And I dipped into Badiou’s book on Deleuze — a Dutch translation was published last year: (Alain Badiou, Deleuze. Het geroep van het zijn, Klement/Pelckmans, Kampen/Kapellen, 2006)

I enjoy reading the clear sentences of Badiou — much more than I like to read the prose of Deleuze, to be honest. I also enjoy the way he structures his argument. Because it is crystal-clear. But I do not agree with Badiou.

Maybe I do agree with his (re-)interpretation of Deleuze, it makes sense, Badiou has a point in the first 40 pages, but that point doesn’t strike me as very problematic for Deleuze. It might be very problematic to firm believers in the free-for-all -everything-goes Deleuze. But I do not agree with Badiou’s, well, strictness? Platonism? believe?

Maybe Badiou is the philosophical “Enemy” — the one who you’d love to believe, to be a believer of the truth, of the event that took place in the past, or that will happen in the future… for the exhiliration of being a believer, because the believe in that truth pays for all the hard work and dreariness in the present…

I know I am rambling here — not making a philosophical argument. I know I am too much influenced by biographical detail here (Badiou as a Maoist). (There is, I imagine, an exhiliration in believing that Mao was bringing Truth and Revolution — millions believed it, experienced that exhiliration).

Badiou’s politics do not per se discredit Badiou’s philosophy. (Hmm, am I sure of that?) My problem is that Badiou believes in a Truth that is blinding human beings. He wants to, does believe in that Truth. I’m not so sure we need such a believe. Not even philosophically.

I’m not sure.

And then, I’m stuck on page 48. Wondering if I should read a whole book by Badiou on Deleuze, a book that according to others is basically an assassination attempt. (See for instance Steven Shaviro in a review on Hallward’s book on Deleuze http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=567. It’s not more than a remark btw.).