Second Manifesto for Philosophy

Increasingly there has to be a movement away from just understanding Badiou's ontology to simultaneously understanding his logic and coming to terms with the fundamental problem of their non-relation and how this schism is overleapt, or not, by the formation of subjects due to fidelity to events named retrospectively. This is a big ask to say the least. Now that we English speakers have had Logics of Worlds long enough to come to terms with its incredible innovations in relation of phenomenology without the aporia of consciousness, we need to really hold Badiou to task as regards the problem of non-relation in the area of the articulation of ontology and logic. The recent translation of Theory of the Subject makes it transparent that this articulation was always there at the origins of the program and one of the duties of the second manifesto is to tackle this question head on.Three issues are presented at the end of the book. The first that 'while the essence of a generic multiplicity is a negative universality (the absence of any predicative identity) the essence of a body of truth resides in certain capacities..." The second is the clear distinction between the first manifesto's 'separatist doctrine of being' and the second's 'integrative doctrine of doing'. While the third attests that 'What interests me is that a truth is produced with particular materials in a specific world, yet, at the same time, since it is understood and usable in an entirely different world and across potentially vast spans of time...it has, well and truly, to be trans-temporal'From this we can take the following clarification as regards the (non) relation between Being and Event and Logics of Worlds. First that multiplicities are defined by their indifference in respect of the 'real' difference of bodies in the world. Second that because ontology is concerned with separation and logic with relation, the (non) relation between the two works has a self-predicative feel to it that is reminiscent of Kant. (How can you describe their differential relation when one is about separation and the other integration?) Third is the very real mystery of how an immanent and specific, differentiated and quality possessive body of truth in an actual world, can bear indifferent and transtemporal universal, by which we mean, generic truth.What is clear to my mind is that indifference is the central term in Badiou's work. It is Logic of Worlds total inability to address the indifference of ontology and the event that leaves it feeling insufficient. In that the second manifesto talks a lot about indifference this problem is addressed, but in that these issues pertain to ontology it is certainly not solved.Why read this book? Well, Badiou along with Agamben and Laruelle will dictate the future of how we think in the new century. In that Being and Event had a manifesto attached and an explanation of the maths, now Logics of World, with the publication of the new book on transcendence and mathematics, has the same. Logics of worlds is brilliantly clarified in this little version but more than that many issues pertaining to the totality of the project are raised here in ways they are not considered elsewhere. If the book is not essential in the way the big three are, it is certainly still essential. It works brilliantly as a clarification of Logics of Worlds. It is great also for teaching and for finding quotes that you can use. Finally, it is an original piece of work as I hope I have shown, in terms of how the two parts of Badiou's work need to be thought together through the centrality of the conversion of ontological indifference (void, multiplicities, generic, event) into logical identity in difference.

Increasingly there has to be a movement away from just understanding Badiou's ontology to simultaneously understanding his logic and coming to terms with the fundamental problem of their non-relation and how this schism is overleapt, or not, by the formation of subjects due to fidelity to events named retrospectively. This is a big ask to say the least. Now that we English speakers have had Logics of Worlds long enough to come to terms with its incredible innovations in relation of phenomenology without the aporia of consciousness, we need to really hold Badiou to task as regards the problem of non-relation in the area of the articulation of ontology and logic. The recent translation of Theory of the Subject makes it transparent that this articulation was always there at the origins of the program and one of the duties of the second manifesto is to tackle this question head on.Three issues are presented at the end of the book. The first that 'while the essence of a generic multiplicity is a negative universality (the absence of any predicative identity) the essence of a body of truth resides in certain capacities..." The second is the clear distinction between the first manifesto's 'separatist doctrine of being' and the second's 'integrative doctrine of doing'. While the third attests that 'What interests me is that a truth is produced with particular materials in a specific world, yet, at the same time, since it is understood and usable in an entirely different world and across potentially vast spans of time...it has, well and truly, to be trans-temporal'From this we can take the following clarification as regards the (non) relation between Being and Event and Logics of Worlds. First that multiplicities are defined by their indifference in respect of the 'real' difference of bodies in the world. Second that because ontology is concerned with separation and logic with relation, the (non) relation between the two works has a self-predicative feel to it that is reminiscent of Kant. (How can you describe their differential relation when one is about separation and the other integration?) Third is the very real mystery of how an immanent and specific, differentiated and quality possessive body of truth in an actual world, can bear indifferent and transtemporal universal, by which we mean, generic truth.What is clear to my mind is that indifference is the central term in Badiou's work. It is Logic of Worlds total inability to address the indifference of ontology and the event that leaves it feeling insufficient. In that the second manifesto talks a lot about indifference this problem is addressed, but in that these issues pertain to ontology it is certainly not solved.Why read this book? Well, Badiou along with Agamben and Laruelle will dictate the future of how we think in the new century. In that Being and Event had a manifesto attached and an explanation of the maths, now Logics of World, with the publication of the new book on transcendence and mathematics, has the same. Logics of worlds is brilliantly clarified in this little version but more than that many issues pertaining to the totality of the project are raised here in ways they are not considered elsewhere. If the book is not essential in the way the big three are, it is certainly still essential. It works brilliantly as a clarification of Logics of Worlds. It is great also for teaching and for finding quotes that you can use. Finally, it is an original piece of work as I hope I have shown, in terms of how the two parts of Badiou's work need to be thought together through the centrality of the conversion of ontological indifference (void, multiplicities, generic, event) into logical identity in difference.

Amazing. Possibly the most inspiring philosopher alive.