Alain Badiou, Logics of Worlds

Conclusion:
What is it to Live?
0. We are now in a position to propose a response to what has always been the
daunting question as one o! "ulien #racqs characters has it the question that,
however great its detour, philosophy $ust ulti$ately answer: what is it to live? %o
live obviously not in the sense o! de$ocratic $aterialis$ &persevering in the !ree
virtualities o! the body', but rather in the sense o! Aristotles enig$atic !or$ula: to
live as an ($$ortal)
%o begin with, we can re!or$ulate the e*acting syste$ o! conditions !or an
a!!ir$ative response o! the type: +es, %he true li!e is present)
1. (t is not a world, as given in the logic o! its appearing &the in!inite o! its ob-ects and
relations', which induces the possibility o! living at least not i! li!e is so$ething
other than e*istence) %he induction o! such a possibility depends on that which acts in
the world as the trace o! the !ulgurating disposition that has be!allen that world) %hat
is, the trace o! a vanished event) Within worldly appearing, such a trace is always a
$a*i$ally intense e*istence) %hrough the incorporation o! the worlds past to the
present opened up by the trace, it is possible to learn that prior to what happened and
is no longer, the ontological support o! this intense e*istence was an ine*istent o! the
world) %he birth o! a $ultiple to the !lash o! appearing, to which it previously only
belonged in an e*tinguished !or$, $a.es a trace in the world and signals toward li!e)
/or those who as. where the true li!e is, the !irst philosophical directive is thus
the !ollowing: %a.e care o! what is born) (nterrogate the !lashes, probe into their past
without glory) +ou can only hope in what inappears)
2. (t is not enough to identi!y a trace) 0ne $ust incorporate onesel! into what the trace
authorises in ter$s o! consequences) %his point is crucial) Li!e is the creation o! a
present but, -ust li.e the world vis121vis #od in 3escartes, this creation is a
continuous creation) %he cohesion o! a hitherto i$possible body constitutes itsel!
around the trace, around the anony$ous !lash o! a birth to the world o! being1there)
%o accept and declare this body is not enough, i! one wishes to be the conte$porary
o! the present o! which this body is the $aterial support) (t is necessary to enter into
its co$position, to beco$e an active ele$ent o! this body) %he only real relation to the
present is that o! an incorporation: the incorporation into this i$$anent cohesion o!
the world which springs !ro$ the beco$ing1e*istent o! the evental trace, as a new
birth beyond all the !acts and $ar.ers o! ti$e)
3. %he un!olding o! the consequences lin.ed to the evental trace consequences that
create a present proceeds through the treat$ent o! the points o! the world) (t does
not ta.e place through the continuous tra-ectory o! a bodys e!!icacy, but in sequences,
point by point) 4very present has a .ind o! !ibre) %he points o! the world in which the
in!inite appears be!ore the %wo o! choice are li.e the !ibres o! the present, its inti$ate
constitution in its worldly beco$ing) (n order !or a living present to open up, it is thus
required that the world not be atonic, that it contain points which guarantee the
e!!icacy o! a body, thus lending creative ti$e its !ibre)
5
4. Li!e is a sub-ective category) A body is the $ateriality that li!e requires, but the
beco$ing o! the present depends on the disposition o! this body in a sub-ective
!or$alis$, whether it be produced &the !or$alis$ is !aith!ul, the body is directly
placed under the evental trace', erased &the !or$alis$ is reactive, the body is held at
a double distance by the negation o! the trace', or occulted &the body is denied')
6either the reactive deletion o! the present, which denies the value o! the event, nor, a
!ortiori, its $orti!ying occultation, which presupposes a body transcendent to the
world, sanction the a!!ir$ation o! li!e, which is the incorporation, point by point, to
the present)
%o live is thus an incorporation into the present under the !aith!ul !or$ o! a
sub-ect) (! the incorporation is do$inated by the reactive !or$, one will not spea. o!
li!e, but o! $ere conservation) (t is a question o! protecting onesel! !ro$ the
consequences o! a birth, o! not relaunching e*istence beyond itsel!) (! incorporation is
do$inated by the obscure !or$alis$, one will instead spea. o! $orti!ication)
7lti$ately li!e is the wager, $ade on a body that has entered into appearing,
that one will !aith!ully entrust this body with a new te$porality, .eeping at a distance
the conservative drive &the ill1na$ed li!e instinct' as well as the $orti!ying drive
&the death instinct') Li!e is what gets the better o! the drives)
5. Because it prevails over the drives, li!e engages in the sequential creation o! a
present, and this creation both constitutes and absorbs and new type o! past)
/or de$ocratic $aterialis$, the present is never created) 3e$ocratic
$aterialis$ a!!ir$s, in an entirely e*plicit $anner, that it is i$portant to $aintain the
present within the con!ines o! an atonic reality) %hat is because it regards any other
view o! things as sub$itting the body to the despotis$ o! an ideology, instead o!
letting it roa$ !reely a$ong the diversity o! languages) 3e$ocratic $aterialis$
proposes to call thought the pure algebra o! appearing) %his atonic conception o! the
present results in the !etishisation o! the past as a separable culture) 3e$ocratic
$aterialis$ has a passion !or history8 it is truly the only authentic historical
$aterialis$)
Contrary to what transpires in the 9talinist version o! :ar*is$ a version that
Althusser inherited, though he disrupted it !ro$ within it is crucial to dis-oin the
$aterialist dialectic, the philosophy o! e$ancipation through truths, !ro$ historical
$aterialis$, the philosophy o! alienation by language1bodies) %o brea. with the cult
o! genealogies and narratives $eans restoring the past as the a$plitude o! the present)
( already wrote it $ore than twenty years ago, in $y Thorie du sujet: ;istory
does not e*ist) %here are only disparate presents whose radiance is $easured by their
power to un!old a past worthy o! the$)
(n de$ocratic $aterialis$, the li!e o! language1bodies is the conservative
succession o! the instants o! the atonic world) (t !ollows that the past is charged with
the tas. o! endowing these instants with a !ictive hori<on, with a cultural density) %his
also e*plains why the !etishis$ o! history is acco$panied by an unrelenting discourse
on novelty, perpetual change and the i$perative o! $odernisation) %he past o! cultural
depths is $atched by a dispersive present, an agitation which is itsel! devoid o! any
depth whatsoever) %here are $onu$ents to visit and devastated instants to inhabit)
4verything changes at every instant, which is why one is le!t to conte$plate the
$a-estic historical hori<on o! what does not change)
/or the $aterialist dialectic, it is al$ost the opposite) What stri.es one !irst is
the stagnant i$$obility o! the present, its sterile agitation, the violently i$posed
atonicity o! the world) %here have been !ew, very !ew, crucial changes in the nature o!
=
the proble$s o! thought since >lato, !or instance) But, on the basis o! so$e truth1
procedures that un!old sub-ectivisable bodies, point by point, one reconstitutes a
di!!erent past, a history o! achieve$ents, discoveries, brea.throughs, which is by no
$eans a cultural $onu$entality but a legible succession o! !rag$ents o! eternity) %hat
is because a !aith!ul sub-ect creates the present as the being1there o! eternity)
Accordingly, to incorporate onesel! into this present a$ounts to perceiving the past o!
eternity itsel!)
%o live is there!ore also, always, to e*perience in the past the eternal
a$plitude o! a present) We concur with 9pino<as !a$ous !or$ula !ro$ the scholiu$
to proposition ??((( o! Boo. @ o! the Ethics: We !eel and .now by e*perience that
we are eternal)
6. +et it re$ains i$portant to give a na$e to this e*perience AxperimentationB) (t
belongs neither to the order o! lived e*perience, nor to that o! e*pression) (t is not the
!inally attained accord between the capacities o! a body and the resources o! a
language) (t is the incorporation into the e*ception o! a truth) (! we agree to call (dea
what both $ani!ests itsel! in the world what sets !orth the being1there o! a body
and is an e*ception to its transcendental logic, we will say, in line with >latonis$, that
to e*perience in the present the eternity that authorises the creation o! this present is
to e*perience an (dea) We $ust there!ore accept that !or the $aterialist dialectic, to
live and to live !or an (dea are one and the sa$e thing)
(n what it would instead call an ideological conception o! Li!e, de$ocratic
$aterialis$ sees nothing but !anaticis$ and the death instinct) (t is true that, i! there is
nothing but bodies and languages, to live !or an (dea necessarily i$plies the arbitrary
absolutisation o! a language, which bodies $ust co$ply with) 0nly the $aterial
recognition o! the e*cept that o! truths allows us to declare, not that bodies are
sub$itted to the authority o! a language, !ar !ro$ it, but that a new body is the
organisation in the present o! an unprecedented sub-ective li!e) ( $aintain that the real
e*perience o! such a li!e, the co$prehension o! a theore$ or the !orce o! an
encounter, the conte$plation o! a drawing or the $o$entu$ o! a $eeting, is
irresistibly universal) %his $eans that, !or the !or$ o! incorporation that corresponds
to it, the advent o! the (dea is the very opposite o! a sub$ission) 3epending on the
type o! truth that we are dealing with, it is -oy, happiness, pleasure, or enthusias$)
7. 3e$ocratic $aterialis$ presents as an ob-ective given, as a result o! historical
e*perience, what it calls the end o! ideologies) What actually lies behind this is a
violent sub-ective in-unction whose real content is: Live without (dea) But this
in-unction is incoherent)
%hat this in-unction pushes thought into the ar$s o! sceptical relativis$ has
long been obvious) We are told this is the price to be paid !or tolerance and the respect
o! the 0ther) But each and every day we see that this tolerance is itsel! -ust another
!anaticis$, because it only tolerates its own vacuity) #enuine scepticis$, that o! the
#ree.s, was actually an absolute theory o! e*ception: it placed truths so high that it
dee$ed the$ inaccessible to the !eeble intellect o! the hu$an species) (t thus
concurred with the principal current in ancient philosophy, which argues that attaining
the %rue is the calling o! the i$$ortal part o! $en, o! the inhu$an e*cess that lies in
$an) Conte$porary scepticis$ the scepticis$ o! cultures, history and sel!1
e*pression is not o! this calibre) (t $erely con!or$s with the rhetoric o! instants and
the politics o! opinions) Accordingly, it begins by dissolving the inhu$an into the
hu$an, then the hu$an into everyday li!e, then everyday &or ani$al' li!e into the
C
atonicity o! the world) (t is !ro$ this dissolution that ste$s the negative $a*i$ Live
without (dea, which is incoherent because it no longer has any idea o! what an (dea
could be)
%hat is the reason why de$ocratic $aterialis$ in !act see.s to destroy what is
e*ternal to it) As we have noted, it is a violent and war$ongering ideology) Li.e every
$orti!ying sy$pto$, this violence results !ro$ an essential inconsistency) 3e$ocratic
$aterialis$ regards itsel! as hu$anist &hu$an rights, etc)') But it is i$possible to
possess a concept o! what is hu$an without dealing with the &eternal, ideal'
inhu$anity which authorises $an to incorporate hi$sel! into the present under the
sign o! the trace o! what changes) (! one !ails to recognise the e!!ects o! these traces,
in which the inhu$an co$$ands hu$anity to e*ceed its being1there, it will be
necessary, in order to $aintain a purely ani$al prag$atic notion o! the hu$an
species, to annihilate both these traces and their in!inite consequences)
%he de$ocratic $aterialist is a !earso$e and intolerant ene$y o! every hu$an
which is to say inhu$an li!e worthy o! the na$e)
8. %he banal ob-ection says that i! to live depends on the event, li!e is only granted to
those who have the luc. AchanceB o! welco$ing the event) %he de$ocrat sees in this
luc. the $ar. o! an aristocratis$, a transcendent arbitrariness o! the .ind that has
always been lin.ed to the doctrines o! #race) (t is true that several ti$es ( have used
the $etaphor o! grace, in order to indicate that what is called living always involves
agreeing to wor. through the &generally unprecedented' consequences o! what
happens)
%he advocates o! the divine, rather than o! #od, have long strived to recti!y
the apparent in-ustice o! this gi!t, o! this incalculable supple$ent !ro$ which ste$s
the sublation o! an ine*istent) (n order to !ul!il this tas., the $ost recent, talented and
neglected a$ong these advocates, Duentin :eillassou*, is developing an entirely new
theory o! the not yet o! divine e*istence, acco$panied by a rational pro$ise
concerning the resurrection o! bodies) %his goes to show that new bodies and their
birth are inevitably at sta.e in this a!!air)
9. ( believe in eternal truths and in their !rag$ented creation in the present o! worlds)
:y position on this point is entirely iso$orphic with that o! 3escartes: truths are
eternal because they have been created, and not because they have been there !orever)
/or 3escartes, eternal truths which, as we recalled in the pre!ace, he posed in
e*ception o! bodies and ideas cannot be transcendent to divine will) 4ven the $ost
!or$al o! these, the truths o! $athe$atics or logic, li.e the principle o! non1
contradiction, depend on a !ree act o! #od:
#od cannot have been deter$ined to $a.e it true that contradictories cannot be
true together, and there!ore he could have done the opposite)
0! course, the process o! creation o! a truth, whose present is constituted by
the consequences o! a sub-ectivated body, is very di!!erent !ro$ the creative act o! a
#od) But, at botto$, the idea is the sa$e) %hat it belongs to the essence o! a truth to
be eternal does not dispense it in the least !ro$ having to appear in a world and to be
ine*istent prior to this appearance) 3escartes proposes a truly re$ar.able !or$ula
with regard to this point:
E
4ven i! #od has willed that so$e truths should be necessary, this does not $ean
that he willed the$ necessarily)
4ternal necessity pertains to a truth in itsel!: the in!inity o! pri$e nu$bers, the
pictorial beauty o! the horses in the Chauvet cave, the principles o! popular war or the
a$orous a!!ir$ation o! ;eloise and Abelard) But its process o! creation does not,
since it depends on the contingency o! worlds, the aleatory character o! a site, the
e!!icacy o! the organs o! a body, the constancy o! a sub-ect)
3escartes is indignant that one could consider truths as separate !ro$ other
creatures, turning the$, so to spea., into the !ate o! #od:
%he $athe$atical truths which you call eternal have been laid down by #od and
depend on hi$ entirely no less than the rest o! his creatures) (ndeed to say that
these truths are independent o! #od is to tal. o! hi$ as i! he were "upiter or
9aturn and to sub-ect hi$ to the 9ty* and the /ates)
( too a!!ir$ that all truths without e*ception are established through a
sub-ect, the !or$ o! a body whose e!!icacy creates point by point) But, li.e 3escartes,
( argue that their creation is but the appearing o! their eternity)
10. ( a$ indignant then, li.e 3escartes, when the %rue is de$oted to the ran. o! the
9ty* and the /ates) %ruth be told, ( a$ indignant twice over) And li!es worth also
ste$s !ro$ this double quarrel) /irst o! all against those, the culturalists, relativists,
people preoccupied with i$$ediate bodies and available languages, !or who$ the
historicity o! all things e*cludes eternal truths) %hey !ail to see that a genuine creation,
a historicity o! e*ception, has no other criterion than to establish, between disparate
worlds, the evidence o! an eternity) And that what appears only shines !orth in its
appearance to the e*tent that it subtracts itsel! !ro$ the local laws o! appearing) A
creation is trans1logical, since its being upsets its appearing) 9econd, against those !or
who$ the universality o! the true ta.es the !or$ o! a transcendent Law, be!ore which
we $ust bend our .nee, to which we $ust con!or$ our bodies and our words) %hey
do not see that every eternity and every universality $ust appear in a world and,
patiently or i$patiently, be created within it) 9ince a truth is an appearance o! being,
a creation is logical)
11. But ( need neither #od nor the divine) ( believe that it is here and now that we
rouse or resurrect ourselves as ($$ortals)
:an is this ani$al to who$ it belongs to participate in nu$erous worlds, to
appear in innu$erable places) %his .ind o! ob-ectal ubiquity, which $a.es hi$ shi!t
al$ost constantly !ro$ one world to another, on the bac.ground o! the in!inity o!
these worlds and their transcendental organisation, is in its own right, without any
need !or a $iracle, a grace: the purely logical grace o! innu$erable appearing) 4very
hu$an ani$al can tell hi$sel! that it is ruled out that he or she will encounter always
and everywhere atonicity, the ine!!iciency o! the body or the dearth o! organs capable
o! treating its points) (ncessantly, in so$e accessible world, so$ething happens)
9everal ti$es in its brie! e*istence, every hu$an ani$al is granted the chance to
incorporate itsel! into the sub-ective present o! a truth) %he grace o! living !or an (dea,
that is o! living as such, is accorded to everyone, and !or several types o! procedure)
%he in!inite o! worlds is what saves us !ro$ every !inite dis1grace) /initude,
the constant harping on o! our $ortal being, in brie!, the !ear o! death as the only
passion these are the bitter ingredients o! de$ocratic $aterialis$) We overco$e all
F
this when we sei<e hold o! the discontinuous variety o! worlds and the interlacing o!
ob-ects under the constantly variable regi$es o! their appearances)
12. We are open to the in!inity o! worlds) %o live is possible) %here!ore, to
&re'co$$ence to live is the only thing that $atters)
13. ( a$ so$eti$es told that ( see in philosophy only a $eans to re1establish, against
the conte$porary apologia o! the !utile and the everyday, the rights o! herois$) Why
not? ;aving said that, ancient herois$ clai$ed to -usti!y li!e through sacri!ice) :y
wish is to $a.e herois$ e*ist through the a!!ir$ative -oy which is universally
generated by !ollowing consequences through) We could say that the epic herois$ o!
the one who gives his li!e is supplanted by the $athe$atical herois$ o! the one who
creates li!e, point by point)
15. (n Mans Fate, :alrau* $a.es the !ollowing re$ar. about one o! his characters:
%he heroic sense was given to hi$ as a discipline, not as a -usti!ication o! li!e) (n
e!!ect, ( place herois$ on the side o! discipline, the only weapon both o! the %rue and
o! peoples, against power and wealth, against the insigni!icance and dissipation o! the
$ind) But this discipline de$ands to be invented, as the coherence o! a
sub-ectivisable body) %hen it can no longer be distinguished !ro$ our own desire to
live)
16) We will only be consigned to the !or$ o! the disenchanted ani$al !or who$ the
co$$odity is the only re!erence1point i! we consent to it) But we are shielded !ro$
this consent by the (dea, the secret o! the pure present)
G