Customer Reviews

Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Cultural Memory in the Present)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This fantastic little book is one of Badiou's best. The US was first introduced to Badiou with his book "Ethics"--and I believe it would benefit any reader to go to that book first before reading "Saint Paul." But for those who are aware of Badiou's overall project, this book will provide fascinating reading. Here, Badiou goes into why he thinks Universality is an important and indispencible concept for politics. He goes into how Global Capitalism has thrived off fractures and splinters in identity, and how constructing a universal community is necessary for any struggle against capitalism. He also goes into a detailed analysis of the subject through the figure of Saint Paul. If you are looking for an actual commentary on Saint Paul, then, this is not the book for you. If you already dislike, or do not understand what Badiou's is trying to accomplish, then, this book will do little for you. But, if you are truly intrigued by this philosopher, and if you are quite aware of his prose and dependence upon set theory and mathematical concepts, then, Saint Paul will be of great interest to you.

This book provides a very novel insight not only on Paul but on Christian theology as well. One of the most interesting reflections is the differentiation between the philosophical discourse of wisdom (Greece), the prophetic discourse of signs (Israel) and the testimony of the event (Christianity). There is no pagan conformism to the laws of the universe nor a cryptic awaiting for a promise, but an event that concerns us all in terms of placing ourselves in a place beyond the automatism of the Law, in a world of Life. The main figure is not of the prophet or the philosopher but of the apostol, the one who testifies of a universal truth where there is no difference between I and the Other. Badiou's interpretation of Saint Paul does not compromise itself with received scholastic theology where there is a continuity of God with Being (analogia entis) nor with a postmodern theology where the promise is something to be kept differing forever in order to "do justice" to the Other.
Badiou provides a universalist theory that includes the difference but where there is no difference and boundaries for the sake of the ethical. No Jew nor Greek, no men nor women, to be all to all men.

Badiou's extended essay on Paul may be a bit amateurish and crude from a theological and/or historical perspective [his intents and aims, he admits, are solely subjective], but despite this, it achieves a noteworthy amount of novel philosophical insight using the texts of Paul as a launchpad.

There are two sides to this book. On one hand, Badiou appears as a sort of atheist apologist for Paul, whom he seeks to clear of common insults against his person popular since Nietzsche and others (such as being a mysoginist, a despiser of earthly life, etc.) Badiou wants us to view Paul not in the popularized polemic distortion that pervades atheists in academia but rather as the prototypical 'poet-thinker of the event'.

On the other hand, in so far as one can say this of Paul, Badiou wants to extract from his portrayal a revolutionary philosophy of 'the event' and its founding of universiality. Here, the argument becomes complexly interwined with the words of Paul and Christian discourse; however, it brings with it a certain uncanny lucidity as the revolutionary universiality of the Resurrection in Paul's discourse sets the scene to disolve and overcome the particularities of the Judaic and Greek status quo.

It may be difficult to approach Badiou's reading of St. Paul without being familiar with his philosophy in general: in short he seems to claim that the Christ-Event, which never happened, is nevertheless a perfect model of his concept of "event", because it leaves no proof and its truth can only be affirmed through a deliberate choice. This would make Jesus' resurrection True while being at the same time something which never really happened.

Badiou claims that this is the core of Pauline theology: that the choice to believe in the Christ-Event furnishes its own proof after the fact; that making this choice, despite evidence, generates subjectivity-defining meaning. "Let us say that for Paul, it is a matter of investigating which law is capable of structuring a subject devoid of all identity and suspended to an event whose only "proof" lies precisely in its having been declared by a subject." (Badiou, St. Paul, 5)

It is meaningless to argue that there is evidence for Jesus Christ; instead it can only be claimed that the historical Jesus is a meaningful belief, which the text hastens to establish, but which is ultimately dependent on the creative constructive power of human faith. The belief in the historical Jesus constitutes a subjective truth which is self-supporting and completely irrespective of historical evidence.

Most modern theory revolves around the difficulty in getting outside of the influences of power, discourse, or identity. There is no way to reach an uninfluenced and thus genuine choice while relying on language, reason or proof; instead freedom stems from a complete, non-linear, non rational, unsupported terroristic act. The "Christ-event" (which is inherently impossible) is one such non-sensical affirmation; even though, as Badiou makes clear, it never really happened: "Let us be perfectly clear, what we are dealing with here is precisely a fable" (Badiou 4); "It is rigorously impossible to believe in the resurrection of the crucified" (Badiou 5).

The very affirmation in the historical Resurrection is a step outside of the possible and towards the infinite; as such it gives subjectivity-defining meaning - but only for those who have made the non-supported choice to believe.

If you have a decent understanding of Badiou's theory of truths as explicated in Being and Event, and a desire to live in faith of Christ as I do, I recommend this and much of Badiou's other works. They help me seperate the manner in which we as human are capable of undertanding the practice of truth in this world, as well as the limits of are undertanding of the eternal nature of a truth. enjoy

This is quite possibly the worst book I have ever read on Paul. Badiou's thesis is a decent one, Paul realized the universalistic potential of Christianity which was made possible by "the event" that is the resurrection. The resurrection broke down all sorts of social/political/cultural barriers. Up until this point I agree. However in doing this Badiou strips the "event" of all reality, calling it a fable. I'm fine with that, he is an atheist and he admits that he is slanted, however his greatest fault is in infusing Lacan and Nietzsche into Pauline thought. This book was extremely difficult to read. It is filled with a bunch of continental nonsense. It was philosophically unenlightening. This is the kind of crap people associate with philosophy. Badiou gives philosophy a bad name and uses Paul as a tool to do so. If you aren't a strong Christian and are afraid of reading an atheists opinions on Paul don't read this book. Actually, you can read this book because you will not understand a word he says, so it poses no danger at all. In all this was a terrible piece of work.