ژیل دلوز: نوآموزی در فلسفه

by Michael Hardt, رضا نجف‌زاده (translator)

تکامل اندیشهٔ دلوز از این حکایت دارد که وی توجه خود را به‌طور پیاپی به مجموعه‌ای از نویسندگان سنت فلسفی متمرکز می‌کند و از هریک پرسشی خاص را مطرح می‌کند. کار دلوز در باب برگسون، نقدی بر هستی‌شناسی منفی وارد می‌سازد و به‌جای آن نوعی حرکتِ تماماً اثباتی ِ هستی را مطرح می‌کند که بر یک تصور فاعلی و درونی از علیت تکیه دارد. وی در مقابل به‌جای آن نوعی حرکت منفی تعیّن، حرکت اثباتی متفاوت‌سازی را قرار می‌دهد؛ در مقابل وحدت دیالکتیکی ِ واحد و کثیر، وی چندگانگی ِ فرو ناکاستنی ِ صیرورت را قرار می‌دهد. به‌علاوه، مسئلهٔ سازمان یا ساختمان جهان، مسئلهٔ هستی ِ صیرورت، دلوز را وادار می‌کند که این مباحث هستی‌شناختی را در قالبی اخلاقی مطرح کند. نیچه او را قادر می‌سازد که نتایج تأمل هستی‌شناختی را به یک افق اخلاقی، به میدان نیروها، به میدان احساس و ارزش ببرد؛ و در این‌جاست که حرکت اثباتی هستی به تأیید هستی بدل می‌شود. موضوع قدرت در تفکر نیچه زمینه‌ساز گذار نظری‌ای است که هستی‌شناسی ِ برگسونی را به یک اخلاقِ بیان‌گری ِ فعال پیوند می‌دهد. اسپینوزا همین گذر را پوشش می‌دهد، و آن را به [وادی] عمل بسط می‌دهد. درست همان‌طور که نیچه تأیید تأمل را مطرح می‌کند، اسپینوزا تأیید عمل یا شادی را در کانون هستی‌شناسی مطرح می‌کند.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, France, Nonfiction, The United States Of America, Collections, Biography

248 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

About the author

Michael Hardt is an American literary theorist and political philosopher perhaps best known for Empire, written with Antonio Negri and published in 2000. It has been praised as the "Communist Manifesto of the 21st Century."
Hardt and his co-author suggest that what they view as forces of contemporary class oppression, globalization and the commodification of services (or production of affects), have the potential to spark social change of unprecedented dimensions. A sequel, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, published in August 2004, details the notion, first propounded in Empire, of the multitude as possible locus of a democratic movement of global proportions.
The third and final part of the trilogy, Commonwealth, appeared in the Fall of 2009.

Reviews

[M&A Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

تکامل اندیشه ی دلوز از این حکایت دارد که وی توجه خود را به طور پیاپی به مجموعه ای از نویسندگان سنت فلسفی متمرکز می کند و از هریک پرسشی خاص را مطرح می کند.کار دلوز در باب برگسون، نقدی بر هستی شناسی منفی وارد می سازد و به جای آن نوعی حرکت تماما اثباتی هستی را مطرح می کند که بر یک تصور فاعلی و درونی از علیت تکیه دارد. وی در مقابل حرکت منفی تعین، حرکت اثباتی متفاوت سازی را قرار می دهد؛ در مقابل وحدت دیالکتیکی واحد و کثیر، وی چندگانگی فروناکاستنی صیرورت را قرار می دهد.به علاوه، مسئله ی سازمان یا ساختمان جهان، مسئله ی هستی صیرورت، دلوز را وادار می کند که این مباحث هستی شناختی را در قالبی اخلاقی مطرح کند.
از نقاط قوت کتاب بررسی جامع نظرات دلوز، برگسون، نیچه، اسپینوزا و هگل در باب موضوع "هستی شناسی" است اما از مشکلات آن می توان به بحث ترجمه درباب معادل سازی واژگان اشاره کرد. برای مثال برای واژه ی "duration"معادل فارسی"دیرند"را آورده و... که این نمونه ها می تواند متن را دشوارتر و فهم آن را برای خواننده سخت تر نماید!

[Bradley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stopped reading this book seriously when I reached page 51:
"As Kant taught us, though there is a beyond to knowledge: "We think the will to power in a form distinct from that in which we know it." which I read as a pro-transcendent realm conclusion to draw...clear enough right?

Not really, because on page 29... apparently Hardt's reading of Deleuze is that he's fundamentally opposed to the Kantian system because - "The principle fault of the Kantian critique is that of transcendental philosophy itself. In other words, Kant's discovery of a domain beyond the sensible is the creation of a region outside the bounds of the critique that effectively functions as a refuge against critical forces, as a limitation to critical powers..." But didn't you just say it was totally cool when Deleuze plays this Kantian trick on us? Glaring contradiction that never gets resolved... not a serious book. It really annoys me when Comp. Lit professors like Hardt try to pass off their work as serious philosophy. They always avoid resolving tough contradictions by actually thinking and just do simplistic little lit-reviews and book reports.

But wait, it gets worse! I hated page 29 for several reasons - The hypocrisy continues! "Kant's critical reason functions to reinforce the established values and make us obedient to them... Kantianism is conservative "(Really? He's a f-ing pacifist and that's not radical enough for you? Try reading On Perpetual Peace!) "Finally, Kant's critique is too polite, restrained by the 'humble recognition of the rights of the criticized', "Kant is too genteel, too well mannered, too timid to question seriously the fundamental established values...' so, we're supposed to be rude ill-mannered assholes in order to be revolutionary? That's bullshit. I'd rather live in Kant's Utopia where everyone is polite and says please. But then Hardt makes this blanket statement that only someone in a Comp. Lit dept. could get away with - "Critique is always violent - but this is not the real issue. The real issue is the extent of, and the limits on, the reign of critiques destructive force."

WTF? How crazy is that shit? I had to put down the book for a while, regain my composure and just start to re-read my Kant to get back to civility, dignity, and the realm of the 'hospitable' and the 'genteel'. Give me polite people over this anarchist-vicious circle bs. anyday.

[Jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

This excellent book traces the development in Deleuze's thought through his work on Bergson, Nietzsche and Spinoza. Through Bergson, Deleuze moves away from the Hegelian dialectic. In this, the critique of Hegel cannot be negative because it would flow back into a dialectic. Instead, this move needs to be a positive move, and we see Deleuze begin to develop a positive ontology. In Nietzsche we see this expand in a way that Deleuze is no longer anti-Hegelian, but rather post-Hegelian. In Nietzsche, Deleuze develops an ethics of creativity, which, like the positive ontology, is integral to his work. Third, Hardt draws upon Deleuze's work on his muse, Spinoza. Here Deleuze builds upon both the positive ontology and ethics of creativity in building up a Spinozian politics of action. This section is by far the longest in the book and deals with a number of criticism that are brought to Spinoza, particularily out of Althusser. The politics of affirmation, for Deleuze, need to be built on practice and theory. It is in this section on Spinoza that we move into an ethics of action – this is initially seen in Nietzsche, who's ethical claim might be "Be active", but it Spinoza it goes deeper: Joyful affect through action. This occurs from the affirmation of joy. "Be Joyful". Here we gain a politics which is built up on the connection of action and theory which work to bring joyful affect.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough and accessible explanation of the influence of Bergson, Nietzsche, and Spinoza on the Deleuze's most fundamental concepts. Bergson assists Deleuze in conceiving of difference as essential to, rather than accidental and exterior to, Being. Nietzsche provides Deleuze with the language of power which invigorates Being with ethical implication. Spinoza, arguably the most influential, supplies language of "common notions" as essential to the formation of assemblages which maximize and enhance our power. This book displays Deleuze's unshaking philosophical commitment to an ontology that is affirmative and creative.

[Shakiba Shamloo · Rating 3 out of 5]

انگار نمی‌شود دلوز را به زبانی ساده شرح داد. مایکل هارت نیز نتوانسته. ترجمه‌ی کتاب بد نبود گرچه مترجم می‌توانست برای بعضی کلمات معادل‌های بهتری بگذارد.

[Spoust1 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hardt explicates the thought of Deleuze - not Deleuze and Guattarri - by reconstructing Deleuze's works on Bergson, Nietzsche, and Spinoza. Hardt does an excellent job of writing both about Deleuze's interpretations of these philosophers, as well as how these interpretations are synthesized into something original - namely, Deleuze's own philosophy.

I want to say that the book is difficult in some way - and it is. But Hardt's style is very clear, very simple, and his grasp not only of Deleuze but of the philosophers Deleuze is interpreting - not to mention others besides - is impressive. If the book is difficult, it is not Hardt's fault: he is as good a guide as one could wish for.

If there is a flaw in the book, it is a flaw Hardt shares with Deleuze himself: a misunderstanding of Hegel - a misunderstanding that is somewhat strange, given how close they in fact are (see: Zizek's "Organs Without Bodies"). Overall, highly recommended as an introduction to Deleuze that sees him as occupying a place within the philosophic canon rather than amongst "the post-structuralists," "postmodernists," or "French theorists."

[ἄμβροτος]

"Singularity is the concept that marks the internal difference, the real distinction that qualifies absolutely infinite being as real without recourse to a dialectic of negations. The concept of singularity constitutes the real dislocation from the Hegelian theoretical horizon."

'In epistemology, the extrinsic designation gives a weak conception of truth, just as in ontology the external cause provides a weak definition of being. The external definition, as we saw in the Bergson study, implies merely a "subsistent exteriority."'

[Owen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredibly clear book. Not easy, but about as easy as it can be with the complexity of the content.

[Alex Romero · Rating 3 out of 5]

buen libro para entender la tríada Bergson-Nietzsche-Spinoza en la filosofía de Deleuze

[Mitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent introduction to a very complex philosopher's thinking.