It's a mixed bag—in terms of philosophies and ideas that I agree with. The main thing about this text is how the language, through its heterocentrism, leaves me in suspension of belief. I know to be wholly inclusive is not a thing, so maybe the audience for this book is not me. But come on—the consideration of love as beginning with sexual difference is alienating in the sense that the text claims that love has to bisect The World You Once Knew vs. The World After Love.

But in some respects, I deeply agree with Badiou's argument about love's tenacity and the notion of always. Look, my siblings are those killjoys who sneer when someone says "I will love you forever," and that's my initial reaction too. But it's unfair of me to think in this way when I think these same things in regards to my partner—so how am I any different? I guess, as Badiou says, "to say 'I love you' is an attempt at a declaration of eternity. It's a commitment within time." Love demonstrates how eternity can exist within time as we know it, that time can accommodate—in the name of love. In other words, when I say 'I will love you always' is my way of saying 'I will love you for as long as my love allows.' Time is a construct. Time is what we make of it.

Badiou touches on a lot more things, like Love and Art and Love in Politics. I want to understand love in its intimacy first before I explore a wider scope.

Though, Badiou touches on Love and Religion and it left me thinking. When Badiou says, "Love on bended knee is no love at all, even if love sometimes arouses passion in us that makes us yield to the loved one," it encapsulates my feelings for God (because I do have some feelings). My religious wound runs deep. Also it reminded me of Frank Ocean's "Bad Religion".