Conclusion: Multiplicity, Ontology, Deleuze, Badiou

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter recovers the work of the preceding several chapters to demonstrate my attention to structure and procedure as key components of both Badiou’s and Deleuze’s ontological multiplicity. I discuss the prospects for ‘other lineages’ in which to take up this investigation, including the discussions in Chapter  5 concerning Badiou’s relationships to Heidegger and Kant. Knox Peden (Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2014) uses an entanglement with Heidegger to propose ways in which Deleuze’s alternative reinforces his deep Spinozist commitments; this recognition extends the frontier of the Badiou-Deleuze engagement beyond the boundary I identify in Kant’s notion of the manifold. I conclude by addressing the critique of multiplicity in Badiou’s review of Deleuze’s The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. This engagement offers an opportunity to consider the foundation of ontological inquiry not in multiplicity, but the decision or commitment to dissolution that warrants its deployment.

References

  1. Badiou, Alain. 1994. “Gilles Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque.” In Gilles Deleuze and the Theater of Philosophy, edited by Constantin V. Boundas and Dorothea Olkowski, 51–69. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2009. Pocket Pantheon: Figures of Postwar Philosophy. Translated by David Macey. London: Verso. Originally Petit Panthéon Portatif. Paris: Éditions la Fabrique, 2008.Google Scholar
  3. Bartlett, A.J. 2011. Badiou and Plato: An Education By Truths. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bova, John, and Paul Livingston. 2017. “Univocity, Duality, and Ideal Genesis: Deleuze and Plato.” In Contemporary Encounters with Ancient Metaphysics, edited by Abraham Jacob Greenstine and Ryan J. Johnson. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, Ryan J. 2016. The Deleuze-Lucretius Encounter. Plateaus—New Directions in Deleuze Studies Series. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lampert, Jay. 2015. “Deleuze’s ‘Power of Decision’, Kant’s = X, and Husserl’s Noema.” In At The Edges of Thought: Deleuze and Post-Kantian Philosophy, edited by Craig Lundy and Daniela Voss, 272–292. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Nail, Thomas. 2017. “Lucretius and the Immanence of Motion.” The Immanent Frame: Secularism, Religion, and the Public Sphere. Social Science Research Council (SSRC). Available Online: https://tif.ssrc.org/2017/09/19/lucretius-and-the-immanence-of-motion/. Accessed 5 January 2018.
  8. Peden, Knox. 2014. Spinoza Contra Phenomenology: French Rationalism from Cavaillès to Deleuze. Cultural Memory in the Present Series, edited by Hent de Vries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Vartabedian, Becky with Nathan Eckstrand. 2017. “Early Career Research Spotlight: Becky Vartabedian.” Blog of the American Philosophical Association. https://blog.apaonline.org/2017/11/15/early-career-research-spotlight-rebecca-vartebedian/. Accessed 15 November 2017.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Regis UniversityDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations