In his essay “The Three Negations,” Badiou discusses negation and war and how these two are related. He says that in war, sometimes you are allied with an enemy or a negation to defect a stronger negation or enemy. As was in WWII when we were allied with the Soviet Union to defeat Germany, who was a larger more present negation. He then questions if something can be more wrong than something else, as to say that “Is it possible to negate more or less? Is not “negation” the clearest example of something absolute?” (1877). We always question wrong and right as if they are finite and not ever-changing as they actually are. We want to say that something is wrong but what if it is done with good intentions? What if the victim did something worse does that lessen the murderers …show more content…
Aristotle formed the idea of the excluded middle, which means, “If you have a proposition P, either P is true, or P is false; that is, either P is true or non-P is true,” (1878). This mean leads to the “double negation” or two wrongs make a right. He goes on to prove that ultimately this principle is false. Badiou also introduces “the principle of non-contradiction,” (1880). This principle can be defined by a set in G. This set has a negation non-G. All things in G cannot also be in non-G because of the definition of negation. This is also false because it leave no room for a grey area, just like the excluded middle principle. These principles, he argues, only work “in the context of a classical logic,”(1881), that is to say it doesn’t hold up when applied to the real world. He uses sin and guilt as examples of this stating “if I say in a concrete world “I am not guilty,” maybe it is true, but it is practically never absolutely true, because everybody is guilty, more or less,” (1881). There is not just true or false, wrong or right. We as humans who have the capacity to reason must acknowledge the grey areas and decide our owns