Infinite Thought Truth and the Return to Philosophy ALAIN BADIOU Translated and edited by Oliver Feltham and Justin Clemens continuumContinwuen “The Tower Bing 15 ast 26th Steet York Road New York onde, SEL 7NX. SY 10010 ‘canine com Editorial material and selection © Oliver Feltham and Jstn Clemens Philp and Desse, Philpy and Km, Plilaypy and “te war agit ‘enor’ © Alain Badion Phiwpty and drt, an The Defi of Pip Seu or Canin, 1993) Philspy andthe De of Cammain © Editions de VAube (om Due ‘dant ssc, 958 English language waslations“Philaophy and rath! © Philosophy tn Police © Radial Pious, Philosophy and Poychoanalys “Aas al oter Engh language ransation © Contin Reprod 2005, Ths paperback aiion published 2004 by Continuum All righ reserved. No pat of his publication may be reproduced or teanamited in sy form or by any mean, elevione or mecha. Inelaing photccopying, recording ean ielrmation storage Fete ‘pee, wlthou prior permindon iwetng fom the pubes Bitiah Library Catal Publication Data ‘Ncatalogueresard for ths book vaiable rom the Brith Libraty ISBN 0-8264-8724-5 (Hardback) (aan 75202 (Paperback) Peed and ound y in Great Bein by The Bath Pres, Bath Contents troduction to Alain Badiou's philosophy Philosophy and desire Philosophy and truth Philosophy and polities Philosophy and psychoanalysis Philosophy and art Philosophy and cinema Philosophy andl the ‘death of communism’ Philosophy and the ‘war against ‘The definition of philosophy Ontology and polities: an interview with Alain Badiow Index of names 195An introduction to Alain Badiou’s philosophy is one of France's foremost living philosophers. n ofthe foree and originality of his work in the Englishespeaking world has been slow to come, pethaps because it is dificult to assimilate his work within the established categories of “contemporary French philosophy However, such recognition is now gathering momentum. No fewer than six translations of his major works, (wo collections of his essays, and one monograph on his work are currently in pres! ‘The first English-language 0 ference devoted to his work was held in May 2002 at Cardif, a critical introduction to his work has appeared, and three translations of his works ~ Ethics, Deleze, a ‘Manifest for Philosophy ~ are already on the shelves? The present volume aims to provide a brief, accesible introduction to the diversity and power of Badiou's thought, collecting a series of conference papers and essays. The ‘opening text sets the scene, giving a polemical overview of the state of philotophy in relation to the contemporary ‘world, The second ehapter gives a general overview, via the categories of ethics and truth, of Badiou's model of fundamental change in the domains of art, love, politicsInfinite Thonght and science ~ philosophy four ‘conditions’. The following chapters present specific applications of his central concep: tion of philosophy as an exercise of thought conditioned by such changes in art (Chapters 3 and © on poetry and inema}, love (Chapter 4 on psychoanalysis), polities (Chapter 3) and science, Since Badiou’s work in relation to science is mainly found in the huge tome L’Bire « Péocnement (Being and Event) we chose to sketch the latter’s argument in the introduction * Chapters 7 and 8 exemplify ‘a recurn (o one of philosophy’s classical roles: the analytical denunciation of ideology, Badiow attacking fist the ‘war on terrorism’ and then the “death of communism’. The penultimate chapter sets out Badion’s doctrine on philoso- phy in relation to its conditions, and then the collection loses with an interview with Badiou in whieh he explains and reconsiders some of his positions. Tn our introduction we identify one of the manners in which Badiou’s philosophy differs from the contemporary French philosophy known as peststructuralism: its treat- ment of the question of the subject, We then engage in a Jong, at times dificult, but necessary exegesis of Badiou’s sex theory ontology; necessary since it gyounds his entire doctrine, and nor particularly long in relation to its matter; Being and Fxnt comprises over 500 pages in the French dition. At every point we have attempted (0 render the technical details in as lear a fashion a8 possible, yet without undue distortion If the prospective reader wishes 10 skip over the more abstruse diseussions offered in the introduction, he or she should feel absolutely free to do so ~ for Badiow is sill his, ‘own best exegete. He effectively tries to speak to those who ddo not sped their lives in professional insticurions, but act and think in ways that usually exceed or are beneath notice ‘As Badiow himself puts it: “Philosophy. privileges no language, not even the one itis written in. 2 An introduction to Alain Badiou’s philosophy Badiow’s question Badiou is neither « poststructuralist nor an analytic philosopher, and for one major reason: there is question, drives his thought, especially in his magnum opus, L Etre at Uéoinement. This question is foreign to both postsiructuralism and analytic philosophy ~ in fact not only foreign, but unweleome. It is this question thae governs the peculiarity of Badiou's trajectory and the attendant Gificulties of his thought. In the introduction to L'Eive et P¥eénement Badiow sei spon _an_ exchange between Jacquer-Alain Miller and Jacques Lacan during the famous Seminar XI.t Miller, Without blinking, asks Lacan, the grand theorist of the barred subject, ‘What is your ontology?” For Badiow this is a crucial moment, for it reveals a fundamental difficulty fone that many argue Lacan never solved, even with, loopy 1970s recourses to knot theory. The difficulty is that of reconciling a modern doctrine of the subject (sueh as that of| psychoanalysis} with an ontology. Hence Badiou’s guiding question: How can a madern doctrine of the subject be reconciled with an ontology? But what exactly does Badiow understand by a ‘modern doctrine of the subject? Badiow takes it as given that in the ‘contemporary world the subject ean no longer be theorized as the selGidentical substance that underlies change, not as the product of reflection, nor as the correlate of an object. This set of negative definitions is all very familiar toa reader ‘of poststructuralism. Surely one could object that post- structuralism has developed a modern doctrine of the subject? The problem with poststructualism is that exactly the same set of negative definitions serves to delimit its implicit ‘ontology {whether of desire or difference!: there are no self idemtical substances, there are no stable products. of 3Infinite Thought refletion, and since there ate no stable objects there can be no cortelates of such objets. Thus in peststructuralism there inno distinction between the general field of ontology ard theory of the subject there is no tension between the being ofthe subject and being in general Where Baslion sees at essential question far_ modern philosophy, then, peststucturalsm sees nothing. For many this lack of distinction berween the being of the subject and thebeing ofeverything ele would appear to be a vires the privilege ofthe rational animal is Rally removed i favour OF 4 less anthropocentric ontology, Theve is, however, a price to be paid for limping the subject together with Whatever elke is asually recognized in an ontology Postsructuralism typically encounters a number of pro- ‘lems in its theory of the subjeet. Funnily enough, these problems are quite clearly inherited. trom the very Philosophical tradition whose “death’ poststructuealism Elefully proclaims. There was enough life let in the corpse fo pass something on ~ and what ic pase om were the Wo fundamental problens in the thought of the subject The fit problem i that of ideas: the second problem, that of ages. The mind body problem desives fr the most part from the former, and the fre will versus determinism Abate from the latter. Pesttructutalists have concentrated almost exclusively a estque ofthe frst problem, arguing that there is no solution to the problem of the identity of the subject because the subject has no substantial identity: the jlusion of an underlying Wentity ie produced by the very representational mechanism employed by the subjet in it “floret grasp its own identity. The same line of arguments So applied to the identity ofany entity thus including the fubject within the domain of general ontology. For ‘example, in his introduction t0 a collection of Philippe TaconeLabarthe’ essays, Derrida identifies the subject, with the ele deyeonsituting movement of the text, the ‘ An introduction to Alain Basins philsophy subject is nothing other than a perpetual movement of (wanslation.” This brings the subject within the ambit of his ‘much-maligned but fateful early ontological claim: “There is tno outside-text.” The consequence of this move, of this merger of the subject with a gencral ontology within the context of a general critique of identity: and representation, is the emergence of a problem with the dilferentiation of subjects, How can one subject be differentiated from another without recourse to some sort of definable identity? As for agency — philosophy's second fundamental problem in the thought of the subject ~ the consequence ‘of poststructuralism’s almost exclusive concentration om the first problem has been that the critics of poststeueturalism have had an easy pitch all they have had ta do i ro accuse the poststucturalists of robbing the subject of agency: if there is no selF-idemtical subject, then what isthe ground for autonomous rational action? This is what lies behind the infamous jibe that poststructuralism leads down a slippery slope to apoliticism When poststructuralists do engage with the problem of agency they again meet with dilliculties, and again precisely because they merge theie theory of the subject with their general ontology. For example, in his middle period Foucault argued that networks of dieiplinary power sot nly reach into the most intimate spaces of the subject, but actually produce what we call subjects" However, Foucault also said that power produces resistance. His problem then became that of accounting for the sourre of such resistanee. If the subject — right down to its most intimate desires, actions and thoughts — is constituted by power, then how ran it be the source of independent resistance? For such 3 point of agency to exist, Foucault needs some space which hhas not been completely constituted by power, ora comples. doctrine on the relationship hewween resistance and independence. However, he has neither. Tn his later work,Infinite Thought he deals with this problem by assigning agency to. those subjects who resist power by means of an aesthetic project of seltauthoring. Again, the source of such privileged agency why do some subjects shape themselves against the grain and not other? — is not explained, What does Badion do when faced with these two fiandamental problems of identity and agency? First, Badiow recognizes a distinction between the general domain of ontology and the theory of the subject. He does not merge the one into the other; rather, the tnvin between the two ives his investigations. Secon, when it comes to the two problems, Badiou cloes the exact apposite to the poststruc turalists: he defers the problem of identity, leaving a direct treatment of it for the unpublished companion volume to Being and Fsent, while he concentrates on the problem of agency.” For Badiow, the question of agency ¥s not so much a question of how a subject can initiate an action jy an autonomous manner but rather how a subject emerges through an autonomous chain of actions within a changing situation, ‘That isyitiesot everyday actions or decisions that 1ey for Badiou. It is rather those extraordinary decisions and actions which irslate an actor From their context, those actions which show that a human can actually be a free agent that supports net chains of actions and reactions, For this reason, not every human being is always a subject, yet some human beings become subjects; those who actin fidelityco.a chance encounter with aan event which disrupts the situation Uhey find demselves in. A subject is born of a human being’s decision that ‘Something they have oxeuntered, which has happened in their situation — however foreign and abnormal ~ does in fact belong to the situation and thus cannot he overlooked, Badiow marks the disruptive abnormality of such an event by stating that whether it belongs 10 a situation or not is, 6 An introduction to Alain Badliou’s philosophy strcly uudecidable on the basis of eablbhed knowledge Moreover the subject, «bon of a decision, not limited to the recognition of theocttence of an even, but extends into a prolonged investigation of the consequences of sich ay event This vestigation nota pasive, scholarly afar icertails nt ony the active transrmation ofthe station in wich the event occurs but alo the ative transformation tthe human being. Ths in Badiou's philosophy the Such thing ay a subject without. such" proces of For example, when two people fal in lov thcir"meeting = whether that meeting be thet fist hours together, or the length of ther enttecourtdhip forms an event for them in relation to which thes change thei lve, This ertainly does tot mean that ther lives are simply going tobe the etter fir it un the contrary. love may involve debt, allenated friends. and rupture with one’ family. The poin that lve Changes their relation tothe world ‘itevacably. "The duration of the lovers’ relationship depends upon their fidelity co shat event and how they change according 10 shat they aicover tough thei owe In che realm of Copernican revelution, the eimeig subjects being thot Scientists who worked within iq wake contributing to the field swe now mame ‘modern physi ‘The consequence of sch a delinition of the subject secms to be that onl briliantsienists, modern master, seasoned militants and footie lovers are admitied into the ok A lice unfair, perhaps? Is Badiou's definition of the subject exclusive o elit? On the one ie, you have human beings, foching much distingubhing ther from animals in their Dunit of ther ines and then, on the other sid, you Ave tne ne I, te Hew AARC aT tthe This haw a dangerous ting, and one could be forgiven, for Comparing iat fis Elance to Mormon doctrine: HoweverInfinite Thought ‘and this is crucial ~ there is no pedestination in Badion’s acount. There is nothing other than chance encounters Decween particular humans and particular events; and subjects may be born out of such encounters. There is no higher order which prescribes who will encounter an event and devide to act in relation to it. There is only chance Furthermore, there is no simple distinction bewveen subjects and humans! Some humans become subjects, but only some of the time, and often they break their fidelity to an ‘event and thus lose their subjecthood, Thus, Badiou displaces the problem af ageney from the level of the human to the level of deing. ‘That is, his problem is no longer that of how an individual subject initiates a new chain of actions, since for him the subject only emerges in the course of such a chain of actions. His problem is accounting for how’ an existing situation ~ given that fein, for Badiou, is nothing other than multiple situations — can be disrupted and transformed by such a chain of actions This displacement of the problem of agency allows Badiou to avoid positing some mysterious autonomous agent within cach human such as ‘free will. However, the direct and tunavoidable consequence of the displacement is that the problem of agency becomes the ancient philosophical problem of how che new occurs in being Iris no coincidence that Badiou’s question ~ What is the compatibility of a subject with a general ontology? ~ leads directly to this venerable philusophical problem, since i is this very problem whieh also underlies Buciou's early work, Theorie dv sujet. In that work, Badiou's solution was «© develop a complex postructuralist remodelling of the Hegelian dialectic, In,b.'Bire e Féecnoment, Badliou's solution is simply to assert ligt ‘events happen’, events without directly assignable causes which disrupt the order of established situations. f decisions are taken by subjects 10 work out the consequences of such events, naw silvations 5 An intadaction to Alain Badiou'sphilorophy emerge asa result of their work, Such events dy, not form partof what sand so they do ot fll under the puview of Bacliow's general ontology, Thus the 1 Uoing of the subject and the general 4 ontology is a cotngent elationship, which, hg dccurrenes ofan event and the decision of a subject 4&0 Fiatiy to that event ‘What, then is this general domain’ of Bac ontology? Modern ontology: being as multiple multiplicities As already mentioned, there are exo major traditions that ‘enjoy a relation 10 ontology in late twentieth-century philosophy: the analytic eradition and the post-Heidegger: ean tradition, The analytic tradition either forecloses ontology in favour of epistemology or reduces ontology to property of theories.” The post-Heideggerean tradition perpetually announces the end of fundamental ontology, While basing this pronouncement on its own fundamental ontology of desire oF difference, Despite his ejection oftheir conclusions, Badiou does not simply dismiss the claims of these traditions. On the contrary, Badiou takes his starting point from both traditions: the concept of ‘situation’ from Wittgenstein and the idea of the ‘ontological dillerence’ from Heidegger. He then forges a new ontology within the furnace of their critiques. of mology, Heidegger formulates the ontological difference as the difference between Being and beings; hat is, the difference Fherween individual beings and the fact of their Being, thet they re, For Badiow the term “beings! risk substantialization itis too close to the term ‘entity’ “existant’ oF “object Instead, Badiou proposes the term situation, which he delines ‘presented multiplicity’, or asthe ‘place of taking place’ FF, 32). The term ‘situatio, is prior to any distinction °finite Thought bewween substances andjor relations and_so covers both. Situations include all. these flows, properties, aspects, concatenations of events, disparate collective phenomena, Dodies, monstrous and virtwal, that one might wane 1 examine within an ontology. The concept of ‘situation’ is ako designed to accommodate anything whieh i, regardless fof its modality; that is, egardless of whether itis necessary, contingent, possible, actual, potential, or virtual ~ a whiny, supermarket, a work of art, a dream, a playground fight, a feet of tracks, a mine, a stock prediction, game of ehess, oF a set of waves, If Aristotle's fundamental ontological claim is “There are substances’ then Badiou's is “There are situations’, or, in other words, “There are multiple multiplicities. The key difference between Badiow's claim and that of Aristotle i thae for Aristotle exch substance isa unity that belongs to a lolality — the rasmos — shich is itself a unity, Por Badiow, there is no unified totality that encompasses these multiple ‘multiplicities. Furthermore, there is no basic or primordial unity to these muiplciies, is these 1wo aspects of his ontology which, according 10 Badiou, guarantee its modernity. For Badiou, the task of modern ontology is to break with classical omtology’s fundamental unity of being - both in the latter's indivi duality ind its totality} Leibniz expressed this belie of classical ontology i the formula: What is not @ being is not a being. Howev Drang ith thelial unity of being is no simple tsk fr ontology. /The problem is that even if there is no primordial equivalence between unity and being, for Bacon one muse sil recognize, allowing Lacan, that dr is some oneness “Ilya de Van. That is, although unity is not rimordial, there is some kind of eect of unity in the {resentation leing. Bad's solution to this problem is {o argue that stations — presented mulipiites do have 0 * situation is a presented multiplicity. An intodvction to Alain Badiou’s philosophy such unity isthe result of an operation termed the This count is what Badiow terms the situation’s Statue) A structure determines what belongs and does not belong to the siuation by counting various multiplicities 35 emestv08 the situation. An element a basic unit of a Situation. A structure thereby generates unity atthe level of ‘adfyclement of the siuation. 1 alo generates unity at the Tevel of the whole situation by unifying the multiplicity. of cements. This & a —sate definition of a situation! a Whereas, fave hoted, philosophers have often Ahought of unity asthe Lagdamental propeety of Being, fr Badiow unity is the effec¥of structurauion. and not a ground, origin, or end. The consequence of the unity of situations being the effect of an operation is that a multiple that belongs to one situation may also belong to another situation: situations donot have mutually exclusive identities. The operation of the count-for-ong is not performed by some agent separate to the multiplicity of the situation: in classical or even relativist ontologies one can discern such ant agent, going under the names of God, History, or Discourse, The distinction between a situation andl its structuring count-for-one only holds, strictly speaking, within ontology; the situation is nothing other than this operation of “counting-for-one'! If a. situation isa. counting-for-onc, then Badiou also has a dynamic definition of a situation Once he has oth a dynamic as wells static definition ofa situation ~ the operation of counting-for-one, and unified presented multiplicity ~ he is able to join his doctrine of ‘multiplicity to a reworking of Heidegger's ontological difference. Badiou states that the ontological diflerence stands between a situation and the being of that situation; as for Heidegger, this disjointing, in thought, of situations from their being uInfinite Thought allows ontology to unfold. Unlike Heidegger, however, the being of situation i nol something that only a poetic saving can approach i iy, quite imply and banal, the Situation ‘belore’ or rather, sit the elect of the count tmoliplcy."Afe? or ih the elle of the eountto-onera ton fa aif or consistent mpi. “nrder to gndertand this station between an iicordatent ealiplicy and a consistent multiply, once the station ot a fotbal team. The parca team we have ia mind ia rtnhacle tof wna players cach having thir own posion, sent and weaknesex all of whom are med, however undisciplined and cheat their play, by weir belonging co the team “The Cate Consider ten the same team om the poi of view of is being it isa disparate mihi of human bad, each te town ticity of bones, smascen nerve teri ie nd plicy of cell and so om, which, atthe bare level of thi bre exitence have nothing to do wth thar ty ere "The Cat That ia the level ofthe beng ofeach clement tthe ten there ie nohing which inherent desermines that iti an omen oft football team, T inieren evel of being, the am inconsstene and noncuniedmulplicy. Granted, the proper name "Catt does haves certain interpelative power Inthe Alhuserian sense. but it nether reside at nor fenerats the level of being ~ for Badiou the word neither turders nor creates the thing, t merely sign the “thing 1 mulplicey = certain deny Tm onder to understand how Baio might equate chee inconsistent multipickies with being, consider stripping timing of al ofits properties tothe extem that eve is identity and unity are removed, For many. piloopher, 12 Jn invoducton to Alain Badio’s philosophy would be nothing lef after such an operation. However, for Badiou, what would be left would simply be the being of that ‘something’, and such being could only he devribed as aan inconsistent multiplicity Not even Yormless matter" would be acceptable, since ‘macter’ would have een one of | the general properties we stripped away from our ‘some= thing’. Badiow’s inconsistent multiplicity" is therefore not to be equated with Aristotelian ‘prime matter’ its ‘actual status is, moreover, ‘undecidable’ Precisely because a situation provokes the question ‘What was there byfor all situations?” but provides no possible access to this ‘befare hac is not irremediably compromised by post-sitwational terminology and operations, its impossible to speak of jn any direct way, With the thought of Sinconsistent multi= plcity’, thought therefore touches omits own limits; what Badiou calls, following Lacan, its Tris at this point that we turn to-a dascussion of Badiow's "use of set theory) hy means of which he gives all this rather loose metaphysical talk a solid and precise bass, Wy set theory? Since Aristotle, ontology has been a privileged sub- discipline of philosophy; otherwise known as the discourse fon being, Bacliow puts forward a radical thesix if being is inconsistent multiplicity, then the only suitable discourse for talking about it is no longer philosophy but mathematics, For Baio, mathematics 1s ovtlags. Mathematicians, une beknowast to themselves, lo nothing ather than continually speak of or write being. ‘This thesis enables Badiow to reformulate the classical language of ontology — being relations, qualities ~ jn mathematical terms: more specif cally, those ose theory because itis one of the foundational disciplines of contemporary mathematies; any mathematical proposition can be rewritten in the language of set theory 3Infinite Thought In [Eve ot Pécement, Badiou sets forth «wo doctrines to support his adoption of set theory. The frst, the doctsine on inconsistent multiplicity, is explained in the previous section. The second is the docteine on the void. Together, these doctrines serve to bridge the gap between set theory, With its infinity of sets, and Badiou's multiplicities of situations Take the fist doctrine, If the being of situations is inconsistent multiplicity, what is required of the language of such being? Simply that this language must present multi plicity as inconsistent, that is, as non-unoified, To fulfil such a Fequirement a number of conditions must be met. Firs, in ‘order to prevent multiplicity without unity, the multiples presented in this language cannot be multiples of individual {things of any kind, since this would be to smuggle back in precisely what is in question — the being of che One. Consequently, these multiples must akto be composed of multiples themselves composed of multiples, and. so on Second, ontology cannot present its multiples as belonging to a universe, to one all-inclusive total multiple ~ for that ‘woud he to smuggle back the One at a global level. As such, ‘ontology's multiples must be boundless; they cannot have at ‘upper limit. ‘The thitd condition is that ontology cannot determine a single concept of multiplicity, for that would also unify its multiplicities and, hy so doing, unify being. Set theory is the formal theory of non-unified multi plicities. Tt meets each of the three conditions outlined hove. First, a sel is a multiple of multiples called elements However, there is no fundamental dillerence between elements and sets, since every element of a set is itself a set Second, there is no set of sets; that is, here is no ultimate Set which includes all the different types of set found in ser theory. Such a set would have to thereby include itself which is expressly forbidden, on pain of paradox, by one of set theory's axioms, that of foundation." Tn set eheary there 4 An introduction to Alain Badion’sphilvophy isan infinity ofintinice types of infinite sets. As forthe tied condition, there is neither definition nor concept ofa set in sec theory. What there ii its place iva handamental relation “belonging” as well asa series of variables and logical ‘operators, and nine axioms stating how they may be used together. Sets emerge from operations which follow these rales The second doctrine, which Badiou uses o bridge the gap between set theory's infinity of sets and particular non ‘ontological situation, i his doctrine on “the void’ Like the octrine of inconsistent multiplicity. it is also a doctrine about the nature of situations. Badion anges that, i every Situation, there ir a being of the "nothing. He stars by stating that whatever is recognized as ‘something’, or as essing, i situation is eountedsforcone i that situation and vice versa, By implication, what i atiaghin a situation rust go uncounted. However it not as though there Simply nothing ina situation which is uncounted both the ijeration of tse counesorone and the inconsistent mliple which exist before the count are, by definition, uncotne table. Moreover, both are necesary to the existence of a Stuation oe presentations precisely because they consti & Situation as a situation they cannot be presented within dhe situation ise" As necessary” but umpresentable, they Constitute what Baton terms the witing™ or the "WORT of situation Badiou states that this void i dhe ‘subaractive suture to being’ of a situation (AE, 68). The voud ature af ‘bing to presentation because itis dhe point through which a situation comes to be the count-or-one — yet by which Ieing — as inconsistent mulplicty — is foreclosed om presentation. The void is ‘subtractive’ for to reasons. The firsts that it is subteacted from presentation snd, second, it does nat participate in any of the qualities of the situation — although itis proper to the situation, itis as if all of the iInfinite Thought particularities of the situation ase eemoved or subtracted trom it. So, for Badiow, every siuation i ultimately founded on a void. This ig not Heidegger's ADveand, nor i it some theological creation ex mikilo. The void of & situation is simply what isnot there, hut what is necestary for anything to be there When wwe carn to sot theory, i turns out i€ makes one inital existential claim, that i it begins by saying that just fone set exists. This particular set ie subtracted from the conditions of every ater set in set theory: that of having elements, This the millet, a multiple of nothing oF ofthe oid” On the sole ass of his 364, using operations regulated by formal axioms, set theory unldh an infinity uf further set. Set theory thus weaves is ses out of a "si ‘out of what, any other situation, is dhe subtractive suture to being of that situation, In other words, we already know that ontology eonneets to other situations theotgh being the theory of inconsistent multiples. Ta each and every non ‘ontological situation, its inconsistent multiplicity isa void ‘The only posible presentation ofa “voi in se theory isthe nullset. Thus, the second way in which set theory connects tosituaions is dhe it constructs its inconsistent multiples oat ofits presentation ofthe void, of the suture ta being of every So much for the goeal connection between stations and set theory’ infnitesets. Theres also a comnection seri to cach situation: Badiow holds thatthe structure of cath Situation can be written asa type oft. That i, leaving all Of a situation’s properties aside and considering only he basie relations which hold throughout its maltiplcty, ome can schematize a situation in ontology a8 What, then, are sts and how ave they written? Aw introduction to Alain Badiu’s philosophy Set theory Sets are made up of elements, The elements of set have no distinguishing quality save that of belonging to it hiss why they are referred to simply as variables ~ 9, B, 7 both when they ae elements and ishen they’ are thenseives considered as sets. The relation of belonging isthe basic relation of set, theory itis written ee fie belongs to, or, 2s an element ot the set There is another relation in set theory, termed Inchon, which is based entirely on belonging. Sets have ‘subsets that are salided inthe sets, subset isa grouping otsome ofa set's elements Each ofa subsets elements must belong to the inital set, Take for example the set 8 which consists of the elements 4, 8,7. Tt can be written {a By 7). It has various subsets like (2, B} and {B, 7]. Each subset can itself be given a name, indexed to an arbitrary mark. For example, the later subset {7}, might he called the subset Tis inclosion in 8s writen 1c 8 the set 28 clement x = C. 3 By 7 : N A set is a anified kipliciy: its elements ate not indefinite and dlspersed; one i able wo speak ofa (single, united) set Badiou reads 2 B assaying that multiple 2s countedor ‘one’ as ant clement ofthe set, or the set isthe “count-for~ ‘one’ ofall those clements 2, Bach of those elements could he subset