[-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
judith,
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...
best
steve
> 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