Paul: The Foundation of Universalism. Ray Brassier. Stanford: Stanford University Press, Paul: The Foundation of Universalism is yet another religious intervention into a practical philosophy that can help us understand the eventizing of revolutionary activity. For Badiou, Paul is not the father of Christianity as a metaphysical project.
|Published (Last):||19 August 2008|
|PDF File Size:||19.21 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.48 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The event, for Paul, is the resurrection of Christ. The universal, for Paul, is that Jesus rose from the dead. Rather, it exists aside from these two orders. Now, the universal - Jesus rose from the dead - reaches out to the particulars because it applies to all, irrespective of any differences. There is neither Greek nor Jew, man nor woman; and yet, at the same time, there are Greeks and Jews, men and women.
As Badiou argues, the differences between the Greek and the Jew, the man and the women are not of prime importance. What matters first of all is the truth of the universal which is neither conceptual nor historical. All differences are secondary. In order to proclaim his message, Paul, therefore, becomes "all things to all men" is indifferent to particulars and yet acknowledges that not all men are the same. Hence, Paul is neither a Jewish prophet who provides signs from God nor a Greek philosopher who persuades through reason.
He is, rather, a new kind of figure - an anti-philosopher and an apostle. Why did I give this book only one star? For instance, near the beginning of the book, Badiou simply states that, of all the canonical epistles attributed to Paul "at least six are certainly apocryphal" 32 without providing any references. Now, I believe that all of the canonical epistles were either written or dictated by Paul and I believe there is a lot of evidence to back up my view.
This having been said, I know that most critical scholars still regard II Timothy and Ephesians to be authentic. Badiou, however, does not. Secondly, Badiou simply states that the resurrection was a fable and not a historical event in the colloquial sense of event.
Only those who are quite ignorant of recent and historical debates can assert such a claim with this kind of confidence once again, Badiou makes no effort to reference his assertion. There are numerous monographs and debates available showing that there is far more evidence in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ than the non-resurrection or a merely spiritual resurrection. Just think of the works by N. Wright and Gary Habermas to name but two.
Shimon Gibson, a non-Christian archeologist has, himself, stated in his book The Final Days of Jesus, that "[t]he reality is that there is no historical explanation for the empty tomb, other than if we adopt a theological one, i. These are but two instances of many others. What do all of these criticisms amount to? I disagree. Were Badiou to acknowledge controversial claims wherever they are, his book would have profited immensely.
Alain Badiou's St. Paul
Faet Roger Whitson is a Ph. Badiou explains how our current political climate is so ruled by commodity fetishism that we have started to treat identities as commodities, and even when we try to recognize identities for the force of good, e. Just think of the works by N. Revolution, likewise, moves beyond itself in an act that serves to perpetuate what it is. Were Badiou to acknowledge controversial claims wherever they are, his book would have profited immensely.
ALAIN BADIOU SAINT PAUL THE FOUNDATION OF UNIVERSALISM PDF