fdrake stepping down as a mod this weekend
I'm fond of him, but I think he thinks he's more rigorous than he is. If you read his use of mathematics as examples of "his master" Lacan's mathemes, they make some amount of sense. Cosmogenesis {not that it's exactly cosmogenesis but whatever} out of the empty set doesn't make too much sense. The universe being equated with lack of set level concept applicable to the set of all sets doesn't make much sense either.
I never found a satisfying answer for why there are exactly four truth procedures, or why they're individuated the way they are {why not love-politics and art-science?}.
The underlying issue I have with Badiou, besides the pretence of mathematical rigour that follows him around, is that I read him as basically an idealist. I think that's what happens when your central category in ontology is truth - you gotta ask "of what?", and here it's some world-shattering reconfiguration, and that world is always a world with humans in it.
I also enjoy, what I recall as, Laruelle's remark about Badiou that Badiou pretends to be the ultimate philosopher of multiplicity, but the scope of his architectonics and strict methodological purity in metaphysics {it needs mathemes} renders him both pragmatically and ontologically a firm ally of the one.
Though I think Badiou made the same remark about Deleuze for different reasons. So I could be mistaking that. Laruelle's
Anti-Badiou was one of the hardest books I've read. I hope it was easier in French, but I doubt it.