I will be in Sydney for several days checking out my new job and I may not be able to post because I will be too busy.

So I will leave you with Alain Baidou's conception of philosophy. He says that:

"Philosophy is never the interpretation of experience.It is an act of Truth in regard to truths."

Badiou's is a very Platonic understanding of philosophy? Does Badiou see truth as absolute or eternal? I'm unsure. But Truth is part of an explicitly anti-historicist system.

However the persons he places in the spotlight are the sophists (the poststructuralists?) as they impede the Truth.

Language is not reality is the argument against the sophists who supposedly reduce philosophy to nothing but a matter of language.For Badiou the modern Sophists are those philosophers who defend one of the three following theses (and sometimes all three at once):

(1) philosophy is nearing its end, it has exhausted its potential, the only possible philosophical posture today is to celebrate or regret its demise; (2) philosophy has undergone a linguistic turn (for Badiou, the arch-Sophist is Wittgenstein); (3) philosophy is about meanings, it is a kind of glorified hermeneutics (for him, the greatest of these philosophical hermeneutists is Heidegger).

Badiou's tone is a long way from the intellectual fashions in the humanities such as poststructuralism, postcolonial theory, feminism, and psychoanalysis which construct cultural studies that celebrates the fluidity and "hybridity" of sex, gender, and race.

According to Badiou, there are two underlying assumptions shared by the above distinct orientations: 1) negatively, they share
the assumption that philosophy is over, metaphysics is dead, and
metaphysical claims for truth are no longer possible; and 2) and
positively, all three assert that language is the only locus of meaning, and must now be the only site for questions of truth, now understood as radically limited, contingent, and historical.

Badiou's argument is that the insistence that language is the privileged locus and limitation of meaning precludes the possibility of addressing universal questions, then that leaves us enmired in the babble of multiple and untranslatable discourses, subjective positions, specialized disciplines, and private forms of life.

Does it? Why does that leave us ensnarred in multiple and untranslatable discourses.