巴迪欧不是一位书斋式的思想家，他的每一个哲学宣言都有着现实关照，其本体论的核心内容之一是通过数学的方式建构一种"普遍的个别性"，进而打碎当下资本的同质逻辑。《圣保罗》正是通过保罗的个案研究来对此进行具体呈现。本文尝试透过《圣保罗》来呈现巴迪欧的本体论，并论述其对打破资本主义大全式现实的意义。最后，得益于巴迪欧对现实的关照，笔者尝试从历史中的基督教秩序入手，探讨巴迪欧事件哲学的贡献与困境。本文第一章是就研究背景与研究动态进行的论述，包括圣保罗与基督教思想研究、巴迪欧思想研究、对巴迪欧《圣保罗》的研究等。第二章分析《圣保罗》中的事件哲学。其中，事件、真理和主体是核心概念。在《圣保罗》中，基督的复活即是事件，代表了一种与先定情境的彻底断裂与不可能性，又暗示了一种逃离旧有情境垄断的新的可能性，因此是"不可能性的可能性"。接着，笔者尝试通过数学、天体物理学和保罗的经历三种例证分析事件的内涵。在将事件普遍化的过程中，一个关键概念是真理。真理是对事件的宣言，并且摆脱了一切可以用语言表述的特殊性。而主体与事件及其真理的联系在于，因信称义而非因割礼称义。第三章论述了巴迪欧事件哲学的理论旨归。首先，在一与多的关系问题上，面对从柏拉图到黑格尔传统的大全式"一"的裹挟，以及以后现代主义为代表的，强调"多"以致消解了一切价值进而遮蔽真理的两难困境，巴迪欧提出了一种"多的柏拉图主义"，既保留了的"一"的理论位置，又避免了多被"一"所吞噬。其次，巴迪欧继承了当代法国哲学的非同一性传统，在理论上给溢出、边缘、例外这些概念以哲学地位，而这些概念的现实性指向即是事件，从而为刺破资本主义大全的革命行动提供理论基础，颠覆同一性的统治。第四章试图借助圣保罗之后的基督教秩序来分析巴迪欧所建立的"普遍的个别性"之理论贡献与困境。笔者认为，"普遍性"概念至少有两层含义：有限的普遍性与大全的普遍性。前者往往是现实的和局部的，对不能纳入普遍性的东西不予讨论。后者是试图囊括一切，将所有的东西都纳入自身的普遍性。笔者认为，巴迪欧与圣保罗的"普遍的个别性"只是有限的普遍性，但他们都有一种将之跃升为大全的普遍性的想法。这使得事件在新情境中的演变完全失去了控制，甚至成为了道德理想国式的党同伐异。笔者认为其根源在于，大全的普遍性往往只是一种哲学上的建构，是一种思维的普遍性，不可能成为现实性。这是思维与存在的根本性断裂决定的。
Badiou is not a philosophical thinker in the den. Each of his philosophical declarations has a close concern for reality. One of the core elements of Badiou's ontology is to construct a "universal singularity" through mathematics. He wants to crack down the homogeneity of capitalist “one” through it. "Saint Paul" is a case study of Paul's experiences. Badiou intends to present this unspeakable "universal singularity" through it. In this paper, I want to present the content of Badiou's ontology through "Saint Paul", discuss its significance to breaking the reality of capitalism, and tires to explore the contribution and dilemma of Badiou's philosophy of event through the Christian order in history.The first chapter is the research background, summarizing the previous study on Saint Paul, Christianity, Badiou, and Badiou's "Saint Paul".The second chapter analyzes the philosophy of event in “Saint Paul”. Event, truth, and subject are the three core concepts of it. In “Saint Paul”, the resurrection of Christ is an event. It represents a complete break with the previous situation and the impossibility. At the same time, it also hinted a new possibility of escaping from the monopoly of the old situation. Therefore it is a "possibility of impossibility." And then, in the process of generalizing event, the key concept is truth. Truth is the manifestation of event. It frees from all the particularities which can be expressed through language. The link tying the subject, event and its truth, lies in “justification by faith”, rather than “justification by circumcision”. Event is like a "grace". It doesn’t require the subject to pay anything for exchange. It can be obtained solely by "faith", and opens the possibility of next event.The third chapter discusses the theoretical purpose of Badiou's philosophy of event. First, Badiou tried to make a breakthroughs in the relationship between one and multiple. Facing the dilemma of the “One” from Plato to Hegel’s tradition, which includes everything, and the “multiple” by postmodernism, which eliminates all values and thus shielded the truth, Badiou presents a “Platonism of multiple”. On the one hand, he gives priority to “multiple” in the perspective of existentialism, and claims the ontology is a science on “multiple”, "one" does not exist, it is only an operation that includes “multiple” into one set, which is “count multiple as one” . Through this way, he retains the theoretical position of "one", and also avoids being swallowed up by it. It is the establishment of the "universal singularity". Secondly, he inherits the tradition of non-identity logic of contemporary French philosophy. He gives philosophical status to the concepts like “spillovers”, “margins”, and “exceptions”. And the realistic orientation of these concepts is event. The exceptional logic of event provides the theoretical basis for the revolutionary actions. It breaks down the capitalist “one”, and thus subvert the rule of identity.The forth chapter attempts to analyze the theoretical contribution and imperfection of Badiou’s "universal singularity" through the Christian order after Saint Paul. The concept of "universality" has at least two meanings, including the universality of finiteness and the universality of “one”. The former is often realistic, such as the idea of a table, which is universal compared to a specific table. This kind of universality is limited, partial, and does not discuss things which can’t be absorb into universal. The latter tries to include everything, and puts everything into its own universal, such as Plato's idea of goodness. I think the thing like “Nero”, which is the metaphor of evil, has absolute externality to Christianity. Therefore, the "universal singularity" of Badiou and Saint Paul is not the universality of one, but the university of finiteness. However, both Saint Paul and Badiou, sublime this university of finiteness into universality of “one”. The event and its consequences should not only be universal, but also be single. This makes the evolution of event completely lose control in the new situation, and even become the intolerance of moral republic. I believe the root of intolerance is that the universality of “one” is only a philosophical construct, which can only exist in thought. It is decided by the fundamental rupture between mind and being.
