[-empyre-] a book, dna,code and ethics

sdv at krokodile.co.uk sdv at krokodile.co.uk
Sun Oct 21 20:54:15 EST 2007

Actually I don't think that 'Badiou is the ethical turn par excellance' 
actally he is the opposite and arguably the moment when refusal of the 
ethical turn might be thought to begin. Obviously I recognize that 
Badiou's work has had some positive effects on ethicists like Critchly 
(Infinitely Demanding) but the ethics and politics that results is not 
an improvement over parlimentary democracy.

In terms derived from your book Watson is very much a psuedo-scientist, 
whilst for me he remains a scientist. I'd understand what makes his 
position  particularly problematic as being something along the lines 
of: a scientist who accepts that scientific concepts and social concepts 
are supported by 'real objects' to name a few: DNA, Gene, gender, sex, 
intelligence, race, species. What this implies is that the scientist has 
some degree of belief that the hypothesis that proposes these objects 
exist is true.

But actually these concepts only exist in as much as they are 
empirically adequate, that is to say they are 'supported with respect to 
observable phenomena'(Van Frassen). But what we would argue is that 
acceptance of a theory involves the recognition that a theory is 
empirically adequate and provable. So if, as I do, you accept the 
evidence offered that these social concepts have primarily reactionary 
and oppressive purposes, then his declarations in support of the 
concepts are both non-ethical and in support of relations (in eugen's 
sense) that we are discarding.

The very idea of placing a higher value on one side of a concept rather 
than another is appalling. Now what was it that Deleuze would call it in 
everybodies least favorite book AO? 'fascist'.

Of course i'm not only an anti-humanist, but even more of an 
anti-realist... laughs...


> Steve,
> Actually, I've always wondered why the ethical turn is so central (if  
> it is and which postmodernity?).  What is it that pushes this ethical  
> turn anyway?  The ethical turn needs to be examined--beyond Badiou  who 
> is the ethical turn par excellence.  And conceptions of  resistance 
> (which are always appended to the thing which is resisted)  cannot 
> envision an apposition to ethics where ethics is not relevant  or itself 
> seen as a disingenuous practice linked to oedipalism.  Who,  after all, 
> gets to enjoy ethics?  Or wield it?  Is that an ethical  question?
> As for Watson, what is it that determines the banality of his  banality 
> or the terribleness of his science?  In what way are these  declarations 
> not ethical?
> Cheers,
> Judith

More information about the empyre mailing list