In Praise of Love ~ Alain Badiou
“It is an existential project: to construct a world
from a decentred point of view other than that
of my mere impulse to survive or re-affirm my
own identity.” 25
***
“When I lean on the shoulder of the
woman I love, and can see, let’s say, the peace of
twilight over a mountain landscape, gold-green
fields, the shadow of trees, black-nosed sheep
motionless behind hedges and the sun about to
disappear behind craggy peaks, and know - not
from the expression on her face, but from within
the world as it is - that the woman I love is seeing
the same world, and that this convergence is part
of the world and that love constitutes precisely,
at that very moment, the paradox of an identical
difference, then love exists, and promises to
continue to exist. The fact is she and I are now
incorporated into this unique Subject, the
Subject of love that views the panorama of the
world through the prism of our difference, so this
world can be conceived, be born, and not simply
represent what fills my own individual gaze. Love
is always the possibility of being present at the
birth of the world. The birth of a child, if born
from within love, is yet another example of this
possibility.” 26
***
Romeo and Juliet is clearly the outstanding allegory for
this particular disjuncture because this Two
belong to enemy camps. We shouldn’t underestimate
the power love possesses to slice diagonally
through the most powerful oppositions and
radical separations. The encounter between two
differences is an event, is contingent and disconcerting,
“love’s surprises”, theatre yet again. On
the basis of this event, love can start and flourish.
It is the first, absolutely essential point. This
surprise unleashes a process that is basically an
experience of getting to know the world. Love
isn’t simply about two people meeting and their
inward-looking relationship: it is a construction,
a life that is being made, no longer from
the perspective of One but £rom the perspective
of Two. And that is what I have called a “Two
scene”. Personally, I have always been interested
in issues of duration and process, and not only
starting-points.” 28-9
***
“I must tell the other person about what happened,
about that encounter and the incidents within
the encounter. I will tell the other that something
that commits me took place, at least as I see it.
In a word: I love you. If “I love you” isn’t simply
a ploy to sleep with somebody, which can be the
case. If it isn’t a ploy, what is it? What’s being
said there? It isn’t at all easy to say “I love you”.
That small sentence is usually thought to be
completely meaningless and banal. Moreover,
people sometimes prefer to use other more poetic,
less commonplace words to say “I love you”. But
what they are always saying is: I shall extract
something else from what was mere chance.
I’m going to extract something that will endure,
something that will persist, a commitment, a
fidelity. And here I am using the word “fidelity”
within my own philosophical jargon, stripped of
its usual connotations. It means precisely that
transition from random encounter to a construction
that is resilient, as if it had been necessary.” 44
***
“If “I love you” is always,in most
respects, the heralding of ‘I’ll
always love you”, it is in effect locking chance
into the framework of eternity. We shouldn’t be
afraid of words. The locking in of chance is an
anticipation of eternity. And to an extent, every
love states that it is eternal: it is assumed within
the declaration…
The problem then resides in inscribing this
eternity within time. Because, basically, that
is what love is: a declaration of eternity to be
fulfilled or unfurled as best it can be within time:
eternity descending into time. That’s why it is
such an intense feeling.” 48
***
“Book V of Plato’s Republic
(this massive book of which I am preparing a
complete, very different “translation”) contains
a quite astonishing passage. Socrates starts to
define what is a true philosopher. And then very
suddenly, he seems to change subject. Here is my
version (Socrates is speaking):
“Do I need to remind you of something you
must remember very vividly? When we speak of
an object of love, we assume that the lover loves
that object in its entirety. We don’t allow for his
love to select just one part and reject another.”
The two young people seem taken aback.
Amantha takes it upon herself to express their
bewilderment: “Dear Socrates, what is the
connection between this detour on love and the
definition of a philosopher?”
“Ah, our young women in love! Unable to
recognize that, as Fernando Pessoa the great
Portuguese poet said, ‘love is a thought’. Listen,
you youngsters: anyone who doesn’t take love
as their starting-point will never discover what
philosophy is about.” 92-3
