papastephanou the philosopher v2

8/12/2019 Papastephanou the Philosopher v2

1/37

49

Te Phlosopher, the Sophst,the Undercurrent and Alai Badou

Maianna Papasephanou

Universiy o Cyprus

Introducton

B -incion beween hings as pure

mulipliciies, on he one hand,and he relaions beween hings wihin a deerminae world,on he oher. Much agains various insidious nauralizaionsand essenializaions, Badiouian onology insiss ha hingsas pure mulipliciies are no accompanied by any qualiaivedeerminaions. The later come ino play only when hingsare viewed in relaion o one anoher in virue o he generallas o a deerminae orld. Bu such las are no las ohe hings hemselves; or, all las, physical or biological

or psychological, or juridical, are las o appearing in heconex o a singular world.1

Consequenly, all asymmeries we come across in he realmo social onology, e.g. asymmeries in wealh or power, havenohing o do wih he being quabeing o hose mulipliciieswhich consiue he pairs o he asymmerical relaion (e.g.

1 Alain Badiou, The Three Negaions,Cadozo Law Review29, 5: 1880.


2/37

Speculatons II

50

people as rich and poor or srong and weak). Such asymmeriesresul, raher, rom he inscripion o pure mulipliciies in herelaional ramework o a specific, deerminae world. Badiounames his inscripion he appearing o he mulipliciy ina singular orld. A hing isin he orld o mahemaics oronology bu i also exissas an objec in a concree orld

because o is appearing in a social onology. Bu being andappearing are no equivalen; he qualiaive deerminaionso exisence in a world make sure ha somehing which jusis (as a mulipliciy) in absolue erms (logically somehingsimply is or is no) will now appear in relaive erms (i will berecognized moe oless).2For insance, people as mulipliciies

are; ye, as rich or poor and srong or weak appear more orless in he ligh or in he shadow o he order o a given world.Whils hings presen hemselves regardless o wheher heyare recognized as such, objecs are represened more or lessas valued ideniies in a siuaion.3When somehing is norepresened and appears as nohing in his orld, or heni appears wih he minimal degree o inensiy, i is namedan inexisen mulipliciy.4

To Badiou, his disincion beeen being qua being

and exisence, hich is also a disincion beeen a hingand an objec, is undamenal,5amongs oher hings, orpreserving a disincion beween he onology o ruh andhe episemology o ha passes as asserible or veridicala a given ime according o he las o he deerminaeorld. Such disincions ground he ension beeen, onhe one hand, a suplus o uhha canno be dran romhe resources o a world governed by a specific order and, onhe oher hand, a soial uencha is based on wha makes

sense and has gained hegemony in ha given orld. Suchhegemony effecing inclusions and exclusions is warraned

2 Badiou, The Three Negaions, 1881.3 Alain Badiou,Being and Even, rans. Oliver Felham (London: Coninuum,2007), 134.4 Badiou, The Three Negaions, 1882.5 Ibid., 1880.


3/37

Maranna Papastephanou Te Philosophe, he Sophis

51

by recourse o misaken equaions o he curren order o hespecific world wih a supposedly naural order o hings. ForBadiou, naure buries inconsisency and urns aay romhe void.6Hence, naure can be defined in Badiouian erms

as ha which imposes limis on he range and scope o whais couned fi or presenaion (as opposed o wha presensisel ihou being recognized as such) under his or haprevalen concepual, juridical or socio-poliical order.7

While acknowledging and emphasizing he impor o heabove ideas, I claim ha Badiou does no make much roomin his philosophy or he ono-episemological significanceo undercurrens o lie and hough ihin a given orld.

I argue ha orcing Badious posiion up agains ha Iconsider o be is on limis allos us o vie he idea ohe undercurren as a muli-aceed challenge: o he placeBadiou allocaes o he sophis and he philosopher; o heprioriy he gives o he even and o evenal consequences;o his oulook on social onology, naure, represenaionand knoledge; o he irrupive and excepional characero evenal ruh incriminaing he quoidian and seting iin sharp conras o he ne; and o his seeing ruh rom

he perspecive o acion raher han rom ha o judgmen.

ruth, Sense and Judgment:the phlosopher and the sophst

The disincion beween he onology o ruh, and he epis-emology o socially curren, accumulaed knowledge musremain sharp, Badiou argues, or oherwise hough risks o allprey eiher o convenionalism or o dogmaism. Philosophy

mus insis ha here are local ruhs, no jus convenions,and seize hem rom he maze o sense.8Ye, a he same ime,philosophy mus deend he locus o Truh only as an empy

6 Badiou,Being and Even, 177.7 Chrisopher Norris,Badious Being and Even (London: Coninuum, 2009).8 Alain Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, rans. Norman Madarasz (Albany: Press, 1999), 126.


4/37

Speculatons II

52

albei operaivecaegory. I is no longer legiimae or hephilosopher o say, as does he dogmais, ha here is a solelocus o Truh and ha his locus is revealed by philosophyisel. One o he risks involved in dogmaic posiions is heransormaion o philosophy rom he raional operaioni mus be ino he dubious pah o an iniiaion9and inohe ecsaic sacralizaion, up o levels o error, o a uniqueplace o Truh.

Bu, as saed above, he philosopher mus be equally preparedo conron her mos asue adversary, he hinker who claimsha here are no ruhs bu only echnics or saemens andloci o enunciaion. Badiou personalizes his adversary wih

he figure o he sophis, ancien and modern. Hoever, hedoes no recommend he kind o inellecual arare haould lead o ani-sophisic exremism. Philosophy goesasray when i nourishes he dark desire o finishing off hesophis one and o all. When acing hus, philosophy is ledo he dogmaic claim ha he sophis, since he is like a per-vered double o he philosopher, ough no o exis. Badioucondemns unequivocally such philosophical atiudes andmakes clear ha he sophis mus only be assigned o his

plae.10Barbara Cassin criicizes Badiou on his by arguingha he degree o reedom separaing he ac o eradicaionrom ha o assigning a place is perilously slim.11I would likeo add a somewha differen objecion: ha he place assignedo he sophis regarding ruh canno be as fixed and perhapsas disinc rom he one assigned o he philosopher as i mayseem a firs sigh. This objecion will no be deployed here

bu i will be kep consanly in view. Wha is imporan, orhe momen, is ha, or Badiou, philosophy may raise he

objecion o he sophis o he local exisence o ruhs; igoes asray when i proposes he ecsasy o a place o Truh.12

Bu how do ruhs manies hemselves as ruhs in a world

9 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 133.10 Ibid., 133.11 Barbara Cassin, Whos Araid o he Sophiss?,Hypaia15, 4: 120.12 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 133.


5/37


53

o unelasic order and fixed las, a orld hich precludesruhs in he firs place and excludes elemens rom he coun-as-one ha consolidaes consisen mulipliciies? Afer all,Badiou himsel approaches any ruh as a ransgression ohe law. O course, his does no mean a radical disconnec-ion o ruh and law; on he conrary, i presupposes ha aruh depends on he la and on he knoledge ha goeshand in hand ih he la, a knoledge ha ill be sha-ered by he ruh ha ransgresses i. Ye, ransgression alsosignifies ha a ruh is neverheless a negaion o he law.13Arguably, or Badiou, while ruh will always depend on hevery law ha i will come o disrup, no ruh will ever be a

law in he sense o enjoying he sauso somehing ha maybe eognizedas valid now andsubjec, o course, o allibil-is precauionsperhaps valid or all ime. Or, pu in oherwords, ruh evaporaes he very momen ha i eners socialonology and becomes esablished knowledge. As knowledge,i ill invie ye anoher ne ruh-even ha ill come oshater episemic order.

Hence, he difficuly persiss: how does ruh ener hepicure (he world o appearing) wihou losing is characer,

and how does philosophy seize i? The difficuly becomes moreserious by Badious asserion ha nohing is presenable ina siuaion oherwise han under he effec o srucure, hais, under he orm o he one and is composiion in consis-en mulipliciies.14Even he cenral ruh o onology i.e.,he ruh o is essenially subracive characer, is concealedrom enquirers simply hrough he ac ha by ver definiionhose excluded elemens canno figure wihin he coun-as-one or be perceived as inegral or consiuen pars o any

exisen siuaion.15Then, how does philosophy seize localruhs rom he maze o sense, i he later is so overwhelm-ingly dominan in is uniying endency oward consisency?

13 Badiou, The Three Negaions, 1878.14 Badiou,Being and Even, 52.15 Norris,Badious Being and Even, 62.


6/37

Speculatons II

54

Parly,16he answer comes rom anoher Badiouian concep,ha o he inconsisen mulipliciy hich maniess iselin he guise o crises, unresolved conradicions, anomaliesand problems encounered in he process o enquiry. Whain-consiss also disrups he smooh flo o quoidian nor-malcy ha accompanies a consisen mulipliciy. Thereore,philosophy should bear iness o problemaic siuaions,gaps in knowledge, paradoxes, ec., so as o be ready o seizehe ruh involved in hem. A possible objecion o his is,in my view, he ac ha philosophy has, a imes, exercised(surely no consisenly enough) a radical power o houghprecisely by hemaizing he un-problemaic, by ocusing on

he aken-or-graned raher han by operaing exclusively onwha has already emerged and been perceived as a difficulyor a crisis. The dependence o philosophy on somehingha has already appeared in he guise o a problem makesphilosophy parasiic upon crisis and jeopardizes is poenialor radically rehinking a seemingly un-problemaic flow oquoidian normalcy. Thereby, he dependence o philosophyon ha in-consiss brings Badiouan hough much closero Deeyan or later-day pragmaism (given he cenral-

iy pragmaism atribues o criicaliy as problem-solving)han o philosophy as has someimes been praciced romaniquiy on. For, philosophy has someimes been an aporeicoperaion regarding wha precisely belongs o he realm oun-problemaic, ension- or conroversy-ree and smooh cur-ren o hings. Unlike i, a philosophy ha is parasiic uponcrisis becomes more amed and domesicaed, less sirring,as i appears more problem-inspired raher han problem-and-conroversy-creaing.

This is a challenge ha concerns wha he very onology oBadiou allos and he ay in hich i relies on he opposi-ion o evenal ruh o being, and, urher, o presenaion oheoreical represenaion. Le us see, firs, how he new andhe evenal-ruh (and, in my vie, his conjuncion raises

16 Anoher answer may come rom Badious noion o orcing, bu, as i doesno affec wha is discussed in his aricle, I shall leave i aside.


7/37


55

many issues o qualificaion) come up as a break wih onologyand why we may consider philosophy quarepresenaionaldiscourse as ill-fiting in he whole operaion. Badiou explainsha in a given orld, e have somehing ne only i heraional or convenional las o his orld are inerruped,or pu ou o heir normal effecs, by somehing which hap-pens. Badiou names i an Even, a kind o occurrence whoseconsequences susain a negaive relaionship o he laws ohe world.17As I see i, viewed as operaing wihin he realmo represenaion, philosophy is aken o be lagging behindpresenaion. For i awais somehing o occur, o come up asa break, in order o seize i, raher han isel paving he pah

or somehing o occur and o break he balance o poerwihin a deerminae world.Then, Badiou names he mulipliciy composed o he

consequences o he even an evenal-ruh. The new, whichinerrups he convenional laws, has ruh as is consequence.And, a ruh, in a firs sense, is a par o he world, becausei is a se o onsequenes o he evenin he world, and no ou-side. Bu in a second sense, e can say ha a ruh is like anegaion o he world, because he even isel is subraced

rom he raional or convenional las o he orld.18Theonly way in which a ruh is par o he world is exclusivelyoed o ruhs being a se o consequences o he even inhe world. Is ruh never a par o he world when i appearsdissociaed rom a prior eveni he later is undersoodas ha which suspends or cancels he normal effecs o helawor dissociaed rom perceivable consequences or rommajor changes? Does philosophy never inroduce somehingnew, which, in some cases, i may happen o be no jus new

bu also rue, even i i does no atrac, regretably, he aten-ion o large numbers o agens in a deerminae world so aso effec a radical redirecion?

I argue ha ruh can be a par o a specific world as a spe-cific judgmen, even as an aphorism, regardless o heher

17 Badiou, The Three Negaions, 1878.18 Ibid., 1878. My emphasis.


8/37

Speculatons II

56

i is recognized as such by he majoriy o individuals inhe world and wheher i inspires hem o swing ino acionor no. Somehing ha does happen or is utered as a ruh,i.e., i raises validiy claims ha mee requiremens o ruh(apar rom he requiremen o consequences), may have nolasing impac, or i may be bypassed; i may be recognizedas rue only rerospecively. Tha i exised only as par o anundercurren o hough does no undo is being a par oha world or is being rue. And, as o is poenial o inspireand moivae change, his is a mater o he atiude owardsi ha a sociey migh be capable o culivaing. To explain,i is an educaional mater heher individuals learn o

seek he undercurren o heir imes so as o judge is ruhclaims beyond ideological consrains o prominence. I isalso an educaional mater o poerul criicaliy heherindividuals learn o go beyond he raionalizaions ha areoen involved in hose jusificaions ha achieve he sauso recognized social currency and convenional isdom aa given ime.

Surely, Badiouian moves such as making ruh dependenon he even and heorizing ruh as a se o consequences

have he meri o coupling ruh ih disclosure, o breah-ing enhusiasic acion ino ruh and o backing i up wihan ehic o commimen. Bu hese heoreical moves areaccompanied wih difficulies such as: he incriminaion ohe enire raional sphere o a deerminae world regarding aspecific issue, i.e., an incriminaion o onology as always heopposie, he negaive, o he even and is ruhs; he exclu-sion o ruh as a judgmen and/or a proposiional conenha remains valid even i a specific era blocks is possibiliy

o bearing effecs and consequences; and, in urn, a orceddrasic choice beween presenaion and represenaion haconfines heory o dominan and received vies reflecinghe order o he one in any given world.

Le me explain he later. Badiou disinguishes wha heheory presens rom presenaion.19Thus, wha he erm

19 Badiou,Being and Even, 48.


9/37


57

presenaion signifies is he oaliy o hose elemens haoffer hemselves as poenial candidaes or membership,wheher or no ha poenial is realized by heir acually be-ing so reaed.20By conras, o ollow Chrisopher Norrissparlance again, wha he heory presens is wha finds anaccredied, duly acknowledged place in hose various prevail-ing sysems. Prevailing sysems decide wha shall coun asa member or consiuen o some given se, group or class.21Following his hrough o is implicaions, we may concludeha presenaion is never heorized, concurrenly wih whaa heory presens, in a way ha could cones he alloaiono plaewihin a prevailing sysem.

As I see i, his runs he risk o equaing he heoreical claimso an era wih is dominan heories, and o rapping us inoan eiher/or: here is he presenaion, here is he heoreicalrepresenaion. Such an eiher/or precludes he sudy o heidea o an undercurren o hough, an idea ha is, in my view,negleced in Badious philosophy no because o some kindo derelicion bu because o binary opposiions such as heabove. Those do no make room or he non-prevailing-ye-heoreical-or-heorizable voiceprior o is becoming srong

enough o have consequences. A voice o his kind I defineas an undeuen. I concerns a hough or pracice wihina deerminae orld ha hovers beeen presenaion andrepresenaive order. I speaks or wha he dominan repre-senaion excludes bu i has no gained he wider atenionor accepance presupposed by any effecive conesaion oesablished order. The undercurren can be eiher a hal- or

badly-buried heoreical claim or a lived experience hais availablehough so aken-or-graned as o be almos

impercepiblein a given world and reflecs a judgmen opossibly universal validiy and evenal consequences. I saypossibly because, evidenly, no all undercurrens serve ruh.To mee ruh condiions, i is no enough jus o oppose aspecific order; more qualificaions regarding he ruh o a

20 Norris,Badious Being and Even, 62.21Ibid., 62.


10/37

Speculatons II

58

proposiional conen are required.The undercurren canno be easily accommodaed in Ba-

dious bipolar onology o being and even, and o presena-ion and wha heory presens, also due o his reamen oruh as disinc rom judgmen, proposiional conen andepisemology. How Badious hinking proceeds in such ma-ers can be shown by reerence o universalism. Tradiionalconcepions o universaliy, rom Arisole, o Kan and downo presen-day analyic philosophy see universalism as he

realizaion o a universal judgmen abou some real hing.To hose grammaical concepions o universalism Badiouopposes a creaive concepion, one ha sees universalism

as alays he resul o a grea process ha opens ih aneven.22I is a grea meri o Badiouian universalism ha,ihin i, o creae somehing universal is o go beyondeviden differences and separaions. The elaboraion o hisassumpion, ino which we canno delve now, offers a robusand valuable reuaion o acile muliculuralis accouns oideniy and difference. Bu, such heoreical benefis needno be grounded in ormulaions ha 1) give philosophicallyan almos pejoraive sense o judgmen, 2) rigidly discon-

nec onology and poliics rom episemology and 3) makea grammaical concepion o ruh compleely expendable.

For insance, a rue idea ha remains an undercurren mayas such have a couneracual universal validiyeven i hisvalidiy has no ye been recognized by a given world or bymos o he hinkers o ha specific world, perhaps no even

by mos o he hinkers o a subsequen world. Tha Badiousees he difference beeen a grammaical concepion oruh and a concepion o ruh as a creaion, a process, an

even23as crucial and absolue can be shown by he ac hahis difference allows Badiou o claim ha he is no a all in-eresed in he conen o Sain Pauls kergma. He assers hahe is only ineresed in he operaional, procedural characer

22 Alain Badiou, Universal Truhs and he Quesion o Religion: Inerviewwih A.S. Miller,Jounal o Philosophy and Sipue3, 1 (2005): 39.23 Badiou, Universal Truhs, 39.


11/37


59

o i and is evenal consequences.24Bu i is no obvious whyhis difference renders he grammaical concepion o ruhless imporan or why he later canno be incorporaed inohe Badiouian concepion. Wihin he broad argumen ohe onological accommodaion o he undercurren, whichI am promoing here, he wo concepions can be reconciledand hegammaicalconcepion can be reaed as he coneno he eaiveconcepion o ruh, on grounds o which hewhole venure o urning a ruh ino universal inspiraiono creaing new realiies is el as worhwhile.

Sant Paul and the Ancent World

The above can be corroboraed by reerence o Badious ownexemplary figure, Sain Paul. To Badiou, Pauls unprecedenedgesure consiss in subracing ruh rom he communiariangrasp, be i ha o a people, a ciy, an empire, a erriory, or asocial class.25My criique o Badiou and my inerpolaiono he undercurren, as I have indicaed i above, can hus beargued ou by considering Badious verdic regarding hapreceded Pauls gesure and by discussing he pre-evenal. To

Badiou, Pauls saemenhee is neihe Jew no Geek, heeis neihe slave no eeis a genuinely supeingsaemenwhen one knowsheuleso heanien wold.26Indeed i issupeying, and especially so hen one knos he rules ohe ancien orld, and I emphasize each ord o he laterphrase. I is supeying when one: ocuses on he knowledgeha he accumulaed, dominan and sandardized opinionesablishes by reaing nuance as insignifican deail, unableo change he big picure; harkens o he rules ha diver

our atenion rom he excepion ihin social onologyor rom he non-dominan endency o hough, rom heundercurren; and reas he ancien world as a unified and

24 Alain Badiou,Sain Paul: Te Foundaion o Univesalism, rans. Ray Brassier(Sanord: Sanord Universiy Press, 2003), 1.25 Ibid., 5.26 Ibid., 5. My emphasis.


12/37

Speculatons II

60

homogenized hisorical sie on which he rules o represen-aion are imposed in hindsigh and leave he hen exisenye non-dominan view unaccouned or.

To subsaniae hese objecions, I urn o he ancien worldso as o esablish a connecion beeen he ruh o Paulssaemen and hose undercurrens o Greek aniquiy hahad already voiced such a ruh. Universalis egaliarianismas par o he ancien orld; ha i as one o litle bear-ing does no jusiy is curren heoreical oblieraion haunderlies he presenaion o he Pauline saemen as amiraculous inerrupion o he supposedly univocal heorei-cal flo ha croned he quoidian normalcy o aniquiy.

There is no quesion abou he pre-evenal characer o heruhs o hose undercurrens o hough, especially henjudged on grounds o consequence. The disseminaion ohe ruh o heir proposiional conen and he prospecor poerul effecs surely remained nohing oher han acouneracual possibiliy hroughou he ancien world. Yehe ruh o hose undercurrens can be o value or us, wihhe benefi o hindsigh. For, we may hus exrapolae a wideronological claim ha he heoreical appearing is no always

so anipodic o he being o a hing. And we may hus diversome atenion rom he rigid segregaion o onology andepisemology o he possibiliy o insances o reconciliaiono hem (wihou losing sigh o heir disinciveness) wihinhe broad scope o a realis heory o ruh.

The endency is usually o approach a deerminae world(e.g. ancien Greek) a is sronges, i.e., ocusing on he mosglaring and, a he same ime, ruiul characerisic o i, inoher words, on is unique, unprecedened, perhaps evenal

conribuion o hough. For insance, regarding Greek aniq-uiy, one may ocus on he maheme (Badiou) or on he poem(Heidegger) as such a conribuion. However, i he noion ohe undercurren is o have he ono-episemological signifi-cance I atribue o i, he mos appropriae move seems o meo approach he ancien world a is weakes, where he ques-ion o wheher a siuaion is deprived o evenal ruh and owheher he quoidian and is oaliy o ideas consiue an


13/37


61

onology a sharp conras o inconsisen mulipliciy can beexplored. Given Badious reading o Pauls saemen, sincehe idea ha here is neiher Greek nor barbarian appearso be a he urhes remove rom Greek heorizaion, andsince Greek aniquiy appears o have never seriously chal-lenged he insiuion o slavery, bu, on he conrary, o havedeermined i as naural, hese wo will be my ocal poins.

Te Greek and the Barbaran

One may find abundan exual suppor o he claim hahe ancien Greek orld held a deep prejudice agains he

non-Greek and ha ancien philosophy never quesionedsuch a prejudice27and is concomian social rules. Worse,philosophy urnished ha orld ih ample jusificaorymaerial ha was crucial or he reproducion and perpeu-aion o is prejudicial sel-undersanding.

A firs sigh, he ancien everyday normalcy conainedno conradicion, no challenge o ha prejudice. Ye, uponcloser inspecion, i becomes eviden ha here had been anundercurren o pracices ha quesioned he prejudicial

division o he Greek and he barbarian. For, in he sevenhand sixh cenuries he yrannies and he Orphic culs had

begun o lay he oundaions or cosmopolianism. Amongsoher hings, he ormer had no resriced he immigraiono barbarians and he later ere open o all men, no oGreeks alone. By he ime o Arisole here had arisen alarge body o opinion hich mainained ha he popularprejudice agains he barbarians was enirely unjusified;28Diogenes he Cynic was said o envision a world-sae where

barbarian and Greek could live ogeher on equal erms.29

27 For a very ineresing excepion, see PlaosSaesman(262c-e), herePlao says ha i is ridiculous o divide humankind ino Greeks and non-Greeks. See also Rober Schlaier, Greek Theories o Slavery rom Homero Arisole, Havad Sudies in Classial Philology47 (1936): 170.28 Ibid., 168-169.29 Leser H. Rifin, Arisole on Equaliy: A Criicism o A.J. Carlyles Theory,

Jounal o he Hisor o Ideas, 14, 2 (1953): 276.


14/37

Speculatons II

62

Sill, his alone can hardly be ormulaed as a heoreicalundercurren o elaborae exposiion o an agumenhaconravened he dominan view on he barbarian.

Ye such an argumen exised. I as no ormulaed by aphilosopher, bu by a sophis, Aniphon, ho as, amongsoher hings, a skilled mahemaician (he ried o square hecircle). Aniphon wroe a rac On uh[Pei Aleheias] in heconex o a lae-fih cenury effor o inquire ino realiy, aona.30From is exan ragmens we can draw he conclusionha i deended equaliy or all, Greeks and barbarians alike.31Here is he relevan passage:

(o more amiliar socieies) we undersand and respec; hose o disansocieies we neiher undersand nor respec. This means ha we have

become barbarians in our relaions wih one anoher, or by naure we

are all equally equipped in every respec o be barbarians and Greeks.

This is shown by examining hose acors which are by naure necessary

among all human beings and are provided o all in erms o he same

capaciies; i is in hese very acors ha none o us is differeniaed

as a barbarian or a Greek. We all breahe ino he air wih our mouhs

and wih our nosrils, and we all laugh when here is joy in our mind,

or we weep when suffering pain; we receive sounds hrough our hear-ing; we see when sunligh combines wih our aculy o sigh; we work

wih our hands and we walk wih our ee.32

We canno perorm a close reading o he passage here, bu,ha is imporan is ha, ranslaed ino Badious idiom,Aniphons posiion is ha he differeniaion beween Greekand barbarian is a produc o he las o appearing ihina given orld and no o naure. Being has no qualiaive

deerminaions.

30 Carroll Moulon, Aniphon he Sophis, on Truh,ansaions and Po-eedings o he Ameian Philologial Assoiaion, Vol. 103 (1972): 330.31 Philip Merlan, Alexander he Grea or Aniphon he Sophis?,ClassialPhilology, 45, 3 (1950): 163.32 POxy, 1364 and 3647. I ake he English ranslaion rom Marin Oswald,

NomosandPhusisin Aniphons , in Cabine o he Muses(eds)M. Griffih and D. J. Masronarde (Alana: Scholars Press, 1990), 293-294.


15/37


63

Then again, does Aniphon use naure so as o relaivizeall ruh? I ha were rue, hen, Aniphons posiion is jus aradicalizaion o he sandard sophisic enes agains ruhpushed hrough o heir ulimae implicaions. For hahe ancien or modern sophis claims o impose is pecisely hahee is no uh, ha he concep o uh is useless and unceain,since here are only convenions, rules, ypes o discourse orlanguage games.33Ye, on he conrary, Aniphon presses healeheiao naure agains hedoxao laws and cusom raherhan rejecing ruh or he sake o sense and convenion.The res o he exan par o Aniphons On uhinvolvesso much ension beweenphysisandnomosor he sake o he

ormer ha he ineviable conclusion one draws rom readingi is ha he had a realis concepion o ruh as mind- andcommuniy-independen as well as criical and correcive ohe various versions o nomos. Here is an indicaive passage:

i someone breaches lawulness and passes unnoiced by is conracors,

he escapes social degradaion and punishmen. I he is observed, he

does no. Bu i a man, exceeding limis, harms he organic grohs

o naure, he evil is neiher less, i he passes oally unnoiced, nor

greaer, i all men see. Fo he is hamed no hough mens belie (doxa),bu hough uh (aleheia) [ou dia doxan vlapeai, alla di aleheian].34

The Aniphonic anihesis beween nomima(legal, cusom-ary) andphysis, as expressed in he ragmens, esablishes ha

physiscorresponds o he word aleheia, wih nomos parallelo doxa. This would sugges ha naure, or Aniphon, has hevalue o ruh.35The significance o such an equaion is hanaure becomes precisely he means or reuing he kind o

acile nauralism ha effecs exclusions and or promoinghe kind o universalism ha we encounered in Sain Paulsdeclaraion ha here is neiher Jew nor Greek.

33 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 119. My emphasis.34 POxy. 1364, col. My emphasis. I ake he English ranslaion rom Moulon,

Aniphon he Sophis, 331.35Ibid., 334.


16/37

Speculatons II

64

Le us unpack his poin. As indicaed in he firs seciono his aricle, Badiou deplores he ac ha he idea o henaural is recruied as a yardsick or discouning or excludinghe odd one ou, ha which does no belong o he consisencoun-as-one. Badiou combas such endencies by claimingulimaely ha naure does no exis.36For, he idea o henaural is prone o cerain kinds o abusive exrapolaion.Among hem is ha which more-or-less surrepiiously derivesa noion o culural, civic, socio-poliical or ehnic commu-niy rom a noion o he properly or naurally belonging-ogeher.37Much like Badiou, Aniphons employmen onaure combas hose exrapolaions ha elevae opinion

o he saus o a naural ruh and hus jusiy disrespecoward disan socieies. Bu, unlike Badiou, Aniphon doesno associae he idea o naure exclusively wih he negaivepoliical implicaions o is use. On he conrary, Aniphonexplois he posiive poliical implicaions o naure. To hapurpose, and or reasons ha concur wih Badious commi-men o equaliy and universaliy, Aniphon demarcaes in aruly minimalis manner he commonaliies ha ypiy heuniversal se o humaniy. As Oswald explains, he atack is

no direced a nomoias such bu a people ho, in atribu-ing oo absolue a value o heir own nomoi, ail o considerhe ac haphysisaccords no higher rank o one sociey orehnic group over anoher.38Merlan, or hom he Ani-phon ragmen anicipaes he slogan raerniy, equaliy,39argues ha Aniphon is he firs o have an enirely secularidea o equaliy. In Aniphons case, he idea o broherhoodo man originaed wihou he idea o he aherhood o Godas is counerpar. As a nonreligious idea, i is a proes

agains prejudice in he name o naurehis naure beingconceived, as ar as we can see, wihou any divine qualiy. Theequaliy o biological uncions is he all-imporan acor in

36 Badiou,Being and Even, 140.37 Norris,BadiousBeing and Even, 132.38 Oswald, Nomos andPhusis, 301.39 Merlan, Alexander he Grea, 164.


17/37


65

inerhuman relaions.40

The cross-emporal originaliy o Aniphons move alsolies, amongs oher hings, in is difference rom well-knownmodern atemps, e.g. such as Marha Nussbaums and Ju-dih Shklars o ground cosmopolianism in human naureor in human vulnerabiliy respecivelyor i is ar moreminimalis and neural in qualiaive deerminaions hanhose. The recourse o he human body as universal proo oa common humaniy (which undoes he essenialism o hedisincion beween Greek and barbarian by reducing i o asocio-culural deerminaion) is in ac no quie a recourseo human naure, as e normally approach i, bu raher a

recourse o corporealiy. By resricing he human common-aliies ha naure grounds o a handul o basic bodily pars,uncions or reacions o lie (e.g. weeping), Aniphon, in ac,leaves ou all hose deerminaions ha are usually given anaural characer even in our imes. His move amouns osaying ha naure, oher han he one accouned in his lis,does no exis.

A firs sigh, his connecs ruh and a ona principallywih he common human biological makeup. Agains his, we

jus need o recall ha, or Badiou, biological laws belong ohe sphere o appearing raher han o being. Ye, by havingdescribed in anoher passage he reedom ha, beyond anyla, naure allos o eyes and ears and hands and ee hamove abou unresriced,41Aniphon makes naure-auhorizedreedomraher han biology as suchan exisenial ruhin ension wih he consrains imposed by varying cusomsand prevailing sysems/opinions.42Perhaps i would no be

40 Ibid., 164. I am no saying ha his posiion is wihou problems or ha ican ground cosmopolianism. Here I am more ineresed in is operaionsraher han in is specific way o ounding cosmopolianism.41 POxy. 1364, col. 3; Moulon, Aniphon he Sophis, 336.42 I has been suggesed ha Aniphons lis o bodily organs reflecs a

biological concepion o he human being, bu Moulon suggess anoherpossible inerpreaion: he lis may be seen as a hold-over o he archaicormula o expression o he human personaliy hrough he meonymy opars o he body, Moulon, Aniphon he Sophis, 337.


18/37

Speculatons II

66

oo ar-eched o sugges ha, agains our presen-day, drasicassociaions o corporealiy eiher wih finiude and serviliy(recall here Badious conempuous reerences o he bipedwihou eahers43) or wih a supposedly uniying and univer-salizing awareness o human moraliy,44Aniphons posiionrepresens a hird opion. For, o Aniphon, he concepion ohe human as, more or less, a biped wihou eahers graned

by naure wih reedom becomes a vehicle o subjecivizaionand o demands or ranscendence agains he weigh o in-uiion, habi and vesed ineres, and a proo ha humaniycanno be censored, impeded and consrained. I is generallyrue ha herever he appeal o naure is pressed hardes

or assumed o carry greaes inuiive weigh one is likely ofind a deep-laid resisance o precisely he kind o challengerepresened by a hinking beyond he urhes limis o cur-renly accredied ruh.45Bu, in he case o Aniphon, we havehe opposie: he appeal o naure is pressed hardes so hadoxasic qualiaive differeniaions o ehniciy sop carryingheir ime-honoured inuiive weigh. Aniphon pressed hisappeal o naure or he sake o he couner-inuiive, or hawhich wen agains he empirically warraned and, apparenly,

naural difference beween Greek and barbarian. Thus, hishinking challenged and wen beyond he urhes limis ohe sense ha used o pass as accredied ruh.

Te Slave and the Free

As o slavery, are here any undercurrens in he ancienorld disruping he smooh flo o convenional lie andresembling evens in suspending ime? Hesiodic poery dis-

seminaed, already rom he 8hcenury B.C. on, a Golden Age(he ime o he reign o Cronus) narraive o equaliy. The

43 Alain Badiou,Ehis: an essay on he undesanding o evil, rans. Peer Hall-ward (London: Verso, 2001), 12.44 Iris Murdoch,Te Soveeignt o Good(London: Rouledge and Kegan Paul,1970), 74.45 Norris,Badious Being and Even, 130.


19/37


67

ciizens o he Cronus ime uopia willing, mild-mannered,shaed ou he uis o hei labousogeher.46For Nadda, haHesiod as a caalys or Greek poliicalpaideiaa is mosegaliarian is shown, amongs oher hings, by he Sparan kingCleomeness amous saying: Homer or Spariaes, Hesiodor helos [he slaves o he Sparans].47More imporanly, ahe harves ime esival o he Cronia in Atica, masers andslaves exchanged places, o recall he primiive equaliy oCronus ime.48Resembling he even in is exracing roma ime he possibiliy o anoher ime,49such heeroopia

becomes he momenary locus o relaivizaion and subver-sion o lived realiy. I see heeroopias as pracices hrough

which he social imaginary suspends he dominan ime andplace and experiences possibiliies ha everyday normalcyconinuously blocks. Ye, hey can also be pracices hroughhich socieies repress and keep ou o sigh heir gloomyrealiies. Jus like mos heeroopias o his kind, and as anundercurren o everydayness raher han o heory, heCronia esival is more suggesive, subconscious, uncionalisand enaced raher han hough ou, ariculaed and applied.Neverheless, Hesiod, his imporance or he helos and he

Cronia esival ha i inspired could have aced as a prolepicpower o hough o assis philosophy o problemaize slaveryand o undo he uniary space ha slavery enjoyed hroughouhe ancien world, Greek and non-Greek.

Again, he ruh poenial ha he above offered as nosubraced rom he maze o sense by he pincers o he majorphilosophers50bu by hose o ohers. Love, ar, science and

46 Hesiod,Hesiod, Teogony, Woks and Days, esimonia, rans. Glenn W. Mos

(Cambridge: Harvard Universiy Press, 2006), 118-119. My emphasis.47 C. Gerard Nadda, Hesiod as a Caalys or Wesern PoliicalPaideia, TeEuopean Legac, 7, 3 (2002): 353.48 Doyne Dason,Ciies o he Gods: Communis Uopias in he Geek Wold(Oxord: Oxord Universiy Press, 1992), 14.49 Alain Badiou, The Even in Deleuze,Pahesia Vol. 2 (2007): 39.50 On a summary o wha philosophers such as Plao and Arisole houghabou slavery, see Gregory Vlasos, Slavery in Plaos Though, Te Philo-sophial Review50, 3 (1941); or a conras o Plao and Arisole, see Rifin,


20/37

Speculatons II

68

poliics generae ruhs concerning siuaions; ruhs sub-raced rom knowledge which are only couned by he saein he anonymiy o heir being.51Represening he sae onhe issue o slavery, Arisole couned his adversaries in heanonymiy o heir being. In Arisoles words:

here are oherswho regard he conrol o slaves by a maser as con-

rary o naure. In heir view he disincion o maser and slave is due

o la or convenion (nomos); here is no naural (physei) difference

beween hem; he relaion o maser and slave is based on orce, and

being so has no warran in jusice.52

Who are hose ohers o hom Arisole does no reer byname? Heidegger was ineresed in wha ook place beweenhe Presocraics and Plao. Badiou is ineresed in wha ookplace beeen eponymous sophiss and Plao.53To anserour quesion and hen o examine heher here had beena heoreical undercurren ha could have se in course adifferen desinaion o hough we mus become ineresedin wha ook place beween he anonymized ohers (moslysophiss) and Arisole on he issue o slavery.

To begin our discussion o ha ook place beeen heanonymous adversaries and Arisole le us se ou rom heonly Badiouian reerence (ha I have come across) o Aris-oles poliicizaion o naureone ha migh be relevan,alhough implicily, suggesively and someha crypically,o our issue here.

We live wihin an Arisoelian arrangemen: here is naure, and beside

Arisole on Equaliy, 278-280.51 Badiou,Being and Even, 340.52 Arisole,Poliics, 1253b20-23. I ake he English ranslaion rom GiuseppeCambiano, Arisole and he Anonymous Opponens o Slavery, Slaverand Aboliion8, 1 (1987): 22.53 Ye I am no doing his in order o replace he Heideggerian genealogyo he orgeting o being nor o dispue he imporance o Badious meh-odological imperaive o orge he orgeting o he orgeting, Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 115.


21/37


69

i righ, which ries as much as possible o correc, i needs be, he ex-

cesses o naure. Wha is dreaded, wha mus be oreclosed, is wha is

neiher naural nor amendable by righ alone. In shor, wha is monsous.

And in ac Arisole encounered, in he guise o he monser, delicae

philosophical problems. Foucaul and Sarre harboured, wih regard o

his neo-Arisoelian nauralism, a genuine hared. In acual ac, boh

he one and he oher, as hey should, sar ou rom he monser, rom

he excepion, rom wha has no accepable naure.54

Such delicae philosophical problems Arisole encouners inhis effor o reue he argumen agains slavery by recourseo naure. Bu he incapaciy o naure o differeniae he

body o he slave remains an unansered quesion ihinArisoles philosophy o naure.55Indeed, Arisole assers

54 Alain Badiou,Te Cenur, rans. Albero Toscano (Cambridge: PoliyPress, 2008), 177. ConaBadiou, I believe ha e live in an Arisoelianarrangemen in reverse, given ha a now dominan connecion o naurewih poliics assumes ha he supposedly crooked imber o human naurerenders all atemps a a radically more jus world eiher uile or dangerous.I would call his widely held argumen an invered or wised Arisoelian-ism. I is Arisoelian o he exen ha Arisole used o jusiy a poliical

measure or orm o governmen, insiuion (e.g. slavery) and he like byulimaely appealing o naure. Liberal poliical heory is raugh wih suchrecourses o naure when capialism and is basic enes are a sake. How-ever, unlike much liberal poliical heory, Arisole linked he naural wihhe jus. He assumed ha everyhing naural is good and ha he unjus isunnaural. He could hus embrace an anicoercion principle. Coercionis no, in Arisoles eyes, an essenial eaure o poliical rule. I is no morehe uncion o a ruler o coerce his subjecs han i is or a physician ocoerce his paiens. As David Key remarks, or someone brough up onThomas Hobbes his idea can be difficul o grasp, David Key, Arisoleand he Ancien Roos o Anarchism, opoi15 (1996): 139. Indeed, i is no

acciden ha rom early moderniy onwards, he Arisoelian connecion onaure and jusice is by and large invered, since now he naural endencyis presened as being owards injusice, and naure (he unruly appeiesomen) becomes he ulimae argumen or a coercive and proecive senseo law. Though hrough, when poliics is a sake, he invered Arisoelianrecourse o naure ofen leads o ani-uopianism. For a more developeddiscussion o his see Marianna Papasephanou, Educaed Fea and EducaedHope (Roterdam: Sense P, 2009), especially Chaper 8.55 Cambiano, Anonymous Opponens o Slavery, 30. On oher such conu-sions o which Arisole was led by his insisence on he naural slavery see


22/37

Speculatons II

70

ha i is naures inenion also o erec a physical differ-ence beween he body o he ree man and ha o he slave.Ye, urher, he admis: he conrary o naures inenion,however, ofenhappens: here are some slaves who have he

bodies o ree menas here are ohers ho have a reemans soul.56The word oen has a special significance orcommenaors, as i makes he major problems o Arisolesposiion emerge more clearly. As Cambiano noes, Arisoleofen claims ha naure never does anyhing in vain. Headmis excepions o his rule, as in he cases o monsers.Then again, excepions which escape he conrol o naureare precisely excepions, ha is, rare. In oher words, whils

monsrosiies are rare, a slave possessing a ree mans bodyis requen. Moreover, monsrosiies are placed on a lowerlevel han he norm: compared o man, he monserAris-ole claimsis no even human. Here, insead, we are acedih a body having properies higher han hose ha heshould have.57More generally, Arisoles noorious nauralisdeence o slavery as no even deensible ihin his onarchieconic or reasons such as hose indicaed here as wellas or oher reasons, which are unrelaed o our discussion

and oo many o accoun here.58Arisoles opponens hold ha no only is here op-

posiion beeen naure and nomosbu ha naure is heposiive value.59Unlike hem and agains heir ocusing ona minimalis concepion o naural commonaliy, Arisoleocuses on differences. He ignores he consruced characer

Schlaier, Greek Theories o Slavery, 193ff.56 Arisole,Poliics, 1254b 27-34.I preserve Cambianos ialics here and,

insead o ranslaing rom Greek ino English mysel, I borrow he Englishranslaion rom Cambiano, Anonymous Opponens o Slavery, 29.57 Cambiano, Anonymous Opponens o Slavery, 30.58 For he later reasons, see Olav Eikeland,Te Ways o Aisole(Berlin: PeerLang, 2008). As Eikeland pus i, Arisoles atemps a keeping nauralslaves, manual workers, and women ouside ull membership in he primaryand bes poliical consiuion o he hodos, is impossible o deend even wihinhe limis o his own sysem o hough, Eikeland, Te Ways o Aisole, 493.59 Cambiano, Arisole and he Anonymous Opponens o Slavery, 37.


23/37


71

(hrough socializaion) o such differences and urns hemino a supposed oken o jusified inequaliy.

To some commenaors, he sophis Lycophron as hefirs o denounce slavery.60In PlaosGogias, Calicles holdsha slavery may be conrary o naural jusice.61However, hescholias o Arisoles Poliispersonalized he anonymizedadversaries as he poe Philemon and he sophis Alcidamas.Philemon wroe: Though one is a slave, he is a man no lesshan you, maser; he is made o he same flesh. No one is aslave by naure; i is ae ha enslaves he body.62Alcidamasdeclared: god le all men ree; naure made no one a slave.63

Beore we proceed, le us examine wheher we have here jus

an excepion or a real undercurren. Agamben disinguishesbeween example and excepion regarding he amenabiliy ohings o be grouped wih like oherswhich is, in ac, hecondiion or heir nameabiliy. The example uncions asan exclusive inclusion whereas he excepion is an inclusiveexclusion.64The excepion is he exac inverse o he example

because he ormer demonsraes non-membership or ex-clusion by reerence o he class rom hich i is excludedwhereas he later demonsraes membership by choosing

an individual member ha i simulaneously excludes.65Now, Philemons and Alcidamass views are a he same imean example and an excepion. They are an excepion in hesense ha hey are no he dominan views in aniquiy, hey

60 Schlaier, Greek Theories o Slavery, 200.61 Plao,Gogias, 484ab.62 The Greek original: kan doulos h is, saka in ayin ehei; physei ga oudeisdoulos egenihi poe, h dau tchi o soma kaedoulosao, Schlaier, Greek

Theories o Slavery, 200. I use he English ranslaion rom Rifin, Arisoleon Equaliy, 277.63 In Greek: elefheous afike panas heos; oudena doulon h sis pepoiiken,Schlaier, Greek Theories o Slavery, 200. I ake he English ranslaionrom Vlasos, Slavery in Plaos Though, 294.64 Giorgio Agamben,Homo Sace: Soveeign Powe and Bae Lie, rans. DanielHeller-Roazen (Sanord: Sanord Universiy Press, 1998), 21-22.65 Paul M. Livingson, Agamben, Badiou, and Russell,Coninenal PhilosophyReview42 (2009): 307.


24/37

Speculatons II

72

do no enjoy social currency and hey are no endorsed bymany hinkers. Ye, i we place hem wihin a sequence or ase o similar, and, in our eyes, equally excepional views, e.g.hose o he Cynics,66o he Cyrenaics,67o Euripides (by helaws o naure, hrough he world equaliy was esablished68and so on, we see ha Arisole jusifiably akes hese viewsas exemplary o a rend. This reveals a rai ha characerizes,in my accoun, undercurrens more generally: or, a a givenime, undercurrens are boh example and excepion. Seenrom he perspecive o he esablishmen or o generalizaionsabou an era, he undercurren is considered excepional. Ye,o meri he name undercurren i mus be somehing more

han jus a rariy; i mus encompass enough like cases andsome repeiiveness so as o have a kind o living presenceunder he currens and o be disinc rom an evanescenexcepionalism.

Be ha as i may, rom hose ohers grouped as a rend byArisole, le us single ou he sophis Alcidamas. Alcidamasproclaimed ha no one is a slave by naure and ha diviniylef everyone ree. The conex o ha proclamaion is heoraion [Messiniaka] o which he proclamaion is he only

exan par. There Alcidamas deended he liberaion o heMessenian helos (he slaves o he Sparans) by he Thebansin 370 , and his atess o he revoluionary enhusiasm69implici in he call o endorse he vision o a change as radi-cal as he liberaion o slaves on grounds o wha is rue andnaurally jusified agains habi and law.70

66 Rifin, Arisole on Equaliy, 276.67 Ibid., 277.68 Ibid., 277.69 The second paragraph o he American Declaraion o Independence o1776, which reads we hold hese ruhs o be sel-eviden, ha all men arecreaed equal, ha hey are endowed by heir Creaor wih cerain inalien-able righs, offers isel o an ineresing comparison wih Alcidamass view,

bu his is beyond he scope o his paper.70 The helos, he subjecs ho rebelled agains he Sparans in Messeniacreaed an even o which a sophis raher han a philosopher ook noiceand subraced is ruh rom he maze o sense.


25/37


73

I is ineresing ha wha Alcidamas says goes agains nojus Greek nomosbu also commonnomos(i.e.,nomoshaembraces, beyond he Hellenic orld, all he slave-oningsocieies). As Cambiano explains, common mean valid

no only inside a singlepolisbu even beyond is bordersand beyond he presen ime.71Thus, Alcidamas mus haverejeced a universalism o convenional commonaliy (inoher ords, o he rans-hisorical and iner-spaial socialcurrency) or he sake o a nauralisically grounded ruh:ha o universal reedom and he unwarraned and conin-gen naure o enslavemen.

By conras, Arisole akes up he idea o a universally

(=commonly) acceped rule so as o give i raional legiimacyhrough nauralism and essenializaion. Arisoles move isexemplary o he more general endency o depriving hougho is criical edge hrough he habi o revering o naural(i.e. socially normalized) conceps and caegories.72The sub-versive move o Alcidamas (jus as ha o Aniphon ha wesaw earlier) is o recrui naure or he opposie purpose, i.e.,o challenge an unjus pracice by denauralizing i. Slavery isno an onological caegory: in ac, here is no slavery, sricly

speaking, bu here is enslavemen ha produces slaveryas a mode o (in)exisence in a deerminae orld. Thereis no group o people ha are onologically deermined asqualiaively differen rom heir oners. The exisence ohe slave is relaional.

The above has implicaions or he heorizaion o herelaion beeen he philosopher and he sophis. We mayagree ih Badiou ha hen he sophis reminds us hahe caegory o Truh is void, bu he does so only in order o

negae all ruh, he mus be combaed. We may also agree

71 Cambiano, Anonymous Opponens o Slavery, 24.72 Norris,Badious Being and Even, 155. I is his naualizingendency o

naural language ha Badiou regards as having always exerednowadays(alas) wih he encouragemen and blessing o large secions o he inellecualcommuniya conormis or downrigh soporific influence whose sourceis he idea ha hough canno possibly (inelligibly) claim o break ihhe inorming values and belies o is own culural communiy, Ibid., 133.


26/37

Speculatons II

74

ha when philosophy is led o dogmaic error and ries oannihilae is opponen, he sophis will have an easy imeshoing he compromises o philosophical desire ihyrannies73and will jusifiably atack ruh by saying ha hereis no ruh bu only sense. Hoever, he case o Alcidamas(jus as ha o Aniphon previously) adds more complexiy.For, Arisole negaes ruh (all men are ree) or he sake osense (he convenional view ha some naurally deserve o

be slaves) ha he misakes as ruh and enhances is socialsaus. Conahe philosopher, he sophis negaes sense orhe sake o a ruh ha is oo radical and ranscenden o enjoysocial currency as ye bu which is declared by he sophis a

ruha ruh againssense.74

Arisole discussed he view agains slavery in his Poliicsmuch agains he conemporary endency o some rendsand academic circles o ignore presen-day undercurrens.Arisole did no annihilae he sophis opponens. He jusallocaed hem heir usual place: ha o he hinkers who aresupposedly unable o perceiveor unwilling o concede heexisence oa ruh and hey hus atribue i o convenion.Ineresingly, Arisoles seting his opponens in a ypecas

role and reuing heir vies secured heir exan place inhisory he very momen ha i fixed hem in he place ohe undercurren, never o become meonymy or evenal sie.In responding o hose opponens, o he episeme ha heyried o redeem agains he curren, o he counerinuiiveha hey deended, Arisole counerposed an alernaive ac-coun o naure which in ac inellecualized convenionaland inuiive wisdom and ransormed i ino a supposedlyeernal ruh, atribuing allaciously o a specific doxahe

saus o episeme. Alcidamass declaraion as a ruh habroke ih he axiomaic principle ha governs any siu-aion o slavery and organizes is repeiive series. Agains

73 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 134-135.74 We may ormulae i hus: slave owning sociey can change because hav-ing slaves is no a pracice based on an eernal ruh grounded in naureand logically deended bu i is only a pracice o he exising socieies. Theruh abou humaniy is ha no one is a slave by naure.


27/37


75

he sophis, Arisole responded o he subraced ruh byrefining, sysemaizing and urher raionalizing he conven-ional ruh ha he dominan axiomaic principle (someare mean o be slaves) esablishes.75Arisole hus conrib-ued o he making sure ha he repeiive series o slaverywould have had a grea uure beore i, possibly agains hepracical syllogisms ha migh have underpinned his owndecision as a dying man o ree his slaves76a move ha,ouside psycho-biographical erms, may be amenable o anineresing reading as a demonsraive ac.77

Te Phlosophers and the Sophsts

The sibling rivalry beween philosophy and wha resemblesi, i.e., sophisry78ofen inorms he idea o some moderncommenaors ha he grea philosophers o Aniquiy wereno Plao and Arisole, bu Gorgias and Proagoras.79Againshose commenaors, insead o asking o cure he Wes romPlao and Arisole, we may insis, wih Badiou, on he lasingsignificance o Plaonic and Arisoelian hough. Bu wha

75 This refinemen shos us ha no only ruh can find an elaboraeground as hough progresses bu also ha alsiy can find more and moresophisicaed suppor and be made irreuable in he consciousness o helay people, jus like conemporary jusificaions o inequaliies in educa-ional oucomes have ound highly elaborae nauralizaions which in urnnauralize disincion and privilege.76 For Arisoles will, see Diogenes Laerius,Te Lives and Opinions o EminenPhilosophes, rans. C.D. Yonge (London: H. G. Bohn, 1853). Scanned and Ediedor Peihos Web. Donloaded (01/05/2010) rom: htp://w.classicpersua-sion.org/pw/diogenes/index.hm77 Demonsraive acs are he kind ha Arisole couned as he properoucome o pracical syllogisms, ha is, modes o reasoning whereby cer-ain saemens (minor premises) abou some given siuaion, along iha saemen o principle (major premise) relevan o ha same siuaion,should mos fitingly be aken o conclude no in a urher saemen buin a suiable, appropriae or raionally deducible acion, Norris, BadiousBeing and Even, 164.78 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 116.79 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 116.
http://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/index.htmhttp://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/index.htmhttp://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/index.htmhttp://www.classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/index.htm


28/37

Speculatons II

76

he above examples o ancien sophisikecan do is o show usha here had been a hird ay beeen a rend o houghha insised on convenion a he expense o ruh and a rendo hough ha, despie is philosophical greaness, i oensuccumbed o sricly un-philosophical raionalizaion andurned convenion ino a supposedly eernal ruh. Aniphonand Alcidamass posiions cure boh philosophy and sophisryrom sense by insising on more ruh and less sense. Viewedas a mediaing rend, hey consiue a challenge o he analogyo ancien ih modern sophisry (hich inorms Badiou)and o he rigidiy o places i allocaes o hinkers. And, as anundercurren (hen as now), his version o sophisry ha I

describe as sophisikerenders problemaic he sibling rivalryas i has so ar been presened in (pos)modern erms.Aer all, on he issues ha I have discussed here, he views

o Gorgias did no differ ha much rom hose o Plao androm conveniona leas, i Plao righly atribued o Gorgiashe hesis ha he virues o man and woman, ree man andslave, are differen.80As o Proagoras, ha he can be regardedas a precursor o he hinkers who condemned slavery in heourh cenury is considered conroversial, o say he

leas.81Hence, he eiher (Plao and Arisole)/or (Proago-ras and Gorgias) o our era (along lines o grea eseem) isa sympom o reducivism and inatenion o he richnessand complexiy o a deerminae orld. I argue ha, hilepreserving, or good bu varying reasons, he appreciaion oPlao and Arisole, as well as o Gorgias and Proagoras, i ispossible o show ha some minor ancien sophiss did no

jus resemble philosophers bu hey were grea philosophersoo in using he pincers o philosophy and seizing ruhs.

Alcidamas and Aniphonho figure nohere in hehisorico-philosophical coun-as-one o he philosophersadversaryconesed he purely culural consrucions haere passed off as naural ruhs. Tha graned, no, le us

80 Plao,Meno, 73d.81 See or insance Thanassis Samaras, Proagoras and Slavery,Hisor oPoliial Tough27, 1 (2006): 1-9.


29/37


77

make a crucial clarificaion in order o avoid a possible mis-undersanding. Badiou would no dispue ha sophiss couldcorrec he endencies o sacralizing ideas ha philosophersofen displayed. Bu he seems o hink ha sophiss did soexclusively by relaivizing all ruh in avour o sense. Theancien sophis had already replaced ruh wih he mixureo orce and convenion.82I have shon ha his had noalways been he case. Wha is unusual and has passed unno-iced is he ac ha figures o sophisry such as Alcidamasand Aniphon counered sense-passing-as-ruh by recourseo ruh isel as disinc rom, prior o, and correcive o sense.In oher words, hey perormed philosophical operaions o

seizure o he ruh ha was obscured by convenional con-srucions o meaning. I is imporan o recall here Badiousown posiion on he inuiive. Alcidamas and Aniphon wen

beyond inuiioni, along wih Badiou, who objecs o heclaim ha inuiion migh yield valid insighs or concepualprogress, e ake inuiion o be jus he name applied opreconceived habis o belie.83Though sophiss, Aniphonand Alcidamas opposed o sense he real o he ruhs whoseseizing hey carried ou. They exposed he monsrosiy o he

inuiive and redeemed he counerinuiive.Aniphon and Alcidamas did no jus ignore differences.

They did somehing much more radical. They claimed pre-cisely ha he differences according o hich barbarianswere nauralisically conrased o he Greeks and slaves wereexcluded rom he caegory o human equals were coningenand hus no rue. Aniphon and Alcidamas wen agains doxa,i.e., a mere opinion or a consensus belie, by conrasing hedoxao he imes o axioms ha uilized he ension beween

physei and heseiand by avouringphysei. Equaliy o all wasdeended as a ruh given byphysis, ha is, one ha persissdespie hesis and he illusions he later produces by hehabiual over-reliance on he evidence o inuiive sense(he slavish behaviour, he serviliy, he ear o he maser,

82 Badiou,Manieso o Philosophy, 118.83 Norris,BadiousBeing and Even, 52.


30/37

Speculatons II

78

he appearance o he slaves body, ec.). By arguing so, heydisruped he consisen mulipliciy ha was dominan inheir imes. A anoher level, by being hose ho argued so,hey can now disrup he conemporary coun-as-one haequaes ancien and modern sophiss and associaes hemonly wih sense agains philosophers as guardians o ruh.84

Evental-truths or resemblng evental-truths?

This is no jus abou criiquing a sweeping idea o aniquiy,paying atenion o hisorical deail, seting he record sraighabou some version o ancien sophisry and perorming a

deconsrucion o he caegory sophis. Much less is i herivial objecion ha Badiou associaes evens and ruhexclusively ih philosophy. Surely, subracing ruh isno he exclusive prerogaive o philosophers, and Badiousemblemaic figure, Sain Paul, was no a philosopher anyway.Then again, some nea caegorizaions o allocaed space,o he place in hich philosophy and sophisry migh findhemselves regarding ruh, are, indeed, complicaed by heundercurren. Bu, much more deeply, he complexiy o he

operaions o he undercurren raises some quesions abouhe drasic opposiion beween being and even and abou heexcepionalism ha ends up incriminaing he quoidian aswell as all heoreical ariculaion wihin a world.

We have so ar approached Aniphons and Alcidamassideas (ha, naurally, here is neiher Greek nor barbarian,neiher slave nor ree) as ruhs. Would ha seem accepableor raher odd in he Badiouian conex o evenal-ruh? Thequesion or an even is: wha is he desiny, aer he even,

84 The one can no be reaed as he produc o a cerain ormal opera-ion, ha is o say, a procedure o couning or grouping ha imposes someorder on an oherise inchoae since open-ended mulipliciy bu hichis alaysand or jus ha reasonexposed o he poenially disurbingeffec o ha which finds no place in he exising concepual domain since iexiss as a supernumerary elemen excluded rom he coun-as-one, Norris,BadiousBeing and Even, 40. I is imporan or his paper, as i describes aprocedure ha holds equally or he ailoring o Greek hough o a wisdomha is poliically even-less.


31/37


79

o an inexisen o he orld? Wha becomes o he poorworker aer he revoluion?85In our case: wha becomes ohe barbarian and he slave aer Aniphon and Alcidamas?No having consequences such as he aboliion o slavery orsuch as overcoming he poliical associaions o he ermbarbarian, do he Aniphonic and Alcidamian ideas qualiyas ruhs in he Badiouan idiom?

For Badiou, here is no sronger ranscendenal conse-quence han he one hich makes ha did no exis in aworld appear wihin i.86In he 2003 English ranslaion ohis secion romLogiques des Mondes(ha is, 3 years beorehe French original publicaion o he hole book) he ol-

loing precedes he above senence: Everyhing depends,hereore, on he consequences.87Wha does his say abouour examples o Alcidamas and Aniphon? I everyhingdepends on he consequences produced or he inexisen,our examples are ill-assored in a se o evenal ruhs. Fur-her, Badiou sees poliics as collecive acion, organized bycerain principles, ha aims o unold he consequences o anew possibiliy which is currenly repressed by he dominanorder.88Was Alcidamass idea, or insance,no a uhbu jus

a ne possibiliy repressed by he la o ha deerminaeorld? Or, raher, he ne possibiliy as he poliics hacould deriveom he uho Alcidamass saemen? I helater is more accurae, ha ould enail ha Alcidamasssaemen and is ruh is a mater quie independen romhe possibiliy i could open or no. A missed opporuniy,a los chance or humaniy; ye, a preserved and posponedruh, one ha raises issues: o peoples abiliy o seize heopporuniies o hough ha a specific, deerminae world

and ime offer; and o how o heighen ha abiliy.Furhermore, as Alcidamass dicum a ruhs appearing,

85 Badiou, The Three Negaions, 1882.86Alain Badiou,Logics o Wolds: Being and Even , rans. Albero Toscano(London: Coninuum, 2009), 376.87 Alain Badiou, Logic o he Sie,Diaiis33, (2003): 147.88 Alain Badiou, The Communis Hyohesis,New Lef Review49 (2008): 31.


32/37

Speculatons II

80

one ha deended an insurrecion ha ounded no duraion,89bu could neverheless be described as a srong singulariysince i proposed o hough a rule o emancipaion and oradical egaliarianism and universaliy? Ho do e recog-nize a srong singulariy? And, can we assume raher saelyhe saus ha could be atribued o Alcidamass idea wihinBadious philosophy? Badiou again: The srong singulariycan be recognized by he ac ha is consequence in heworld is o make exis wihin i he proper inexisen o heobjec-sie.90Given a singulariy whose inensit o exisence,as insananeous and as evanesen as i may be, is nevehelessmaximal,we may consider i an even, i, in consequence o he

(maximal) inensit o he sie, somehing whose value o exisencewas null in he siuaion akes on a posiive value o exisene.91Bu in he ancien siuaion, sricly speaking, he value o heslave-being had been null and remained so long aer Alcidamas.However, in he hisory o ruhs undersood, ine alia, as ase o universal principles Alcidamas offered an imporanaddiion. Ye, mos probably, he posiive value o exisenceha Badiou alks abou is no he heoreical-absrac one,gained when somehing is voiced and hen archived in he

record o humaniys exualiy, bu raher he acual exisencein he socio-poliical space. In he case o Alcidamas, i wouldmean o se on course a chain o such consequences up ohe insurrecion o slaves and he demand o heir reedom(even i such an insurrecion evenually ails). On he conrary,he insurrecion preceded Alcidamass dicum, or, differenlypu, Alcidamas phrased he ruh o ha insurrecion.92As

89 Because i carries ou a ransiory cancellaion o he gap beween being

and being-here, a sie is he insananeous revelaion o he void ha haunsmulipliciies. A sie is an onological figure o he insan: i appears onlyo disappear, Badiou, Logis o Wolds, 369. The logic o he sie involves hedisribuion o inensiies around he vanished poin which he sie is. Thus,rue duraion can only be ha o consequences.90 Ibid., 377.91 Badiou, Logic o he Sie, 147. His emphasis.92 There had been many insurrecions o he helos bu, only o he Messenianone e kno ha i as accompanied by a heoreical claim ha ailed o


33/37


81

o Aniphon, neiher opion seems relevan, as here is noindicaion ha his rac is evenal or pos-evenal.

Insead o being heorized as even or singulariy,93heAniphonic or he Alcidamian idea could be seen roma Badiouian perspecive as a alse even or, a mos, a ac:

We ill callaca sie hose inensiy o exisence is nomaximal.94Seen rom he perspecive o change, and,norom he perspecive o he ruh o he correspondingjudg-mens, on hich Badiou is silen, he ac is onologicallysupernumerary bu exisenially (and hus logically) eak,hile singulariy is onologically supernumerary and is

value o appearance (or o exisence) is maximal.95Is ha

all we may say abou Alcidamass and Aniphons ideas? Thahey were simply acs ha made a supernumerary find a weakand volaile exisence unil he sie vanished? By examiningwheher he Alcidamian and Aniphonic ideas could qualiyas ruhs, e reach a sage here i becomes apparen ha,wihin Badiouian philosophy, ruh concerns only he acu-aliy o saes, and no couneracualiy. Truh as unulfilledpromise voiced and ariculaed as proposiional conen, yesill in search o subjecs capable o discerning and deending

i, is given up, as i i were incompaible wih ruh as creaiveacion. In my opinion, he binary beween ruh as acion, onhe one hand, and ruh as judgmen, suggesion, or insighin need o deence and dialogue, on he oher, is disabling asi makes ruh oo dependen on atemped/effeced raherhan envisaged/inended change.

I he lack o evenal effecs does no diminish ruh-qualiy,

atrac he atenion o he world (hinkers included), hen and now, even i,

as a secular idea, and disconneced rom is original seting, i was desinedo become knowledge (in he sense o having he deserved characer o anindispuable cerainy and indispensable ruh) over wo housand years laer.93 By is exisenial insignificance, a sie is hardly differen o he simpleconinuaion o he siuaion. Only a sie whose value o exisence is maxi-mal is poenially an even, Badiou, Logics o Wolds, 372. Thereore, we willcall singulaita sie whose inensiy o exisence is maximal, ibid., 372.94 Ibid., 372.95 Ibid., 372.


34/37

Speculatons II

82

hen, his means ha saemens o couneracual raher hanacual effecs (ha is, saemens or acs having validiy [Gl-igkei] even when deprived o he social currency [Gelung]ha effecs revoluionary pracice) qualiy as ruhs. A leas,hey are no less ruhs han hose which were recognized assuch and had world-hisorical effecs. Seeing hem oherwiseleads o he paradox o making an ideas validiy and uni-versaliy condiional on who has voiced i or on he conexwihin which she has voiced i. The paradox becomes obviouswhen we consider how idenical he conen o Alcidamassand Aniphons saemens is in erms o universaliy andequaliy wih he Pauline ruh: here is neiher Greek nor Jew,

here is neiher slave nor ree. Why, hen i comes o heirruh, should one make he drasic choice o Sain Paul oversophisikeor vice versa? Beween he Alcidamian ruh (whichdid no mobilize a revoluionary procedure) and he Paulineruh (which did resul in a new siuaion), Badious heoryorces him o choose he Pauline and allocae he Alcidamianino he maze o sense. Doing oherwise, Badiou would haveo concede ha ruh is also judgmen no mater wha else imigh be and ha an episemology o a kind is in order when

saemens claiming he saus o ruhs are a sake. I seemsparadoxical ha he same ideas do no qualiy as ruhs oan equal ooing jus because he ormer were no ollowed,whereas he later acually effeced a change o a kind. To avoidhis paradox, Badiou would have o heorize more explicilyhe pre-evenal in social-episemological raher han social-onological erms. This migh lead o he possibiliy o ruh

being poenially unveiled and disseminaed by argumena-ion and dialogue in ways ha would re-inroduce a specific

poliics, e.g., a Habermasian one, ha Badiou sees, and osome exen jusifiably, as paciying,96bu which Badiou doesno wish o rehabiliae by pressing i up agains is confinesand recasing i in his own erms.

96 I migh also lead o a specific concepion o subjeciviy (which wouldbe a odds ih, or no quie fiting o, he pos-humanis concepion osubjeciviy), one ha, admitedly, needs o be orked ou i i is o avoid

boh he possrucuralis-ani-humanis and he humanis concepions.


35/37


83

Concluson

The Greek deerminae world was no a siuaion o pure im-manence, bu i included is own ranscendence in poenialsha were never ollowed, in couneracual possibiliies. Moregenerally, he undercurren is no he non-heorized remain-der or reminder o he supernumerary, he inernal anomalyha hauns he logical srucure o a sysem. I is, raher, heheorizaion/heorizabiliy (even i in an ellipic or incompleemanner) o he unil-hen supernumerary; a heorizaion, how-ever, ha remains largely unacknowledged and deeaed. The

undercurren is neiher included nor excluded by he givenworlds order bu raher reaed: as secondary, as excepion, aminor disrupion o he smooh flow o majoriarian hough,or inadequaely ramed, under-heorized, unconvincing andnon-sysemaic. I may be rue ha he undercurren ofenappears as almos indisinguishable rom he uterly per-verse, highly unlikely, quain, preposerous ideas ha migh

be utered so as o exploi he social benefis o eccenriciy,e.g. hen one is admired because nobody else ould have

made ha kind o hough. Bu, when all undercurrens arehus reaed, people and ideas are sep under he rug andhe walls o wha heory presens become heavily orified.

We have seen ha, or Badiou, wha are iniially opposedo normal mulipliciies (hich are presened and repre-sened) are singular mulipliciies, which are presened buno represened.97Surely, hey are no represened i byrepresenaion e mean socio-poliical membership andrecogniion. Bu a proper accoun o being and even as wo

drasically disparae realms opposed o one anoher ouldrequire somehing more: ha somehing ails o be repre-sened also in consciousness, hough and quoidian lie andno jus in esablished socio-poliical order. I have arguedha inconsisen mulipliciies may no jus exis bu also berepresened in cusoms, habis and in unconscious suspen-

97 Badiou,Being and Even, 174.


36/37

Speculatons II

84

sions o ime and/or in heory hrough underdeveloped ormarginal ideas. True, his does no auomaically amoun oacions or changing radically a siuaion bu i means ha hepoenial or change is locaed wihinquoidian normalcy. Thelater, which may be described by adaping he Vogeundeneor magma(i we may use a erm rom Husserl and Casoria-des respecively, or lack o any oher a hand), encompassessocial imaginary significaions beyond hose embodied ininsiuions. I encompasses undercurrens and couneracualpossibiliies, awaiing criical atenion and propagaion soas o possibly acquire he saus o caaclysmic even.

We have also seen ha Badiou mainains a caegorical

disincion beeen such basically normalizing concepsas naure, consisency, represenaion and he sae con-ceived in ono-mahemaical or ono-poliical erms and

such inrinsically resisan or inassimilable erms as even,presenaion and singulariy, aken as defining he realmso hisory and poliics.98I have argued ha here is nohing

basically and necessarily normalizing abou he concepso naure or represenaion and inescapably inimical o heinrinsically resisan idea o ruh as a surplus (hough no

necessarily an epiphanic one) o validiy beyond hegemony.The cases o Alcidamas and Aniphon render problemaic

he epiphanic naure ha Badiou atribues o ruh and heou coudependency o i on consequences. For, raher han

being an absolue break wih he everyday realiy o appear-ing, hey are a par o i and represen is couneracual pos-sibiliies, he roues o hough ha have no been pursued.

Ulimaely, wha is pushed aside by he philosophical em-phasis on he epiphanic and excepional, almos miraculous

inerrupion o he supposed normalcy o he quoidian is hepercepion o he operaion o he undercurren. In hindsigh,he undercurren has an educaional value or heigheningour presen-day awareness o wha is vibran ye unnoiced,hal-buried as i is in realiies o power. As a residue (or side-effec) o older meaphysics o presence, he subjec-objec

98 Norris,BadiousBeing and Even, 155.


37/37


philosophy makes us eel ha a ruh is a ruh only henhere are mindsou here and here and nowo recognizei as such. Badiou combas older humanis meaphysics, andhis philosophy represens a valuable invigoraion o realisconcepions o ruh. However, i is no always clear ha Badiouleaves room in his philosophy or he ruh ha is someimesavailable in some orms ye does no enjoy wider accepance

because he subjecs who would recognize i need o be cre-aed. Educaion should aspire, amongs oher hings, o hecreaion o such subjeciviies. Surely, no all undercurrenshave a ruh qualiy; ye, educaion as criique, oresigh andpreparaion should no be negleced, and a ay (ye, surely,

no he only one) o giving i is due atenion is by redeem-ing he ineres in he undercurren and in he possibiliy osubjecs discerning is ruh and making i o consequence.

papastephanou the philosopher v2

Documents