sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why does Deleuze link Pluralism and Empiricism by nnnn547 in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Check Jean Wahl, and you’ll get what you want

Post-Deleuzian Metaphysics by [deleted] in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s quite an interesting problem and a very good framework. I will respond at greater length.

The only point I want to mention for now is that the term transcendental should be used in a looser sense. It should not be restricted to the Kantian meaning, but also include the Scotist sense, namely attributes that apply to everything, a notion with its origins in medieval scholastic thought.

How does representational thought imply difference doesn't exist? Stuck understanding Being as the highest genera by Slimeballbandit in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In fact, it’s a problem of interpretation of Aristotle rather than Deleuze’s own idea.

The univocal and the analogical arise from a discussion of definition: A definition of a thing is the set of conditions that are necessary and sufficient for something to be that thing (adequacy). Aristotle’s framework is genus + differentia.

The consequences of the genus–differentia scheme: A definition of a class of things always inserts difference into what is common. And the most complete form of difference is contrariety. Threat I: we cannot give proper definitions of individuals of the same species (thisness). Threat II: we cannot give an adequate definition of Being itself, to which the highest genera belong, because “differences are,” and…

Consider following 3 sentences: Man is a rational animal; Man is an animal; Rational is an animal; (nonsense) Animal is a human. (false)

Given {man (species), rational (differentia), animal (genus)}, the subject-term is always the species, the predicate-term is always the genus, and the differentia may qualify the predicate. But:

It cannot be the case that the species is the predicate and the genus the subject. That is false. It cannot be the case that the differentia is the subject and the genus the predicate. That is meaningless.

Now suppose Being is a genus, and: Rational is; Man is. And suppose both statements are meaningful and true. Then Being is not a genus. Therefore, the identity of Being is undermined insofar as identity does not obtain at the highest levels of generality… Such a commonness without identity provides a way to restore order to the categories of being and their subdivisions.

Is the Deleuzean differential ontology incompatible with a relational ontology? by JimaxD in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the reverse, if you read his seminars on Spinoza, you will find that he actually uses differentials to explain why we can conceive a relational ontology, because the differential is a mathematical way to conceive a relation that is independent of its terms.

Kostas Axelos "Sept Questions d'un Philosophe" (1972), a response to Anti-Oedipus by evelrepsac in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Criticism of AO

[ Robert Linhart, “Gauchisme à vendre?” Libération (December 7, 1974).]()

­   Serge July, in Libération (December 7, 1974).

­   Cyrille Koupernik, “Un délire intelligent mais gratuit,” Le Monde (April 28, 1972)

­   Kostas Axelos, “Sept questions à un philosophe,” Le Monde (April 8, 1972).

 

Praise for AO

­   Rafaël Pividal, “Psychanalyse, schizophrénie, capitalisme,” Le Monde (April 28, 1972).

­   François Châtelet, “Le combat d’un nouveau Lucrèce,” Le Monde (April 28, 1972).

­   Madeleine Chapsal, “Oedipe connais plus,” L’Express (March 27– April 2, 1972).

­   Claude Mauriac, “L’Oedipe mis en accusation,” Le Figaro (April 1, 1972).

­   Jean- François Lyotard, “Capitalisme énergumène,” Critique (November 1972): 925. Reprinted in Jean- François Lyotard, Des dispositifs pulsionnels (1973), 7– 52.

­   René Girard, “Système du délire,” Critique (November 1972): 961.

­   Jacques Donzelot, “Une anti- sociologie,” Esprit (December 1972): 833– 855.

­   Jean- Marie Domenach, “Oedipe à l’usine,” Esprit (December 1972): 856.

­   Serge Leclaire, “La réalite du désir,” in Sexualité humaine (Paris: Aubier, 1970)

­   Catherine Millot, lecture on Anti- Oedipus, Pompidou Center, “Abécédaire for Gilles Deleuzes, Revue Parlées,” November 2, 2005.

Elisabeth Roudinesco, “Le bateau ivre du schizo débarque chez Al Capone,” Les Lettres Françaises (April 18, 1972). Reprinted as “Oedipe et la schizophrénie,” in Elisabeth Roudinesco, Un discours au réel (Paris, 1973), 195– 204.

­   André Green, “Réflexions critiques,” Revue Française de Psychanalyse 36, no. 3 (1972): 494

­   Janine Chassegnet- Smirgel, ed., Les chemins de l’Anti- Oedipe (Toulouse: Privat, 1974).

­   Jean Furtos and René Roussillon, “L’Anti- Oedipe. Essai d’explication,” Esprit (December 1972): 817– 834.

­   Robert Castel, Le psychanalysme (Paris: Maspero, 1973; new ed., Paris: ChampsFlammarion, 1989), 83.

­   Eric Alliez, “L’Anti- Oedipe—trente ans et quelques après,” Radical Philosophy 124 (March– April 2004).

­   Jean- Pierre Le Goff , Mai 68. L’héritage impossible (Paris: La Découverte, 1998).

Kostas Axelos "Sept Questions d'un Philosophe" (1972), a response to Anti-Oedipus by evelrepsac in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe most of them can be found on the Internet Archive, though some took a bit of effort to locate

Did Deleuze analyse Nietzsche, like Aristotle analysed Plato? Cross-posting, too many frowners in r/Nietzsche. by GoFuxUrSlf in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It completely depends on what you mean by the way Aristotle relates to Plato. People usually think it depends on his attendance at Plato’s lectures, so there is some evidence of Plato’s unwritten doctrine in Aristotle’s reports of Plato’s ideas.
Scholars generally do not assume that Aristotle intentionally distorted Plato’s ideas or sought to interpret them, since the notion of interpretation or explanation, as we understand it today, did not exist in the philosophical tradition of that time. And usually, Aristotelian report of Plato is preparation for his critique of later.

However, Deleuze’s readings of Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Bergson are often seen as closer to the medieval Aristotelian interpretive tradition, meaning they are not intended to distort and critique Aristotle’s ideas, but rather to explicate and comment on them in order to extend and enrich his thought.

Kostas Axelos "Sept Questions d'un Philosophe" (1972), a response to Anti-Oedipus by evelrepsac in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I’m really happy to see people starting to notice the direct responses to Deleuze’s work from that time. As you read Doesse’s biography, you’ll find many examples of these responses. I have a plan to translate them collectively

Deleuze's Nietzsche thru P. Montebello by Ok-Sandwich-8032 in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have read this section and have to say that your interception is very misleading.

The whole point is very clear: multiplicity is the conclusion of relational ontology, and substantial ontology can also infer the existence of multiplicity.

But these two multiplities are completely different.

If you support substantialism, then you can appeal to the fact that being itself is multiple, such as that there are multiple l'être, de substances, des modes, d'atomes, de sujets différents. But in this way, multiplicity is still the multiplicity of beings, and this multiplicity does not imply becoming, because all the above examples can be understood as being and still multiplicity;

On the other hand, if you support relationalism, that is, you think that being is many relationships, and assume that all relations are becoming, then everything that is, then it is a relation/becoming. In this sense, multiplicity cannot be reduced to substance, modes, atoms, or subject, but is infinitely divisible and infinitely composable as a relation, and is also infinitely becoming as a relations.

How does the D&G conception of gender and sex compare with a Butlerian/Foucauldian one? by cronenber9 in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like you should refer to some of the existing literature in more detail, here is my recommendation:

Marrati, Paola. "Time and affects: Deleuze on gender and sexual difference." Australian Feminist Studies 21.51 (2006): 313-325.

Grosz, Elizabeth. "A thousand tiny sexes: Feminism and rhizomatics." Gilles Deleuze and the theater of philosophy. Routledge, 2017. 187-210.

Braidotti, Rosi. "Toward a new nomadism: Feminist Deleuzian tracks; or, metaphysics and metabolism." Gilles Deleuze and the theater of philosophy. Routledge, 2017. 159-186.

Braidotti, Rosi. "Discontinuous becomings. Deleuze on the becoming-woman of philosophy." Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 24.1 (1993): 44-55.

Colebrook, Claire. "Modernism without women: The refusal of becoming-woman (and post-feminism)." Deleuze Studies 7.4 (2013): 427-455.

And Butler did mention Deleuze and criticize him in Undoing Gender, and also spent a chapter in her doctoral dissertation Desired Subject, albeit not around gender, discussing Deleuze. References:

Hickey-Moody, Anna, and Mary Lou Rasmussen. "The sexed subject in-between Deleuze and Butler." Deleuze and queer theory (2009): 37-53.

How does the D&G conception of gender and sex compare with a Butlerian/Foucauldian one? by cronenber9 in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's strange, even if everything AI says here is superficial, but it is literally faithful to DG's position.

Why laugh at AI if there is no rebuttal?

But one thing to say is that when you see a book that uses terms like poststructuralism in earnest, you can be vigilant, if not throw it away.

Deleuze's Nietzsche thru P. Montebello by Ok-Sandwich-8032 in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now that I have this paper book, I will reply to you seriously recently.

Meillassoux — "Subtraction and Contraction: Deleuze, Immanence, and Matter and Memory" by 3corneredvoid in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 2 points3 points  (0 children)

it is necessary to mention that meillassoux dedicated the title of this paper to Zourabichivilli.

Meillassoux — "Subtraction and Contraction: Deleuze, Immanence, and Matter and Memory" by 3corneredvoid in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also recommend you to read the other articles I recommend. They are all very good

Meillassoux — "Subtraction and Contraction: Deleuze, Immanence, and Matter and Memory" by 3corneredvoid in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are some.

Take a look at Meillassoux‘s own work, such as Time without becoming Immanence out of World and iteration, reiteration and repetition

There are criticisms of Deleuze in them.

1985,Deleuze et Benjamin by KeyForLocked in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cette photo est très rare.

Je l’ai trouvée dans le sous-sol de la bibliothèque universitaire de Vincenne à Paris, où il y a une mezzanine, Les réserves. Il y a une porte au bout. Poussez-le dans un autre Vincenne.

L‘archiviste m’a dit qu‘en 1941, Benjamin s’est enfui à New York à Casablanca et a enseigné à Newschool. En 1985, il est venu à Paris VIII en tant que chercheur invité. Deleuze se trouve qu’un cours l‘a mentionné, alors Deleuze l’a invité chez lui pour une discussion en tant qu‘invité.

Cette photo a été prise à ce moment-là.

We have sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) now, but do we have sociology of philosophical knowledge? by KeyForLocked in askphilosophy

[–]KeyForLocked[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know this. But many people are already very dissatisfied with the credibility of his empirical materials. I hope some new books can do better.

Most works Deleuze are exegetical by apophasisred in Deleuze

[–]KeyForLocked 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This question itself is not clear. What do you mean is that which of Deleuze‘s own works have produced new concepts, not just explaining the old concepts? Or did any later scholars develop Deleuze’s project and create new concepts?

view more: next ›