єдино правильна стратегія, між іншим. А Бадью подає нам черговий фейк, псевдофілософський і неоригінальний маніфест ще одного західного самовдоволеного месії від гуманітарних наук.
Нічого цікавого. Читати не обов'язково.
October 2, 2021
Badiou described Evil as a betrayal of the truth-process. The ethics that he wrote about in this little book is the ethic of truth.
He argued that Evil is the darkside of Good în the sense that whatever or however the truth process is being disturbed there evil shall be born.
I found his concepts innovative and I enjoyed this perspective. Altough it was not easy for me to follow his arguments, with some "fidelity" I pushed through and it has been rewarding.
5 stars for his take on the matter, I loved his radical, bold and intelligent arguments. Great use of examples !
Highly recommend it.
He argued that Evil is the darkside of Good în the sense that whatever or however the truth process is being disturbed there evil shall be born.
I found his concepts innovative and I enjoyed this perspective. Altough it was not easy for me to follow his arguments, with some "fidelity" I pushed through and it has been rewarding.
5 stars for his take on the matter, I loved his radical, bold and intelligent arguments. Great use of examples !
Highly recommend it.
July 4, 2020
I wanted to read this book because I saw it being cited in another book (Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump, I think) for criticizing the contemporary conception of and the ideology of human rights. To that end, the first three chapters are sort of useful. I say sort of because the author is not a good writer, he is meandering, abstract, and he doesn't really elucidate how he arrived at a particular conclusion. To "show the steps", to borrow from mathematics. He has interesting ideas that I would have liked him to elaborate more on, without receding into the abstract and using cumbersome jargon. Also, some of the conclusions he reaches do not follow or are justified by the arguments he has made. The author and the translator both note that this book was meant for a "general audience". If that is the case, the author really overestimates how well-versed a general audience is with both his philosophy and the continental philosophy in general. I think there are other, better sources out there that criticize the ethics and idea of human rights.
January 7, 2021
I read something by Zizek that praised Badiou, so I thought I would give this book a try. I honestly didn't find much to think about in this book.
Badiou returns again and again to his central ethical concept, which can be glossed as stick-to-it-ness. Essentially, Badiou would like for people to hold on to their (presumably Marxian) principles, not to sell out (presumably to Capitalism), and never really to change one's mind about anything. Or at least never to change one's mind in the wrong direction. This is a little worse than post-Cold War defensive posturing. When all is said and done, Badiou would compel us to see Hitler and Stalin as ethical figures on account of their obvious stick-to-it-ness. Clearly, we must not stick-to-it in the face of all evidence and reasoning, especially when these compel us to see some ideas as well worth abandoning. There is no ethical standard in this book apart from stubbornness.
So I am not certain whether I like Zizek or not, but I know I dislike at least one of his friends.
Badiou returns again and again to his central ethical concept, which can be glossed as stick-to-it-ness. Essentially, Badiou would like for people to hold on to their (presumably Marxian) principles, not to sell out (presumably to Capitalism), and never really to change one's mind about anything. Or at least never to change one's mind in the wrong direction. This is a little worse than post-Cold War defensive posturing. When all is said and done, Badiou would compel us to see Hitler and Stalin as ethical figures on account of their obvious stick-to-it-ness. Clearly, we must not stick-to-it in the face of all evidence and reasoning, especially when these compel us to see some ideas as well worth abandoning. There is no ethical standard in this book apart from stubbornness.
So I am not certain whether I like Zizek or not, but I know I dislike at least one of his friends.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews