In a surprising act of the Good, Ray Davis has managed to completely misread Alain Badiou's philosophy. I say 'Good' because it is a gathering together of what Ray wants to tell us—telling someone something is good—but nonetheless I believe his polemic misinterprets a number of important features of the idea.
Ray: "Alain Badiou says that evil isn't self-evident. Still, he seems pretty certain of himself." This is the key flaw that I find in Badiou; he treats a number of examples as obviously good or evil, while the very thing we look to him for is some explanation of why they should be considered one or the other. But Badiou's "ethic of Truths" is not about what is good or evil, but rather it is about how you should motivate yourself toward what you see as good or evil, subjectively.
Badiou would have us—if nothing else—honor and pursue whatever original conceptions we find ourselves having, and I believe this is a very important idea. To take an example, if there is an alternative to globalized capital, then describe it, enact it, participate in it! Do not merely bitch—not about Evil-elsewhere nor about Evil-at-home—instead, honor and pursue the positive ideas that you do have, which, if they are strong, if they are a great alternative to globalized capital, then they will overtake capitalism by that force, and not by the force of anyone's gripes. That is the thrust of Badiou's so-called "ethic of Truths": pursuing something new rather than whistle-blowing on what exists. This can happen in many arenas: collective politics, individual relationships, artistic and scientific creation, and so on.
In an act of journalism worthy of Jayson Blair, Ray emends Badiou by adding "fixed" to the sentence: "The Good in artistic action is the invention of new forms that convey the [fixed] meaning of the world" (Badiou), but the word "fixed" appears nowhere in the interview. Badiou would not accept a characterization of the world's meaning as fixed—quite the contrary: the meaning of the world changes in every so-called "event" (an "event" is whatever is unexpected: "an encounter, a general revolt, a surprising new invention" (Badiou)). Yet there is, he argues, such a thing as a fidelity to what the artist subjectively sees red-hot in that moment, and on the other hand, there is a possibility of betraying that truth, of dropping it, or replacing it with something egotistic or stereotyped or otherwise not as red-hot.
Ray, why, after inserting "fixed" into Badiou's statement, do you immediately describe the "good in science" as "what approximates reality"? Isn't that question of "reality" what is at stake? If art is "what gives pleasure"—why is reality more important in whatever-qualifies-as science than in w-q-a art? Art and science have too long been separated out in this way (entertainment versus truth-finding) and I don't buy it at all. Both should bring pleasure, both should pursue the truth (though that truth might be conceived subjectively). "And it's true that my most visceral response to bad art is childish indignation: 'But that's a lie!'" (Ray).
Ray's own goals tend toward the positive ethic of Truths, particularly "1. Never supplant; always supplement." I think that is a better aphorism than Badiou's own too-terse maxim: "Keep going."
Returning to the question of political good and evil: nothing in Badiou's writing (that I've come across) advances any theory of how to tell, from within that subjective event, what the right response really is. It is treated as personal and intuitively obvious in some places "From the inside of this subjectivization, I can tell what is Evil (to betray my comrades, to collaborate with the Nazis, etc.)" (Badiou) and in others it is treated as a universal consensus: "The whole world understands that the real question is the following: ... Why are five thousand American deaths considered a cause for war, while five hundred thousand dead in Rwanda ... do not, in our opinion, merit outrage?" (Badiou). This Cabinet interview, in short, is not his best work. I recommend Ethics instead.
Despite these remarks which I suspect are just a kind of knee-jerk politicization, Badiou advances this interesting idea that, when a situation "happens" to you, you ought to live up to it, do what needs to be done, or at least, keep in mind that something needs to be done, and to rest with the status quo is not OK. To "Keep going," I believe, is indeed a courageous and important thing.
and economic and social prestige even if the loss is much more horrorific in the event that get's least attention - this is generally understood .... I think it would be more profitable to pusue the 9/11 versus Rwanda contrast with a different question or a different set of questions- if we can say that certain types of ethnically racist meta- narratives - whether extrapolated from the Koran or Marxist doctrine - or Adam Smith or the Bible - whatever - we might wonder if the current philosophical project to deflate all Meta-narratives could have a positive effect on deflating ethnic -socio/economic and religious conflict - which to me does't seem likely because human passions will always seek such naratives or if none are permitted - will create their own - and will perish as always for lac of knowledge - no - what needed along with these critical deflations is something that directs people to what is best in themselves and helps them to - if not overcome hatred at least kepp it under wraps or redirect more constructively - what's neede is a Narrative that places general well being - communal harmony - acceptance and understanding of self and others on a higher plain than domination /profit / manipulation / power /control ..and so fourth - and something of this nature cannot be forced down people's throats - or they will just vomit - it has to be socially supported - socially, intellectually , ethically - economically and religiously supported - I guess this is the same old starry eyed razz-ama-tazz - just having a sort of blind faith in the common good and will of the people doesn't make sense - of course there are positive elements in the collective - but the negative ones frequently prevail - something more is needed.....something that connects and dignifies and keeps all the various guises of prestige and power from undermining our common humanity -......I'm groping for God