jasonadams (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jasonadams) wrote,@ 2005-04-22 18:55:00 |
|
Sartorial Semiology
Its an interesting sidenote that at Badiou's recent appearance at the University of Chicago, the proceedings of which were summarized on Adam Kotsko's blog, he chose to wear an all white outfit in much the same fashion as that which Zizek wore at his recent wedding, particularly given that his talk was largely on 'Christianity's founder' Paul, as the first great antiphilosopher:
A very important maxim of Paul is: do not argue about opinions (Rom.14.1). We can translate this injunction in a more technical language: Do not compromise the Truth by entangling it in the web of opinions and differences. Generally speaking, for a philosophy, or for a philosopher like Socrates, it's a necessity to argue about opinions, to criticize opinions. But precisely: Paul is not a philosopher. The Christian subject is not at all in the field of philosophy. We have to understand--and it is very difficult--that faith is neither an opinion, nor a critique of opinion. The Christian subject is an activist of an Event. And Christian militantism must traverse worldly differences indifferently and avoid all casuistry over customs.
Zizek enjoying his innocence.
But what really interested me here was how it was claimed by Badiou that Paul 'opposed democratic morality' insofar as he believed that rather than 'respect for difference' one should be 'indifferent to difference' since 'all is permitted if we have faith, hope and love'. The latter, as we might remember from Sunday School, is the greatest of the three, particularly insofar as it directly opposed to the law of Empire. Much like Nietzsche then, Paul is read here as the figure of pure affirmation, he who counsels that rather than hating one's immediate enemies, one should instead 'love your neighbor as yourself' and speak only one's truth which is precisely the negation of evil.
Its an interesting sidenote that at Badiou's recent appearance at the University of Chicago, the proceedings of which were summarized on Adam Kotsko's blog, he chose to wear an all white outfit in much the same fashion as that which Zizek wore at his recent wedding, particularly given that his talk was largely on 'Christianity's founder' Paul, as the first great antiphilosopher:
A very important maxim of Paul is: do not argue about opinions (Rom.14.1). We can translate this injunction in a more technical language: Do not compromise the Truth by entangling it in the web of opinions and differences. Generally speaking, for a philosophy, or for a philosopher like Socrates, it's a necessity to argue about opinions, to criticize opinions. But precisely: Paul is not a philosopher. The Christian subject is not at all in the field of philosophy. We have to understand--and it is very difficult--that faith is neither an opinion, nor a critique of opinion. The Christian subject is an activist of an Event. And Christian militantism must traverse worldly differences indifferently and avoid all casuistry over customs.
Zizek enjoying his innocence.
But what really interested me here was how it was claimed by Badiou that Paul 'opposed democratic morality' insofar as he believed that rather than 'respect for difference' one should be 'indifferent to difference' since 'all is permitted if we have faith, hope and love'. The latter, as we might remember from Sunday School, is the greatest of the three, particularly insofar as it directly opposed to the law of Empire. Much like Nietzsche then, Paul is read here as the figure of pure affirmation, he who counsels that rather than hating one's immediate enemies, one should instead 'love your neighbor as yourself' and speak only one's truth which is precisely the negation of evil.
