What do you think?
Rate this book
What Is Philosophy?
Called by many France's foremost philosopher, Gilles Deleuze is one of the leading thinkers in the Western World. His acclaimed works and celebrated collaborations with Félix Guattari have established him as a seminal figure in the fields of literary criticism and philosophy. The long-awaited publication of What is Philosophy? in English marks the culmination of Deleuze's career.
Deleuze and Guattari differentiate between philosophy, science, and the arts, seeing as means of confronting chaos, and challenge the common view that philosophy is an extension of logic. The authors also discuss the similarities and distinctions between creative and philosophical writing. Fresh anecdotes from the history of philosophy illuminate the book, along with engaging discussions of composers, painters, writers, and architects.
A milestone in Deleuze's collaboration with Guattari, What is Philosophy? brings a new perspective to Deleuze's studies of cinema, painting, and music, while setting a brilliant capstone upon his work.
Deleuze and Guattari differentiate between philosophy, science, and the arts, seeing as means of confronting chaos, and challenge the common view that philosophy is an extension of logic. The authors also discuss the similarities and distinctions between creative and philosophical writing. Fresh anecdotes from the history of philosophy illuminate the book, along with engaging discussions of composers, painters, writers, and architects.
A milestone in Deleuze's collaboration with Guattari, What is Philosophy? brings a new perspective to Deleuze's studies of cinema, painting, and music, while setting a brilliant capstone upon his work.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
274 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 9, 2014
99 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
About the author
Félix Guattari
124 books444 followersPierre-Félix Guattari was a French militant, an institutional psychotherapist, philosopher, and semiotician; he founded both schizoanalysis and ecosophy. Guattari is best known for his intellectual collaborations with Gilles Deleuze, most notably Anti-Oedipus (1972) and A Thousand Plateaus (1980), the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 16, 2024
THE FRENCH DUO CONSIDER THIS QUESTION FROM A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES
Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995) was a French philosopher who wrote about literature, film, and fine art in addition to philosophy. Pierre-Félix Guattari (1930-1992) was a French psychotherapist, philosopher, and semiologist. They wrote a number of books together, such as 'Anti-Oedipus' (1972) and 'A Thousand Plateaus' (1980).
They wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, “the time has come for us to ask what philosophy is. We had never stopped asking this question previously, and we already had the answer, which has not changed: philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts. But the answer not only had to take note of the question, it had to determine its moment, its occasion and circumstances, its landscapes and personae, its conditions and unknowns. It had to be possible to ask the question ‘between friends,’ as a secret of a confidence, or as a challenge when confronting the enemy, and at the same time to reach that twilight hour when one distrusts even the friend. It is there that you say, ‘That’s what it was, but I don’t know if I really said it, or if I was convincing enough.’ And you realize that having said it or been convincing hardly matters because, in any case, that is what it is now.” (Pg. 2)
They continue, “We can at least see what philosophy is not: it is not contemplation, reflection, or communication. This is the case even though it may sometimes believe it is one or the other of these, as a result of the capacity of every discipline to produce its own illusions and to hide behind its own peculiar smokescreen. It is not contemplation, for contemplations are things themselves as seen in the creation of their speech concepts. It is not reflection, because no one needs philosophy to reflect on anything. It is thought that philosophy is being given a great deal by being turned into the art of reflection, but actually it loses everything… the following definition of philosophy can be taken as being decisive: knowledge through concepts and the construction of concepts within possible experience on the one hand and through intuition on the other.” (Pg. 6-7)
They argue, “…philosophy is not a discursive formation, because it does not link propositions together. Confusing concept and proposition produces a belief in the existence of scientific concepts and a view of the proposition as a genuine ‘intension’… Consequently, the philosophical concept usually appears only as a proposition deprived of sense. This confusing reigns in logic and explains its infantile idea of philosophy. Concepts are measured against a ‘philosophical’ grammar that replaces them with propositions extracted from the sentences in which they appear. We are constantly trapped between alternative propositions and do not see that the concept has already passed into the excluded middle.” (Pg. 22)
Later, they add, “It is pointless to say that there are concepts in science. Even when science is concerned with the same ‘objects’ it is not from the viewpoint of the concept; it is not by creating concepts. It might be said that this is just a matter of words, but it is rare for words not to involve intentions and rules… So the unique, exclusive bond between concepts and philosophy as a creative discipline must be tested in its finest details. The concept belongs to philosophy and only to philosophy.” (Pg. 33-34)
They suggest, “The life of philosophers, and what is most external to their work, conforms to the ordinary laws of succession; but their proper names coexist and shine either as luminous points that take us through the components of a concept once more or as the cardinal points of a stratum or layer that continually come back to us, like dead stars whose light is brighter than ever. Philosophy is becoming, not history; it is the coexistence of planes, not the succession of systems.” (Pg. 59)
They say, “In short, philosophy does have a principle, but it is a synthetic and contingent principle---an encounter, a conjunction. It is not insufficient by itself but contingent in itself. Even in the concept, the principle depends upon a connection of components that could have been different, with different neighborhoods. The principle of reason such as it appears in philosophy is a principle of contingent reason and is put like this: there is no good reason but contingent reason; there is no universal history except of contingency.” (Pg. 93)
They observe, “What defines thought in its three great art forms---art, science, and philosophy---is always confronting chaos, laying out a plane, throwing a plane over chaos. But philosophy wants to save the infinite by giving it consistency: it lays out a plane of immanence that, through the action of conceptual personae, takes events or consistent concepts to infinity. Science, on the other hand, relinquishes the infinite in order to fain reference: it lays out a plane of simply undefined coordinates that each time, through the action of partial observers, defines states of affairs, functions, or referential propositions. Art wants to create the finite that restores the infinite: it lays out a plane of composition that, in turn, through the action of aesthetic figures, bears monuments of composite sensations.” (Pg. time 197)
They conclude, “Philosophy needs a nonphilosophy that comprehends it; it needs a nonphilosophical comprehension just as art needs nonart and science needs nonscience… It is here that concepts, sensations, and functions become undecidable, at the same time as philosophy, art and science become indiscernable, as if they shared the same shadow that extends itself across their different nature and constantly accompanies them.” (Pg. 218)
This is one of the most “philosophical” books written by these two intellectuals; it will be “must reading” for anyone studying their thought.
Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995) was a French philosopher who wrote about literature, film, and fine art in addition to philosophy. Pierre-Félix Guattari (1930-1992) was a French psychotherapist, philosopher, and semiologist. They wrote a number of books together, such as 'Anti-Oedipus' (1972) and 'A Thousand Plateaus' (1980).
They wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, “the time has come for us to ask what philosophy is. We had never stopped asking this question previously, and we already had the answer, which has not changed: philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts. But the answer not only had to take note of the question, it had to determine its moment, its occasion and circumstances, its landscapes and personae, its conditions and unknowns. It had to be possible to ask the question ‘between friends,’ as a secret of a confidence, or as a challenge when confronting the enemy, and at the same time to reach that twilight hour when one distrusts even the friend. It is there that you say, ‘That’s what it was, but I don’t know if I really said it, or if I was convincing enough.’ And you realize that having said it or been convincing hardly matters because, in any case, that is what it is now.” (Pg. 2)
They continue, “We can at least see what philosophy is not: it is not contemplation, reflection, or communication. This is the case even though it may sometimes believe it is one or the other of these, as a result of the capacity of every discipline to produce its own illusions and to hide behind its own peculiar smokescreen. It is not contemplation, for contemplations are things themselves as seen in the creation of their speech concepts. It is not reflection, because no one needs philosophy to reflect on anything. It is thought that philosophy is being given a great deal by being turned into the art of reflection, but actually it loses everything… the following definition of philosophy can be taken as being decisive: knowledge through concepts and the construction of concepts within possible experience on the one hand and through intuition on the other.” (Pg. 6-7)
They argue, “…philosophy is not a discursive formation, because it does not link propositions together. Confusing concept and proposition produces a belief in the existence of scientific concepts and a view of the proposition as a genuine ‘intension’… Consequently, the philosophical concept usually appears only as a proposition deprived of sense. This confusing reigns in logic and explains its infantile idea of philosophy. Concepts are measured against a ‘philosophical’ grammar that replaces them with propositions extracted from the sentences in which they appear. We are constantly trapped between alternative propositions and do not see that the concept has already passed into the excluded middle.” (Pg. 22)
Later, they add, “It is pointless to say that there are concepts in science. Even when science is concerned with the same ‘objects’ it is not from the viewpoint of the concept; it is not by creating concepts. It might be said that this is just a matter of words, but it is rare for words not to involve intentions and rules… So the unique, exclusive bond between concepts and philosophy as a creative discipline must be tested in its finest details. The concept belongs to philosophy and only to philosophy.” (Pg. 33-34)
They suggest, “The life of philosophers, and what is most external to their work, conforms to the ordinary laws of succession; but their proper names coexist and shine either as luminous points that take us through the components of a concept once more or as the cardinal points of a stratum or layer that continually come back to us, like dead stars whose light is brighter than ever. Philosophy is becoming, not history; it is the coexistence of planes, not the succession of systems.” (Pg. 59)
They say, “In short, philosophy does have a principle, but it is a synthetic and contingent principle---an encounter, a conjunction. It is not insufficient by itself but contingent in itself. Even in the concept, the principle depends upon a connection of components that could have been different, with different neighborhoods. The principle of reason such as it appears in philosophy is a principle of contingent reason and is put like this: there is no good reason but contingent reason; there is no universal history except of contingency.” (Pg. 93)
They observe, “What defines thought in its three great art forms---art, science, and philosophy---is always confronting chaos, laying out a plane, throwing a plane over chaos. But philosophy wants to save the infinite by giving it consistency: it lays out a plane of immanence that, through the action of conceptual personae, takes events or consistent concepts to infinity. Science, on the other hand, relinquishes the infinite in order to fain reference: it lays out a plane of simply undefined coordinates that each time, through the action of partial observers, defines states of affairs, functions, or referential propositions. Art wants to create the finite that restores the infinite: it lays out a plane of composition that, in turn, through the action of aesthetic figures, bears monuments of composite sensations.” (Pg. time 197)
They conclude, “Philosophy needs a nonphilosophy that comprehends it; it needs a nonphilosophical comprehension just as art needs nonart and science needs nonscience… It is here that concepts, sensations, and functions become undecidable, at the same time as philosophy, art and science become indiscernable, as if they shared the same shadow that extends itself across their different nature and constantly accompanies them.” (Pg. 218)
This is one of the most “philosophical” books written by these two intellectuals; it will be “must reading” for anyone studying their thought.
July 5, 2020
Very cool, best interpretation of Descartes I've read since Husserl and best interpretation of the Pre-Socratics since Heidegger. Deleuze is a master of concept-creation, and his focus on space (geometric and topological) leave much to think about.
Read
December 25, 2017it was rather complex and unassailable. Perhaps consider after I've read Anti-Oedipus or 1000 plateous.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews