What do you think?
Rate this book
Handbook of Inaesthetics
Didacticism, romanticism, and classicism are the possible schemata for the knotting of art and philosophy, the third term in this knot being the education of subjects, youth in particular. What characterizes the century that has just come to a close is that, while it underwent the saturation of these three schemata, it failed to introduce a new one. Today, this predicament tends to produce a kind of unknotting of terms, a desperate dis-relation between art and philosophy, together with the pure and simple collapse of what circulated between the theme of education. Whence the thesis of which this book is nothing but a series of faced with such a situation of saturation and closure, we must attempt to propose a new schema, a fourth type of knot between philosophy and art. Among these “inaesthetic” variations, the reader will encounter a sustained debate with contemporary philosophical uses of the poem, bold articulations of the specificity and prospects of theater, cinema, and dance, along with subtle and provocative readings of Fernando Pessoa, Stéphane Mallarmé, and Samuel Beckett.
168 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
20 people are currently reading
527 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 16, 2022
اثر هنری، یک مفهوم کرانمند است، به این معنی که اثر در بستری زمانی و مکانی شکل میگیرد. با تثبیت و قبول اثر هنری، این کتاب یک پرسش مهم را مطرح میکند. رابطۀ بین اثر هنری و فلسفه چیست؟ و یا به عبارتی دیگر، هنر و حقیقت چه تناسبی با هم دارند؟ بدیو سه جریان و شیوه برخورد را در نظر میگیرد. یک: ذهنیت تعلیمگرا، که هنر را نوعی امر قدسی میداند که بر حقیقت سیطره مییابد، این جریان را میتوان اندیشهای افلاطونی دانست که در پی برپایی آرمانشهر، هر چیز غیر اخلاقی را کنار میگذارد و تعلیم اخلاقی خوب را جایگزین آن میکند.
جریان دوم رمانتیک است که بزرگترین تحفه آن در قلمروی هنر، تزریق درونبودگی است. هنر جریانی شکوهمند است که تنها به مدد حضور خود میتواند منفعت برساند. یعنی هنر برای هنر، حقیقت از جنبۀ هنری اصالت دارد. هنر به چیزی میپردازد که فلسفه تنها میتواند به آن اشاره کند.
سومین جریان، جریان کلاسیک است که در واقع عصیانی بر اندیشۀ تعلیمگراست. رمانتیک با تعیلمگرا بودن مشکلی نداشت اما کلاسیک با آن سر سازش ندارد. (در ادبیات فارسی شاید این امر مصداق نداشته باشد) بدیو، هنر را دارای ماهیت هیستریک میداند، هنر مانند شخص هیستریک میتواند هر جلوهای را به نمایش بگذارد، دلخواه و نادلخواه. ذهنیت کلاسیک، هنر را با قید «دوست داشتن» توصیف میکند. با این وصف، هر نوع حقیقتی در داخل هنر استحالۀ کمرنگی پیدا میکند. حقیقت تبدیل به تصور میشود. دقیقا به همین خاطر است که در هنر بروز احتمالات مطرح میشود، حقیقت هنر، یقینی نیست اما صد در صد امری احتمالی یا حقیقتنما است. اینجا یک تناقض بزرگ رخ میدهد، جریان کلاسیک که با تعلیمگرایی مخالف بود، با افزودن تعریفی چند، دوباره همان تعلیمگرایی را اشاعه میدهد، فقط همه جا اعلان میدهد که حقیقت امری نامحتمل است و بیرونی که بر جهان هنر تزریق شده است.
بدیو اشاره میکند که قرن بیستم، قرن هیچ و پوچ بود، زیرا رویکرد تازهای برای رابطۀ هنر و فلسفه ارائه نشد، تنها نوعی اشباعشدگی از آنچه قبلا بود را نمایش داد. سه رویکرد مارکسیسم، روانکاوی و هرمنوتیک، در واقع شکلهای دوباره نو شدۀ همان سه جریان اصلی است. مارکسیسم، تعلیمگرا، روانکاوی، کلاسیک و هنرمنوتیک هایدگری، رمانتیک است.
بخشهای بعدی کتاب بحثهای ثقیلیست که با ترجمهای بهمراتب ثقیلتر، بر پیچیدگی کتاب افزوده است و عملاً {برای من} خوانش را مختل میکند.
1401/06/22
جریان دوم رمانتیک است که بزرگترین تحفه آن در قلمروی هنر، تزریق درونبودگی است. هنر جریانی شکوهمند است که تنها به مدد حضور خود میتواند منفعت برساند. یعنی هنر برای هنر، حقیقت از جنبۀ هنری اصالت دارد. هنر به چیزی میپردازد که فلسفه تنها میتواند به آن اشاره کند.
سومین جریان، جریان کلاسیک است که در واقع عصیانی بر اندیشۀ تعلیمگراست. رمانتیک با تعیلمگرا بودن مشکلی نداشت اما کلاسیک با آن سر سازش ندارد. (در ادبیات فارسی شاید این امر مصداق نداشته باشد) بدیو، هنر را دارای ماهیت هیستریک میداند، هنر مانند شخص هیستریک میتواند هر جلوهای را به نمایش بگذارد، دلخواه و نادلخواه. ذهنیت کلاسیک، هنر را با قید «دوست داشتن» توصیف میکند. با این وصف، هر نوع حقیقتی در داخل هنر استحالۀ کمرنگی پیدا میکند. حقیقت تبدیل به تصور میشود. دقیقا به همین خاطر است که در هنر بروز احتمالات مطرح میشود، حقیقت هنر، یقینی نیست اما صد در صد امری احتمالی یا حقیقتنما است. اینجا یک تناقض بزرگ رخ میدهد، جریان کلاسیک که با تعلیمگرایی مخالف بود، با افزودن تعریفی چند، دوباره همان تعلیمگرایی را اشاعه میدهد، فقط همه جا اعلان میدهد که حقیقت امری نامحتمل است و بیرونی که بر جهان هنر تزریق شده است.
بدیو اشاره میکند که قرن بیستم، قرن هیچ و پوچ بود، زیرا رویکرد تازهای برای رابطۀ هنر و فلسفه ارائه نشد، تنها نوعی اشباعشدگی از آنچه قبلا بود را نمایش داد. سه رویکرد مارکسیسم، روانکاوی و هرمنوتیک، در واقع شکلهای دوباره نو شدۀ همان سه جریان اصلی است. مارکسیسم، تعلیمگرا، روانکاوی، کلاسیک و هنرمنوتیک هایدگری، رمانتیک است.
بخشهای بعدی کتاب بحثهای ثقیلیست که با ترجمهای بهمراتب ثقیلتر، بر پیچیدگی کتاب افزوده است و عملاً {برای من} خوانش را مختل میکند.
1401/06/22
August 30, 2013
I've only read the sections on visual arts, but poetry, dance, and theater are also discussed.
Oh, and there's a monograph on Worstward Ho, but it's based on Fournier's translation, which I don't hear positive things about, so I'm not sure what it's worth... A translation into English of a French essay based on a French translation of a text in English? Sounds a bit dicey to me.
Philosophy and art are paired up like Lacan's Master and Hysteric.
...Art is always already there, addressing the think with the mute and scintillating question of its identity while through constant invention and metamorphosis it declares its disappointment about everything that the philosopher may have to say about it.
Didactic scheme: All truth is external to art.
...art must be either condemned or treated in a purely instrumental fashion.
...The norm of art must be education.
In this perspective, the essential thing is the control of art.
Romantic scheme: art alone is capable of truth.
...art accomplishes what philosophy can only point toward.
Art is the absolute as subject -- it is incarnation.
Classical schema dehystericizes art.
Art is incapable of truth. Its essence is mimetic.
...The purpose of art is not truth... it does not claim to be truth...
Art has a therapeutic function, and not at all a revelatory or cognitive one.
February 9, 2023
Now three months deep into my dive into Badiou, his Handbook of Inaesthetics marks, for me, something of a test. Not one for me, mind you, but for Badiou (or better: for me yes, but for Badiou too!). After all, how does a philosopher for whom “philosophy is an insensate act” deal wth the thorny question of aesthetics? Aesthetics, the sensorial field par excellence. Can Badiou, arch-rationalist, ontologist of mathematical austerity, have something to say about art, about the charms and force of the sensible, so often situated on the furthest shores of the rational? It turns out: yes, but... Badiou, as ever, is writer of masterful ability. His prose has a rhythm of poetry built right into it, at once lyrical but precise: Badiou is a philosopher with something to say on the aesthetic, and he does so, beautifully.
At that level alone might this book qualify as one on, or rather, ‘of’, aesthetics. But what does it say of the sensible, to what place does it accord it, in, or perhaps out of line with Badiou’s wider philosophical project? The clue is in the title: a book of inaesthetics. Which is what? In Badiou’s own words, it is an attempt to examine the “intraphilosophical effects” produced by the existence of certain works of art, and as such, one that “does not turn art into an object for philosophy”. One imagines this means respecting, in a certain sense, the independence of art from philosophy, and likewise, the independence of philosophy from art. Philosophy being that which neither pronounces, from the outside, what art is, nor being that which accedes to art any kind of exclusive access to “truth”, while philosophy, in stupor, can only stare on.
Instead, granting to art its own ability to produce truths (albeit non-exclusively), Badiou here remains ‘within’ philosophy, reaching out with a borrowing hand to see how philosophy might react to art, without at the same time colonising art from this sphere external to it. On its face, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable operation. But in execution, one is left, for all the brilliance of its acuity, feeling that the independence of art is precisely what is not respected in this movement from one to the other. For as it turns out, every work of art examined here - from the poems of Mallarme and Pessoa, to the novellas of Beckett, and the staging of theatre and dance - all of it seems to simply (or, being charitable, ‘complexly’) recapitulate Badiouian philosophy in terms other than those of Badiou.
That Badiou finds in these works in a mirror of his own philosophy, albeit in nearly unrecognisable keys, is not objectionable in itself. Indeed, watching Badiou at work, transforming Mallarmian nymphs into Badiouian Events, or Beckettian adages into yet more Badiouian categories is nothing less than astonishing, a practice of connoisseurship rarely found, and alone worth reading. Yet it all nonetheless feels appropriative, a certain assimilation that, rather than effecting any transformation of philosophy, ends up simply transmitting to it what was already there, only this time by means of the sensible. As an exercise in philosophy, using art as its material, the Handbook of Inaesthetics is a truly excellent collection, one perfectly consonant with Badiou’s ongoing attempt to cash out his philosophy in so many which ways. As an approach to the aesthetic, the ‘in’ in inaesthetic must be taken seriously - but in doing so does not make itself equal to the test of its own matter.
At that level alone might this book qualify as one on, or rather, ‘of’, aesthetics. But what does it say of the sensible, to what place does it accord it, in, or perhaps out of line with Badiou’s wider philosophical project? The clue is in the title: a book of inaesthetics. Which is what? In Badiou’s own words, it is an attempt to examine the “intraphilosophical effects” produced by the existence of certain works of art, and as such, one that “does not turn art into an object for philosophy”. One imagines this means respecting, in a certain sense, the independence of art from philosophy, and likewise, the independence of philosophy from art. Philosophy being that which neither pronounces, from the outside, what art is, nor being that which accedes to art any kind of exclusive access to “truth”, while philosophy, in stupor, can only stare on.
Instead, granting to art its own ability to produce truths (albeit non-exclusively), Badiou here remains ‘within’ philosophy, reaching out with a borrowing hand to see how philosophy might react to art, without at the same time colonising art from this sphere external to it. On its face, this sounds like a perfectly reasonable operation. But in execution, one is left, for all the brilliance of its acuity, feeling that the independence of art is precisely what is not respected in this movement from one to the other. For as it turns out, every work of art examined here - from the poems of Mallarme and Pessoa, to the novellas of Beckett, and the staging of theatre and dance - all of it seems to simply (or, being charitable, ‘complexly’) recapitulate Badiouian philosophy in terms other than those of Badiou.
That Badiou finds in these works in a mirror of his own philosophy, albeit in nearly unrecognisable keys, is not objectionable in itself. Indeed, watching Badiou at work, transforming Mallarmian nymphs into Badiouian Events, or Beckettian adages into yet more Badiouian categories is nothing less than astonishing, a practice of connoisseurship rarely found, and alone worth reading. Yet it all nonetheless feels appropriative, a certain assimilation that, rather than effecting any transformation of philosophy, ends up simply transmitting to it what was already there, only this time by means of the sensible. As an exercise in philosophy, using art as its material, the Handbook of Inaesthetics is a truly excellent collection, one perfectly consonant with Badiou’s ongoing attempt to cash out his philosophy in so many which ways. As an approach to the aesthetic, the ‘in’ in inaesthetic must be taken seriously - but in doing so does not make itself equal to the test of its own matter.
July 25, 2021
Alain Badiou opens this collection of connected essays by describing the three theories of the relationship between philosophy and art that he thinks are available at the end of the 20th century: didacticism, romanticism, and classicism. Naturally, he wants to invent his own fourth theory that emphasizes both the separateness and linkage of philosophy and art through the themes of truth, thought, and education, and that is what he spends the rest of the book attempting to enact. As naturally, he never succeeds or betters any of his forebears, particularly Heidegger, whose shadow looms large throughout.
The essays on poetry, particularly those on Mallarmé and Pessoa, are genuinely stimulating, though, and his discussions of the merits and failings of those other three theories (insofar as he describes them) are quite agreeable. Of course, there is his moronic, creepy political philosophy skulking around in the background of the book, and as a quintessential postmodern philosopher, Badiou mostly just cavorts around in the arbitrarily arranged ruins of metaphysics while insisting that he is doing something grandiose with them. It's a bit like what he says Plato defines as sophism: "a thought that would be indiscernible from nonthought," (p18).
He also quotes himself in the epigraph. But I actually saw him -- probably the last living theorist -- give a talk once and that was a nice memory for me and he seemed pleasant so I'll be rounding up my rating here.
The essays on poetry, particularly those on Mallarmé and Pessoa, are genuinely stimulating, though, and his discussions of the merits and failings of those other three theories (insofar as he describes them) are quite agreeable. Of course, there is his moronic, creepy political philosophy skulking around in the background of the book, and as a quintessential postmodern philosopher, Badiou mostly just cavorts around in the arbitrarily arranged ruins of metaphysics while insisting that he is doing something grandiose with them. It's a bit like what he says Plato defines as sophism: "a thought that would be indiscernible from nonthought," (p18).
He also quotes himself in the epigraph. But I actually saw him -- probably the last living theorist -- give a talk once and that was a nice memory for me and he seemed pleasant so I'll be rounding up my rating here.
July 23, 2009
This is Alain Badiou grappling with philosophy's artistic condition. While not exactly central to Badiou's philosophical project, this is a good book to read to understand his view of philosophy's relation to art (or "artistic truth procedures") and has several examples of Badiou's efforts to sieze what in art exposes itself to philosophy. Badiou is at his best at this when he is working with textual arts (poetry/prose), though his comments about other arts (dance, theater, cinema), while interesting, aren't as revelatory. Apparently for Badiou, the most paradigmatic of all arts is poetry, and he proceeds in reading poetry almost in the manner of Deleuze's "free indirect style", where no matter which poem Badiou examines, in his hands it inevitably ends up saying what Badiou says elsewhere. Thus, if one is particularly interested in Badiou's take on art, mainly poetry, then this book is an interesting and fruitful read. If your interests lie elsewhere, there are other places to get a good idea of Badiou's ideas.
Read
January 5, 2017O NYMPHES, REGONFLONS DES SOUVENIRS DIVERS
October 4, 2019
I don't follow his multiplicities of truths and I think his schema of artistic discourses are flawed from the get go. The position of why a imminent and singular art as emancipatory or useful was not articulated, rather it felt like an excuse to propogate his political philosophy into an aesthetic one.
October 27, 2016
Review about theory literature
In this text, I proposed to make a review of the text “The Philosophical status of the poem after Heidegger” from Alain Badiou from the Book "Handbook and Inaesthetics", in the text, he describes the conceptual about poetry and the mathematics. The concepts that Badiou uses in his arguments that’s: Identifying, rivalry the argumentative distance and the aesthetic, regionality. In the first level, proposed by Heidegger, -reestablish the autonomous function of the though poem, determinate place, the philosophic establish one posture critical aesthesis. The text also citied, the mimesis and the Dianonia and Portagoras, the author explain that the poetry of Paraménides have a linguistic and the thinking philosophic in the poem, produced one poem of character mystic and philosophic. The way that the author structures the poetry and philosophy is that the fusion between the poem subjective authority and the validity of those statements held and to be philosophy, the “mathematical” interruptions figure under the heading of fusion, these subordinated to soul. The second which Platonic organizes the distance between the poem and philosophy, the former is held in the gap that separates a dissolving. The third, the author call Aristotelian, organizes the inclusion , of the knowledge of the poem into the philosophy.
The hypotheses that the author make himself, is that: “does the radical critique of poetry, In Book X of the republic, manifest the singular limits of the Platonist Philosophy of the idea? Or is it on the contrary, a constitutive gesture of philosophy itself, philosophy as such, which would thus manifest the letters s incompatibility with the poem? The author explained that not order in turn to violate the violate assault, and explored the limits of a poem although the mimesis and the ideas politicals. The way that Badiue make his argument is annalistic authors and philosophic like Parmenides and Mallarme, and different views about philosophy and poets, for example, Mallarme related the poetry with the pure present and present itself purity and the poems touch it the presence of the present. The dialogue that Badiue make in his arguments is beginning with the poets aged and the view of philosophic, from this way, the author discusses the possibilities to link up the poem with the thought mathematic, the present and the critics aesthesis, allowing different panoramas about poetry. I think the work of Badiue important to the literature because gave other view of the poetry, not only of the structure of the poem, also of the thinking and the relationship with the reality although the mimesis. I think the author is very clear that the idea what he wants to represented about the poems, and the author explain themes like philosophic one way easy that not resulted confused it. I think the poets and the thesis of Badiue could opened to analytic others poetrys for example, Eduardo Eielson and Cesar Vallejo, because them are looking for one away to relate the mystic with political ideas, and they are tried although their lyrics make one connection with the present pure.
In this text, I proposed to make a review of the text “The Philosophical status of the poem after Heidegger” from Alain Badiou from the Book "Handbook and Inaesthetics", in the text, he describes the conceptual about poetry and the mathematics. The concepts that Badiou uses in his arguments that’s: Identifying, rivalry the argumentative distance and the aesthetic, regionality. In the first level, proposed by Heidegger, -reestablish the autonomous function of the though poem, determinate place, the philosophic establish one posture critical aesthesis. The text also citied, the mimesis and the Dianonia and Portagoras, the author explain that the poetry of Paraménides have a linguistic and the thinking philosophic in the poem, produced one poem of character mystic and philosophic. The way that the author structures the poetry and philosophy is that the fusion between the poem subjective authority and the validity of those statements held and to be philosophy, the “mathematical” interruptions figure under the heading of fusion, these subordinated to soul. The second which Platonic organizes the distance between the poem and philosophy, the former is held in the gap that separates a dissolving. The third, the author call Aristotelian, organizes the inclusion , of the knowledge of the poem into the philosophy.
The hypotheses that the author make himself, is that: “does the radical critique of poetry, In Book X of the republic, manifest the singular limits of the Platonist Philosophy of the idea? Or is it on the contrary, a constitutive gesture of philosophy itself, philosophy as such, which would thus manifest the letters s incompatibility with the poem? The author explained that not order in turn to violate the violate assault, and explored the limits of a poem although the mimesis and the ideas politicals. The way that Badiue make his argument is annalistic authors and philosophic like Parmenides and Mallarme, and different views about philosophy and poets, for example, Mallarme related the poetry with the pure present and present itself purity and the poems touch it the presence of the present. The dialogue that Badiue make in his arguments is beginning with the poets aged and the view of philosophic, from this way, the author discusses the possibilities to link up the poem with the thought mathematic, the present and the critics aesthesis, allowing different panoramas about poetry. I think the work of Badiue important to the literature because gave other view of the poetry, not only of the structure of the poem, also of the thinking and the relationship with the reality although the mimesis. I think the author is very clear that the idea what he wants to represented about the poems, and the author explain themes like philosophic one way easy that not resulted confused it. I think the poets and the thesis of Badiue could opened to analytic others poetrys for example, Eduardo Eielson and Cesar Vallejo, because them are looking for one away to relate the mystic with political ideas, and they are tried although their lyrics make one connection with the present pure.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 3, 2008
Not sure I have fully grasped the procedure Badiou wishes to invoke, but nonetheless, Inaesthetics is a stimulating and impassioned political treatise that compliments his magnum opus “ Being and Event”.
“By ʻinaestheticsʼ I understand a relation of philosophy to art that, maintaining that art is itself a producer of truths, makes no claim to turn art into an object for philosophy. Against aesthetic speculation, inaesthetics describes the strictly intraphilosophical effects produced by the independent existence of some works of art. (A.B., April 1998)”
However, this statement needs to be placed within the wider context of Badiou's work (particularly ‘truth’ and ‘event’), as there is a danger of applying a Romantic understanding that would negate the political proposition.
Badiou's formulation of truth (as greatly informed by Lacan) is to “arrange the forms of knowledge in a way that some truth may come to pierce a hole in them.”
“Basically, to make truths manifest means the following: to distinguish truths from opinion. So that the question today is this and no other: Is there something besides opinion? In other words, is there something besides our ‘democracies’?
Many will answer, myself among them: "Yes." Yes, there are artistic configurations, there are works that constitute the thinking subjects of these configurations, and there is philosophy to separate conceptually all of this from opinion. Our times are worth more than the label on which they pride themselves: "democracy." (Badiou 2005: 15)
“By ʻinaestheticsʼ I understand a relation of philosophy to art that, maintaining that art is itself a producer of truths, makes no claim to turn art into an object for philosophy. Against aesthetic speculation, inaesthetics describes the strictly intraphilosophical effects produced by the independent existence of some works of art. (A.B., April 1998)”
However, this statement needs to be placed within the wider context of Badiou's work (particularly ‘truth’ and ‘event’), as there is a danger of applying a Romantic understanding that would negate the political proposition.
Badiou's formulation of truth (as greatly informed by Lacan) is to “arrange the forms of knowledge in a way that some truth may come to pierce a hole in them.”
“Basically, to make truths manifest means the following: to distinguish truths from opinion. So that the question today is this and no other: Is there something besides opinion? In other words, is there something besides our ‘democracies’?
Many will answer, myself among them: "Yes." Yes, there are artistic configurations, there are works that constitute the thinking subjects of these configurations, and there is philosophy to separate conceptually all of this from opinion. Our times are worth more than the label on which they pride themselves: "democracy." (Badiou 2005: 15)
April 15, 2020
اما علاوه بر پارادایم غار، الگوی دیگری نیز برای رابطه ی میان فلسفه و تئاتر وجود دارد، الگویی که درک آن دشوارتر است: استفاده از درام به عنوان پارادایمی فلسفی که هم چون بازی یا کنش فهم می شود. در این پارادایم دوم، هیچ چیز وهم آلود و کاذبی در خصوص تئاتر در کار نیست؛ در عوض، تئاتر به عنوان آن چه در اسلوب کنش یا رخداد روی می دهد به الگویی برای فلسفه بدل می شود. جالب آن که رد این الگوی دوم را نیز می توان تا افلاطون پی گرفت، و البته نه در صحنه ای مشخص یا در مجموعه اصطلاحات خاص وی، آنچنان که در مورد تمثیل غار و در بیان آن از وهم(تئاتری) و حقیقت(فلسفی) مصداق داشت، بل در استفاده ی افلاطون از فرم دراماتیک دیالوگ فلسفی که متضمن فهم فلسفه به عنوان کنشی است که به وسیله عاملان در زنجیره ای از استدلال ها به اجرا در می آید. و این جز شیوه ای برای بیان یک امر بدیهی نیست، اگرچه شاید در این مورد، آن امر بدیهی اغلب به درستی تشخیص داده نشده است: افلاطون شخصیت ها را خلق می کند، آن ها را روی صحنه می آورد و وا می دارد تا پی رنگ ها یا کنش های خاصی را به اجرا درآورند که به طور فلسفی برانگیخته می شوند. فلسفه چیزی نیست که در خلوت ذهن اتفاق بیفتد، بلکه آن چیزی است که در تعاملات و در صحنه های خاص به فعلیت و انجام می رسد. با وام گرفتن اصطلاح یکی دیگر از فیلسوفان تئاتر، کنت برک، این پارادایم دوم را "دراماتیسم" می نامم، نظر به این که او درام را به عنوان پارادایمی برای یک طرح فلسفی متمرکز بر کنش، عاملان کنش و منظور کنش به کار می بندد.
افلاطون گرایی کثیر
درباره ی تئاتر آلن بدیو
ص 50-49
افلاطون گرایی کثیر
درباره ی تئاتر آلن بدیو
ص 50-49
February 2, 2008
I really didn't like this book, and it has soured me on Badiou. It's a very weakly constructed system and completely misunderstands the avant-garde.
June 12, 2009
Mostly irritating, but the essay on Beckett's Worstward Ho is wonderful.
February 13, 2013
Beautiful, written pleasurably, yet not very deep-probing. Nevertheless, his advocacy for the art work being immanent, singular, and operating as thought itself is very appealing.
June 16, 2013
Lovely book. Badious is one of the few philosophers who deals with poetry--Mallarmé.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews