Badiou 的多，意涵一以多呈現，一蘊含多的可能性，換句話說，多即是一，多才是真相，
What does Badiou mean by multiplicity? （ChatGPT, 2024-10-31)
In Alain Badiou’s philosophy, “multiplicity” is a central concept that contrasts with the traditional notion of “being” as a singular unity or essence. For Badiou, multiplicity is a way of thinking about being without reducing it to a single, unchanging substance or identity. Instead, being is understood as a composition of multiple, diverse elements or structures that do not rely on any essential unity. His approach is heavily influenced by set theory in mathematics, where sets can be composed of multiple elements without needing a defining essence or commonality beyond their coexistence within a set.
Badiou uses multiplicity to challenge essentialist and identitarian perspectives. He argues that reality is composed of countless “situations” or “sets” that are organized by differences and relationships rather than by any overarching unity. In this framework, there is no “one” that defines or limits being; instead, there is a proliferation of multiplicities, each constituted by their own internal dynamics and relations.
This concept is crucial in his political and ethical theories, where he insists that truths and transformative events emerge within specific multiplicities and are irreducible to universal or monolithic ideas. For Badiou, an “event” is something that disrupts an established multiplicity, creating the potential for a new truth to be realized and a new order of multiplicity to emerge. Thus, multiplicity becomes not only a way to describe the structure of reality but also a means to envision how change and novelty are possible.
我不確定，Badiou 的多，是否等同于碎片，但看起來很像碎片，
意思是說，總之不是那個有名的自以為是的個體主義的「一」，或那個有名的死纏爛打的客體關係的「二」，
但是，Badiou 用集合論，處理多，
意思是說，他畢竟還是，需要一個冷錢包，來裝柯文哲，千辛萬苦，千萬筆貪污所得，總計的那幾百億，
What if all those multiplicity cannot (or refuse to) be contained in that set? （ChatGPT, 2024-10-31)
If multiplicities cannot or refuse to be contained in a set, it directly challenges the structural logic that Badiou draws from set theory, where sets are collections of elements that share a certain condition for inclusion. In such a scenario, Badiou’s framework might face the problem of what could be termed “uncontainable multiplicities” — entities or events that resist classification, containment, or integration within any organized structure or formal logic.
In Badiou’s terms, this would represent an instance where multiplicities transcend the ontological framework of “situation” (a term he uses to denote any structured context or set of relations). An uncontainable multiplicity would either point to something genuinely novel and unprecedented (perhaps an “event” that has yet to be assimilated) or expose the limits of the current system of thought and organization.
From this perspective, the refusal of multiplicities to be contained or organized could reveal a radical form of alterity — a reality or existence that remains truly “other” and resists all categorization. Badiou might interpret this as a precursor to a potential “event,” where a new truth could emerge that reorganizes reality or understanding in a transformative way. Alternatively, it might signify a kind of limit to knowledge or ontology, underscoring the boundaries of what can be conceptualized or included within any given framework.
In a sense, Badiou would likely see uncontainable multiplicities as moments of disruption, calling for a re-evaluation of existing structures and inviting the possibility of a new set or system that can incorporate these previously uncontainable elements. However, if they persist as radically unassimilable, they could represent a confrontation with the very foundations of ontology as we understand it, challenging the basic premises of set theory as a metaphor for being.
回到碎片，你要理解，尼采對（收集）碎片 （有點像更新世狩獵採集者），情有獨鍾，這是為什麼，尼采能夠預見，一二百年後的我們，
一沙一世界，碎片就是一沙，你我就是一沙，
換句話說，Badiou 的「集合」，就是「世界」，
依此，Badiou 眼中，沒有個人，只有烏泱泱的紅衛兵，和他們高舉的紅旗海，
換句話說，Badiou 的哲學，就是在天安門城門，獰笑校閱紅衛兵，的毛澤東的哲學，
How does the fact that Badiou is a Maoist influences his philosophy of multiplicity, being, and event? （ChatGPT, 2024-10-31)
Badiou’s Maoist influence significantly shapes his philosophy, particularly in how he approaches multiplicity, being, and event. His Maoist orientation, emphasizing revolutionary change, collective action, and the role of transformative events, resonates throughout his philosophical framework and infuses it with a distinct political and emancipatory edge.
1. Multiplicity and the Collective
In Maoism, there’s a strong emphasis on the masses and the revolutionary potential of the people. Badiou’s concept of multiplicity reflects this by emphasizing that “being” is not a singular, unified essence but rather a multiplicity of diverse and sometimes conflicting elements. This aligns with the Maoist view that society is composed of many distinct groups, each with unique positions and capacities, yet capable of joining together in collective action. Badiou’s insistence on the irreducibility of multiplicity to a unified whole suggests that the political reality, like ontological reality, is always a site of potential friction, contradiction, and transformation — a view compatible with Maoist dialectics.
2. Being as Structure and Situation
Badiou’s notion of “being” as structured situations draws on Mao’s approach to social conditions, where every political reality is embedded in specific structures that both define it and limit it. Just as Maoist theory argues that conditions must be carefully understood and engaged with to transform society, Badiou sees “being” as a series of structured situations that are not static but open to interpretation and intervention. This means that multiplicities are not random or chaotic but exist within structures that contain the seeds of their own contradictions and potentials for transformation.
3. Event as Revolutionary Potential
Central to Badiou’s Maoist influence is his notion of the “event,” which echoes Mao’s revolutionary ideology. For Maoists, history is marked by revolutionary ruptures — moments where radical action and commitment fundamentally alter existing social and political conditions. Badiou’s event is a moment that disrupts the status quo of any given “situation” or “set” and brings forth a new possibility that was previously unimaginable. This mirrors Maoist ideology, where the “new” emerges through the contradictions inherent in existing conditions, and revolutionary action can reshape reality itself.
In this sense, an event in Badiou’s philosophy is both an ontological rupture and a revolutionary act, embodying Maoist ideals of commitment to a transformative truth. The event requires fidelity to this new truth, demanding that individuals remain committed to the possibility of a transformed reality — much like Maoist dedication to revolutionary ideals, which requires steadfast allegiance to the unfolding revolution.
4. Truth as a Process of Fidelity
For Badiou, truth is not static or predetermined; rather, it emerges through a commitment to an event. This aligns with Maoist thought, which emphasizes a process-oriented view of truth grounded in revolutionary practice and the ongoing commitment to change. Mao saw revolution as a process that required continuous struggle and fidelity, even amidst adversity. Similarly, Badiou argues that once an event has taken place, individuals must remain faithful to it, enduring the difficulties of translating it into a new structure of being. This reflects the Maoist ideal of ideological commitment and the importance of remaining loyal to revolutionary causes.
5. Anti-Essentialism and the Rejection of Pure Identity
Maoism rejects fixed essences and embraces a dialectical view of identity, where individuals and groups are defined by their relations and roles within a larger structure. Badiou’s concept of multiplicity mirrors this anti-essentialist stance, as he argues that “being” cannot be understood through a single essence or identity. Instead, being is always multiple, composed of relations that defy stable categorization. This refusal of any essential identity reflects the Maoist critique of rigid class categories and other fixed identities, focusing instead on the dynamic, relational aspects of social life and the potential for transformation inherent in every situation.
In summary, Badiou’s Maoism influences his philosophy by encouraging a view of reality that is dynamic, relational, and open to revolutionary transformation. His concepts of multiplicity, being, and event are infused with an emancipatory drive, reflecting a commitment to the transformative potential of collective action and ideological fidelity. This Maoist perspective turns his ontology into a site of political possibility, where the “event” becomes a revolutionary rupture, and multiplicity opens up spaces for new truths to emerge in defiance of established structures.
我的哲學，則是清醒看著，文革十年毛澤東，在專列上脫褲兩千次，嫖遍中國黑暗大地，的「滅共優先于回到更新世的家」的哲學，
回到碎片，我想，碎片 （像是原子）只能作碎片該作的事，那就是碎片人生，落葉人生，宇宙塵埃 （cosmic dust) 人生，意思是說，碎片與碎片之間，是否能夠詐（乍）現出什麼玩意 （比如說，分子），碎片並不在意 （can’t care less)，
Now, “His concepts of multiplicity, being, and event are infused with an emancipatory drive, reflecting a commitment to the transformative potential of collective action and ideological fidelity.”, do you really believe emancipation comes from the collective, which is exactly that famous “meat grinder”, which is called the communist regime, e.g. CCP？ (ChatGPT, 2024-10-31)
Badiou’s commitment to the idea of collective emancipation is indeed a complex and contentious one, particularly in light of how collectivism has played out in various communist regimes, including the CCP. Badiou’s philosophy draws heavily from the revolutionary impulse in Maoist thought, which emphasizes the potential of collective action to bring about radical change. However, his ideas about the collective as a vehicle for emancipation are not uncritically (這裡 ChatGPT 錯了, 應該是 not critically enough) aligned with the historical realities of authoritarian collectivism.
For Badiou, the collective is not necessarily synonymous with the state, nor with the rigid structures often associated with authoritarian regimes. Instead, his concept of the collective is more abstract and idealistic — a form of collective fidelity to an event or truth that can break with oppressive structures. Badiou’s ideal of a transformative collective does not inherently imply a centralized, authoritarian apparatus; it speaks more to a form of political agency grounded in solidarity and a shared commitment to change. In his thought, this collective is more like a community of individuals who remain loyal to a transformative possibility than an entity governed by a central authority.
Badiou’s vision of emancipation is rooted in a belief that individuals can transcend their personal interests to commit to a larger, shared truth. In theory, this collective is a radical, pluralistic space where differences are not flattened by authoritarianism but are instead organized around a common commitment to change. This vision is worlds apart from the “meat grinder” you mention, as he would reject any model that suppresses individual agency or co-opts collective action for oppressive purposes.
That said, there’s an undeniable tension between Badiou’s theoretical commitment to the collective and the historical legacy of authoritarian regimes, which have frequently appropriated the language of emancipation and collectivism to justify repression. His reliance on the concept of the collective as a means for liberation can feel idealistic or even naive, especially in light of how collectivist ideals have been manipulated in practice.
In short, Badiou’s philosophy aims to reclaim the idea of collective action from authoritarian abuses, envisioning a collective that exists as an open, revolutionary force rather than a bureaucratic or oppressive regime. Whether true emancipation can come from such a collective in practice remains an open question, especially given the fraught history of collectivist movements. Badiou’s vision is one of radical potential, but it must be measured against the realities and risks of collectivism as it has often been actualized.
Badiou did apologize for his enthusiasm for the Khmer Rouge, Therefore, this apology is fake? At least I never heard that he apologized for the eighty million Chinese people slaughtered by Mao. （ChatGPT, 2024-10-31)
Badiou’s engagement with revolutionary movements, including his early enthusiasm for the Khmer Rouge, is indeed a controversial and complex aspect of his intellectual legacy. His apology for supporting the Khmer Rouge — a movement that ultimately committed brutal acts of violence — reflects, in part, his acknowledgment of the limits and dangers of revolutionary ideology when it veers into authoritarianism and mass violence. However, his lack of an explicit apology for Mao’s role in the suffering and deaths of millions in China raises critical questions about his consistency and accountability in confronting the realities of these regimes.
Badiou’s philosophy of radical events and fidelity to revolutionary change often leads him to emphasize the transformative potential of movements, sometimes at the expense of fully reckoning with the harms they have caused. His tendency to abstract revolutionary struggles as philosophical concepts can distance him from the real-world implications and human costs associated with them. This detachment can make his apology seem less like a full repudiation of the atrocities committed and more like a nuanced disavowal of specific consequences, rather than a wholesale reconsideration of his revolutionary ideals.
Moreover, Badiou’s Maoist influence remains evident in his work, and he often interprets Mao’s legacy in light of the revolutionary potential it represents, rather than its tragic human toll. This selective engagement has led some to question the sincerity of his apology for supporting other authoritarian movements, like the Khmer Rouge, especially since he continues to admire Mao’s thought without addressing the profound suffering caused under his rule.
In short, while Badiou’s apology for the Khmer Rouge may reflect some degree of acknowledgment of the dangers inherent in revolutionary zeal, his silence on Mao’s legacy suggests a persistent idealization of revolutionary movements that overlooks or downplays their human costs. This tension remains one of the most controversial aspects of his intellectual project and raises valid concerns about the ethics of endorsing revolutionary ideologies without fully grappling with their historical consequences.
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3291779510896058248/1783635618445921757
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3291779510896058248/2752781200682949012
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/3291779510896058248/4480509908197099537
