Alan Badiou's use of Set Theory

[Rawthentic]

Is there anyway that a comrade here can help me with this? I am in the third chapter of Hallward's book on him, and although I have a grasp overall, I need to learn his set theory in order to continue. His set theory is an integral part to understanding his philosophy.

Help? I don't understand set theory (it originates from the German mathematician Georg Cantor). It has to do with sets, subsets, multiplicities, infinities, etc.

Much appreciated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, like mathematics, you can't just read set theory, it takes months of study to get to grips with it.

However, I am not familiar with the book you mention, and, if it is like other works on French Philosophy I have had the misfortune to read, if it uses set theory, then it probably deserves to go in the shredder.

Cantor's work indeed marks the beginning of set theory, but since I am one of the few mathematicians who hates this topic, and sees little of merit it it (because it turns mathametics into a pseudo-science of collections), I am probably not the best one to advise you.

Now, it depends on how much mathematics you already know and how confident you feel with symbols.

But you might like to start here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/primer.html

http://www.utdallas.edu/~gupta/courses/semath/naive.pdf

In my opinion, learning set theory to understand French Philosophy is like trying to master computer programming in order to watch paint dry.

But each to his/her own poison...

[Rawthentic]

So, I don't need to understand set theory to understand Badiou?

I'm pretty sure it is needed, or at least clarifies and simplifies some of his concepts. And I think it is pretty ignorant to say that any book deserves to go in the shredder. Given, Badiou is not a communist (he used to be a Maoist) but he has some valuable insights in terms of his "event", "subject", "the Real", "truth-procedure", and others.

Anyways, thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

Any other help on this topic would also be appreciated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I do not know, since I know very little Badiou, and what little I do know tells me not to bother knowing any more.

All I am saying is that in my opinion this is a waste of time; there are far better things for you to read than this.

[Rawthentic]

Why do you think that it is a waste of time?

Badiou makes some very important insights in relation to the need for a new communist project. No that he is explicitly partisan to us (yet he still sees the need for proletarian revolution) but his idea of how, as of now, communist politics are saturated, and we need a fidelity to an event that can move beyond this saturation to create a "new synthesis.

Thanks.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It's just my opinion about French thinkers in general; apart from Jean Buridan and Jean Jacques Rousseau, I don't think any French Philsoophers are word reading. I have read just enough Badiou to convince me he should not be added to the list of those who are.

But, as I say, it is just a personal opinion.

[JimFar]

. . .I don't think any French Philsoophers are word reading.

Well I think some exceptions: Claude Bernard, Pierre Duhem, Henri Poincare. Hmm. . . I think I see a pattern here. Those guys were all scientists who did philosophy on the side. Perhaps, we should narrow things down a bit. Professional French philosophers are not worth reading, but French scientists who happen to do philosophy might be.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It's just my opinion about French thinkers in general; apart from Jean Buridan and Jean Jacques Rousseau, I don't think any French Philsoophers are word reading. I have read just enough Badiou to convince me he should not be added to the list of those who are.

But, as I say, it is just a personal opinion.

Heh...I assume you're a loveless analytic then? ;) Camus is one of the best philosophers that any communist could read. I do like Sartre, but Camus is far more accessible and grounded in real life experience.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joe, you are welcome to the lot.

I'd rather watch paint dry...


Heh...I assume you're a loveless analytic then?

Why 'loveless'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks for that. Of course, Duhem was a scientist and Poicare a mathematician. I agree with you that these two are well worth reading, but I do not include them in the list of 'French Philosphjers' since, as you say, they weren't philsophers, and hence knew what they were talking about.

But, if you were to insist that they be included as French Philosophers, I'd be happy to add them to my list -- but, under sufferance.

Not sure about Claude Bernard, since I have not read anything by him. But, as he was a scientist (as you note), too, I think we can include him with the other two --, under sufferance, once more.

So, I cannot think of a single 'professional' French Philosopher since Rousseau whose works are not fit to grace the top of Hume's bonfire.

[Hyacinth]

...but since I am one of the few mathematicians who hates this topic, and sees little of merit it it (because it turns mathametics into a pseudo-science of collections), I am probably not the best one to advise you.
Funny you should say that since most of the mathematicians that I know agree with you, or at least are disinterested in set theory, but I doubt my sample is representative. Though, bizarrely, many philosophers of mathematics of the Platonist variety seem quite keen on reducing mathematics to set theory, and claiming that set theoretic structures are somehow or other real (having failed to establish that numbers are floating somewhere out there in Plato’s realm of forms they seem to think they’ll fair better with set theoretic structures).

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Joe, you are welcome to the lot.

I'd rather watch paint dry...

I've always found most analytic texts pretty boring myself. Such limited questions, too much symbolic logic. I mean it probably works for you if you're a mathematician type, but I'm more Byronic than Newtonian. Even dense texts are interesting in that they offer an interpretative challenge.


Why 'loveless'?

Its something of a inside joke between continentals. It always seems like analytics bear a cold, scientific, almost lifeless demeanor. We always assumed they weren't getting any. Though some of the more obscurantist continentals ain't getting any too. It's all sterile academic nonsense sometimes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hyacinth, you are right; but set theory turns mathematics into a pseudo-science of collections, as opposed to it being the natural history of the denizens of Plato's Zoo, as it is in traditional mathematics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joe Hill:


I've always found most analytic texts pretty boring myself. Such limited questions, too much symbolic logic. I mean it probably works for you if you're a mathematician type, but I'm more Byronic than Newtonian. Even dense texts are interesting in that they offer an interpretative challenge.

As far a creative fiction goes, you are probably right about, say, Camus. But who wants fiction when doing philosophy. I'd rather read Dostoevsky, von Kleist or Tolstoy, any day of the week. Moreover, I'd rather be bored rigid and learn how to debunk traditional metaphysics than be kept interested by the same old gobbledygook a la French philosophy.

Anyway, I find much of analytic philosophy rivetting.


Its something of a inside joke between continentals. It always seems like analytics bear a cold, scientific, almost lifeless demeanor. We always assumed they weren't getting any. Though some of the more obscurantist continentals ain't getting any too. It's all sterile academic nonsense sometimes.

Not me, and not Wittgenstein.

Anyway, we also joke about you 'continentals': you'll accept any old rubbish as profound just so long as it has been commited to paper by a French 'thinker'.


"Foucault has benefited from that curious Anglo-American view that if a Frenchman talks nonsense it must rest on a profundity which is too deep for a speaker of English to comprehend." [Laudan (1977) Progress And Its Problems, p.241.]

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

As far a creative fiction goes, you are probably right about, say, Camus. But who wants fiction when doing philosophy. I'd rather read Dostoevsky, von Kleist or Tolstoy, any day of the week. Moreover, I'd rather be bored rigid and learn how to debunk traditional metaphysics than be kept interested by the same old gobbledygook a la French philosophy.

Anyway, I find much of analytic philosophy rivetting.

The Man in Revolt is one of my favorite works so I'd dispute you there. I've always found absurdism the personal philosophy of solid revolutionaries. It primarily helps you from going insane.

I wouldn't call analytic stuff debunking metaphysics, most analytic arguments are just moving the goalposts. Can't say I don't disagree sometimes, The shotgun wedding analysis is quite useful for annoying people prattling on about "what if the matrix is real maan!" Still metphysical questions are worthwhile topics.




Not me, and not Wittgenstein.

Anyway, we also joke about you 'continentals': you'll accept any old rubbish as profound just so long as it has been commited to paper by a French 'thinker'.

Wittgenstein doesn't count, since his orientation gave him sexual edginess in Conservative ol England.

Yeah, it is true that there is a great deal of obscurantist nonsense, mostly with the post modernists. That said, I think continentals tend to do philosophy that's socially relevant and relevant to everyday life. Which is why most were purged from american philosophy during the red scare, and replaced with analytic departments.

[Hit The North]

So, I cannot think of a single 'professional' French Philosopher since Rousseau whose works are not fit to grace the top of Hume's bonfire.

Is Hume's bonfire at all related to the Nazi bonfires where they burned books which challenged their own narrow view?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Is Hume's bonfire at all related to the Nazi bonfires where they burned books which challenged their own narrow view?

No more than 'Love Music, Hate Racism' is related to Nazi rock bands.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Joe Hill:


The Man in Revolt is one of my favorite works so I'd dispute you there. I've always found absurdism the personal philosophy of solid revolutionaries. It primarily helps you from going insane.

Look, I did say it was up to you (how could I say otherwise?). It is just that I'd rather read the entire New York telephone directory; I'd learn more.


I wouldn't call analytic stuff debunking metaphysics, most analytic arguments are just moving the goalposts. Can't say I don't disagree sometimes, The shotgun wedding analysis is quite useful for annoying people prattling on about "what if the matrix is real maan!" Still metphysical questions are worthwhile topics.

Depends which branch of analytic philosophy one attends to. Not sure what you mean by the rest of this, though.:blink:


Wittgenstein doesn't count, since his orientation gave him sexual edginess in Conservative ol England.

I was of course referring to other aspects of his life and character.


Yeah, it is true that there is a great deal of obscurantist nonsense, mostly with the post modernists. That said, I think continentals tend to do philosophy that's socially relevant and relevant to everyday life. Which is why most were purged from american philosophy during the red scare, and replaced with analytic departments.

'Socially relevant' in the sense that it allows rank amatuers to think they 'understand society', while providing them with a set of empty ideas that have absolutely no impact (or none that can be measured) on the class struggle.

As I say, you are welcome to it.

[Hit The North]

Is Hume's bonfire at all related to the Nazi bonfires where they burned books which challenged their own narrow view?


BTB:
No more than 'Love Music, Hate Racism' is related to Nazi rock bands.

Well, given the amount of Marxist texts you want to throw on it, I'd say both bonfires are similar in content if not in form :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


Well, given the amount of Marxist texts you want to throw on it, I'd say both bonfires are similar in content if not in form

That's like saying that since Nazi bands and anti-racist bands use the same chords that "both...are similar in content if not in form ".

Brainless.:blink:

[Hit The North]

Rosa,

That's like saying that since Nazi bands and anti-racist bands use the same chords that "both...are similar in content if not in form ".

Brainless.:blink:

It was a joke.

Nevertheless if we're only referring to the chords being used by both types of bands then it would be an accurate claim. Unless you want to claim that there are intrinsically racist chords and anti-racist chords :blink:

[apathy maybe]

Just to stray completely off topic for a bit (I have nothing to add to the topic, since my forays into French Philosophy stumbled around existentialism and I subsequently pulled out of the entire course, well actually I did study that political philosopher Rousseau, but only his work on political philosophy). Rosa, I think that not being a mod has made you more mellow, and it does you good to not have to worry about pulling other people up for stupid errors.

I haven't really delved much into the philosophy forum recently, but I think it generally runs smoother if you don't touch it much. So yeah.

(Oh, and that last sentence just cried out for Bob to come and split and trash this post... What sort of nasty nasty man would do that sort of thing?)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


It was a joke.

I see, you find Nazis a joke, do you?


Nevertheless if we're only referring to the chords being used by both types of bands then it would be an accurate claim. Unless you want to claim that there are intrinsically racist chords and anti-racist chords

You are the one making comaprisons here, not me.

Or is this another 'joke'?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


I haven't really delved much into the philosophy forum recently, but I think it generally runs smoother if you don't touch it much. So yeah.

What do you mean "don't touch it too much"? I have made over 1600 posts here in the last 6 weeks, mostly in Philosophy, and most of those were polemical.

[Hit The North]

I see, you find Nazis a joke, do you?

NURSE! :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


NURSE!

I am glad you are seeking help for yourself. Long overdue...

[apathy maybe]

AM:



What do you mean "don't touch it too much"? I have made over 1600 posts here in the last 6 weeks, mostly in Philosophy, and most of those were polemical.

I meant, deleting, moving, or editing posts. And how the fuck did you make over 1600 posts in six weeks when you were thinking about quitting this joint?!!?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


I meant, deleting, moving, or editing posts. And how the fuck did you make over 1600 posts in six weeks when you were thinking about quitting this joint?!!?

I deleted very few posts, and even fewer in Philosophy. And I moved stuff that required moving. No other mod complained about the latter.

Moreover, at the end of May I said that I was staying (you probably missed that thread in the CC) and that I would revert to doing what I originally came here to do: giving the dialectical mystics at RevLeft a hard time.

[JimFar]

Not sure about Claude Bernard, since I have not read anything by him. But, as he was a scientist (as you note), too, I think we can include him with the other two --, under sufferance, once more.

He wrote An introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine which is one of the great studies of scientific methodology. See the Google preview of the book here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MIx8D61JlboC&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=%22claude+bernard%22++experimental+medicine&ots=cNUe1OXu4M&sig=1Giq9cixBIwTyOVAQ7dl6_2yYYc

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim, but I am not convinced this is a contribution to philosophy.

[JimFar]

Thanks for that Jim, but I am not convinced this is a contribution to philosophy.

Bernard's book treated a number of issues in the philosophy of science including the role of hypotheses in scientific research, and the criteria by which they may be confirmed or disconfirmed. And he treated such issues in the philosophy of biology, such as vitalism (an outlook then widely accepted by philosophers and scientists), but which Bernard IMO convincingly refuted. He, on the other hand, did not opt for mechanism, since he thought that view undervalued the role of structure in the understanding of living organisms. I don't know about you, but I consider the philosophy of science to be a legitimate and indeed important part of philosophy.

And to the list of French scientists who wrote on philosophy, I forgot to include the Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod, who wrote Chance and Necessity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Fine Jim, I stand corrected. I have ordered a copy of this book so that I am better informed on Bernard. Of course, it raises the question about the demarcation between philosophy and science (if there is one) -- a topic I will not enter into here!

I have to say, though, that philosophy of science is one of the few areas in philosophy for which I have postive things to say; in fact, it is the one area that I would rescue off the top of Hume's bonfire!

So, it looks like I might have to add his name to the very short list of French 'men' who have writen on philosophy that are worth reading.

I hope there are no more needles in this very large and rotting haystack for you to find!

Monod's book is not worth reading, however.