I read this through over the course of Saturday the 12th, before and after hurriedly completing a philosophy essay on Blaise Pascal. Although I do have philosophical disagreements with Badiou (not that I know that much about him, simply basing my stance relative to his on Hearsay and what little I've read about his disagreements with Zizek) I found this small tome really compelling - in particular, the notion of the Two Scene, that when you commit to another in love you are committing to the construction of an entirely new way of seeing the world based on the acceptance of your irreducable difference from them. There's a kind of parallax in this process, I think, and maybe comparable to something Chesterton says in Orthodoxy --
Mysticism keeps men sane. As long as you have mystery, you have health; when you destroy mystery, you create morbidity. The ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic. He has permitted the twilight. He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland. He has always left himself free to doubt his gods; but (unlike the agnostic of today) free also to believe in them. He has always cared more for truth than for consistency. If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them. His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that. Thus he has always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also.
I can't find the page source on this, I'm afraid, because I haven't read Orthodoxy (though it is something I would like to read) and simply saw this online. But anyway, this idea of parallax, that Zizek also talks about - though this is something I'm lacking in understanding of, maybe The Parallax View is the next Zizek I should pick up -is something fascinating, that you see better because you are seeing inconsistently, because inconsistency and difference is really there, and not simply a matter of perspective, or maybe more accurately that this matter of perspective is kind of the thing that is real?. But overall, the point is it seems to construct a new kind of love wherein you don't simply see through the eyes of your lover, because that is a kind of impossible thing, but rather that in love you both come together to see the world in a new kind of way. There's probably commonalities with Fromm's work on the matter in The Art of Loving but I haven't read that either so Oh Well. But I really enjoyed this and would heavily recommend it (it's on libgen, as is almost anything worth reading)