Está en la página 1de 1

Dear Gilles,

Today is February 14th and we celebrate love and friendship. But things are still not going very well speaking of
philosophy. Badiou has been in the need to legitimate his point of view with respect to you and every time he refers
to you he says something like My friend Deleuze. He continuously uses your name each time as a point of
reference and appeals to a friendship that you never had with him. It seems that he legitimates his view by
positioning himself against what came to be a sort of Deleuzian ostracism, an ostracism that marked him many
years ago but that was actually fired by him with the publication of his book on you. It is because of this initial
failure regards to his relation with you, in combination with the kind of assertions that he holds in his book (not
only about your thought but also about your person -while he treats you as a sort of autist and takes a reactive
attitude towards the reasons you had to disparage his views), that mostly all his further work has come as an
imposture towards your philosophical achievements. It seems that this imposture is up to discredit your thought
and your beloved influences by formalization: an imposture that he aims to legitimate while he is still alive, from
the actual position he occupies in the field of philosophical production and from his trajectory as the last survivor
of a French generation. It seems that his philosophical interest is subjected by this discoursive imposition, while he
is very careful to subtract from the field every conceptualization associated with your name.
While all impositions are meant to annoy, what is most annoying is the prefix anti that he ascribes to
Nietzsches philosophy. This is not very friendly on his part. He thinks that he can define what is anti from what
is not, but in fact what he really does is to operate the Nietzschean text as the inverse equation applied many
years ago by you with respect to Nietzsche. Badiou speaks about the philosophical style of the anti like if such
style would not be worth to consider due to a lack of formalization. For instance, in his article on Nietzsche he
reverts your definition of the event as a simple histrionic act, so there is no event for him and no affirmativity, no
intensity, only an act where the actor fakes philosophy with his histrionism in order to destroy its form. With this
performative equation, he pretends to define philosophy by default from its form and not from its eventual
substance. However, at the end of the day, his equation expresses how he formalizes these potent views not quite
from their content but from the imposture that he prompts as an ideologue.
In sum, it seems that Badiou is distorting the discoursive field of what was authentically produced by you, only
because you dismissed him on your own right accordingly to your standpoint towards philosophy and life. What
Badiou does is something that comes from an imposition within this field, and nowadays he has a lot of weight in
such a field precisely because he is also part of your generation. However, you still have a lot of friends over here
that love you so much. We want you to know that we are getting to understand the reasons why you practically
ran away from him, and we are starting to see in which sense such reasons have everything to do with philosophys
health. But we cannot imagine the constraints against free thinking that his intentionality carries with respect to
what he keeps on saying about you, nor the philosophical confusion that all this bring to new generations.
Yet, we all still wish you a Happy Valentines day <3