If it is true that the conceptions philosophers have about the role of philosophy demonstrate their own philosophy, then in the work of Badiou and Žižek this particular role is tied to action and appeals to it. Even though Žižek is associated by those who know him with statements like “resistance is surrender” (Žižek 2007), it can be said that here he is underlining action conditioned by theory. Hence, it is only in this respect that we may explore Žižek’s interest in Lenin. Any activity whether theoretical or practical that concerns action could simply be called ethics. What can philosophers, hidden behind abstract constructions, far away from the simple questions of everyday life, like good and evil, add to this? This is why Badiou provides some examples of what philosophy means for him. Badiou introduces the reader to the notion that philosophy stands somewhere beyond the commonplace. It is not purposeless, it is not designed that way, and nor does it exist out of spite. Philosophy has its moment; it has to find the right time and reason to interfere. And if it comes up with some new concept, this has to be created and defined by the philosopher in the first place. The concept or the philosophical intervention cannot stand on clumsy feet and the system which it establishes has to be stable and complex enough. If that were not the case, the idea, as the first impulse of the structure would vanish and be lost. Therefore, the base has to be strong, but must still face the real situation. A structure that looks static enough and that suggests stability represents a contiguous complex that can absorb everything into its vitals and change it into its own image. It is more likely to be glass than concrete, as everything it approaches it shapes to match its own; and it is more likely to be a cathedral made of stone than a house made of bricks, because the building material is connected elastically, going across the whole body of the building. And you can enter it in many ways. When does philosophy intervene then? In a situation where an opinion is presented, in a discussion for instance, a philosopher can intervene by presenting a different point of view. From the beginning, there is nothing to assure him that it will be right or true. It is therefore important to present it in its entirety, unfold it and thereby to support it. A counteractive strategy is to doubt the integrity of the first opinion by producing examples which do not match it or lie outside it. The possibility of using this strategy against the philosopher is HUMAN AFFAIRS 21, 220–225, 2011 DOI: 10.2478/s13374-011-0022-8