Becky Vartabedian - Multiplicity and Ontology in Deleuze and Badiou

Regis University, Denver, CO, USA

Becky Vartabedian

Email:

The initiating provocation for this text is found in a different conversation, begun by the fatherson team of Ricardo L. and David Nirenberg . Their 2011 article, Badious Number: A Critique of Mathematics as Ontology , objects to the so-called radical thesis Badiou proposes in Being and Event , which appears in shorthand as mathematics = ontology ( BE xiii). The Nirenbergs challenge the contention that mathematical ontology , in general, and especially that proposed by Badiou , produces the sorts of things it claims to; for example, they insist that Badious particularand by their lights, peculiar use of set theory is selective in its deployment and its consequences. The Nirenbergs claim that set theory cannot be used to justify the philosophical or political conjectures Badiou draws in Being and Event , and further that the identity of ontology and mathematics Badiou proposes precludes the possibility for pathic elements, namely human thought, to emerge from the mathematical system (Nirenberg and Nirenberg , 586). The Nirenbergs operate according to the view that ontology is an inquiry into being and questions related to existence as these pertain to humans; they laud the resources of phenomenology , for example, insofar as this method derives conclusions of what it is to be from lived experience. By emptying ontology of these resourcesa traditionally human center and the lived experience that accrues to itthe Nirenbergs see Badious use of set theory to be so reckless as to endanger an entire tradition of thought.

The Nirenbergs claims occasion replies from A.J. Bartlett , Justin Clemens , and Badiou himself. In a subsequent volume of Critical Inquiry , the discussion unfolds with accusations that one camp has fundamentally misunderstood the other. Bartlett and Clemens insist that the Nirenbergs have not read Badious oeuvre carefully; the Nirenbergs fail to understand that ontology as mathematics, for Badiou, really functions as a figure of philosophical fiction (Bartlett and Clemens , 363364). While significant points both in defense and critique of Badious program are raised in these pages, the interlocutors seem largely to talk past one another; the insights are, unfortunately, lost in the polemical nature of the interchange.

As I was reading this exchange, however, I felt like the conversation was missing something crucial, both as an opportunity for inquiry and a chance for defense. A closer look at the radical thesis Badiou proposes in Being and Event situates mathematics is ontology as the consequent of a preliminary claim: Insofar as being, qua being, is nothing other than pure multiplicity , it is legitimate to say that ontology , the science of being qua being, is nothing other than mathematics itself ( BE xiii). Badiou spends the first five meditations of Being and Event arguing for the antecedent claim that being qua being is multiplicity. This claim is not mentioned in the NirenbergBartlett ClemensBadiou contretemps ; it is neither a matter of common sense nor established fact, and it led me to ask a further question following this debate: What does Badiou mean when he claims being qua being is pure multiplicity?