What do you think?
Rate this book
Routledge Critical Thinkers
Gilles Deleuze
Why think? Not, according to Gilles Deleuze, in order to be clever, but because thinking transforms life. Why read literature? Not for pure entertainment, Deleuze tells us, but because literature can recreate the boundaries of life. With his emphasis on creation, the future and the enhancement of life, along with his crusade against 'common sense', Deleuze offers some of the most liberating, exhilarating ideas in twentieth-century thought. This book offers a way in to Deleuzean thought through such topics as:
* 'becoming'
* time and the flow of life
* the ethics of thinking
* 'major' and 'minor' literature
* difference and repetition
* desire, the image and ideology.
Written with literature students in mind, this is the ideal guide for students wishing to think differently about life and literature and in this way to create their own new readings of literary texts.
* 'becoming'
* time and the flow of life
* the ethics of thinking
* 'major' and 'minor' literature
* difference and repetition
* desire, the image and ideology.
Written with literature students in mind, this is the ideal guide for students wishing to think differently about life and literature and in this way to create their own new readings of literary texts.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
62 people are currently reading
627 people want to read
About the author
Claire Colebrook
45 books41 followersClaire Colebrook is an Australian cultural theorist, currently appointed Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of English at Pennsylvania State University. She has published numerous works on Gilles Deleuze, visual art, poetry, queer theory, film studies, contemporary literature, theory, cultural studies and visual culture.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
July 19, 2017
اصل ايدۀ دولوز سرراست است: جهان را نبايد به مثابه وجودها و ساختارهاى ثابت درک كرد، بلكه بايد سيلان و صيرورت را عنصر اساسى جهان و حيات دانست، و اين صيرورت در يک خط راست و قابل پيش بينى اتفاق نمى افتد، بلكه به صورت شبكه اى واگرا از حركت هاى غيرقابل پيش بينى رخ مى دهد. هر رویداد حرکتی جدید در جهان ایجاد می کند که برای جهان پیش از آن قابل درک نبوده است. اما چون درک اين جهان پيچيده ساده نيست، تفكر عامه همه چيز را ساده مى كند و به وجودها و ساختارهاى ثابت مورد نيازش تقليل مى دهد. كار فلسفه اين است كه مانع اين ساده سازى شود.
اين ايده در فصل هاى آغازين كتاب به طور كامل تبيين مى شود. باقى كتاب همين حرف را تكرار مى كند و نشان مى دهد دولوز چطور مى كوشد آن را در جنبه هاى مختلف حيات، از سينما و ادبيات گرفته تا سياست پياده كند.
خواندن كتاب ساده نبود و بعضى جاها به نظر مى رسيد تقصير از مترجم نباشد. چيزى كه باعث مى شد با علاقه ادامه بدهم، ايدۀ جذاب دولوز بود. اما بعد از صد و هفتاد صفحه ايده تكرارى شد و جذابيتش را از دست داد، و به نظر نمى رسيد كتاب به جز همان ايده حرف جديدى داشته باشد، در نتيجه سخت خوانى متن بيشتر به چشم آمد. به خاطر همين از خير خواندن دو فصل نهايى گذشتم و فقط چكيدۀ فصل ها را خواندم.
خداحافظ پست مدرن
اين كتاب آخرين كتابى است كه از پست مدرن مى خوانم، و ماراتن چهار ماهۀ پست مدرن با اين كتاب به پايان رسيد. فكر مى كنم در سطح ابتدايى به قدر كافى با كليت حرف هاى پست مدرن ها آشنا شده باشم. امسال را به نام "سال پست مدرن" نام گذارى مى كنم. باز به صورت پراكنده از پست مدرن ها خواهم خواند، اما بدون برنامه، و نه به اين زودى. مخصوصاً دوست دارم از لاكان بيشتر بخوانم.
اين ايده در فصل هاى آغازين كتاب به طور كامل تبيين مى شود. باقى كتاب همين حرف را تكرار مى كند و نشان مى دهد دولوز چطور مى كوشد آن را در جنبه هاى مختلف حيات، از سينما و ادبيات گرفته تا سياست پياده كند.
خواندن كتاب ساده نبود و بعضى جاها به نظر مى رسيد تقصير از مترجم نباشد. چيزى كه باعث مى شد با علاقه ادامه بدهم، ايدۀ جذاب دولوز بود. اما بعد از صد و هفتاد صفحه ايده تكرارى شد و جذابيتش را از دست داد، و به نظر نمى رسيد كتاب به جز همان ايده حرف جديدى داشته باشد، در نتيجه سخت خوانى متن بيشتر به چشم آمد. به خاطر همين از خير خواندن دو فصل نهايى گذشتم و فقط چكيدۀ فصل ها را خواندم.
خداحافظ پست مدرن
اين كتاب آخرين كتابى است كه از پست مدرن مى خوانم، و ماراتن چهار ماهۀ پست مدرن با اين كتاب به پايان رسيد. فكر مى كنم در سطح ابتدايى به قدر كافى با كليت حرف هاى پست مدرن ها آشنا شده باشم. امسال را به نام "سال پست مدرن" نام گذارى مى كنم. باز به صورت پراكنده از پست مدرن ها خواهم خواند، اما بدون برنامه، و نه به اين زودى. مخصوصاً دوست دارم از لاكان بيشتر بخوانم.
May 30, 2013
It was just one of those parties – I mean, no one really expected it to turn out in the way that it did. Hegel had been drinking bottle after bottle of some sort of sweet Rhine wine and sharing big glasses of it with Darwin. Nietzsche and Heidegger were passing a joint between themselves while Freud had been lining up shots of schnapps all night all on his own. The sex thing that suddenly happened between them all was completely unexpected, as was the child it produced – none of them afterwards admitted to even being at the party, but that is how we ended up with Deleuze.
This guy is really, really hard work. Even in commentary he makes my head spin. The fact I barely understand him makes me furious as I’m quite sure he has lots to say that I ought to find incredibly interesting. But he has too many philosophical parents – even if most of them would probably disown him if given half a chance.
I probably understood about a third of this. Here is what I think I got out of it.
Deleuze takes the idea of becoming quite literally. He has completely abandoned the idea of us having any ‘being’ at all – any central ground to ourselves. Being is a kind of universal category for him – what I might call God if I was being particularly unkind – and so is something we all partake in but don't really have. He is trying to avoid there being any essential truth (essential ground) to us – we are becoming, but forever becoming – we are not progressing towards something, we are not moving towards perfection or anything else – we are like eruptions that are made up of moments of forces. We are the resolution of the infinite forces acting on us and that are in constant change and so we too are in constant change.
A good way to understand this is perhaps cinema. Except I really struggle to understand his idea of movement-image and I think this is his central idea and key to understanding him at all. (so, that might be a bit of a problem…) If you are going to talk about change as being the key to understanding the world then time is going to have to be central to your thinking. Things change in time. But what is time? I think I’ve decided that time is pretty close to proof that there is a god and that he hates us. Time is so hard to understand and so central to our being in the world that only a perverse god would come up with such a thing. It is hard to understand because it involves us in endless paradoxes and contradictions. We live in the present, but there is no present. As soon as I say NOW it is no longer now, but immediately then. There is no future either, the future is always just beyond the present, but we never quite reach it. And we’ve already seen that the present doesn’t exist anyway – so how can the future be just out of reach from something that doesn’t exist? Which leaves us with the past – but show me the past. If there is no future, no present and no past – what does that leave of time? And this is just the start of the problems that time presents us with. Physics is no help – Einstein talks of Space-Time – but you can walk backwards and forwards in space, but you can only go forwards in time. Why? The equations should let you go in either direction – it is just the world doesn’t let you. Philosophers who talk about time are equally paradoxical (and often unreadable).
Camus said the only serious philosophical question is why don’t I kill myself – I sometimes think the only serious question is what the hell is time.
The movement-image Deleuze talks about is a case in point. He says we spatialise time. We find ways to understand time by reference to space. So, time is the movement of the sun across the sky or the hands around the face of a clock. In cinema (at least, the best cinema) you get a notion of time that isn’t perverted by our common sense ideas of how time works – our spatial ideas. Time becomes new ways of understanding the world based on a kind of narrative – a narrative outside of normal time. The narrative of the story told in images. And if there is one thing Deleuze definitely likes, it is anything outside of the normal.
The world conspires to give us a more or less simple way of understanding it. But we need to beware of this version of common sense as the world is anything but simple. He talks of Majoritarian and Minoritarian views of the world. My version of this idea goes like this. There are the accepted ‘truths’ – ideas like, men are rational and women intuitive, or every man in possession of a good fortune is in want of a wife. These are majoritarian, not just because they are accepted by the majority, but also because they do nothing to undermine the established view of the world. Minoritarian views force us to see the world in ways that are not the same as received wisdom. Great literature is always minoritarian.
Great literature is also timeless. As is pointed out repeatedly in this book, we don’t watch a play by Shakespeare to connect with Elizabethan England – we watch Shakespeare to find out more about ourselves. He speaks directly to us. Like those Christians who read the Bible to see what it says about Obama’s presidency, great literature always has qualities that are outside of our normal notions of time and space.
Some of this guys metaphors are really something else. The idea that we are like folds in a huge piece of paper – the paper being ‘being’ and we are the stuff that is on the inside of the boundaries that the folds make and the rest of the world is on the outside – but the folds don’t really exist except as momentary expressions – is an interesting idea, but too much for me to hold for more than a moment.
I can’t let go of rationalism for long enough to truly follow this guy to where he would like to take me. But I have to say again, he is a disturbing guy to read. Or even to read about.
This guy is really, really hard work. Even in commentary he makes my head spin. The fact I barely understand him makes me furious as I’m quite sure he has lots to say that I ought to find incredibly interesting. But he has too many philosophical parents – even if most of them would probably disown him if given half a chance.
I probably understood about a third of this. Here is what I think I got out of it.
Deleuze takes the idea of becoming quite literally. He has completely abandoned the idea of us having any ‘being’ at all – any central ground to ourselves. Being is a kind of universal category for him – what I might call God if I was being particularly unkind – and so is something we all partake in but don't really have. He is trying to avoid there being any essential truth (essential ground) to us – we are becoming, but forever becoming – we are not progressing towards something, we are not moving towards perfection or anything else – we are like eruptions that are made up of moments of forces. We are the resolution of the infinite forces acting on us and that are in constant change and so we too are in constant change.
A good way to understand this is perhaps cinema. Except I really struggle to understand his idea of movement-image and I think this is his central idea and key to understanding him at all. (so, that might be a bit of a problem…) If you are going to talk about change as being the key to understanding the world then time is going to have to be central to your thinking. Things change in time. But what is time? I think I’ve decided that time is pretty close to proof that there is a god and that he hates us. Time is so hard to understand and so central to our being in the world that only a perverse god would come up with such a thing. It is hard to understand because it involves us in endless paradoxes and contradictions. We live in the present, but there is no present. As soon as I say NOW it is no longer now, but immediately then. There is no future either, the future is always just beyond the present, but we never quite reach it. And we’ve already seen that the present doesn’t exist anyway – so how can the future be just out of reach from something that doesn’t exist? Which leaves us with the past – but show me the past. If there is no future, no present and no past – what does that leave of time? And this is just the start of the problems that time presents us with. Physics is no help – Einstein talks of Space-Time – but you can walk backwards and forwards in space, but you can only go forwards in time. Why? The equations should let you go in either direction – it is just the world doesn’t let you. Philosophers who talk about time are equally paradoxical (and often unreadable).
Camus said the only serious philosophical question is why don’t I kill myself – I sometimes think the only serious question is what the hell is time.
The movement-image Deleuze talks about is a case in point. He says we spatialise time. We find ways to understand time by reference to space. So, time is the movement of the sun across the sky or the hands around the face of a clock. In cinema (at least, the best cinema) you get a notion of time that isn’t perverted by our common sense ideas of how time works – our spatial ideas. Time becomes new ways of understanding the world based on a kind of narrative – a narrative outside of normal time. The narrative of the story told in images. And if there is one thing Deleuze definitely likes, it is anything outside of the normal.
The world conspires to give us a more or less simple way of understanding it. But we need to beware of this version of common sense as the world is anything but simple. He talks of Majoritarian and Minoritarian views of the world. My version of this idea goes like this. There are the accepted ‘truths’ – ideas like, men are rational and women intuitive, or every man in possession of a good fortune is in want of a wife. These are majoritarian, not just because they are accepted by the majority, but also because they do nothing to undermine the established view of the world. Minoritarian views force us to see the world in ways that are not the same as received wisdom. Great literature is always minoritarian.
Great literature is also timeless. As is pointed out repeatedly in this book, we don’t watch a play by Shakespeare to connect with Elizabethan England – we watch Shakespeare to find out more about ourselves. He speaks directly to us. Like those Christians who read the Bible to see what it says about Obama’s presidency, great literature always has qualities that are outside of our normal notions of time and space.
Some of this guys metaphors are really something else. The idea that we are like folds in a huge piece of paper – the paper being ‘being’ and we are the stuff that is on the inside of the boundaries that the folds make and the rest of the world is on the outside – but the folds don’t really exist except as momentary expressions – is an interesting idea, but too much for me to hold for more than a moment.
I can’t let go of rationalism for long enough to truly follow this guy to where he would like to take me. But I have to say again, he is a disturbing guy to read. Or even to read about.
March 13, 2017
متاسفانه ترجمه کتاب آنقدر بد و ضعیف بود که از خواندن ادامه کتاب دست کشیدم و در حال خواندن نسخه انگلیسی کتاب هستم. ای کاش این گونه مترجمان اندکی اندکی اندکی هم وجدان کاری داشتند و صرفا در پی آن نبودند که اسمشان روی کتابی برود که درباره ژیل دولوز است!
June 29, 2013
There is something about Deleuze that primes my brain and allows my thought patterns to fire on synapses that are otherwise underutilized. I walk around in a haze of connections. For me, that is essentially what Deleuze is about – pushing the boundaries of thought beyond any limits previously achieved in order to continually become. In many ways I find reading him like a philosophical-self-help-feel-goody-indulgence. The leap from Being to Becoming is a simple device that is ultimately more empowering to experience, and cannot be subjugated by consciousness or identity. This is an excellent survey of his philosophy, and more accessible than his own books. Deleuze is someone to whom I will continually return over the course of my life, whenever my thinking stagnates.
December 7, 2016
Unfortunately I could not find this Routledge a helpful one for a person who wants to get introduced to Deleuze. I guess I was lucky that I had read some books before this one. This was neither enough nor coherent. Deleuze's theories have been presented randomly without any connection and most of the time, as a book that is working as an introduction, the sentences needed further explanations.
April 15, 2013
it's a simple-looking-intro on deleuze on overdrive -- every fucking sentence is a assertive thesis found somewhere in the body of deleuze's work; read it all in one sitting and you're likely to spontaneously combust.
February 1, 2019
180315: well. of all the several books read on deleuze, this is the one to rec as the first one. not surprisingly, this is not written by the man himself, this one simplifies, explains, organizes, his thought from an inquiring student perspective. wish i had read this first, i am fairly certain it is not the other work read that makes this easy to follow. for me, anyway...
d has an interesting conception of ways of thought- of art, science, philosophy- that works for me, mainly, philosophy creates concepts, science creates logic where concepts lead, art creates emotional affect through perceptions built out of, over, beyond, concepts given. creation is a big thing for d. this is probably why, thinking as an artist, this philosophy is so amenable to me. in some other, previous, deleuze review there is mention that what we best look for in philosophy is not that elusive, possibly imaginary, tease we call truth- no, what we do is create, what we create must be remarkable, interesting, important... yes, can easily see why this has created so many voices in opposition, why on the other so much artistic philosophy comes through his investigation of the best of the cinema...
because, as some other reviewer notes, d is convinced there is no ground, no base, no timeless truths, to which our eager young philosophers can turn for certainty- no big concept like god, like man, like truth- no, there is not the formation of ideas, of sense, from the wellspring of such core as subject or transcendent something, there is always and ever the necessity of creating the truly new, not an amalgamation of the past and present, but what we tend towards that is entirely unknown, which may not even continue on the same 'plane' but inaugurate a new 'line of flight', which can bring new unsuspected thought as has the 'time-image' of cinema... in d, the point to understand in reading him, i suggest, is that we need to accept ambiguity, relations, planes or 'plateaus' of all sorts, on which there is no mathematical or philosophical correspondence of one-to-one word and concept...
someone probably wants certainty- for d, such can only be through immanence, transcendence is defined by uncertainty, by the limits of platonic ideas, so d finds his metaphysical stance based on hume and his radical skepticism, ending up with 'transcendental empiricism', where it is what is given, not what we think is 'behind' it, that gives the truer picture of what is real. yes d would even take away our plato. this goes also to take away our freud too. and our user-friendly concepts of signifiers, referents, signified- is there nothing that escapes d? can see how the reality of simulation, of virtual over actual, could disconcert anyone who likes to believe in capital T truths, who sees his project as bankrupting the entire history of western philosophy...
so perhaps he is hard to read, here colebrook suggests the last book by d and guattari is the best to start, though i might disagree- 'what is philosophy?'- something to read again, something that escaped my thoughts the first time, possibly because i was unaware of the way to read d is to read everything as an image and an image as what is 'real'... as best summed up so: 'explicit accounts of philosophy as creation of concepts, art as creation of percepts and affects, and science as creation of functions'... there, everything makes sense now...
yet i must admit, despite the clarity and conciseness of this work- it is not my favourite deleuze. this puzzle is perhaps that I do not want it reductively explained, want it to be so accessible, when it is the energy of his thought that interests me about d... and partly perhaps that this stimulates me to read not more d, but more bergson...
d has an interesting conception of ways of thought- of art, science, philosophy- that works for me, mainly, philosophy creates concepts, science creates logic where concepts lead, art creates emotional affect through perceptions built out of, over, beyond, concepts given. creation is a big thing for d. this is probably why, thinking as an artist, this philosophy is so amenable to me. in some other, previous, deleuze review there is mention that what we best look for in philosophy is not that elusive, possibly imaginary, tease we call truth- no, what we do is create, what we create must be remarkable, interesting, important... yes, can easily see why this has created so many voices in opposition, why on the other so much artistic philosophy comes through his investigation of the best of the cinema...
because, as some other reviewer notes, d is convinced there is no ground, no base, no timeless truths, to which our eager young philosophers can turn for certainty- no big concept like god, like man, like truth- no, there is not the formation of ideas, of sense, from the wellspring of such core as subject or transcendent something, there is always and ever the necessity of creating the truly new, not an amalgamation of the past and present, but what we tend towards that is entirely unknown, which may not even continue on the same 'plane' but inaugurate a new 'line of flight', which can bring new unsuspected thought as has the 'time-image' of cinema... in d, the point to understand in reading him, i suggest, is that we need to accept ambiguity, relations, planes or 'plateaus' of all sorts, on which there is no mathematical or philosophical correspondence of one-to-one word and concept...
someone probably wants certainty- for d, such can only be through immanence, transcendence is defined by uncertainty, by the limits of platonic ideas, so d finds his metaphysical stance based on hume and his radical skepticism, ending up with 'transcendental empiricism', where it is what is given, not what we think is 'behind' it, that gives the truer picture of what is real. yes d would even take away our plato. this goes also to take away our freud too. and our user-friendly concepts of signifiers, referents, signified- is there nothing that escapes d? can see how the reality of simulation, of virtual over actual, could disconcert anyone who likes to believe in capital T truths, who sees his project as bankrupting the entire history of western philosophy...
so perhaps he is hard to read, here colebrook suggests the last book by d and guattari is the best to start, though i might disagree- 'what is philosophy?'- something to read again, something that escaped my thoughts the first time, possibly because i was unaware of the way to read d is to read everything as an image and an image as what is 'real'... as best summed up so: 'explicit accounts of philosophy as creation of concepts, art as creation of percepts and affects, and science as creation of functions'... there, everything makes sense now...
yet i must admit, despite the clarity and conciseness of this work- it is not my favourite deleuze. this puzzle is perhaps that I do not want it reductively explained, want it to be so accessible, when it is the energy of his thought that interests me about d... and partly perhaps that this stimulates me to read not more d, but more bergson...
December 24, 2015
Impossibly Extraordinary.
December 11, 2024
کتاب ترجمه بدی نداشت. در کل خوانش دولوزه که سخته. چیزی که دولوز رو جذاب میکنه ایده های بدیع و بعضاً سخت فهم فلسفیش هست که با زبانی دشوار و نه نثری ساده و روان تلاش در بیانشون داره.
تمرکز اصلی فلسفی دولوز بر شدن، صیرورت و تفاوت هست. دولوز تلاش داره ذهن و ادراک خواننده رو به وجهی از شدن سوق بده که عموم افراد قادر به دریافتش نیستند. ما عادت داریم جهان رو بشکل هست درک کنیم، استاتیک، منجمد، متجسد و ساکن. نه چیزی دینامیک و بی وقفه در حال شدن و تفاوت. اینجا بسیار تحت تأثیر برگسون هست. که حتی کتابی هم به نام برگسونیسم درباره فلسفه هستی سیال برگسون نوشته. البته بگم دولوز از چیزی بسیار پیچیده تر و رادیکال تر و بنیادی تر صحبت میکنه.
در کل برای شروع کتابی بود که کلیات نظری دولوز رو تونست تا حد مناسبی بیان کنه.
تمرکز اصلی فلسفی دولوز بر شدن، صیرورت و تفاوت هست. دولوز تلاش داره ذهن و ادراک خواننده رو به وجهی از شدن سوق بده که عموم افراد قادر به دریافتش نیستند. ما عادت داریم جهان رو بشکل هست درک کنیم، استاتیک، منجمد، متجسد و ساکن. نه چیزی دینامیک و بی وقفه در حال شدن و تفاوت. اینجا بسیار تحت تأثیر برگسون هست. که حتی کتابی هم به نام برگسونیسم درباره فلسفه هستی سیال برگسون نوشته. البته بگم دولوز از چیزی بسیار پیچیده تر و رادیکال تر و بنیادی تر صحبت میکنه.
در کل برای شروع کتابی بود که کلیات نظری دولوز رو تونست تا حد مناسبی بیان کنه.
March 10, 2010
My mind is blown. . . I haven't read this entire book - the ideas are a bit too much for my little brain to take in one reading (and this is only an intro). Deleuze is a key Post-Structuralist, and though I have my reservations about some of that school of thought, Deleuze is a liberating thinker.
In broad strokes, the basics as I understand them are that identity does not exist. There is only difference and becoming (ie, that what makes a thing different and the process of that thing becoming something else). Also important, interpretations and readings of pre-existing ideas and philosophies create more ideas - which is a good thing. Even outright copying is seen as productive, as if making a photocopy of a photograph were a creative act in itself.
There's too much going on for a broad outline to give the ideas justice, but if not Deleuze's outright influence, at least parallels to his work can be found in thinkers who are a bit more pop: Krishnamurti's "Truth is a pathless land," Wayne Dyer's interpretation of Taoism, and Bruce Lee's writings on JKD as a process.
If you like thinking and being self-aware, Gilles Deleuze will make your world a bigger place.
In broad strokes, the basics as I understand them are that identity does not exist. There is only difference and becoming (ie, that what makes a thing different and the process of that thing becoming something else). Also important, interpretations and readings of pre-existing ideas and philosophies create more ideas - which is a good thing. Even outright copying is seen as productive, as if making a photocopy of a photograph were a creative act in itself.
There's too much going on for a broad outline to give the ideas justice, but if not Deleuze's outright influence, at least parallels to his work can be found in thinkers who are a bit more pop: Krishnamurti's "Truth is a pathless land," Wayne Dyer's interpretation of Taoism, and Bruce Lee's writings on JKD as a process.
If you like thinking and being self-aware, Gilles Deleuze will make your world a bigger place.
August 24, 2013
I love reading Gilles Deleuze. I do not like so much reading what others have to say about him. I also do not like Deleuze explained in any way to me. I like owning my own interpretations. This book was OK, glad I read it, used it for a 2013 summer morning meditation of sorts, but I doubt I will ever read it again and could have lived without it. But still, Claire Colebrook obviously loves Deleuze as much as others who do, and it is always good to hear from smart acolytes. Anyone wanting to learn more about Gilles Deleuze should be instructed to read the book Dialogues as it is a very good and accessible primer to the work and ideas of this great thinker. Following that fine book I would think the very best of Gilles Deleuze can be found in A Thousand Plateaus.
Dialogues
Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
Dialogues
Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
June 3, 2019
روایت کتاب به سختی پیش می رفت. شاید یکی از دلایل آن، ترجمه سنگین کتاب بود یا اینکه به دلیل عدم آشنایی من با کتب اولیه دلوز باشد.اینکه بهتر باشد با کتاب" پروست و نشانه ها" خوانش دلوز را آغاز کنیم.
در مجموع اندیشه های دلوز در ارتباط با "صیرورت"، "حیوان شدن" و "زن شدن" جالب توجه بود!
در مجموع اندیشه های دلوز در ارتباط با "صیرورت"، "حیوان شدن" و "زن شدن" جالب توجه بود!
February 4, 2019
Pretty good but in truth I enjoyed her other book on Deleuze, Understanding Deleuze, a lot more
July 18, 2021
در ابتدا بگم کتاب ترجمه خوبی داره، اما خود متن و مفاهیم دلوز پیچیده است. دلوز واژگان خاص خودش رو داره و تو این کتاب به خوبی و با مثال این مفاهیم ارائه شده.
این کتاب در هفت بخش مفاهیم کلیدی دلوز رو تشریح می کنه
قدرت تفکر: فلسفه؛ هنر و علم
سینما: حس یافت، زمان و صیرورت
ماشین ها، نابهنگامی و قلمروزدایی
تجربه گرایی استعلایی
میل، ایدئولوژی و وانمودها
ادبیات اقلیت: قدرت بازگشت ابدی
صیرورت
نکته ای که به نظرم مهمه اینه که آرای دلوز رو در مقایسه با دیگر متفکران پست مدرن نمیشه به نظریه تقلیل داد، مرکززدایی دریدا قابل پیاده سازیه، اما مفهموم صیرورت دلوز چنان لغزان و فراره که نقطه ثقلی نمیشه براش پیدا کرد. مفاهیم دلوز ساری و جاری و خاصیت گازگونه دارن، به همین خاطر تعیین سازی اونها کمی دشواره.
در نهایت این کتاب رو به علاقه مندان دلوز پیشنهاد می کنم.
یک نکته رو هم حیفم اومد نگم: در صفحه 198 کلمه "زمان" به "زبان" ترجمه شده، که به نظرم اشتباه چاپی باشه.
November 1, 2025
به شخصه هرگز نتوانستم با دلوز ارتباط برقرار کنم، نه از حیث زبان بلکه از حیث افق اندیشهای که گویی در گریز دائم از هر نسبت تثبیتپذیر با اندیشنده است. قرائت این کتاب در من تمنای تقرب به دلوز را برانگیخت، اما همان تمنا به واسطهی خود حرکتش به واپسی بدل شد، گویی هر چه پیش میرفتم، فاصلهام با دلوز نه تنها کاهش نمییافت، بلکه به شکلی پارادوکسیکال فزونی میگرفت. با این همه، زبان او را میستایم، زبانی که نه صرفا ابزاری برای تفکر، بلکه خود صحنهی زایش اندیشه است، زبانی هزارتویی و مرموز که همچون خود فلسفهاش، در وضعیت "شدن بیقرار" است. دلوز در موضعی قرار دارد که در آن، لکان و دریدا را به اسارت در منطق میل فقدان و زبان ازپیشرمزگذاریشده متهم میکند، او با نوعی خوشبینی آفریننده، میل را نه به منزلهی فقدان، بلکه بهعنوان نیرویی مولد، تکثری و ریزومی میفهمد. اما شاید در همین افراطزایندگی، بیاعتناییاش به ژرفای زبان و ناخودآگاه نهفته است، گویی تفکر او، با طرد امر منفی، خود را از تاریکیهای بنیادین دلالت محروم میکند. در باب خود کتاب باید گفت، نقایص آن اندک نیستند. مولف اگرچه به تبیین خطوط کلی اندیشهی دلوز، بهویژه در نسبت با سینما و هنر میپردازد، اما به پروژهی اصلی او، دستگاه هستیشناسی تفاوت و تکرار، کمتر نزدیک میشود. در حالی که انتظار میرفت با گذر از سطح تفاسیر ثانوی، به قلب آثار اصلی چون ضد ادیپ، هزار فلات و تفاوت و تکرار نقب زند. با اینهمه، کتاب مزبور را میتوان همچون نقشهای ناتمام دانست، تلاشی برای ورود به قلمرویی که خود از هر نقشهپذیری میگریزد.
Read
August 27, 2024Deleuzeကိုမှ chronological သွားတာမျိုးမဟုတ်ပဲ။ယေဘုယျသဘောမျိုး ရှင်းပြထားတာမျိုး။အဓိကကတော့ အနုပညာ၊စာပေနဲ့ပတ်သက်တဲ့အပိုင်းတွေ ပိုပီးပါတယ်။အစောပိုင်းဒဿနအခြေခံလက်ရာတွေတော့ နည်းတယ်။လက်ရာတခုချင်းဆီကို အသေးစိတ်ရှင်းပြထားတာမျိုးမရှိဘူး။
ဒါပေမယ့် နားလည်လွယ်အောင် ရှင်းပြနိုင်တယ်။
ဒီလုဇ်ဆိုတာ ဒီလိုတွေးတာပါလားဆိုတာမျိုးလောက်တော့ သိအောင်ရှင်းပြထားတယ်။
အခြားစာအုပ်တွေစဖတ်ရင် ရှုပ်ပီး ဒီလုဇ်ကို ဖတ်ဖို့ တွန့်သွားနိုင်တယ်။
အဖွင့်ကျမ်းတကျမ်းအနေနဲ့တော့ အတော်ဖတ်ရလွယ်တာအမှန်ပဲ။
ဒါပေမယ့် နားလည်လွယ်အောင် ရှင်းပြနိုင်တယ်။
ဒီလုဇ်ဆိုတာ ဒီလိုတွေးတာပါလားဆိုတာမျိုးလောက်တော့ သိအောင်ရှင်းပြထားတယ်။
အခြားစာအုပ်တွေစဖတ်ရင် ရှုပ်ပီး ဒီလုဇ်ကို ဖတ်ဖို့ တွန့်သွားနိုင်တယ်။
အဖွင့်ကျမ်းတကျမ်းအနေနဲ့တော့ အတော်ဖတ်ရလွယ်တာအမှန်ပဲ။
August 15, 2023
Again, this is a compilation of every tl;dr from the posts I have done on each chapter of "Gilles Deleuze" by Claire Colebrook. The actual notes linked in each section are less surface-level than the tl;drs listed below, for what it’s worth.
Powers of thinking: philosophy, art and science
Deleuze's philosophy of art and science revolves around specificity and difference, challenging norms and emphasizing thought's transformative power. It serves as a provocative catalyst, avoiding fixed disciplines, and normative confines in interactions with art and science. Deleuze seeks diversified thinking, disrupting common sense, envisioning literature to shock and rupture accepted thought, while maintaining philosophy's uniqueness. Collaborating with Guattari, "What is Philosophy?" showcases its force to challenge, incite alternatives, and create problems. Deleuze rejects disinterested academia, championing transformative roles of philosophy, art, and science in life's fabric. These disciplines, moments of vitality, shape existence, potent in their capacity to mold and impact. Deleuze compares literature's imaginative power to Plato's metaphors and scientists' fictions, underscoring its potency to conjure possible worlds. Art's non-representational, affective nature expands thinking beyond cognition. Deleuze highlights understanding these differentiations, harnessing thought's creativity through philosophy, art, and science to amplify life. Exemplified in "A Thousand Plateaus," Deleuze's diverse literary approach intertwines philosophy, literature, and science, vitalizing conceptualization of life and embracing difference.
Deleuze reshapes chaos, embracing difference in philosophy to grasp life's virtual dimensions. Life equals difference for Deleuze, urging diverse thought and distinctiveness. He empowers philosophy to reshape life, while art explores and generates differences, enriching perspectives. Art, science, philosophy go beyond utility, embodying potential. Deleuze defies common sense's limits, valuing daring explorations, and emphasizes thinking's boundless potential, transcending dogmas. Concepts, not generalization, define philosophy's power. Everyday labels fall short; extreme forms like art and philosophy transcend ordinary life.
Deleuze champions high-culture art and philosophy, contrasting them with the mundane and popular culture. He differentiates philosophical concepts from opinions, with concepts as creative expressions, unlike inert opinions. Deleuze warns against reductionism and capitalist homogeneity rooted in opinions. Philosophy's susceptibility to capitalist consensus is evident. Deleuze emphasizes concepts' expansive role in countering reduction, enriching thought. Nietzsche's influence highlights metaphorical thinking, challenging fixed representations. Language's creative nature generates active concepts, navigating understanding. Nietzsche's view embraces a world of flux, where concepts impose order. Active concepts engage reality, while reactive ones merely label it.
Delving deeper into Nietzsche's philosophy, Deleuze examines active and reactive ethics, reshaping language and thinking style. Concepts transform by challenging assumptions, showcasing their potency. Nihilism embodies Western philosophy's failure to reach a higher truth, causing despair. Ressentiment's peak lies in lasting Christian guilt. Nietzsche counters nihilism by embracing the present, urging philosophy to forge transformative concepts. Language isn't just signs; it responds to problems. Concepts, like 'sexuality' or 'self,' embody issues. Language shapes sense, concepts amplify it. Cultural phenomena manage difference, concepts refine it. Problems drive creativity and new concepts, as seen in Nietzsche and Deleuze.
Affects encompass individual experiences, like disgust, while percepts involve reception, such as odor perception. Art frees forces from observers, generating affects and percepts beyond norms. Emily Dickinson's poetry evokes emotions without naming, as seen in fear from a stopped clock. Harold Pinter's plays capture 'boredom.' Art dissects experiences, revealing impersonal affects. Unlike art, daily opinions oversimplify concepts. Art's essence lies in exploring complex emotions. Deleuze's concepts solve philosophical problems, expand language. Impersonal aspects resonate in art, literature, and horror films, tapping into collective feelings. Impersonal extends to philosophy and science.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Cinema: perception, time and becoming
Deleuze redefines cinema beyond narrative, connecting it to profound philosophy. Deleuze merges cinema and philosophy, introducing the concept of 'percept' in film as transformative for thought. His exploration of the movement-image and time-image highlights cinema's influence on existential questions, portraying time dynamically. Deleuze's unique approach discerns cinema's authentic essence, revealing its mechanics in image sequencing and perspectives. Cinema, a potent art form, surpasses mere illustration, reshaping perception and cognition.
Gilles Deleuze's insights reshape our view of cinema, as seen in "Traffic," where shifts between clear scenes and sepia tones disrupt storytelling norms. Cinema's power lies in conveying 'affects' and 'percepts,' portraying vivid time and movement images. Deleuze's exploration unveils cinema's transformative essence, untethering reality, liberating images, and challenging linear time.
Deleuze delves into madness, stupidity, and malevolence, paralleling genetic mutations' dynamic essence. Science, a holistic worldview shaped by impartial observers, embodies becoming rather than pre-existing forms. Deleuze redefines cinema by embracing machinic and singular images, illustrating transformative evolution. Affect, unordered sensibility distinct from concepts, is pivotal. Cinema transforms by liberating images and perspectives, challenging conventional thought.
Embracing irreducible differences in cinema liberates from preconceptions, fostering Universal concepts vital for ethical thinking. Deleuze reshapes human becoming through cinema's transversal becoming. Art, science, and philosophy transform thinking, impacting inquiry processes. Genuine freedom involves chance events, expanding thought. Affects, pre-personal perceptions, impact thinking's violence. Cinema's unique image composition portrays intensities, disrupting standard order. David Lynch's usage exemplifies intense art's impact on perception. Cinema disentangles images and affects, challenging moral views. Art's disruption contemplates intensities and dynamics.
Cinema diverges from everyday vision, invoking affective rather than cognitive responses. Political significance arises from desires and societal influences. Microperceptions intricately shape identity. Movement-image and time redefine time's explosive nature, fostering self-transformation. Ethics, politics, and philosophy intertwine through time's diversity. Cinema challenges linear time, revealing distinct temporal perspectives. Time births worlds through flows. Cinema's montage captures diverse durations, unprivileged observers. Time flows, driving change, depicted by cinema's mobile sections. Bodies absent, time itself shifts, a cinematic revelation.
Time isn't isolated "nows"; it's spatialized into points. Becoming time's true essence is "imperceptible," as perception confines it. Cinema's art frees images from fixed views. Montage threads flows, unbound by observers. Deleuze's cinema delves into non-human angles, revealing evolving movements, generating change. Time propels motion, diverse and open.
Deleuze rejects narrow interpretations, viewing cinema as a creator of new worlds, transcending stereotypes. He focuses on philosophy and art's transformative potential. Time-image, his emphasis, surpasses spatialized time. Cinema's diverse durations challenge linear time. Through montage, cinema confronts history and material forces, revealing complex interactions. Deleuze's dialectics unveils matter-driven history, reshaping identity. Nature's rhythms impact us, blurring human and inhuman. Time-image captures singular flow, defying convention.
Traditional dialectics highlight negativity and separate difference from fixed being, but the positive time-image confronts becoming itself, carrying political implications by portraying time's creative flow as future-oriented. Life's movement yields distinct entities, while perception simplifies light waves into colors and objects. Deleuze urges contemplation of duration, departing from actualized forms. Cinema unveils inhuman durations, accelerating growth through documentary techniques. Deleuze's framework explores productive problems, introducing the transcendent Idea beyond experience. Cinema's time-image showcases difference and intuition. "Irrational cuts" disrupt coherence, revealing imaging processes. The time-image's virtual dimension portrays a self-contained world. Cinema's symbiotic relationship challenges concepts, forging new paths for future contemplation.
Cinema probes the problem of difference, revealing its virtual potential beyond concrete images. Each perceptual event shapes distinct worlds, creating a fluid temporal flow marked by becoming and transformation. Cinema offers access to a virtual realm, rich with diverse durations. It shifts from the movement-image to the time-image, using techniques like irrational cuts to portray time's multifaceted differentiation. Cinema liberates perception, transcending fixed images, and expanding contemplative horizons.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Machines, the untimely and deterritorialisation
Deleuze intertwines time, ethics, and the machine concept. Departing from humanist norms, he explores unbounded becoming. In cinema, 'machinic' becoming liberates images from human limits. This machine-driven ethics advocates active engagement, thriving in dynamic flux. Deterritorialization is pivotal, revealing interconnectedness. Deleuze extends this to life, art, and cinema, where transformation transcends representation. The time-image in cinema unbinds human perception, enabling diverse trajectories of empowerment and becoming.
Deleuze and Guattari's 'lines of flight,' from "A Thousand Plateaus," embody life's creative essence. Cinema as an event reveals time's image evolution, defying linearity. The machine concept unlocks virtual time, unveiling alternate viewpoints. Deleuze connects disruptions to inhuman perception in cinema. His geological perspective shatters unity, embracing life's facets. Deterritorialization brings "pure affect," transcending form. The time-image disrupts chronology, and color deterritorializes, embodying affect. Non-sensible affects in the camera foresee actions, revealing transformative potential. Sense signifies transformation over the present.
Language weaves virtual relationships, creating transformative sense. Bodies' connections defy causality, generating novel identities. Active philosophy deterritorializes sense; reactive philosophy anchors it. Deleuze dismantles linear history, embracing perpetual becoming. 'Eternal return' underscores time's new birth. Affect embodies impersonal becoming, transcending subjects. Deleuze redefines quality and quantity's relationship, altering entities. Affect's 'dividual' nature combines with others. Affect disrupts time, reimagining it. Deleuze emphasizes affect's role in dynamic life, challenging origins. Affects shape identity, linking body parts. Art and philosophy forge "desiring machines," reshaping time. Shakespeare's works redefine history through performance, not reflection.
Shakespeare's works unfold time dramatically, disrupting destiny-bound notions. Engaging means embracing untimely expression, subverting continuity. Literary reading affirms untimely affects, transcending context. Deleuze's cinema time-image challenges comprehension, reshaping visual representation. Philosophy generates concepts, art perpetually renews affect. Shakespeare's relevance isn't mimicry, but capturing originality in context. History's not linear; twists shape it. Innovative reinterpretations, like cyber-plays, challenge future notions. Deleuze's "untimely" philosophy reformulates present from past lessons. It employs history, resisting confinement. Untimely affirmation dismantles Western dogma, resisting capitalism's reduction of life to exchange.
Embracing untimely stance disrupts capitalism's uniformity, quantification, and capital fixation. Capitalism deterritorializes life, converting entities to fluid flows, yet reterritorializes through capital. Untimely thought affirms present's transformative potential beyond capital's limits. Deleuze counters contextualization, advocating active, non-human, reshaping thought. His rejection of conformity rejects unified humanity, championing excess, novelty, creation. Time's becoming births events, not linear. Eternal return challenges active potential, diverging from reactive repetition. Philosophy and art confront difference, achieving perpetuity, deterritorialization's fluidity. Capitalism embodies a paradox: outward openness alongside constraining deterritorialization. Superficial novelty masks its exchange principle, stifling true emergence of authenticity.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Transcendental empiricism
Deleuze's philosophy centers on "Transcendental Empiricism," offering a dynamic perspective rather than a fixed theory. Life, a continuous process, defies static definitions. Deleuze links "empiricism" to Transcendental Empiricism, exploring the non-human. Art and philosophy intertwine, influencing each other's evolution. "Time-Image" in cinema transforms time perception. Deleuze envisions philosophy as "heterogenesis," embracing chaos and uniqueness. Art frees senses, philosophy reshapes thought. Ethics of "amor fati" embraces existence. Philosophy liberates truth. Deleuze challenges conventional ideas of God, being, and culture, analyzing complex subjects with Guattari. Subject's construction is a response to life, forming a conceptual persona for order. "Plane of Immanence" grounds subjects in perception.
Deleuze explores the self-image's formation through experiences, emphasizing their role in shaping truth and transcendence. "Larval subjects" describe pre-formed perceptions. Deleuze distinguishes exteriority from the outside and crafts "planes of transcendence" using hidden elements, seen in "A Thousand Plateaus." Immanence, central to life's complexities, fosters stable points and concepts. Philosophy stabilizes chaos, art unlocks sensibilities, while Spinoza's immanence-centric God and ideas liberate thought. Deleuze's transformative concepts enrich life's understanding, embracing immanence as true philosophy and ethics.
Deleuze's philosophy intertwines art and empiricism, rejecting idealism's mediation for direct experience. Empiricism encompasses diverse human and non-human perspectives, seen in literary theory's social machines and desire's productive role. Empiricism dissects social forms, explores pre-personal connections, and traces idea origins. In literature, like Woolf and Austen, it portrays characters' desires and affects, challenging transcendence and emphasizing multiplicity.
Deleuze's empiricism highlights diverse worlds within each experience, often portrayed in novels through lover encounters. Rejecting ultimate subjects, his superior empiricism focuses on immanence, extending beyond the human and cultural. Contemplation is both passive and creative, shaping human bodies. Transcendentalism examines outside production, deconstructing subject illusions, and avoiding fixed consciousness. It envisions a future-oriented politics and embraces immanent experience, challenging Western foundations and pursuing ethical liberation. Deleuze's philosophy integrates dynamic empiricism and explores art's liberating potential in imaginative fictions.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Desire, ideology and simulacra
Deleuze's stance counters lack and negation, proposing vivid image definitions. These images aren't weak replicas but robust entities—cameras to human sight. His desire outlook differs, portraying it as an affirming, creative force, reshaping politics and imagination. Desire connects, enriches, forming communities. Power expands desire, social constructs arise from desires, forming interests. Deleuze's approach unveils desire's evolution. "Micropolitics" extracts principles, challenges stereotypes. He unveils historical roots, rejecting fixed terms. Desire isn't repressed but coded, like marriage. Deleuze values desire's power, generating images and potential for subjugation.
Deleuze's political critique emerges from desire's unified flow, generating its own subordination. Power produces cultural forms that organize and extend desire. Deleuze champions positive literature exploring possibilities in intensities and affects, critiquing negative interpretations. His transcendence challenges hierarchical distinctions, rejecting equivocity. Univocal being erases dualism, values derived from life's perspective enhance ethics. Maximal becoming involves univocity, actual and virtual equally real. Genes hold virtual potential for mutations, organisms exemplify differentiation. Simulacra detachment seen in "White Noise" barn.
The barn's identity is simulated through repetition, a simulacrum shaped by imaging. Baudrillard explores blurred boundaries between real and simulated. Deleuze merges actual-virtual, reality from potential. Art, genetics, and perception embody actualizing virtual. Simulacra's world challenges genuine occurrences. Deleuze's ethics extend perception, literature simulates, like Dostoevsky's character. Stupidity disrupts rationality. Simulacra, for Deleuze, transforms identities into images, defying real-virtual division.
Copying, ingrained in Western thought, is challenged by Deleuze. Life, a simulation without an essential self, thrives through masks and roles, products of the simulacrum. Deleuze values desire's power, rejects its subjugation. Revolution redefines power as immanent and creative. Univocal being defies hierarchy. Ethics embrace becoming and variation, not fixed foundations.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Minor literature: the power of eternal return
Continued...
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Powers of thinking: philosophy, art and science
Deleuze's philosophy of art and science revolves around specificity and difference, challenging norms and emphasizing thought's transformative power. It serves as a provocative catalyst, avoiding fixed disciplines, and normative confines in interactions with art and science. Deleuze seeks diversified thinking, disrupting common sense, envisioning literature to shock and rupture accepted thought, while maintaining philosophy's uniqueness. Collaborating with Guattari, "What is Philosophy?" showcases its force to challenge, incite alternatives, and create problems. Deleuze rejects disinterested academia, championing transformative roles of philosophy, art, and science in life's fabric. These disciplines, moments of vitality, shape existence, potent in their capacity to mold and impact. Deleuze compares literature's imaginative power to Plato's metaphors and scientists' fictions, underscoring its potency to conjure possible worlds. Art's non-representational, affective nature expands thinking beyond cognition. Deleuze highlights understanding these differentiations, harnessing thought's creativity through philosophy, art, and science to amplify life. Exemplified in "A Thousand Plateaus," Deleuze's diverse literary approach intertwines philosophy, literature, and science, vitalizing conceptualization of life and embracing difference.
Deleuze reshapes chaos, embracing difference in philosophy to grasp life's virtual dimensions. Life equals difference for Deleuze, urging diverse thought and distinctiveness. He empowers philosophy to reshape life, while art explores and generates differences, enriching perspectives. Art, science, philosophy go beyond utility, embodying potential. Deleuze defies common sense's limits, valuing daring explorations, and emphasizes thinking's boundless potential, transcending dogmas. Concepts, not generalization, define philosophy's power. Everyday labels fall short; extreme forms like art and philosophy transcend ordinary life.
Deleuze champions high-culture art and philosophy, contrasting them with the mundane and popular culture. He differentiates philosophical concepts from opinions, with concepts as creative expressions, unlike inert opinions. Deleuze warns against reductionism and capitalist homogeneity rooted in opinions. Philosophy's susceptibility to capitalist consensus is evident. Deleuze emphasizes concepts' expansive role in countering reduction, enriching thought. Nietzsche's influence highlights metaphorical thinking, challenging fixed representations. Language's creative nature generates active concepts, navigating understanding. Nietzsche's view embraces a world of flux, where concepts impose order. Active concepts engage reality, while reactive ones merely label it.
Delving deeper into Nietzsche's philosophy, Deleuze examines active and reactive ethics, reshaping language and thinking style. Concepts transform by challenging assumptions, showcasing their potency. Nihilism embodies Western philosophy's failure to reach a higher truth, causing despair. Ressentiment's peak lies in lasting Christian guilt. Nietzsche counters nihilism by embracing the present, urging philosophy to forge transformative concepts. Language isn't just signs; it responds to problems. Concepts, like 'sexuality' or 'self,' embody issues. Language shapes sense, concepts amplify it. Cultural phenomena manage difference, concepts refine it. Problems drive creativity and new concepts, as seen in Nietzsche and Deleuze.
Affects encompass individual experiences, like disgust, while percepts involve reception, such as odor perception. Art frees forces from observers, generating affects and percepts beyond norms. Emily Dickinson's poetry evokes emotions without naming, as seen in fear from a stopped clock. Harold Pinter's plays capture 'boredom.' Art dissects experiences, revealing impersonal affects. Unlike art, daily opinions oversimplify concepts. Art's essence lies in exploring complex emotions. Deleuze's concepts solve philosophical problems, expand language. Impersonal aspects resonate in art, literature, and horror films, tapping into collective feelings. Impersonal extends to philosophy and science.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Cinema: perception, time and becoming
Deleuze redefines cinema beyond narrative, connecting it to profound philosophy. Deleuze merges cinema and philosophy, introducing the concept of 'percept' in film as transformative for thought. His exploration of the movement-image and time-image highlights cinema's influence on existential questions, portraying time dynamically. Deleuze's unique approach discerns cinema's authentic essence, revealing its mechanics in image sequencing and perspectives. Cinema, a potent art form, surpasses mere illustration, reshaping perception and cognition.
Gilles Deleuze's insights reshape our view of cinema, as seen in "Traffic," where shifts between clear scenes and sepia tones disrupt storytelling norms. Cinema's power lies in conveying 'affects' and 'percepts,' portraying vivid time and movement images. Deleuze's exploration unveils cinema's transformative essence, untethering reality, liberating images, and challenging linear time.
Deleuze delves into madness, stupidity, and malevolence, paralleling genetic mutations' dynamic essence. Science, a holistic worldview shaped by impartial observers, embodies becoming rather than pre-existing forms. Deleuze redefines cinema by embracing machinic and singular images, illustrating transformative evolution. Affect, unordered sensibility distinct from concepts, is pivotal. Cinema transforms by liberating images and perspectives, challenging conventional thought.
Embracing irreducible differences in cinema liberates from preconceptions, fostering Universal concepts vital for ethical thinking. Deleuze reshapes human becoming through cinema's transversal becoming. Art, science, and philosophy transform thinking, impacting inquiry processes. Genuine freedom involves chance events, expanding thought. Affects, pre-personal perceptions, impact thinking's violence. Cinema's unique image composition portrays intensities, disrupting standard order. David Lynch's usage exemplifies intense art's impact on perception. Cinema disentangles images and affects, challenging moral views. Art's disruption contemplates intensities and dynamics.
Cinema diverges from everyday vision, invoking affective rather than cognitive responses. Political significance arises from desires and societal influences. Microperceptions intricately shape identity. Movement-image and time redefine time's explosive nature, fostering self-transformation. Ethics, politics, and philosophy intertwine through time's diversity. Cinema challenges linear time, revealing distinct temporal perspectives. Time births worlds through flows. Cinema's montage captures diverse durations, unprivileged observers. Time flows, driving change, depicted by cinema's mobile sections. Bodies absent, time itself shifts, a cinematic revelation.
Time isn't isolated "nows"; it's spatialized into points. Becoming time's true essence is "imperceptible," as perception confines it. Cinema's art frees images from fixed views. Montage threads flows, unbound by observers. Deleuze's cinema delves into non-human angles, revealing evolving movements, generating change. Time propels motion, diverse and open.
Deleuze rejects narrow interpretations, viewing cinema as a creator of new worlds, transcending stereotypes. He focuses on philosophy and art's transformative potential. Time-image, his emphasis, surpasses spatialized time. Cinema's diverse durations challenge linear time. Through montage, cinema confronts history and material forces, revealing complex interactions. Deleuze's dialectics unveils matter-driven history, reshaping identity. Nature's rhythms impact us, blurring human and inhuman. Time-image captures singular flow, defying convention.
Traditional dialectics highlight negativity and separate difference from fixed being, but the positive time-image confronts becoming itself, carrying political implications by portraying time's creative flow as future-oriented. Life's movement yields distinct entities, while perception simplifies light waves into colors and objects. Deleuze urges contemplation of duration, departing from actualized forms. Cinema unveils inhuman durations, accelerating growth through documentary techniques. Deleuze's framework explores productive problems, introducing the transcendent Idea beyond experience. Cinema's time-image showcases difference and intuition. "Irrational cuts" disrupt coherence, revealing imaging processes. The time-image's virtual dimension portrays a self-contained world. Cinema's symbiotic relationship challenges concepts, forging new paths for future contemplation.
Cinema probes the problem of difference, revealing its virtual potential beyond concrete images. Each perceptual event shapes distinct worlds, creating a fluid temporal flow marked by becoming and transformation. Cinema offers access to a virtual realm, rich with diverse durations. It shifts from the movement-image to the time-image, using techniques like irrational cuts to portray time's multifaceted differentiation. Cinema liberates perception, transcending fixed images, and expanding contemplative horizons.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Machines, the untimely and deterritorialisation
Deleuze intertwines time, ethics, and the machine concept. Departing from humanist norms, he explores unbounded becoming. In cinema, 'machinic' becoming liberates images from human limits. This machine-driven ethics advocates active engagement, thriving in dynamic flux. Deterritorialization is pivotal, revealing interconnectedness. Deleuze extends this to life, art, and cinema, where transformation transcends representation. The time-image in cinema unbinds human perception, enabling diverse trajectories of empowerment and becoming.
Deleuze and Guattari's 'lines of flight,' from "A Thousand Plateaus," embody life's creative essence. Cinema as an event reveals time's image evolution, defying linearity. The machine concept unlocks virtual time, unveiling alternate viewpoints. Deleuze connects disruptions to inhuman perception in cinema. His geological perspective shatters unity, embracing life's facets. Deterritorialization brings "pure affect," transcending form. The time-image disrupts chronology, and color deterritorializes, embodying affect. Non-sensible affects in the camera foresee actions, revealing transformative potential. Sense signifies transformation over the present.
Language weaves virtual relationships, creating transformative sense. Bodies' connections defy causality, generating novel identities. Active philosophy deterritorializes sense; reactive philosophy anchors it. Deleuze dismantles linear history, embracing perpetual becoming. 'Eternal return' underscores time's new birth. Affect embodies impersonal becoming, transcending subjects. Deleuze redefines quality and quantity's relationship, altering entities. Affect's 'dividual' nature combines with others. Affect disrupts time, reimagining it. Deleuze emphasizes affect's role in dynamic life, challenging origins. Affects shape identity, linking body parts. Art and philosophy forge "desiring machines," reshaping time. Shakespeare's works redefine history through performance, not reflection.
Shakespeare's works unfold time dramatically, disrupting destiny-bound notions. Engaging means embracing untimely expression, subverting continuity. Literary reading affirms untimely affects, transcending context. Deleuze's cinema time-image challenges comprehension, reshaping visual representation. Philosophy generates concepts, art perpetually renews affect. Shakespeare's relevance isn't mimicry, but capturing originality in context. History's not linear; twists shape it. Innovative reinterpretations, like cyber-plays, challenge future notions. Deleuze's "untimely" philosophy reformulates present from past lessons. It employs history, resisting confinement. Untimely affirmation dismantles Western dogma, resisting capitalism's reduction of life to exchange.
Embracing untimely stance disrupts capitalism's uniformity, quantification, and capital fixation. Capitalism deterritorializes life, converting entities to fluid flows, yet reterritorializes through capital. Untimely thought affirms present's transformative potential beyond capital's limits. Deleuze counters contextualization, advocating active, non-human, reshaping thought. His rejection of conformity rejects unified humanity, championing excess, novelty, creation. Time's becoming births events, not linear. Eternal return challenges active potential, diverging from reactive repetition. Philosophy and art confront difference, achieving perpetuity, deterritorialization's fluidity. Capitalism embodies a paradox: outward openness alongside constraining deterritorialization. Superficial novelty masks its exchange principle, stifling true emergence of authenticity.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Transcendental empiricism
Deleuze's philosophy centers on "Transcendental Empiricism," offering a dynamic perspective rather than a fixed theory. Life, a continuous process, defies static definitions. Deleuze links "empiricism" to Transcendental Empiricism, exploring the non-human. Art and philosophy intertwine, influencing each other's evolution. "Time-Image" in cinema transforms time perception. Deleuze envisions philosophy as "heterogenesis," embracing chaos and uniqueness. Art frees senses, philosophy reshapes thought. Ethics of "amor fati" embraces existence. Philosophy liberates truth. Deleuze challenges conventional ideas of God, being, and culture, analyzing complex subjects with Guattari. Subject's construction is a response to life, forming a conceptual persona for order. "Plane of Immanence" grounds subjects in perception.
Deleuze explores the self-image's formation through experiences, emphasizing their role in shaping truth and transcendence. "Larval subjects" describe pre-formed perceptions. Deleuze distinguishes exteriority from the outside and crafts "planes of transcendence" using hidden elements, seen in "A Thousand Plateaus." Immanence, central to life's complexities, fosters stable points and concepts. Philosophy stabilizes chaos, art unlocks sensibilities, while Spinoza's immanence-centric God and ideas liberate thought. Deleuze's transformative concepts enrich life's understanding, embracing immanence as true philosophy and ethics.
Deleuze's philosophy intertwines art and empiricism, rejecting idealism's mediation for direct experience. Empiricism encompasses diverse human and non-human perspectives, seen in literary theory's social machines and desire's productive role. Empiricism dissects social forms, explores pre-personal connections, and traces idea origins. In literature, like Woolf and Austen, it portrays characters' desires and affects, challenging transcendence and emphasizing multiplicity.
Deleuze's empiricism highlights diverse worlds within each experience, often portrayed in novels through lover encounters. Rejecting ultimate subjects, his superior empiricism focuses on immanence, extending beyond the human and cultural. Contemplation is both passive and creative, shaping human bodies. Transcendentalism examines outside production, deconstructing subject illusions, and avoiding fixed consciousness. It envisions a future-oriented politics and embraces immanent experience, challenging Western foundations and pursuing ethical liberation. Deleuze's philosophy integrates dynamic empiricism and explores art's liberating potential in imaginative fictions.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Desire, ideology and simulacra
Deleuze's stance counters lack and negation, proposing vivid image definitions. These images aren't weak replicas but robust entities—cameras to human sight. His desire outlook differs, portraying it as an affirming, creative force, reshaping politics and imagination. Desire connects, enriches, forming communities. Power expands desire, social constructs arise from desires, forming interests. Deleuze's approach unveils desire's evolution. "Micropolitics" extracts principles, challenges stereotypes. He unveils historical roots, rejecting fixed terms. Desire isn't repressed but coded, like marriage. Deleuze values desire's power, generating images and potential for subjugation.
Deleuze's political critique emerges from desire's unified flow, generating its own subordination. Power produces cultural forms that organize and extend desire. Deleuze champions positive literature exploring possibilities in intensities and affects, critiquing negative interpretations. His transcendence challenges hierarchical distinctions, rejecting equivocity. Univocal being erases dualism, values derived from life's perspective enhance ethics. Maximal becoming involves univocity, actual and virtual equally real. Genes hold virtual potential for mutations, organisms exemplify differentiation. Simulacra detachment seen in "White Noise" barn.
The barn's identity is simulated through repetition, a simulacrum shaped by imaging. Baudrillard explores blurred boundaries between real and simulated. Deleuze merges actual-virtual, reality from potential. Art, genetics, and perception embody actualizing virtual. Simulacra's world challenges genuine occurrences. Deleuze's ethics extend perception, literature simulates, like Dostoevsky's character. Stupidity disrupts rationality. Simulacra, for Deleuze, transforms identities into images, defying real-virtual division.
Copying, ingrained in Western thought, is challenged by Deleuze. Life, a simulation without an essential self, thrives through masks and roles, products of the simulacrum. Deleuze values desire's power, rejects its subjugation. Revolution redefines power as immanent and creative. Univocal being defies hierarchy. Ethics embrace becoming and variation, not fixed foundations.
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
Minor literature: the power of eternal return
Continued...
https://uncertaintysedge.substack.com...
July 6, 2020
Deleuze's philosophy is not as dense as I at first imagined in, at least in reading. What challenges is the necessary re-framing of both language and notions of existence, not a noun or even verb of "being" but a future imagination of "becoming." This seeming optimism (a sentiment Deleuze would perhaps disdain) is balanced by the literal understanding of every aspect of human (and universe) behavior as machinic, geared toward a future and ethic of producing. It's not that adherents and descendants of deconstruction are wrong--they just did not go nearly far enough: by holding faithfully on to a human subject, we fundamentally misconstrue virtually every notion of our lives (and deaths). In terms of art and literature, then, we value that which produces change, opens potentialities, ruptures the stagnant. We should not admire Shakespeare because of his great writing but because of his breaking us from such tendencies; the next "Shakespeare" will not imitate his forms, then, but similarly break us from our current (and future) ones. On to the next reading on him, then, but I must also seek some critical views, because that machine description (not metaphor--never metaphor) does not sit well. . . .
May 10, 2018
It is hard to follow, harder to understand. But I guess thats why we ended up reading Deleuze. Colebrook has lots of works in which she interprets Deleuze not to make him simpler but lets say a bit understandable. I had a copy of the Turkish translation it was the translation of 2002, Routledge.
November 22, 2017
Awesome. It helps a lot if you wanna analyze the issues of racism and colonialism through the perspective of Gilles Deleuze. It also explains the philosopher's key terms.
August 23, 2021
دولوز به روایت کولبروک، 230صفحه حدودا، 19 ساعت زمان، یعنی هر صفحه 5 دقیقه که زیاد محسوب می شود
کتاب سنگین جلو می رود، دقیقا {احتمالا} با ادبیات و ترمینولوژی خود دلوز، و موافقم که جز این شاید امکانش نباشد. ترجمه زیباست، معادلها را وقتی برای
بار اول ذکر میکند، انگلیسی اش را می آورد، بجز "هایش" که تا آخر نفهمیدم یعنی چه
با جناب محمدفواد بزرگوار موافقم که در نیمه ی اول ایده ی دلوز به خوبی بیان می شود و دیگر پس از آن تکرار همان در فرم های مختلف است، اما نه تکراری که احتمالا دلوز دوست داشته باشد: تکرار دقیقا همان
می خواهم سه نقد بر کتاب کولبروک وارد کنم:
یک اینکه کاش پس از فصل اول که یک مدخل واقعا خوب و شورانگیز برای من، برای ورود به ادیشه دلوز بود، به سراغ سینما1و2 نمی رفتیم. خانم کولبروک، آخر من دهانم سرویس شد تا ر نهایت کمی به مفاهیم تصویر-حرکت و تصویر-زمان نزدیک شوم
نقد دوم با همین مسئله پیوند می خورد، کولبروک تبار مفاهیم دلوز را نشان نمی دهد: اینکه دلوز برای سینما و تصویر-زمان تحت تاثیر مفهوم برگسونی زمان است یا در درون ماندگاری روی شانه ی اسپینوزا ایستاده، و اینکه باید در میل و نیروهای حیات طنین بلند ورای اصل لذت فروید را در نظر داشت..سر جمع به حد کفایت به نیچه و برگسونِ دلوز نپرداخته بود، تو گویی برای کلاس نقد ادبی و دانشجویان ادبیات و با تمرکز بر سه کتاب تفاوت و تکرار، کافکا به سوی ادبیات اقلبت و فلسفه چیست؟ نوشته بود
نقد سوم این است که میتوان ادعا کرد کتاب بر دلوز متقدم متمرکز است، روشن تر کنم:دلوز قبل از شیزوفرنی و کاپیتالیسم، البته این شاید نقد مزخرفی باشد، اما بهرحال برایم این کتاب جذاب تر از مباحث هستی شناختی بود، هرچند از بررسی مفصل هستی شناسی دلوز بسیار خشنودم
برای شمایی که میخواهی تصمیم بگیری این کتاب را بخوانی یا خیر، بدان شنیدن ویس هایی از آرش حیدری می تواند قفل فهم کتاب و دلوز را برایت باز کند در کانال بایگانی ها بگرد و چند ویس در خصوص درون ماندگاری اسپینوزا ار او را بیاب
در کانال خود حیدری نیز شرح ورای اصل لذت فروید را گوش کن، بدون این ها کارت برای فهم این شرح از کولبروک واقعا سخت است زیرا فرض گرفته می دانی.
@heydariarash
@bankema
نکاتی پراکنده:
باری سخنرانی صالح نجفی و دیگران در باب فلسفه آگامبن را می شنیدم، جایی گفت هسته ی فلسفه اش سیاسی نیست، شاید بخاطر هایدگری بودنش گفت، بهرحال می خواهم با فهمی 200صفحه ای دلوز بگویم که هستی شناسی او اما، انقلابی است، خود انقلاب است، تفاوت است و صیرورت، دیگر شدن. هستی دلوز نیرویی که باید فرم های متصلب و استعلایی شده را بشکند، راه را برای صیرورت به اشکال دیگر بگشاید، و باز صیرورت پذیرد و باز و باز
می دانیم دلوز آدم با ادبی نبوده، لذا تعارف نمی کنیم که بگوییم دلوز شاش دارد: او در چیزها نه چیستی شان را، بلکه آنچه می توانند بشوند را می بیند، بنابراین آنچه هست را بر نمی تابد و بدنبال یافتن مسیرهایی دیگر است، مسیری بی انتها، مسیری که تنها وجه استعلایی اش صیرورت است، صیرورت باقی است بس*، دیگر چیز ها بنحو درون ماندگاری می شوند. همین بی قراری برای صیرورت است که دلوز را واجد کیفیت شاش داشتن می کند. شاش داشتن به مثابه ی کیفیتی برون گسترده. مگر سیاست رادیکال جز این است؟ سیاست رادیکال بر آنچه هست می شاشد، و می خواهد توانش ها را جستجو کند، اینجاست که هیچکس نمی داند یک بدن چقدر می تواند بشاشد.
همین جا در نقد دلوزی می شود به نیچه-دلوز هم اشاره کرد، آنجا که می گوید شما که می آیید بر اساس معیاری، یک چیز را شر، اخ، جیز و غیره می نامید، آنانی که هنوز در اخلاق خیر و شر می لولید، خود ارزش شما ارزشش را از چه میگیرد؟
نقد مارکسیستی بر سرمایه داری، ارزشش را از چه میگیرد؟ ایمان و عمل صالح؟ بنظرم همین جاست که هایک و دیگران پیروز می شوند، زیرا با اخلاق خیر و شری که خیلی وقت است پایش وارد لجن نیهلیسم شده، نمی شود نقد کرد. می شود تنها بازی کرد و دیستوپیایی دوباره تاسیس کرد.
احتراز دلوز از استعلا برایم بسیار جذاب است و البته ترسناک، برای پیش گرفتن چنین اخلاقی، اخلاق درون ماندگار، برای آفرینش، برای آفرینش ارزش ها ، انصافا خیلی باید شجاع باشی، خیلی
*باز مایلم بگویم که این هگل لعنتی هرجایی که باشی، بقول فوکو دقیقا آنجایی که فکر میکنی از چنگش گریخته ای، بر نقطه ای دوردست با لبخندی بر لب ایستاده و تو را می نگرد.
پایان
4:06 بعدازظهر، 1 شهریور 1400
کتاب سنگین جلو می رود، دقیقا {احتمالا} با ادبیات و ترمینولوژی خود دلوز، و موافقم که جز این شاید امکانش نباشد. ترجمه زیباست، معادلها را وقتی برای
بار اول ذکر میکند، انگلیسی اش را می آورد، بجز "هایش" که تا آخر نفهمیدم یعنی چه
با جناب محمدفواد بزرگوار موافقم که در نیمه ی اول ایده ی دلوز به خوبی بیان می شود و دیگر پس از آن تکرار همان در فرم های مختلف است، اما نه تکراری که احتمالا دلوز دوست داشته باشد: تکرار دقیقا همان
می خواهم سه نقد بر کتاب کولبروک وارد کنم:
یک اینکه کاش پس از فصل اول که یک مدخل واقعا خوب و شورانگیز برای من، برای ورود به ادیشه دلوز بود، به سراغ سینما1و2 نمی رفتیم. خانم کولبروک، آخر من دهانم سرویس شد تا ر نهایت کمی به مفاهیم تصویر-حرکت و تصویر-زمان نزدیک شوم
نقد دوم با همین مسئله پیوند می خورد، کولبروک تبار مفاهیم دلوز را نشان نمی دهد: اینکه دلوز برای سینما و تصویر-زمان تحت تاثیر مفهوم برگسونی زمان است یا در درون ماندگاری روی شانه ی اسپینوزا ایستاده، و اینکه باید در میل و نیروهای حیات طنین بلند ورای اصل لذت فروید را در نظر داشت..سر جمع به حد کفایت به نیچه و برگسونِ دلوز نپرداخته بود، تو گویی برای کلاس نقد ادبی و دانشجویان ادبیات و با تمرکز بر سه کتاب تفاوت و تکرار، کافکا به سوی ادبیات اقلبت و فلسفه چیست؟ نوشته بود
نقد سوم این است که میتوان ادعا کرد کتاب بر دلوز متقدم متمرکز است، روشن تر کنم:دلوز قبل از شیزوفرنی و کاپیتالیسم، البته این شاید نقد مزخرفی باشد، اما بهرحال برایم این کتاب جذاب تر از مباحث هستی شناختی بود، هرچند از بررسی مفصل هستی شناسی دلوز بسیار خشنودم
برای شمایی که میخواهی تصمیم بگیری این کتاب را بخوانی یا خیر، بدان شنیدن ویس هایی از آرش حیدری می تواند قفل فهم کتاب و دلوز را برایت باز کند در کانال بایگانی ها بگرد و چند ویس در خصوص درون ماندگاری اسپینوزا ار او را بیاب
در کانال خود حیدری نیز شرح ورای اصل لذت فروید را گوش کن، بدون این ها کارت برای فهم این شرح از کولبروک واقعا سخت است زیرا فرض گرفته می دانی.
@heydariarash
@bankema
نکاتی پراکنده:
باری سخنرانی صالح نجفی و دیگران در باب فلسفه آگامبن را می شنیدم، جایی گفت هسته ی فلسفه اش سیاسی نیست، شاید بخاطر هایدگری بودنش گفت، بهرحال می خواهم با فهمی 200صفحه ای دلوز بگویم که هستی شناسی او اما، انقلابی است، خود انقلاب است، تفاوت است و صیرورت، دیگر شدن. هستی دلوز نیرویی که باید فرم های متصلب و استعلایی شده را بشکند، راه را برای صیرورت به اشکال دیگر بگشاید، و باز صیرورت پذیرد و باز و باز
می دانیم دلوز آدم با ادبی نبوده، لذا تعارف نمی کنیم که بگوییم دلوز شاش دارد: او در چیزها نه چیستی شان را، بلکه آنچه می توانند بشوند را می بیند، بنابراین آنچه هست را بر نمی تابد و بدنبال یافتن مسیرهایی دیگر است، مسیری بی انتها، مسیری که تنها وجه استعلایی اش صیرورت است، صیرورت باقی است بس*، دیگر چیز ها بنحو درون ماندگاری می شوند. همین بی قراری برای صیرورت است که دلوز را واجد کیفیت شاش داشتن می کند. شاش داشتن به مثابه ی کیفیتی برون گسترده. مگر سیاست رادیکال جز این است؟ سیاست رادیکال بر آنچه هست می شاشد، و می خواهد توانش ها را جستجو کند، اینجاست که هیچکس نمی داند یک بدن چقدر می تواند بشاشد.
همین جا در نقد دلوزی می شود به نیچه-دلوز هم اشاره کرد، آنجا که می گوید شما که می آیید بر اساس معیاری، یک چیز را شر، اخ، جیز و غیره می نامید، آنانی که هنوز در اخلاق خیر و شر می لولید، خود ارزش شما ارزشش را از چه میگیرد؟
نقد مارکسیستی بر سرمایه داری، ارزشش را از چه میگیرد؟ ایمان و عمل صالح؟ بنظرم همین جاست که هایک و دیگران پیروز می شوند، زیرا با اخلاق خیر و شری که خیلی وقت است پایش وارد لجن نیهلیسم شده، نمی شود نقد کرد. می شود تنها بازی کرد و دیستوپیایی دوباره تاسیس کرد.
احتراز دلوز از استعلا برایم بسیار جذاب است و البته ترسناک، برای پیش گرفتن چنین اخلاقی، اخلاق درون ماندگار، برای آفرینش، برای آفرینش ارزش ها ، انصافا خیلی باید شجاع باشی، خیلی
*باز مایلم بگویم که این هگل لعنتی هرجایی که باشی، بقول فوکو دقیقا آنجایی که فکر میکنی از چنگش گریخته ای، بر نقطه ای دوردست با لبخندی بر لب ایستاده و تو را می نگرد.
پایان
4:06 بعدازظهر، 1 شهریور 1400
March 6, 2024
سختخوان چه از نظر محتوایی و چه از نظر ترجمه.
کتاب آشنایی با ژیل دلوز، برای معرفی فلسفه دلوز کتاب بهتری است و برای کسی که میخواد تازه شروع کنه خیلی کاربردی تر خواهد بود.
چون این کتاب عنوان بندی بر اصطلاحات فلسفی دلوز کرده ولی وقتی تبیین و تعریف هرکدوم رو میخونی متوجه میشی تقریبا با تعریف قبلیش برای اصطلاح قبلیش هیچ فرقی نداره.
انگار یک ایدهایه بارها داره تکرار میشه گسترش پیدا میکنه و شاخه به شاخه یکسری اصطلاح دیگه هم در خودش جا میده. ولی این در حد یک «انگار که اینطوره» باقی میمونه.
درونماندگاری، قلمروزدایی، نابههنگامی هرکدوم اینا جزو مهم ترین اصطلاحات دلوز محسوب میشن ولی خیلی بده که من چندین بار برگردم عقب دوباره بخونم و نتونم حتی سر جملهی تعریف این کلمات رو پیدا کنم.
اگر سر و کار فلسفه با مفهوم است همانطور که خود کتاب و دلوز میگه، پس تبیین امر بدیهی است.
مترجم عزیز، هاشی چیه؟
کتاب آشنایی با ژیل دلوز، برای معرفی فلسفه دلوز کتاب بهتری است و برای کسی که میخواد تازه شروع کنه خیلی کاربردی تر خواهد بود.
چون این کتاب عنوان بندی بر اصطلاحات فلسفی دلوز کرده ولی وقتی تبیین و تعریف هرکدوم رو میخونی متوجه میشی تقریبا با تعریف قبلیش برای اصطلاح قبلیش هیچ فرقی نداره.
انگار یک ایدهایه بارها داره تکرار میشه گسترش پیدا میکنه و شاخه به شاخه یکسری اصطلاح دیگه هم در خودش جا میده. ولی این در حد یک «انگار که اینطوره» باقی میمونه.
درونماندگاری، قلمروزدایی، نابههنگامی هرکدوم اینا جزو مهم ترین اصطلاحات دلوز محسوب میشن ولی خیلی بده که من چندین بار برگردم عقب دوباره بخونم و نتونم حتی سر جملهی تعریف این کلمات رو پیدا کنم.
اگر سر و کار فلسفه با مفهوم است همانطور که خود کتاب و دلوز میگه، پس تبیین امر بدیهی است.
مترجم عزیز، هاشی چیه؟
May 31, 2025
I truly love these Routledge primers before I dig into main texts. Colebrook’s synthesis is very clear, though I agree with other reviewers that some topics could be teased out a bit more. Showing how Deleuzian philosophy connects to other disciplines was exceedingly helpful, as this is my main goal in diving into his work. This is definitely best to read over a longer period of time to digest and I am glad that she gives recommendations regarding where to start reading Deleuze.
June 2, 2021
All round good introductory book on Deleuze. I wish there was a more in-depth discussion on Difference and Repetition (and associated concepts; it was touched on, but seemed lacking compared to the other discussions on Deleuze's thoughts), especially as it is considered Deleuze's most important book.
July 5, 2017
The best exhortation: be not yourself, be who you are not, surpass yourself, think of what you can be and will be and this world will be
September 27, 2018
Don't know how she did it but I now understand what the plane of immanence is Claire- I ♥ u
November 20, 2019
It's a start. I think...
February 4, 2020
Deleuze'ün felsefesi ve kavramları üzerine açıklayıcı bir giriş kitabı olduğunu düşünüyorum. Yine de belirli bir felsefi birikimi olmayanlar anlamakta güçlük çekebilir.
October 28, 2024
difficult
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews