holy fucking shit dude Badiou is literally unreadable

learn french and come back

>actually reading some coffee-consuming circumlocutory commie cuck

Only use for Badiou is in the future where you find out who borrowed his books out of the library and use those names as a kill list.

his less mathy stuff is better. read ethics or conditions or TotS

>>9347872
Who are you quoting?

>Several critics have questioned Badiou's use of mathematics. Mathematician Alan Sokal and physicist Jean Bricmont write that Badiou proposes, with seemingly "utter seriousness," a blending of psychoanalysis, politics and set theory that they contend is preposterous.[18] Similarly, philosopher Roger Scruton has questioned Badiou's grasp of the foundation of mathematics, writing in 2012:

>There is no evidence that I can find in Being and Event that the author really understands what he is talking about when he invokes (as he constantly does) Georg Cantor's theory of transfinite cardinals, the axioms of set theory, Gödel's incompleteness proof or Paul Cohen's proof of the independence of the continuum hypothesis. When these things appear in Badiou's texts it is always allusively, with fragments of symbolism detached from the context that endows them with sense, and often with free variables and bound variables colliding randomly. No proof is clearly stated or examined, and the jargon of set theory is waved like a magician's wand, to give authority to bursts of all but unintelligible metaphysics.[19]

>An example of a critique from a mathematician's point of view is the essay 'Badiou's Number: A Critique of Mathematics as Ontology' by Ricardo L. Nirenberg and David Nirenberg[20] , which takes issue in particular with Badiou's matheme of the Event in Being and Event, which has already been alluded to in respect of the 'axiom of foundation' above. Nirenberg and Nirenberg write:

>Rather than being defined in terms of objects previously defined, ex is here defined in terms of itself; you must already have it in order to define it. Set theorists call this a not-well-founded set. This kind of set never appears in mathematics—not least because it produces an unmathematical mise-en-abîme: if we replace ex inside the bracket by its expression as a bracket, we can go on doing this forever—and so can hardly be called “a matheme.”'

Who was in the wrong here?

>>9347827
Agreed, and he's a Maoist. How can anyone even take him seriously knowing that he's a Maoist?

>>9349450
Sokal is like the prototypical fedora tipping loser so no matter how technically correct he may be about someone else being a pseud hack fraud he'll still have lost in the end by virtue of being Sokal.

>>9349471
Is he still a maoist tho? I mean he is still a part of the moist circles from the 70s, but very few of those are still maoist.

>>9349516
Yes, somehow he's still a Maoist.

>>9347889
This. For example, his book about St. Paul is as clear as it gets.