It is interesting that Alain Badiou, French intellectual, Marxist, public philosopher of the 'event' and 'love,' would write a book about the so-called Christian saint, Paul. Badiou is a noted atheist and a vocal critic of the institutions of Christianity in France and abroad, making connections between neo-liberal policies and evangelicalism. Still, he finds much in Paul's authenticated writings worthy of his attention and takes considerble time to engage and discuss what he finds there, providing an interesting look into his own thoughts and ideas, and the ways he sees Paul's writings as important and valuable to us, now.
Early in his book Badiou seizes upon the theme of universality and formulates the idea "that if it is true that every truth erupts as singular, it's singularity is immediately universalizable." (Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism, 11) He goes on to contrast this with identitarian singularities which he finds non-universal, or at least divisive, as something less desirable or valuable than the type of universality that he finds at work in Paul. He is very open regarding his personal affinity for this concept of universality, to the point of zealous excitement.
Of course, this theme of universality is one that has placed many contemporary philosophers and theorists at odds with so-called modernity, and I imagine that it has raised a few eyebrows with regard to Badiou's work and how they are at all reconcilable. But Badiou sees and attempts to describe just such a connection.
I wonder if each of us must, as we advance in years, engage with the idea of the unviersal as inevitable. I don't think this tendency toward understanding and describing experience through the concept of universality can be avoided. Perhaps this is one reason Badiou is so willing to partake in this discussion at this time in his life. The idea of a shared, ubiquitous experience among sentient beings has an appeal that figures prominently in much discourse and with the theme of univerality ready to hand for such purposes, why wrestle with some new fangled conceptual device. We want to beleive that we can share and express to others what it means to be alive in the particular way that we are. Any number of thoughts occur to us that we imagine can be equally grasped by any number of other persons given enough time and reason, and this sounds an awful lot like the universal.
Like most things, worth talking about.
