In In Praise of Love, Alain Badiou takes on contemporary 'dating agency' conceptions of love that come complete with zero-risk insurance – like. In Praise of Love [Alain Badiou, Peter Bush] on musicmarkup.info *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. In a world rife with consumerism, where online dating. 13 quotes from In Praise of Love: 'Love without risk is an impossibility, like war without death.'.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Japanese|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|ePub File Size:||30.46 MB|
|PDF File Size:||14.36 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
In In Praise of Love, Alain Badiou takes on contemporary 'dating agency' conceptions Collected eBook Library of Slavoj Žižek [PDF & ePub]. The right of Alain Badiou and Nicolas Truong to be identified as the start to finish, it is what it says it is: praise of love, So here you have Alain Badiou. J>" Y'*2+$love needs re-inventing.” 1-#$. -%2"34*.5% 1*%(#%2$*3$*0(&&4* 5#&&/63$#'32$%* 7 =Z;:M;:H 6/#-(5.
Love without risks is like war without deaths — but, today, love is threatened by an alliance of liberalism and hedonism. Caught between consumerism and casual sexual encounters devoid of passion, love — without the key ingredient of chance — is in danger of withering on the vine. He develops a new take on love that sees it as an adventure, and an opportunity for re-invention, in a constant exploration of otherness and difference that leads the individual out of an obsession with identity and self. Liberal, libertine and libertarian reductions of love to instant pleasure and non-commitment bite the dust as Badiou invokes a supporting cast of thinkers from Plato to Lacan via Karl Marx to form a new narrative of romance, relationships and sex — a narrative that does not fear love. Like Like. Reblogged this on Senselogic and commented:. You are commenting using your WordPress.
Share via Email Alain Badiou: 'for love to last, one has to reinvent oneself. It's more than that. It's a construction that compels the participants to go beyond narcissism. In order that love lasts one has to reinvent oneself. But it's not like that.
It involves work. An old man tells you this! It was my first love, and then gradually I became so aware this step had been a mistake I tried to recover that initial love, late, very late — the death of the loved one was approaching — but with a unique intensity and feeling of necessity. She giggles, too. Below this sixth-floor apartment, an RER train screeches along the rails out of Denfert-Rochereau station.
I think about the distinction Badiou describes in In Praise of Love. He puts it philosophically: "The absolute contingency of the encounter takes on the appearance of destiny. The declaration of love marks the transition from chance to destiny and that's why it is so perilous and so burdened with a kind of horrifying stage fright.
A loving relationship is similar. They know sexual pleasure — but we all know what Lacan said about sexual pleasure. Jacques Lacan argued that sexual relationships don't exist. Badiou will shortly publish a book of conversations between Lacan and his biographer, Elisabeth Roudinesco.
What is real is narcissistic, Lacan suggested, what binds imaginary.
If you limit yourself to sexual pleasure it's narcissistic. You don't connect with the other, you take what pleasure you want from them. How can he, of all people, hymn bourgeois notions such as commitment and conjugal felicity? I'm not going to speak against the freedom to experiment sexually like some old arse" — "un vieux connard" — "but when you liberate sexuality, you don't solve the problems of love.
That's why I propose a new philosophy of love, wherein you can't avoid problems or working to solve them. They try to suppress the adventure of love. Their idea is you calculate who has the same tastes, the same fantasies, the same holidays, wants the same number of children.
Everybody wants a contract that guarantees them against risk. Love isn't like that.
You can't download a lover. Sex, yes, but not a lover. Badiou's book is, in a sense, its sequel and could have been entitled L'Amour n'est pas une Marchandise non plus Love Isn't a Commodity Either. Surely that makes him an old romantic? Romanticism exalted love against classical arranged marriages — hence l'amour fou, antisocial love. In that sense I'm neither romantic nor classic. My approach is that love is both an encounter and a construction.
These books have led him to be hailed as a great philosopher. Badiou's philosophy of the subject is an extrapolation of Sartre's existentialist slogan "Existence precedes essence" and incorporates a communist hypothesis that Althusser might have liked.
It's also a rebuke to postwar and often postmodern French philosophers such as Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard and Foucault with whom he argued and all of whom he has outlived. What is a subject for Badiou? Although analogous, Badiou argues that politics and love differ in that the first is about collective possibilities whereas love is only about a twosome.
Love is socialized by the family while the possibilities of politics are controlled by the state.
The love we see within a family is part of the two scene of the parents. The goal of love is not to create a family and the goal of politics is not power. This idealistic presumption is based on seeing politics as the theoretical communism which follows an event, politics following a similar truth procedure as love.
Despite referencing the socializing effect of family on love he does not develop this analysis nor the influences of other sorts of authority. Nor does he address the fact that the relationships he describes as love long-term, committed, requiring fidelity are similar to conservative descriptions of romantic love which contribute to relationships frequently becoming bound by obligation and the opposite of adventure. Could his description not rationalize sexual abstinence outside of committed relationships, for example?
Politics and love remain detached, although the one can be a model for the other and they can intersect at times. One distinguishing feature between the two is that the presence of an enemy is fundamental in the definition of politics whereas there is no enemy in love that plays a part in its construction. It is selfishness, the failure of the construction of a two scene that is the enemy of love. Although there is a separation, Badiou feels that communism will provide new possibilities for love.
Like communism, he argues that, in love, origins don't matter and there is an acceptance of difference. Although he recognizes that both love and politics can be transgressive, he argues that they do not overlap. In spite of his argument, it is problematic to try and draw a line between love and politics.
History has shown that love demands a politics or subculture. The history of love moves from the courtly love of the middle ages, through Romanticism, into avant-gardes and the radical politics of the last century. Love continues to be at the heart of political and social change for peace and for women's, civil and LGBT rights. Badiou's own definition of love is shaped by these struggles. It presupposes gender equality which has been fought for both theoretically and in practice, particularly its practice in love and it presupposes colour, class and gender blindness.
Modern love is what it is because its transgressive quality has been combined with political and artistic transgression. Although Badiou attempts to reconcile his views of love with his political communism the conservative nature of his description of love is not so different than the definitions of erotic love described by institutions of authority that use these definitions to seek to contain love's transgressions.
Badiou also addresses the notion of the ethical dimension of love through a refutation of Levinas who argued that we are social creatures so that our experience of the other creates an ethical demand. Badiou argues that our experience of the other is opaque, that it creates no demand.
He contrasts his view of love as a construction with the view of love as an experience of difference. He recognizes that the experience of the other is the foundation of ethics but he is dismissive of this, seeing Levinas's description of the other as grounded in an idea of God as other.
I really don't like all these theological ruminations inspired by love.
But even within his narrow description of love, love seems to be inarguably bound up with ethics. We love without regard to class, colour, religion, and gender because love transgresses these boundaries. Each time we love someone that we are not supposed to, love becomes an ethical act against hate. If we move beyond Badiou's view, then for most of us, our first experience of love is the selfless love of our mother which becomes the model for all love.
Selfless love would not be possible, we would always concern ourselves solely with our own pleasure, if love did not transgress our selfishness, if it did not create an ethical demand which then extends outwards.
Does love not demand, for example, that we see a contradiction between love and honouring it with diamonds or other artefacts that result from human exploitation? Badiou concludes his interviews with comments about love and theatre, his first love sic. He distinguishes his interest in love, as explored in his own drama love's endurance , from the usual artistic focus on the initial event which leads to a breakthrough.
He feels that theatre and love both combine thought and the body, and require declaration, repetition and practice. And theatre depicts the violence of love. Referencing this transgressive nature of love, he describes theatre as the outcome of the intersection of love and politics.
Transgression is depicted not just in tragedy but in romantic comedy where one loves the wrong person. Love is being inked here to communism. Theatre has a communist nature, he says, bringing disparate people together to one end , and, as such is a model for collective action.
Based on this view, love is described as a form of minimal communism the separation between love and politics slipping. Theatre, he argues, bridges the gap between love and politics.
The theatre he speaks of, however, seems to be what one thinks of when speaking about formal versions, as a theatre troupe with an attendant audience. In spite of the fact that he was a participant in May '68 he does not address the attempt at a synthesis of desire, art and politics that was advocated by some of its participants the Situationists in particular. Nor does he speak of street theatre.
By focusing on formal theatre he can maintain his distinction between love, art and politics but he has not addressed how theatre will not be little more than propaganda. In his concluding remarks about French politics, Badiou perceptively speaks about how love has historically become attached to the movement between reaction and revolution, although this could be developed much further. Current politics frequently focuses on identity, attacking immigrants for example, and this is the enemy of love.
Love, he notes, is subversive with respect to law. In spite of these insights and those found in some of Badiou's observations - e.