Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Being in the World According to Badiou

Being in the World According to Badiou Brian O’Keeffe Proponents of the “ontological turn” have apparently brokered a concordat between thinkers. For whatever the diversity of cultures and civilizations studied by arche- ologists, historians, anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers (and even literary comparatists), the matter of mutual interest remains the world, and what it means to be in the world. Ontology—philosophical ontology—reminds us that while there are many worldviews, there is but one world. Despite the plethora of possible existences, we all partake of the same way of being—there’s no other way to be, and the alternative is nugatory, namely no bein n- g. Ontology starts with “what is,” with the marvelous, albeit mundane constat that there is something rather than nothing, and with the meaning of being—being as such, being qua being. It’s hard to disagree with philosophical ontology, whatever our disciplinary af- filiations in anthropology, sociology, history, and so forth, though whether that en- joins such disciplines to subordinate themselves to philosophy’s prerogative to oer ff the last (or first) word on being- in- t he- w orld is perhaps the crux of the matter— and why there’s some way to go before that concordat is definitively established. Moreover, that prerogative perhaps depends on whether philosophy http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Comparatist University of North Carolina Press

Being in the World According to Badiou

O'Keeffe, Brian
The Comparatist , Volume 44 – Nov 3, 2020
Download PDF
21 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-north-carolina-press/being-in-the-world-according-to-badiou-kQQRcMMJF0

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of North Carolina Press
Copyright
Copyright © Copyright © Society for Comparative Literature and the Arts
ISSN
1559-0887

Abstract

Brian O’Keeffe Proponents of the “ontological turn” have apparently brokered a concordat between thinkers. For whatever the diversity of cultures and civilizations studied by arche- ologists, historians, anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers (and even literary comparatists), the matter of mutual interest remains the world, and what it means to be in the world. Ontology—philosophical ontology—reminds us that while there are many worldviews, there is but one world. Despite the plethora of possible existences, we all partake of the same way of being—there’s no other way to be, and the alternative is nugatory, namely no bein n- g. Ontology starts with “what is,” with the marvelous, albeit mundane constat that there is something rather than nothing, and with the meaning of being—being as such, being qua being. It’s hard to disagree with philosophical ontology, whatever our disciplinary af- filiations in anthropology, sociology, history, and so forth, though whether that en- joins such disciplines to subordinate themselves to philosophy’s prerogative to oer ff the last (or first) word on being- in- t he- w orld is perhaps the crux of the matter— and why there’s some way to go before that concordat is definitively established. Moreover, that prerogative perhaps depends on whether philosophy

Journal

The Comparatist – University of North Carolina Press

Published: Nov 3, 2020

There are no references for this article.