What do you think?
Rate this book
What is Philosophy?
"The question 'what is philosophy?' can perhaps only be posed lat in life, with the arrival of old age and the time for speaking concretely. It is a question posed in a moment of quiet restlessness, at midnight, when there is no longer anything to ask." Posing that question, Deleuze and Guattari worked together for what turned out to be the last tiome, to produce a book which can be seen as a condensation of everything they had written before, together and separately. Twenty years on from their endlessly influential Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari have lost none of their inspirational radicalism, only deepened it. Their book is a profound and careful interrogation of what it might mean to be a 'friend of wisdom', but it is also a devastating attack on the sterility of what has become, when 'the only events are exhibitions and the only concepts are products which can be sold'. Philosophy, they insist, is not contemplation, reflection or communication, but the creation of concepts. The first part of the book explores the concept, the 'plane of immanence' in which it can be born and the conceptual personae' which can activate it. It concludes with a brilliant account of philosophy's relation to social and economic development, from ancient Greece to the modern capitalist state. Part two considers other forms of science, art, literature and music. By the light of its 'rivals', Deleuze and Guattari illuminate philosophy in all its distinctiveness, displaying the same light-footed erudition whether they are discussing Godel's Theorem, Proust and Pessoa, Mondrian or Boulez. Written with the energy and inventiveness that marked their earlier collaborations, What is Philosophy? is an enormous achievement. It is a vital book, not only for philosophers but for everyone concerned with the uses of human intelligence in a time when, as the authors remark, sales promotion has replaced critique.
253 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
About the author
Gilles Deleuze
276 books2,835 followersDeleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.
Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.
Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews
October 23, 2021
Chiar dacă obscură pe alocuri (inclusiv în original), cartea redactată de cuplul Deleuze-Guattari poate fi de folos oricărui cititor care s-a întrebat, măcar o dată în viață, ce desemnează termenul „filosofie”.
Desigur, răspunsurile sînt legiune. Anticii au examinat 6 definiții. Le enumeră David Armeanul în Introducere în filosofie. Autorii cărții de față afirmă că filosofia este o activitate creatoare de concepte („Cogito” ar fi, de pildă, un astfel de concept). Richard Rorty a propus un răspuns asemănător. Filosofia oferă un „lexic final” (a final vocabulary), format din cuvinte care au o semnificație, dar nu și un denotat (un corespondent în realitate).
Nu împărtășesc această opinie. Înclin să cred că filosofii abordează cîteva probleme cu intenția de a le rezolva. Că nu prea le pot rezolva e o altă poveste. Nu voi stărui acum asupra acestui fapt îngrijorător.
Chiar dacă nu e originală, partea cea mai consistentă a cărții lui Deleuze și Guattari mi s-a părut aceea consacrată „personajelor filosofice”. Pentru a-și prezenta convingerile, filosofii au recurs adesea la astfel de personaje. Primul personaj din istoria filosofiei pare a fi Prietenul (înțelepciunii). Mai sînt și altele: Nesăbuitul sfîntului Anselm de Canterbury, Idiotul medieval (apare în titlul lucrărlor lui Nicolaus Cusanus), Judecătorul interior al lui Kant, Demonul lui Nietzsche, Zarathustra etc.
Am recomandat adesea Ce este filosofia? studenților mei. Nu strică să o mai recomand o dată...
Desigur, răspunsurile sînt legiune. Anticii au examinat 6 definiții. Le enumeră David Armeanul în Introducere în filosofie. Autorii cărții de față afirmă că filosofia este o activitate creatoare de concepte („Cogito” ar fi, de pildă, un astfel de concept). Richard Rorty a propus un răspuns asemănător. Filosofia oferă un „lexic final” (a final vocabulary), format din cuvinte care au o semnificație, dar nu și un denotat (un corespondent în realitate).
Nu împărtășesc această opinie. Înclin să cred că filosofii abordează cîteva probleme cu intenția de a le rezolva. Că nu prea le pot rezolva e o altă poveste. Nu voi stărui acum asupra acestui fapt îngrijorător.
Chiar dacă nu e originală, partea cea mai consistentă a cărții lui Deleuze și Guattari mi s-a părut aceea consacrată „personajelor filosofice”. Pentru a-și prezenta convingerile, filosofii au recurs adesea la astfel de personaje. Primul personaj din istoria filosofiei pare a fi Prietenul (înțelepciunii). Mai sînt și altele: Nesăbuitul sfîntului Anselm de Canterbury, Idiotul medieval (apare în titlul lucrărlor lui Nicolaus Cusanus), Judecătorul interior al lui Kant, Demonul lui Nietzsche, Zarathustra etc.
Am recomandat adesea Ce este filosofia? studenților mei. Nu strică să o mai recomand o dată...
September 30, 2016
There's at least a double kind of misdirection involved in the seemingly innocent title of Deleuze and Guattari's last and powerfully written book: What Is Philosophy? (WIP). To start, this isn't at all a book for beginners, those wandering into philosophy for the first time, looking to get a handle on what exactly all the fuss is about. Written at the twilight of their careers (Guattari would die a year after its publication, Deleuze three years later), WIP is a condensation of two lifetimes of philosophical practice, pitched at a level of intensity equal to the marshalled momentum of their collective intellectual trajectories. This, though, ought to be no surprise to anyone at least minimally acquainted with these two doyens of French post-structuralism.
It’s the title's second snare then, which really makes WIP a work of genuine adventure and surprise: in fact not just philosophy, but very nature of thought itself is the true subject of this work. From whence does thought come, and to what does it respond? It’s these questions above all which preside over this magnificent book. As far as ‘philosophy' goes, in truth it stands for one of the three ‘great forms of thought’ detailed here, alongside - and with no more and no less dignity than - both science and art. Thus not one but three questions really constitute the beating heart of this book: What is philosophy? What is science? and What is art?
And while there’s a case to be made for science and art being invoked here only so as to better distinguish the specificity of philosophy against its ’peers in thought’ as it were, D&G are consistently at pains to argue for the creative, inventive and original standing of each of the three modes of thought engaged with here. So while philosophy is (famously) said to be the art of ‘inventing, creating, and fabulating concepts’, both science and art too are accorded the powers of creation: the construction of ‘functives’ in the case of science, and of ‘percepts and affects’ in the case of art. What this all means of course is just the subject of this book, and while it’s no easy reading, the results are worth every laboured-over word.
In a less constructive vein, it’s also an equal delight to read Deleuze and Guattari’s polemics against (formal) logic, as well as their sharp and brutal critique of phenomenology, each of which is pilloried for effectively reducing philosophy to a shell of what it could otherwise be (“A real hatred inspires logic” they declare - it "kills the concept twice over”!). Nonetheless, if the words strike harshly, it’s only because of a clear and passionate love of this thing called philosophy, a love of which pervades every page of this wondrously written tract. If, as D&G proclaim, to be a philosopher is to be a 'friend of the concept', this book is a testament to those among the greatest friends the concept has ever had.
It’s the title's second snare then, which really makes WIP a work of genuine adventure and surprise: in fact not just philosophy, but very nature of thought itself is the true subject of this work. From whence does thought come, and to what does it respond? It’s these questions above all which preside over this magnificent book. As far as ‘philosophy' goes, in truth it stands for one of the three ‘great forms of thought’ detailed here, alongside - and with no more and no less dignity than - both science and art. Thus not one but three questions really constitute the beating heart of this book: What is philosophy? What is science? and What is art?
And while there’s a case to be made for science and art being invoked here only so as to better distinguish the specificity of philosophy against its ’peers in thought’ as it were, D&G are consistently at pains to argue for the creative, inventive and original standing of each of the three modes of thought engaged with here. So while philosophy is (famously) said to be the art of ‘inventing, creating, and fabulating concepts’, both science and art too are accorded the powers of creation: the construction of ‘functives’ in the case of science, and of ‘percepts and affects’ in the case of art. What this all means of course is just the subject of this book, and while it’s no easy reading, the results are worth every laboured-over word.
In a less constructive vein, it’s also an equal delight to read Deleuze and Guattari’s polemics against (formal) logic, as well as their sharp and brutal critique of phenomenology, each of which is pilloried for effectively reducing philosophy to a shell of what it could otherwise be (“A real hatred inspires logic” they declare - it "kills the concept twice over”!). Nonetheless, if the words strike harshly, it’s only because of a clear and passionate love of this thing called philosophy, a love of which pervades every page of this wondrously written tract. If, as D&G proclaim, to be a philosopher is to be a 'friend of the concept', this book is a testament to those among the greatest friends the concept has ever had.
May 17, 2023
it is the friends we make along the way
January 19, 2022
after 2 months of this book I finally know what philosophy is
May 21, 2026
Ovo je sjajna knjiga, knjiga koja zbunjuje i sa kojom se svađaš, koja samim oblikom pokazuje svoju svrhu i koja se ceri i izruguje svim fiksiranostima, uključujući i sopstvenom aparatu. Ako se doživi kao zabavni rasadnik za misli, može poslužiti, ali ko bude tragao za bilo kakvom koherencijom, biće nužno razočaran. I koliko god se od toga branili, D&G u obznani da se filozofija bavi stalnom proizvodnjom pojmova, a ne njihovim tumačenjem, bliži su književnosti od bilo čega drugog.
Meni sad, kao nekome ko je duboko zagazio u iscrpljujuće pisanje teze, gde se pedantnost ceni, ostaje žal za tim što ova teorijska bangaranga može da prođe samo tamo nekim belosvetskim facama, dok mi moramo da se pomirimo sa školskim, urednim pristupom, gde sve mora da bude pod konac i utemeljeno na referencama.
Mada, kad se sad osvrnem na sve, nije ni to loše. Daleko bilo.
Meni sad, kao nekome ko je duboko zagazio u iscrpljujuće pisanje teze, gde se pedantnost ceni, ostaje žal za tim što ova teorijska bangaranga može da prođe samo tamo nekim belosvetskim facama, dok mi moramo da se pomirimo sa školskim, urednim pristupom, gde sve mora da bude pod konac i utemeljeno na referencama.
Mada, kad se sad osvrnem na sve, nije ni to loše. Daleko bilo.
May 17, 2026
Das hier ist eine stark gekürzte Variante - hauptsächlich aus dem Vorgeschwätz - meines Blogbeitrages auf
lesefalten.de
Ich nenne es bewusst nicht Rezension.
Der Titel ist irreführend. Es geht nicht um eine Antwort, sondern um die Bedingungen, unter denen Philosophie ihre Begriffe erschafft, und um ihre Positionierung neben Wissenschaft (Logik) und Kunst.
Das Buch ist eine Architektur – verwirklicht in einem Empfindungskomplex, gerahmt vom Chaos. Und wenn das Chaos rahmt, wird die Sprache notwendig poetisch.
Deleuze und Guattari sprechen nie aus einer isolierten Beobachterposition, sondern aus dem Inneren des Geschehens. Sie wirken philosophisch, nicht nach den Operationen der Logik.
Wer hier ein systematisches Lehrgerüst sucht, an dem sich argumentativ abarbeiten ließe, wird scheitern. Es ist auch keine Anleitung zum Formen von Begriffen.
Die drei Ebenen werden säuberlich getrennt: Die Philosophie erschafft Begriffe auf einer Immanenzebene, getragen von Begriffspersonen.
Die Wissenschaft konstruiert Funktionen, die das Ereignis in Sachverhalten aktualisieren – verlangsamt, referenziell.
Die Kunst errichtet Monumente aus Perzepten und Affekten, die über das Erleben hinausreichen.
Alle drei trotzen dem Chaos, jede auf ihre Weise.
Im Schlusskapitel kippt diese saubere Trennung – die Ebenen werden ununterscheidbar, sobald sie ins Chaos zurückgleiten.
Nach Beenden des Buches: zuerst Freude, eine eigene Wüste durchs Chaos zu ziehen – dann überschwemmt von Empfindung, ohne Packstellen, das symbolisch rückzubinden. Wie ich zu meinen Begriffen komme, wie die Begriffsperson entsteht, wie die drei Ebenen praktisch zusammenspielen – bleibt ungreifbar.
Ein Buch, das in der Praxis nicht recht aufgehen will. Mir fehlt die Konsequenz, es hat eine Unwucht.
Als könnten selbst die Autoren sich nicht freimachen von den Fliehkräften, die wieder ins Chaos tragen. Wobei ich denke, sie reizen es bewusst aus.
Klar tun sie das. Sonst gäbe es keinen Satz wie diesen:
Vernunft ist nicht glatte Ordnung, nicht Nüchternheit, nicht beherrschte Funktionalität – sondern lebendig, aufbrechend. In die eigene Aufschlagsstelle rein, wieder und wieder, voller Intensität in den Widerstand. Man könnte meinen, der Todestrieb sei auf der Seite der Vernunft. Grüße an Žižek.
Das Zitat sagt noch etwas: Die Wunde erhalten. Den Affekt würdigen. Keine Narben. Prozess und Werden. Treue zum Ereignis. Es macht Deleuze und Guattari brutal und schön zugleich. Ihr Denken lässt sich nicht domestizieren, aber es ist auch nicht unkontrolliert. Die Intensität trifft den Punkt, den sie anvisiert.
Und gegen die Meinung ins Feld zu ziehen, ist die eigentliche Kriegserklärung des Buches.
4,5/5 Sternen - Auch wenn es sich momentan noch als Monument meiner Grenzen anfühlt und ich taub nach dem Versuch der Aufarbeitung bin, bin ich dankbar für dieses Buch, da es mir eine Form der Freiheit bietet, die viel Last von mir nimmt.
Es ist ein Geschenk (im doppelten Sinne).
Ich nenne es bewusst nicht Rezension.
Der Titel ist irreführend. Es geht nicht um eine Antwort, sondern um die Bedingungen, unter denen Philosophie ihre Begriffe erschafft, und um ihre Positionierung neben Wissenschaft (Logik) und Kunst.
Das Buch ist eine Architektur – verwirklicht in einem Empfindungskomplex, gerahmt vom Chaos. Und wenn das Chaos rahmt, wird die Sprache notwendig poetisch.
Deleuze und Guattari sprechen nie aus einer isolierten Beobachterposition, sondern aus dem Inneren des Geschehens. Sie wirken philosophisch, nicht nach den Operationen der Logik.
Wer hier ein systematisches Lehrgerüst sucht, an dem sich argumentativ abarbeiten ließe, wird scheitern. Es ist auch keine Anleitung zum Formen von Begriffen.
Die drei Ebenen werden säuberlich getrennt: Die Philosophie erschafft Begriffe auf einer Immanenzebene, getragen von Begriffspersonen.
Die Wissenschaft konstruiert Funktionen, die das Ereignis in Sachverhalten aktualisieren – verlangsamt, referenziell.
Die Kunst errichtet Monumente aus Perzepten und Affekten, die über das Erleben hinausreichen.
Alle drei trotzen dem Chaos, jede auf ihre Weise.
Im Schlusskapitel kippt diese saubere Trennung – die Ebenen werden ununterscheidbar, sobald sie ins Chaos zurückgleiten.
Nach Beenden des Buches: zuerst Freude, eine eigene Wüste durchs Chaos zu ziehen – dann überschwemmt von Empfindung, ohne Packstellen, das symbolisch rückzubinden. Wie ich zu meinen Begriffen komme, wie die Begriffsperson entsteht, wie die drei Ebenen praktisch zusammenspielen – bleibt ungreifbar.
Ein Buch, das in der Praxis nicht recht aufgehen will. Mir fehlt die Konsequenz, es hat eine Unwucht.
Als könnten selbst die Autoren sich nicht freimachen von den Fliehkräften, die wieder ins Chaos tragen. Wobei ich denke, sie reizen es bewusst aus.
Klar tun sie das. Sonst gäbe es keinen Satz wie diesen:
»Die Vernunft dreht uns nur dann ihr wahres Gesicht zu, wenn sie in ihren Krater donnert.«
Vernunft ist nicht glatte Ordnung, nicht Nüchternheit, nicht beherrschte Funktionalität – sondern lebendig, aufbrechend. In die eigene Aufschlagsstelle rein, wieder und wieder, voller Intensität in den Widerstand. Man könnte meinen, der Todestrieb sei auf der Seite der Vernunft. Grüße an Žižek.
Das Zitat sagt noch etwas: Die Wunde erhalten. Den Affekt würdigen. Keine Narben. Prozess und Werden. Treue zum Ereignis. Es macht Deleuze und Guattari brutal und schön zugleich. Ihr Denken lässt sich nicht domestizieren, aber es ist auch nicht unkontrolliert. Die Intensität trifft den Punkt, den sie anvisiert.
Und gegen die Meinung ins Feld zu ziehen, ist die eigentliche Kriegserklärung des Buches.
4,5/5 Sternen - Auch wenn es sich momentan noch als Monument meiner Grenzen anfühlt und ich taub nach dem Versuch der Aufarbeitung bin, bin ich dankbar für dieses Buch, da es mir eine Form der Freiheit bietet, die viel Last von mir nimmt.
Es ist ein Geschenk (im doppelten Sinne).
June 18, 2014
180114: later addition: another text i tried to read cold, 3 years ago. not easy. i have read much philosophy since, some Bergson is useful as deleuze refers to him, but i cannot yet say i understood it all this time. i did enjoy reading it, and must simply say i am 'confused on a higher plane...', and planes are what they are about here, 'planes of immanence', 'planes of transcendence', various sort of 'thought planes', populated by 'concepts'. i was able, this time, to think of these 'planes' not simply like the images of space-time where on a wrinkled plane dimpled by various planets or suns, represents the infinite topography modelled by mass and lightspeed lines distorted... i understood it more as used in usual conversation, at least in English, as if referring to some level of terminology, ideas, impressions, though it means in French also 'plan'... i do not know if this is correct, but it freed my mind from literalizing or reifying 'planes' in a geometric way...
first review: and the answer to the title question, is that philosophy is about the creation of concepts. which is essentially compared to sciences, where concepts are put to work, where abstraction tries to avoid chaos, tries to order the universe. or art, where concepts are irrelevant but allowing some chaos in, and it is all about creating, affecting, the moment. philosophy is not able to do science, science is not able to do philosophy. or either way for art and philosophy. or something like that... admit that while I could follow the first part of the book, 'what is a concept?' 'plane of immanence', 'conceptual personae', 'geophilosophy', could even believe I understood them- the second part of the book was much harder, when they start to describe what exactly is philosophy, logic, science, and art. it is this part where my comprehension went down. on the other, I did get some pleasure, I do believe that someday I will follow it, so I do not mark it down based on my ignorance. 'functives and concepts'? 'prospects and concepts'? 'percept, affect, concept'?... well I will get back to you on that...
more
010220: Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction
Deleuze
Nietzsche and Philosophy
What Is Philosophy?
Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts
Bergsonism
Bergson-Deleuze Encounters: Transcendental Experience and the Thought of the Virtual
Gilles Deleuze: Cinema and Philosophy
Deleuze on Cinema
first review: and the answer to the title question, is that philosophy is about the creation of concepts. which is essentially compared to sciences, where concepts are put to work, where abstraction tries to avoid chaos, tries to order the universe. or art, where concepts are irrelevant but allowing some chaos in, and it is all about creating, affecting, the moment. philosophy is not able to do science, science is not able to do philosophy. or either way for art and philosophy. or something like that... admit that while I could follow the first part of the book, 'what is a concept?' 'plane of immanence', 'conceptual personae', 'geophilosophy', could even believe I understood them- the second part of the book was much harder, when they start to describe what exactly is philosophy, logic, science, and art. it is this part where my comprehension went down. on the other, I did get some pleasure, I do believe that someday I will follow it, so I do not mark it down based on my ignorance. 'functives and concepts'? 'prospects and concepts'? 'percept, affect, concept'?... well I will get back to you on that...
more
010220: Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction
Deleuze
Nietzsche and Philosophy
What Is Philosophy?
Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts
Bergsonism
Bergson-Deleuze Encounters: Transcendental Experience and the Thought of the Virtual
Gilles Deleuze: Cinema and Philosophy
Deleuze on Cinema
June 6, 2015
I read this book three times over 10 years, before I really began to appreciate it. In a way, A Thousand Plateau's success kind of blinded people to what Deleuze and Guattari were doing. So this next book, feels more like a snap back. It's not the poetry approach, it's not the postmodernism. Here's an analytic account of concepts. What makes a concept? How does it work?
What is Philosophy comes close to approximating the relationship between domains and logic. But there is still a tendency here to wax about relationships rather than to cut to an essential conciseness. Although they hit on many conceptual relationships I agree with their essential categorization of concepts (philosophy, science and art) reads too much like a list. To understand conceptualization as confronting chaos is correct. But the event that undergrids Deleuze's conception of a mark on chaos, a primary cut to determine logic remains mostly hidden from view, instead of more spoken implicitly as an organizing feature. To understand, we need to get at the agential relationships! We must not mistake organization for productive generation.
For an analytic book, this already short book could be made tighter. Instead of hitting us quickly with the range of application, perhaps it's better to speak simply and directly about the relationships involved and then approach the extension. In some ways, Badiou's work on mathematics can actually be of great use here, to help outline the struggle, to give people a different method of approaching an age old question.
So in some ways, their 3 part categorization goes against answering the question "What is Philosophy" since philosophy is included as just another kind of concept. The mode that they are heading towards, but do not reach, I feel, is the deterministic view of logical apparatii, best caricatured by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica in which we get the pure code of expression. Needless to say this is just another example of conceptualization, but the formalist approach, which is only one way, can help Deleuze and Guattari approach the concise outline of concept's agency better than some of their other angles.
In a sense, the three kinds of concepts is more of a crutch for organizing their own exposition than serving to give us an understanding of the range of how concepts themselves can be extended. To that end, the conclusion feels a little strained to me, a bit too repetitious, where they reach a limit as to how to continue explaining what they have failed to outline.
What is Philosophy comes close to approximating the relationship between domains and logic. But there is still a tendency here to wax about relationships rather than to cut to an essential conciseness. Although they hit on many conceptual relationships I agree with their essential categorization of concepts (philosophy, science and art) reads too much like a list. To understand conceptualization as confronting chaos is correct. But the event that undergrids Deleuze's conception of a mark on chaos, a primary cut to determine logic remains mostly hidden from view, instead of more spoken implicitly as an organizing feature. To understand, we need to get at the agential relationships! We must not mistake organization for productive generation.
For an analytic book, this already short book could be made tighter. Instead of hitting us quickly with the range of application, perhaps it's better to speak simply and directly about the relationships involved and then approach the extension. In some ways, Badiou's work on mathematics can actually be of great use here, to help outline the struggle, to give people a different method of approaching an age old question.
So in some ways, their 3 part categorization goes against answering the question "What is Philosophy" since philosophy is included as just another kind of concept. The mode that they are heading towards, but do not reach, I feel, is the deterministic view of logical apparatii, best caricatured by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead's Principia Mathematica in which we get the pure code of expression. Needless to say this is just another example of conceptualization, but the formalist approach, which is only one way, can help Deleuze and Guattari approach the concise outline of concept's agency better than some of their other angles.
In a sense, the three kinds of concepts is more of a crutch for organizing their own exposition than serving to give us an understanding of the range of how concepts themselves can be extended. To that end, the conclusion feels a little strained to me, a bit too repetitious, where they reach a limit as to how to continue explaining what they have failed to outline.
March 17, 2020
Labai poetiškas tekstas, poetinė filosofija. Vietomis slinkau kaip rūke, tačiau su skaitymo malonumu, nelabai ką suprasdamas, o vien tik nujausdamas apie ką eina kalba. Pagarba vertėjoms.
July 10, 2009
Woah. When its clear, its brilliant. The concept, the plane of immanence, conceptual personae, all original and incredibly provocative ideas. I can't help but admire anyone who can create a philosophical system that is so totally its own thing. I don't really have the grounding to understand most of the math and science stuff, and it can get REALLY opaque at times. The stuff on literature and visual art though is really fantastic. For some reason this one line in the conclusion hit me like a brick:
"Philosophy, art, and science are not the mental objects of an objectified brain but the three aspects under which the brain becomes subject."
Damn.
"Philosophy, art, and science are not the mental objects of an objectified brain but the three aspects under which the brain becomes subject."
Damn.
Want to Read
August 9, 2015خیلی کتاب ثقیل و سخت فهمی است.حتی مقدمه کتاب را با اینکه دو بار خوندم چیزی نفهمیدم شاید ترجمه کتاب بد باشد نمیدونم.میگذارم چند سال دیگه بخونم:)
July 25, 2023
Kohe kindlasti pole tegemist eriti hea sissejuhatusega filosoofiasse või filosoofia ajalukku, mida autorid ei üritagi tegelikult pakkuda. Mingis mõttes annab see raamat hea ülevaate Deleuze’i (& Guattari) filosoofiast, aga ka seda mitte sissejuhatusena. Asjad muutuvad arusaadavamaks alles siis, kui mujalt jupiti juurde lugeda (nagu D&G puhul ikka!): teatud kirjakohti olen siit bakalaureusetööd kirjutades ja muidu õpingute käigus korduvalt puurinud ning mõistan neid tõtt-öelda vaid natukene paremini kui esimesel lugemisel.
Ja tegelikult saab lõpuks ka suhteliselt selgeks, mis on filosoofia, aga mitte nii, et see tingimata lõplikult rahuldaks või asju kuidagi vähem ähmastaks - selles iva ju iseenesest seisnebki.
Ja tegelikult saab lõpuks ka suhteliselt selgeks, mis on filosoofia, aga mitte nii, et see tingimata lõplikult rahuldaks või asju kuidagi vähem ähmastaks - selles iva ju iseenesest seisnebki.
February 1, 2023
In fact, this is not a book by itself, but a work that reveals the essence of all the books written by Deleuze and Guattari. Our thinkers, who carry out their studies through "becoming" and "difference", have created these theories by searching for answers to the question of how to realize the philosophical potential that will rise above them with knowledge and methods.
In contrast to classical philosophy, which serves an oligarchic logic, the path of irreducible 'becoming' has been opened with the knowledge of an uncontrollable "rhizome" that has a direct vital function and emerges in the light of this knowledge, and science and art.
On the other hand, he approaches philosophical questions and problems not through immutable essences, but by finding answers based on the source that raises the question. Considering form and matter together shows that content and expression are united both theoretically and at the point of approach. Deleuze and Guattari, who care about the multiplicity and variable ground structure in philosophy, have closed the idea that philosophy can be revealed by observing from the outside forever. By injecting philosophy into real life in this way, they realized the principle of "becoming", which is the title of their philosophy. After this moment, a cyclically continuous state of being began to appear in philosophy. If I add a subjective interpretation at this point, in my opinion, this philosophical understanding also means the development of Nietzschean philosophy. By freeing thought from patterns, our thinkers, who paved the way for it to find, discover and create new formations, have drawn the path of Nietzsche's übermensch theory more clearly.
The book is very simple in its title and for those who are new to philosophy, "What is philosophy?" although it looks like it tastes, it contains projections of the valuable philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari. It is a very beautiful work in every way.
In contrast to classical philosophy, which serves an oligarchic logic, the path of irreducible 'becoming' has been opened with the knowledge of an uncontrollable "rhizome" that has a direct vital function and emerges in the light of this knowledge, and science and art.
On the other hand, he approaches philosophical questions and problems not through immutable essences, but by finding answers based on the source that raises the question. Considering form and matter together shows that content and expression are united both theoretically and at the point of approach. Deleuze and Guattari, who care about the multiplicity and variable ground structure in philosophy, have closed the idea that philosophy can be revealed by observing from the outside forever. By injecting philosophy into real life in this way, they realized the principle of "becoming", which is the title of their philosophy. After this moment, a cyclically continuous state of being began to appear in philosophy. If I add a subjective interpretation at this point, in my opinion, this philosophical understanding also means the development of Nietzschean philosophy. By freeing thought from patterns, our thinkers, who paved the way for it to find, discover and create new formations, have drawn the path of Nietzsche's übermensch theory more clearly.
The book is very simple in its title and for those who are new to philosophy, "What is philosophy?" although it looks like it tastes, it contains projections of the valuable philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari. It is a very beautiful work in every way.
September 5, 2024
The warnings on the Internet about this book read almost like "THIS IS NOT A DRILL. I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT A DRILL. THIS IS FOR REAL." They are correct. This is not a drill: this is not pop-intro to history of philosophy, wisdom, life philosophy, etc. In that respect, from a lightweight pop-sci-philosophy perspective, the title is the most misleading title ever. On the other hand, it is the most appropriate title regarding the contents of the book. Oh, and one of the smartest book covers ever.
Now that we're beyond the warnings, I must say the translation is good in the sense that I almost had no problem with the language, its flow whatsoever. That doesn't mean it was an easy, straightforward read, but almost all of my challenges are related to the technical philosophical points raised by the authors, such as "what on earth plane of immanence (French: plan d'immanence) is", and "why we need such a concept to begin with", as well as "what's that obsession with half-baked geometrical analogies?"
Apart from these mind-bending discussions, I consider the authors very successful in conveying what they mean when they refer to philosophy and other aspects of human creativity: science and art. They are as clear as they can be, regarding the depth and originality of their thinking. At least, that's what I want to believe.
I'd like to warn the reader: some chapters heavily rely on the reader's knowledge on mathematics, science and formal logic, and their historical development. Lacking such a background, you'll be left in the dark, scratching your head. A similar warning can be made for the chapters that discuss the relationship to and difference from arts, but I'd guess people are more familiar with highest forms of literature such as Moby-Dick and some of the famous painters mentioned. Though, sections mentioning modern music composers such as Pierre Boulez will not mean much, unless you've spent some time with that stuff.
I don't recommend this book to the casual reader. For the ones who are a little more seasoned and have enough energy, as well as conatus (in the sense used and made popular by Spinoza), this book will be a page-turner and they will keep coming back to concepts, arguments and discussions in this book.
Now that we're beyond the warnings, I must say the translation is good in the sense that I almost had no problem with the language, its flow whatsoever. That doesn't mean it was an easy, straightforward read, but almost all of my challenges are related to the technical philosophical points raised by the authors, such as "what on earth plane of immanence (French: plan d'immanence) is", and "why we need such a concept to begin with", as well as "what's that obsession with half-baked geometrical analogies?"
Apart from these mind-bending discussions, I consider the authors very successful in conveying what they mean when they refer to philosophy and other aspects of human creativity: science and art. They are as clear as they can be, regarding the depth and originality of their thinking. At least, that's what I want to believe.
I'd like to warn the reader: some chapters heavily rely on the reader's knowledge on mathematics, science and formal logic, and their historical development. Lacking such a background, you'll be left in the dark, scratching your head. A similar warning can be made for the chapters that discuss the relationship to and difference from arts, but I'd guess people are more familiar with highest forms of literature such as Moby-Dick and some of the famous painters mentioned. Though, sections mentioning modern music composers such as Pierre Boulez will not mean much, unless you've spent some time with that stuff.
I don't recommend this book to the casual reader. For the ones who are a little more seasoned and have enough energy, as well as conatus (in the sense used and made popular by Spinoza), this book will be a page-turner and they will keep coming back to concepts, arguments and discussions in this book.
December 19, 2012
El libro se compone de dos partes. En la primera se caracteriza a la filosofía como la disciplina que se dedica a la creación de conceptos. Según esto, un filósofo es aquel que compone unos ciertos ingredientes en una unidad inseparable, y tal composición está firmada con su nombre. P.ej, el cogito de Descartes, la mónada de Leibniz o el sujeto trascendental de Kant serían tres conceptos de subjetividad que comparten ciertos componentes, pero la unidad que consigue cada filósofo es distinta (p.e., en el cogito no se incluye el tiempo, como sí hace Kant), y las relaciones o puentes que se plantean entre los conceptos establecen un plano común de inmanencia (o Razón). En este plano se mueven los personajes conceptuales de cada autor (Dioniso de Nietzsche, el Capitalista o el Proletario de Marx), de modo que cada filosofía (de cada gran autor) habría trazado un plano prefilosófico de inmanencia, habría inventado unos personajes conceptuales (insistencia) y habría creado unos conceptos (consistencia). La filosofía no es entonces, para Deleuze, contemplación, reflexión ni comunicación, sino simplemente aquella manera de pensar que crea conceptos. -
En la segunda parte se compara a la filosofía con la ciencia, con el arte y con la lógica, las otras maneras de pensar. Si la filosofía crea conceptos, la ciencia crea funciones, y el arte afectos y perceptos. Por su parte, la lógica pretende reducir el concepto a prospecto, eliminando la consistencia propia de los componentes que hacen del concepto algo íntegro y cerrado.
D-G buscan un pensamiento radicado en la inmanencia, y toman partido por la via espinozista. Ahora bien, existe otra vía de pensamiento inmanente a la que D-G tienen mayor alergia si cabe que a la trascendencia: la dialéctica (cuya crítica más directa se encuentra en "Nietszche y la filosofía"). Sería interesante comparar la forma como D-G caracterizan el plano de inmanencia, trazado por relaciones sintagmáticas o vecinales de unos conceptos con otros, con las constelaciones de Adorno, establecidas por oposiciones internas entre conceptos. Negatividad o no Negatividad, esa es la cuestión.
Nota: la traducción española de Anagrama no es muy buena, y a veces es incluso delirante. P.ej., en p. 58 se habla de "los cuatro Racines" de Schopenhauer, cuando claramente se trata de "las cuatro Raices" (del principio de razón suficiente).
En la segunda parte se compara a la filosofía con la ciencia, con el arte y con la lógica, las otras maneras de pensar. Si la filosofía crea conceptos, la ciencia crea funciones, y el arte afectos y perceptos. Por su parte, la lógica pretende reducir el concepto a prospecto, eliminando la consistencia propia de los componentes que hacen del concepto algo íntegro y cerrado.
D-G buscan un pensamiento radicado en la inmanencia, y toman partido por la via espinozista. Ahora bien, existe otra vía de pensamiento inmanente a la que D-G tienen mayor alergia si cabe que a la trascendencia: la dialéctica (cuya crítica más directa se encuentra en "Nietszche y la filosofía"). Sería interesante comparar la forma como D-G caracterizan el plano de inmanencia, trazado por relaciones sintagmáticas o vecinales de unos conceptos con otros, con las constelaciones de Adorno, establecidas por oposiciones internas entre conceptos. Negatividad o no Negatividad, esa es la cuestión.
Nota: la traducción española de Anagrama no es muy buena, y a veces es incluso delirante. P.ej., en p. 58 se habla de "los cuatro Racines" de Schopenhauer, cuando claramente se trata de "las cuatro Raices" (del principio de razón suficiente).
January 30, 2019
آنچه ازین کتاب مینویسم بر اساس نسخه انگلیسی آن است.
فلسفه تاریخی چند هزار ساله دارد، پس می توانیم مطمین باشیم بسیاری تا اینروز در مورد اینکه فلسفه چیست سخن بسیار راندهاند. حال اینکه فیلسوفی در اواخر عمر خود کتابی به این نام بنویسد مطمینن سخنان جالبی برای گفتن دارد و خوشحالم که به شما بگویم که اینگونه است.
این کتاب شاهکار است. به زیبایی معنای جدیدی از فلسفه را به شما معرفی می کند و در ادامه از فلسفه فراتر می رود و دیدگاه شما به زندگی را تغییر می دهد. این قسمت اول کتاب است که به فلسفه و ابعاد آن می پردازد و در قسمت دوم دلوز به علم و هنر می پردازد و باز هم شما را شگفت زده خواهد کرد که چه زیبا معنای جدید از هر دو به شما می دهد. چشم اندازی بدیع و دوست داشتنی.
خواندن دلوز آسان نیست و ادبیات کتاب بسیار دشوار اما لذت بخش است. ترجمهی انگلیسی کتاب هم بسیار خوب بود.
در نهایت بسیار پیشنهاد میشود، اما مطالعات فلسفه داشته باشید و به سراغ این کتاب بیایید!
فلسفه تاریخی چند هزار ساله دارد، پس می توانیم مطمین باشیم بسیاری تا اینروز در مورد اینکه فلسفه چیست سخن بسیار راندهاند. حال اینکه فیلسوفی در اواخر عمر خود کتابی به این نام بنویسد مطمینن سخنان جالبی برای گفتن دارد و خوشحالم که به شما بگویم که اینگونه است.
این کتاب شاهکار است. به زیبایی معنای جدیدی از فلسفه را به شما معرفی می کند و در ادامه از فلسفه فراتر می رود و دیدگاه شما به زندگی را تغییر می دهد. این قسمت اول کتاب است که به فلسفه و ابعاد آن می پردازد و در قسمت دوم دلوز به علم و هنر می پردازد و باز هم شما را شگفت زده خواهد کرد که چه زیبا معنای جدید از هر دو به شما می دهد. چشم اندازی بدیع و دوست داشتنی.
خواندن دلوز آسان نیست و ادبیات کتاب بسیار دشوار اما لذت بخش است. ترجمهی انگلیسی کتاب هم بسیار خوب بود.
در نهایت بسیار پیشنهاد میشود، اما مطالعات فلسفه داشته باشید و به سراغ این کتاب بیایید!
February 9, 2023
¿Qué es la filosofía? es una obra inmensa, fresca y de fin de vida de uno de los filósofos más originales de los últimos tiempos, Guilles Deleuze, y de Felix Guattari, que si bien muchas veces es olvidado y queda a la sombra del primero, se puede argumentar que gran parte de los conceptos más interesantes vienen de él.
El libro, aunque muy corto, explora infinidad de temas. En primer lugar se plantea la pregunta de qué es lo que hace característica a la filosofía respecto a otras ramas del saber. ¿Qué hace que la filosofía sea filosofía y no historia, sociología o psicología? ¿Qué hay de específico y único que hace que dicha rama merezca un nombre propio? A esta pregunta Deleuze y Guattari responden que la labor del filósofx es la de crear conceptos. Estos conceptos son a la vez múltiples, y son la convergencia de otros conceptos. Los autores afirman que unx filósofx crea un plano de inmanencia, es decir, una red o tapiz de conceptos entrelazados que poseen coherencia entre sí, aunque carezcan de referencia o fundamento (exoconsistencia).
Posteriormente, la obra analiza las diferencias y reciprocidades entre la filosofía, la ciencia y el arte, afirmando la primera opera con la consistencia sin referencia de conceptos, la segunda opera utilizando funciones en diferentes planos de referencia pero sin consistencia, y el tercero busca extraer y hacer experimentar a lx observadorx afectos, que sería el equivalente emocional al concepto.
‘La diferencia característica (entre filosofía y ciencia) subsiste, ya que el primero se desarrolla en un plano de inmanencia o de consistencia sin referencia, mientras la segunda lo hace en un plano de referencia desprovisto de consistencia (Gödel)‘
A lo largo de la obra también se explora la diferencia entre la geofilosofía y la genealogía . Mientras que la genealogía consiste en el método inaugurado por Nietzsche y retomado por Foucault y muchxs autorxs de estudiar la génesis y evolución de categorías, conceptos, instituciones y sujetos, la geofilosofía, tras darse cuenta de que existen saltos drásticos y cualtitativos en la evolución de dichos objetos de estudio, decide estudiar (en un momento histórico dado) el sistema de relaciones epistémicas coherentes que permite que existan dichas categorías. Las categorías evolucionan temporalmente, a veces gradualmente y otras veces drásticamente, pero en todo momento se relacionan horizontalmente y son consecuencia de unas condiciones materiales y de una manera de pensar concretas.
Otros conceptos fundamentales de la obra son el de territorialización y desterritorialización. Uno puede reterritorializarse en un ser, en un objeto, en un libro, en un aparato o sistema. Para comprenderlo mejor, es importante definir antes qué es un territorio. En palabras de Guattari:
“La noción de territorio aquí es entendida en sentido muy amplio, que traspasa el uso que hacen de él la etología y la etnología. Los seres existentes se organizan según territorios que ellos delimitan y articulan con otros existentes y con flujos cósmicos. El territorio puede ser relativo tanto a un espacio vivido como a un sistema percibido dentro del cual un sujeto se siente ‘una cosa’. El territorio es sinónimo de apropiación, de subjetivación fichada sobre si misma. Es un conjunto de representaciones las cuales van a desembocar, pragmáticamente, en una serie de comportamientos,
inversiones, en tiempos y espacios sociales, culturales, estéticos, cognitivos
Territorializarse es el hecho de activamente vivir, hacer uso de y pertenecer a, de subjetivarse. Para Deleuze y Guattari las categorías estáticas como el „yo“ o un sujeto no existen, sino que lo que existe es una serie continua de acontecimientos en las que de forma reiterada se realiza una acción. Yo no soy de „x“ manera, sino que infinidad de veces he repetido acciones que han pasado a ser identificadas con un sujeto llamado Miguel. De la misma manera, territorializar, desterritorializar o reterritorializar consiste en incorporar, abandonar o recuperar una serie de acciones, relaciones, modos de pensar, etc. Deleuze y Guattari utilizan los conceptos de territorialización y desterritorialización para estudiar las dinámicas que se dan en en el capitalismo y estudiar las consecuencias de su expansión imperialista más allá de lo meramente económico. En este contexto, la desterritorialización estaría inducida por una “competición generalizada entre los territorios del mundo” en donde cada vez son más numerosas “las estrategias planetarias de las multinacionales” en busca de territorios atractivos en términos de ventajas comparativas capaces de producir con bajo costo de materia prima y de capital humano. Se trata de un proceso entendido como el resultado de la dominación de empresas capitalistas sobre los actores locales con escasas capacidades para dominar sus territorios.
Me estoy extendiendo demasiado, por lo que solo voy a comentar someramente otro tema fundamental de la obra, que es la defensa de la inmanencia frente a la trascendencia. Deleuze y Guattaria rechazan lo trascendente, la necesidad de justificar o de entender el mundo como un subproducto alterado de algo superior, sea esto Dios, el noúmeno (Kant) o la voluntad (Schopenhauer). En este sentido, reivindican la figura de Spinoza, llamándole el príncipe de la inmanencia.
„Había que llegar hasta ahí en la inversión de los valores: hacernos creer que la inmanencia es una cárcel (solipsismo...) de la que nos salva lo Trascendente.“
„Spinoza es el vértigo de la inmanencia, del que tantos filósofos tratan de escapar en vano“
Por último, comparto una cita del libro que incita a la creación, al pensamiento rizomático, a la reterritorialización y, por supuesto, a la revolución.
„No carecemos de comunicación, por el contrario nos sobra, carecemos de creación. Carecemos de resistencia al presente. La creación de conceptos apela en sí misma a una forma futura, pide una tierra nueva y un pueblo que no existe todavía. La europeización no constituye un devenir, constituye únicamente la historia del capitalismo que impide el devenir de los pueblos sometidos.“
El libro, aunque muy corto, explora infinidad de temas. En primer lugar se plantea la pregunta de qué es lo que hace característica a la filosofía respecto a otras ramas del saber. ¿Qué hace que la filosofía sea filosofía y no historia, sociología o psicología? ¿Qué hay de específico y único que hace que dicha rama merezca un nombre propio? A esta pregunta Deleuze y Guattari responden que la labor del filósofx es la de crear conceptos. Estos conceptos son a la vez múltiples, y son la convergencia de otros conceptos. Los autores afirman que unx filósofx crea un plano de inmanencia, es decir, una red o tapiz de conceptos entrelazados que poseen coherencia entre sí, aunque carezcan de referencia o fundamento (exoconsistencia).
Posteriormente, la obra analiza las diferencias y reciprocidades entre la filosofía, la ciencia y el arte, afirmando la primera opera con la consistencia sin referencia de conceptos, la segunda opera utilizando funciones en diferentes planos de referencia pero sin consistencia, y el tercero busca extraer y hacer experimentar a lx observadorx afectos, que sería el equivalente emocional al concepto.
‘La diferencia característica (entre filosofía y ciencia) subsiste, ya que el primero se desarrolla en un plano de inmanencia o de consistencia sin referencia, mientras la segunda lo hace en un plano de referencia desprovisto de consistencia (Gödel)‘
A lo largo de la obra también se explora la diferencia entre la geofilosofía y la genealogía . Mientras que la genealogía consiste en el método inaugurado por Nietzsche y retomado por Foucault y muchxs autorxs de estudiar la génesis y evolución de categorías, conceptos, instituciones y sujetos, la geofilosofía, tras darse cuenta de que existen saltos drásticos y cualtitativos en la evolución de dichos objetos de estudio, decide estudiar (en un momento histórico dado) el sistema de relaciones epistémicas coherentes que permite que existan dichas categorías. Las categorías evolucionan temporalmente, a veces gradualmente y otras veces drásticamente, pero en todo momento se relacionan horizontalmente y son consecuencia de unas condiciones materiales y de una manera de pensar concretas.
Otros conceptos fundamentales de la obra son el de territorialización y desterritorialización. Uno puede reterritorializarse en un ser, en un objeto, en un libro, en un aparato o sistema. Para comprenderlo mejor, es importante definir antes qué es un territorio. En palabras de Guattari:
“La noción de territorio aquí es entendida en sentido muy amplio, que traspasa el uso que hacen de él la etología y la etnología. Los seres existentes se organizan según territorios que ellos delimitan y articulan con otros existentes y con flujos cósmicos. El territorio puede ser relativo tanto a un espacio vivido como a un sistema percibido dentro del cual un sujeto se siente ‘una cosa’. El territorio es sinónimo de apropiación, de subjetivación fichada sobre si misma. Es un conjunto de representaciones las cuales van a desembocar, pragmáticamente, en una serie de comportamientos,
inversiones, en tiempos y espacios sociales, culturales, estéticos, cognitivos
Territorializarse es el hecho de activamente vivir, hacer uso de y pertenecer a, de subjetivarse. Para Deleuze y Guattari las categorías estáticas como el „yo“ o un sujeto no existen, sino que lo que existe es una serie continua de acontecimientos en las que de forma reiterada se realiza una acción. Yo no soy de „x“ manera, sino que infinidad de veces he repetido acciones que han pasado a ser identificadas con un sujeto llamado Miguel. De la misma manera, territorializar, desterritorializar o reterritorializar consiste en incorporar, abandonar o recuperar una serie de acciones, relaciones, modos de pensar, etc. Deleuze y Guattari utilizan los conceptos de territorialización y desterritorialización para estudiar las dinámicas que se dan en en el capitalismo y estudiar las consecuencias de su expansión imperialista más allá de lo meramente económico. En este contexto, la desterritorialización estaría inducida por una “competición generalizada entre los territorios del mundo” en donde cada vez son más numerosas “las estrategias planetarias de las multinacionales” en busca de territorios atractivos en términos de ventajas comparativas capaces de producir con bajo costo de materia prima y de capital humano. Se trata de un proceso entendido como el resultado de la dominación de empresas capitalistas sobre los actores locales con escasas capacidades para dominar sus territorios.
Me estoy extendiendo demasiado, por lo que solo voy a comentar someramente otro tema fundamental de la obra, que es la defensa de la inmanencia frente a la trascendencia. Deleuze y Guattaria rechazan lo trascendente, la necesidad de justificar o de entender el mundo como un subproducto alterado de algo superior, sea esto Dios, el noúmeno (Kant) o la voluntad (Schopenhauer). En este sentido, reivindican la figura de Spinoza, llamándole el príncipe de la inmanencia.
„Había que llegar hasta ahí en la inversión de los valores: hacernos creer que la inmanencia es una cárcel (solipsismo...) de la que nos salva lo Trascendente.“
„Spinoza es el vértigo de la inmanencia, del que tantos filósofos tratan de escapar en vano“
Por último, comparto una cita del libro que incita a la creación, al pensamiento rizomático, a la reterritorialización y, por supuesto, a la revolución.
„No carecemos de comunicación, por el contrario nos sobra, carecemos de creación. Carecemos de resistencia al presente. La creación de conceptos apela en sí misma a una forma futura, pide una tierra nueva y un pueblo que no existe todavía. La europeización no constituye un devenir, constituye únicamente la historia del capitalismo que impide el devenir de los pueblos sometidos.“
April 12, 2023
Tercera vegada que llegeixo el Què és la filosofia de Deleuze, amb Pasta de Dibuix. Tercera vegada que n’aprenc i en quedo encantada. Què dir? Aquí hi ha molta filosofia, però encara més Deleuze. No hi ha hagut mai un pensament que s’atrevís a tant, que mutés tant la filosofia que en canviés completament el panorama. Si fins a Deleuze la filosofia és una desfilada formal de senyors amb toga, senyors amb perruca i senyors amb angoixa, és Deleuze qui ens alliberarà del trist panorama del pensament ja fet. Tot el que intenta Deleuze és tornar-nos el món, enriquir el món, provocar la vinguda d’aquest poble que ens alliberarà de les cadenes que ens vam deixar posar. És veritablement un fenòmen extraordinari, i els seus apunts sobre art són els millors que he llegit.
“És com llançar una xarxa, però el pescador s'arrisca sempre a ser arrossegat i a trobar-se mar endins quan creia haver arribat a port.”
“Només demanem una mica d’ordre per a protegir-nos del caos.”
“Però l'èxit d'una revolució només rau en si mateixa, precisament en les vibracions, les abraçades, les obertures que ha donat als ho-mes en el moment en què aquesta es produia, i que constitueixen en si mateix un monument sempre esdevenint, com aquests tú-muls als quals el nou viatger aporta una pedra. La victoria d'una revolució és immanent, i consisteix en els nous lligams que esta-bleix entre els homes, fins i tot si aquests no duren més que la seva matèria fosa, fent lloc rapidament a la divisió, a la traïció. “
“Per haver assolit el percepte com "la font sagrada", per haver vist la Vida en el vivent o el Vivent en el viscut, el novel·lista o el pintor tornen amb els ulls enrogits, sense alè. Són atletes: però no per haver format el seu cos i cultivat el viscut, tot i que molts escriptors no hagin resistit veu-re en els esports un mitjà d'acostar l'art i la vida; són, més aviat, atletes estranys del tipus "campió de dejuni" o "gran Nedador" que no sabia pas nedar. No un atletisme organic o muscular, sí "un atletisme afectiu" que seria el doble inorganic de l'altre, un atletisme de l'esdevenir que revela únicament unes forces que no són les seves, "espectre plastic" “
“És com llançar una xarxa, però el pescador s'arrisca sempre a ser arrossegat i a trobar-se mar endins quan creia haver arribat a port.”
“Només demanem una mica d’ordre per a protegir-nos del caos.”
“Però l'èxit d'una revolució només rau en si mateixa, precisament en les vibracions, les abraçades, les obertures que ha donat als ho-mes en el moment en què aquesta es produia, i que constitueixen en si mateix un monument sempre esdevenint, com aquests tú-muls als quals el nou viatger aporta una pedra. La victoria d'una revolució és immanent, i consisteix en els nous lligams que esta-bleix entre els homes, fins i tot si aquests no duren més que la seva matèria fosa, fent lloc rapidament a la divisió, a la traïció. “
“Per haver assolit el percepte com "la font sagrada", per haver vist la Vida en el vivent o el Vivent en el viscut, el novel·lista o el pintor tornen amb els ulls enrogits, sense alè. Són atletes: però no per haver format el seu cos i cultivat el viscut, tot i que molts escriptors no hagin resistit veu-re en els esports un mitjà d'acostar l'art i la vida; són, més aviat, atletes estranys del tipus "campió de dejuni" o "gran Nedador" que no sabia pas nedar. No un atletisme organic o muscular, sí "un atletisme afectiu" que seria el doble inorganic de l'altre, un atletisme de l'esdevenir que revela únicament unes forces que no són les seves, "espectre plastic" “
June 8, 2022
Impresionante.
Es la tercera vez que lo leo y sigo cayendo a sus pies. Recordaba sin ninguna duda que el segundo bloque era mi favorito, por las bisectrices que se dibujan entre planos del pensar, pero es que el primer bloque me ha apelado internamente (vísceras incluidas).
Un must para quien se disponga a escribir si no quiere burdamente reproducir manierismos peligrosos y pobres en su proceder. Tanto ejemplo como guía de contenidos, este ensayo será insuperable en su propio campo.
Es la tercera vez que lo leo y sigo cayendo a sus pies. Recordaba sin ninguna duda que el segundo bloque era mi favorito, por las bisectrices que se dibujan entre planos del pensar, pero es que el primer bloque me ha apelado internamente (vísceras incluidas).
Un must para quien se disponga a escribir si no quiere burdamente reproducir manierismos peligrosos y pobres en su proceder. Tanto ejemplo como guía de contenidos, este ensayo será insuperable en su propio campo.
July 17, 2015
كتاب عميق، لم أفهم بعض الفقرات و كأني أمام الهيروغليفية، يبقى أهم شيء أنه رصد المفوم بشكل عجيب، قال عنه ميشيل فوكو أنه فيلسوف المستقبل.
Read
December 29, 2015Obscene graffiti in the margins of Kant.
April 4, 2019
Deleuze, pace Spinoza, has usurped the great Heraclite for me at this time. My prince of philosophy.
February 19, 2020
Vertimas puikus, komentarai irgi, bet. Nebematau prasmės tokių postringavimų.
April 9, 2021
Tok bare et halvt år å komme seg gjennom. Ville saker. Les hvis du er klar for å få hjernen sprekt i fillebiter.
April 10, 2017
Birbirleriyle celisen topolojik kurmacalar, once metafizige varan belirlenmecilik, ardindan gunah cikarir gibi geri adim atmalar, sanki daha once anlatilmis gibi davrandigi ama her nedense anlatmayi unuttugu ve isin ozune tekabul eden fikirler. Hegel'in yaptigini yapmaya calisip, bu yolda kaybolan kendine guvenli bir kisi daha. Bir filozof degil, donanimli bir entellektuel. Ama o kadar.
Asagidaki ornekler aldigim notlardan buraya yazmak istediklerim. Bu fikrilerin sonuclarinin analizini de icermiyor.
Ickinlik duzlemi, kavrayan kisilik ve kavrami topolojik olarak yerlestiriyor. Ama is sorun/problem kismina gelince topoloji ortadan kalkiveriyor ve klasik felsefi yerlestirmeye birakiyor kendini. Derin bir yontemsel tutarsizlik. Ileride nedeni mantikla iliskisinde cikacak.
Yertsiz Yurtsuz/Yurtlastirma kavramlarinin - Gocebenin tarihle ve sosyolojiyle kullanimi var mesela. Saglam bir tarihci bu derece sertlikteki saptamalari cok kolaylikla parcalar. Ste Croix mesela.
Topluluklarin/halklarin yaratilamayacagini varsayarkenki yontemi bile kendini ele veriyor. Haline-gelis'i tarihin disinda ele aldigi icin bu potansiyeli goremiyor. Bu kafayla milletler sistemi bir zorunluluktur.
Bilimi ele alirken kavram kullanmadigi, bilimin kullandigi seyin fonksiyonlar oldugu tam anlamiyla Russelci mantigin anti tezi. Oysa bilim kavram kullanir. Hem de Deleuze'un bahsettigi anlamda. Problem kavrami yaratirken degil, kavramin varligini, niceligini tespit etmek "istemek"e ve o da soruna dayanir. Sorunu icat ettigin topolojiye sokmazsan, olacagi budur. Mantik notuna bakin.
Fonktifler diyerek bilimi nasil bir basit prosese indirgedigini de gormek gerek. Sonucta Deleuze'cu fonktif sinir ve degiskendir. Gonderimi bir orantidir. Oysa bilim sinirin neden sinir oldugunu da arastirir. Bu mantiga gore mesela string teori bilim olmasa gerektir.
Gizil formlar tamlamalarinin tamaminda tersten komplo teorisi mantigi gormek mumkun. Ama Deleuze bazi problemleri halinin altina supurmek icin bunu kullanmis. Birazdan bir yontem daha gelecek: Olay
Bu arada, ickinlik duzleminin neden duzlem oldugunu anladik. (Spinoza taraftarligi ve Kant devrimine dusmanlik) Ama bilimin neden gonderimler duzlemi olarak nitelendigini anlamadik. Acaba bilimde de mi askinlik yok? Bu tartisilabilir ama bu kitapta boyle bir tartisma dahi yok.
Kuhn'un bilimsel devrimlerin yapisi fikriyatini Lacatos'suz algilamak. Iste en buyuk problemlerden biri. Bilimin %99u problem cozmektir. Bilimsel devrim yapmak degil.
Bilimde ozel durum dusuncesi tartismalidir. Bana kalirsa normatif olarak yanlistir. Newton Kuantumun ya da Relativitenin ozel durumu degildir. Basli basina yanlistir! Kutle kutleyi cekmez. Dolayisiyla felsefedeki gelisimle bilimdeki gelisimin farki Deleuze'un iddia ettigi yerde degildir. Ustuste konmusluk duzeni vardir. Her onune gelen bilim adami bilimsel devrim yapmaz. Acizane bir fikir bu.
Matematikte bile tartismali hale gelen normatif rabitalari butun bilime yedirmek gercekten olaganustu yanlis. Bundan kacabilmek icin "olay" adini verdigi bir kavram daha ortaya cikariyor. Ama Deleuze'un olayi -en azindan bu kitapta- bir cuval. Her problem o cuvalin icinde belirsizlesiyor.
Kavramsal kisiliklerin bilimdeki iz dusumu olarak ortaya koydugu tamamen belirsiz. Schrodinger'in kedisi mi yoksa kutuyu acan mi ozne/kisilik? George Gamow'un Mr. Tompkins'in seruvenlerini ele alsak mesela? Yeterince Zerdustvari degil mi?
"Kisacasi, onermesel hale gelmekle, kavram felsefece kavram olarak edinmis oldugu tum vasiflarini, kendiliginden gonderimini, ic-tutarliligini ve dis tutarliligini, yitirir" Bu daha onceki ve sonraki aciklamalardan da anlasilacagi uzere Godel'den kacis icin yapilmis bir manevradir. Kavram'i onermeden siyirip, onu degerlendirmeden kacirip, Godel Eksikliginden azade tutma gayretidir. Oysa kacamazsin. Cunku Eksiklik teoremi onermelerle sinirli degildir. Kaldi ki yukarida kavramin Deleuzecu maceralarini gorduk.
Mantik'i Russel'in anti tezi olarak kabullenme durumu cok rahatlikla goruluyor. Ama burada da bir kacis var. Bir degerlendirme olcutu olarak -illa felsefenin bir kavraminin degeri degil- mantigin reddedilisi. Metafizige yeniden teslim olmak disinda baska bir yol var mi bunu yapinca? Asil problem belki de su: Kavramlar yalnizca betimlenebilir. Ve betimlemelerin birbiriyle uyumunu, aralarindaki iliskiyi gostermenin bir gerekliligi yoktur. Yani mantik deger olarak da adimlar arasi uzaklik olarak da kullanilamaz.
Burada Kavrami "ozgurlestirmek" ve boylece hic bir olcut olmadan sacmalayabilmek icin en son adim sorun/problemle kavramin arasini kesmek. Bu adimi da atiyor Deleuze. "Yasanmis oldugu kadar seylerin durumuna da gonderimi yoktur, ama ic birlestiricileri tarafindan tanimlanmis bir tutarliliga vardir: ne seylerin durumunun tasiyicisi ne de yasanmisin anlamliligi olan kavram, birlestiricileri aninda kateden saf anlam olarak olaydir" Tabi burada ic tutarliligi neyin sagladigina ait (Mantik? Gorsel estetik? Muzik?) hic bir sey yok. Aslinda kitabin tamaminda buna iliskin tek bir betimleme yok.
Goethe ile Newton arasindaki renkler tartismasinda kendi sozlerini inkar ediyor mesela. Degil-felsefeci dedigi bir alani dogrudan felsefe olarak ortaya koyuyor.
Psikolojiyi reddin ilk nuvelerini bile gorebiliyoruz: Yaratici uydurunun, guclendirilmis olsa da bir ani, ya da bir fantazmayla hic bir iliskisi yoktur.
Kaos'u, duzlemi, elegi ve bir moment olarak olayi anlatisinda onlarca kucuk celiski ortaya cikiyor. Sanati bilimi ve felsefeyi her anlatida hafifce degisen bir sekilde yerlestiriyor. Adeta hic birisi o konumda mi degil mi anlasilamiyor.
Sanatin neden duzlem oldugu yine belirsiz. Tabi bu iyice sacma. Sanatci askinlik mantigini digerlerinden cok daha fazla kullanir. Yani ortada bir duzlem yoktur. Deleuze'un bu topolojik yerlestirmeleri inanilmaz tutarsiz.
Son bolum her bir paragrafin bir oncekindeki tutarsizligi kapatmaya calismasiyla geciyor.
Sonucta Kant devrimine karsi, imalar disinda (Hristiyanligin askinligini ozne/fenomen olayiyla tekrar felsefenin icine sokmak gibi ucuz saldirilar) tek bir cevap yok. Hegel'in Kant'in fenomen yasagini nasil asil bilgi dogurucu oldugunu gosteren mantigina karsi cevap da yok. Ama buna karsilik Deleuzevari felsefenin neden tarihle hasir nesir olmak istemedigini, mantigi neden ele alinmasi gereken bir problem olarak gormedigini bu kitaptan yola cikarak anlamak mumkun. Kavram betimlemesine indirgenmis bir felsefe metafizigin cikmaz sokagindan baska nereye sapabilirdi ki zaten?
Asagidaki ornekler aldigim notlardan buraya yazmak istediklerim. Bu fikrilerin sonuclarinin analizini de icermiyor.
Ickinlik duzlemi, kavrayan kisilik ve kavrami topolojik olarak yerlestiriyor. Ama is sorun/problem kismina gelince topoloji ortadan kalkiveriyor ve klasik felsefi yerlestirmeye birakiyor kendini. Derin bir yontemsel tutarsizlik. Ileride nedeni mantikla iliskisinde cikacak.
Yertsiz Yurtsuz/Yurtlastirma kavramlarinin - Gocebenin tarihle ve sosyolojiyle kullanimi var mesela. Saglam bir tarihci bu derece sertlikteki saptamalari cok kolaylikla parcalar. Ste Croix mesela.
Topluluklarin/halklarin yaratilamayacagini varsayarkenki yontemi bile kendini ele veriyor. Haline-gelis'i tarihin disinda ele aldigi icin bu potansiyeli goremiyor. Bu kafayla milletler sistemi bir zorunluluktur.
Bilimi ele alirken kavram kullanmadigi, bilimin kullandigi seyin fonksiyonlar oldugu tam anlamiyla Russelci mantigin anti tezi. Oysa bilim kavram kullanir. Hem de Deleuze'un bahsettigi anlamda. Problem kavrami yaratirken degil, kavramin varligini, niceligini tespit etmek "istemek"e ve o da soruna dayanir. Sorunu icat ettigin topolojiye sokmazsan, olacagi budur. Mantik notuna bakin.
Fonktifler diyerek bilimi nasil bir basit prosese indirgedigini de gormek gerek. Sonucta Deleuze'cu fonktif sinir ve degiskendir. Gonderimi bir orantidir. Oysa bilim sinirin neden sinir oldugunu da arastirir. Bu mantiga gore mesela string teori bilim olmasa gerektir.
Gizil formlar tamlamalarinin tamaminda tersten komplo teorisi mantigi gormek mumkun. Ama Deleuze bazi problemleri halinin altina supurmek icin bunu kullanmis. Birazdan bir yontem daha gelecek: Olay
Bu arada, ickinlik duzleminin neden duzlem oldugunu anladik. (Spinoza taraftarligi ve Kant devrimine dusmanlik) Ama bilimin neden gonderimler duzlemi olarak nitelendigini anlamadik. Acaba bilimde de mi askinlik yok? Bu tartisilabilir ama bu kitapta boyle bir tartisma dahi yok.
Kuhn'un bilimsel devrimlerin yapisi fikriyatini Lacatos'suz algilamak. Iste en buyuk problemlerden biri. Bilimin %99u problem cozmektir. Bilimsel devrim yapmak degil.
Bilimde ozel durum dusuncesi tartismalidir. Bana kalirsa normatif olarak yanlistir. Newton Kuantumun ya da Relativitenin ozel durumu degildir. Basli basina yanlistir! Kutle kutleyi cekmez. Dolayisiyla felsefedeki gelisimle bilimdeki gelisimin farki Deleuze'un iddia ettigi yerde degildir. Ustuste konmusluk duzeni vardir. Her onune gelen bilim adami bilimsel devrim yapmaz. Acizane bir fikir bu.
Matematikte bile tartismali hale gelen normatif rabitalari butun bilime yedirmek gercekten olaganustu yanlis. Bundan kacabilmek icin "olay" adini verdigi bir kavram daha ortaya cikariyor. Ama Deleuze'un olayi -en azindan bu kitapta- bir cuval. Her problem o cuvalin icinde belirsizlesiyor.
Kavramsal kisiliklerin bilimdeki iz dusumu olarak ortaya koydugu tamamen belirsiz. Schrodinger'in kedisi mi yoksa kutuyu acan mi ozne/kisilik? George Gamow'un Mr. Tompkins'in seruvenlerini ele alsak mesela? Yeterince Zerdustvari degil mi?
"Kisacasi, onermesel hale gelmekle, kavram felsefece kavram olarak edinmis oldugu tum vasiflarini, kendiliginden gonderimini, ic-tutarliligini ve dis tutarliligini, yitirir" Bu daha onceki ve sonraki aciklamalardan da anlasilacagi uzere Godel'den kacis icin yapilmis bir manevradir. Kavram'i onermeden siyirip, onu degerlendirmeden kacirip, Godel Eksikliginden azade tutma gayretidir. Oysa kacamazsin. Cunku Eksiklik teoremi onermelerle sinirli degildir. Kaldi ki yukarida kavramin Deleuzecu maceralarini gorduk.
Mantik'i Russel'in anti tezi olarak kabullenme durumu cok rahatlikla goruluyor. Ama burada da bir kacis var. Bir degerlendirme olcutu olarak -illa felsefenin bir kavraminin degeri degil- mantigin reddedilisi. Metafizige yeniden teslim olmak disinda baska bir yol var mi bunu yapinca? Asil problem belki de su: Kavramlar yalnizca betimlenebilir. Ve betimlemelerin birbiriyle uyumunu, aralarindaki iliskiyi gostermenin bir gerekliligi yoktur. Yani mantik deger olarak da adimlar arasi uzaklik olarak da kullanilamaz.
Burada Kavrami "ozgurlestirmek" ve boylece hic bir olcut olmadan sacmalayabilmek icin en son adim sorun/problemle kavramin arasini kesmek. Bu adimi da atiyor Deleuze. "Yasanmis oldugu kadar seylerin durumuna da gonderimi yoktur, ama ic birlestiricileri tarafindan tanimlanmis bir tutarliliga vardir: ne seylerin durumunun tasiyicisi ne de yasanmisin anlamliligi olan kavram, birlestiricileri aninda kateden saf anlam olarak olaydir" Tabi burada ic tutarliligi neyin sagladigina ait (Mantik? Gorsel estetik? Muzik?) hic bir sey yok. Aslinda kitabin tamaminda buna iliskin tek bir betimleme yok.
Goethe ile Newton arasindaki renkler tartismasinda kendi sozlerini inkar ediyor mesela. Degil-felsefeci dedigi bir alani dogrudan felsefe olarak ortaya koyuyor.
Psikolojiyi reddin ilk nuvelerini bile gorebiliyoruz: Yaratici uydurunun, guclendirilmis olsa da bir ani, ya da bir fantazmayla hic bir iliskisi yoktur.
Kaos'u, duzlemi, elegi ve bir moment olarak olayi anlatisinda onlarca kucuk celiski ortaya cikiyor. Sanati bilimi ve felsefeyi her anlatida hafifce degisen bir sekilde yerlestiriyor. Adeta hic birisi o konumda mi degil mi anlasilamiyor.
Sanatin neden duzlem oldugu yine belirsiz. Tabi bu iyice sacma. Sanatci askinlik mantigini digerlerinden cok daha fazla kullanir. Yani ortada bir duzlem yoktur. Deleuze'un bu topolojik yerlestirmeleri inanilmaz tutarsiz.
Son bolum her bir paragrafin bir oncekindeki tutarsizligi kapatmaya calismasiyla geciyor.
Sonucta Kant devrimine karsi, imalar disinda (Hristiyanligin askinligini ozne/fenomen olayiyla tekrar felsefenin icine sokmak gibi ucuz saldirilar) tek bir cevap yok. Hegel'in Kant'in fenomen yasagini nasil asil bilgi dogurucu oldugunu gosteren mantigina karsi cevap da yok. Ama buna karsilik Deleuzevari felsefenin neden tarihle hasir nesir olmak istemedigini, mantigi neden ele alinmasi gereken bir problem olarak gormedigini bu kitaptan yola cikarak anlamak mumkun. Kavram betimlemesine indirgenmis bir felsefe metafizigin cikmaz sokagindan baska nereye sapabilirdi ki zaten?
April 21, 2026
Mul on Deleuze’iga tekkinud eriline side, sest tema tekstidest särab läbi avatud olek: mis veel võib olla? Siin ta pakub välja uue viisi, kuidas mõtestada filosoofia, teaduse ja kunsti omavahelisi suhteid, mis ei toetu subjektiivsus-objektiivsus eristusele (et teadus on objektiivne ja filosoofia/kunst kalduvad subjektiivsuse poole). Deleuze paneb rõhku hoopis teistele tasanditele, mis lubavad distsipliinidel põimuda, aga siiski on igaühel oma peamine fookus. Ühtlasi on igaüks neist looming: filosoofia loob mõisted, teadus funktsioone ja kunst aistinguid. Ta ei toetu puhtalt filosoofiale, vaid toob sisse teadmisi teadustest, mis küll teeb tema teksti lugemise raskemaks, kuid annab sellele laiema üldistusvõime. Seetõttu pole tema käsitlus maailmast midagi sellist, mida saab rakendada ainult filosoofias, vaid saab laiendada ka mujale, sest selle keskmes on muutuva maailma kontseptsioon. Deleuze’i tekst lõkkab potentsiaalist, nagu Eik Hermann järelsõnas välja toob: mida filosoofia veel võib olla? Mida elu veel võib olla?
December 6, 2023
é isso mesmo
Read
June 19, 2026this book is a really interesting swan song of d&g to thought. situating this book 14 years after ATP (and 22 after AO) gives it even more of it's natural place in what you might expect. they admit right away that the title question can only really be asked in old age: "That point of nonstyle where one can finally say, What is it I have been doing my whole life?"
i only ever really can put a quick note on these here, so what i'll say is that it's quite fascinating that after all of the efforts they make in ATP to reconfigure disciplines (almost quite literally all of them) here, in their own way, they sediment thought back into the three that almost anyone would first think of: philosophy, science, and art. these are all three legitimate 'forms' of thought, and are in fact quite differentiated from each other. there are similar logics to each, if you can say that. throughout the back half of the book, they keep, helpfully, coming back to laying out the tri-fold picture and their component parts which share resemblances but are not the same, while still emphasizing these are *not* a unity. the closest you get it the fact that brain (not the mind!) is the 'junction' of these three.
ugh damn i want to write so much but i just don't have time in the moment lol. what i need to do is put to writing how much their thought as a whole has impacted me, but that's something, just like asking what is philosophy, can perhaps only be posed late in life!
yet another great reading journey with brilliant friends. the lineup this time with elliot, tim, cam, jake, and drew here and there! <3
i only ever really can put a quick note on these here, so what i'll say is that it's quite fascinating that after all of the efforts they make in ATP to reconfigure disciplines (almost quite literally all of them) here, in their own way, they sediment thought back into the three that almost anyone would first think of: philosophy, science, and art. these are all three legitimate 'forms' of thought, and are in fact quite differentiated from each other. there are similar logics to each, if you can say that. throughout the back half of the book, they keep, helpfully, coming back to laying out the tri-fold picture and their component parts which share resemblances but are not the same, while still emphasizing these are *not* a unity. the closest you get it the fact that brain (not the mind!) is the 'junction' of these three.
ugh damn i want to write so much but i just don't have time in the moment lol. what i need to do is put to writing how much their thought as a whole has impacted me, but that's something, just like asking what is philosophy, can perhaps only be posed late in life!
yet another great reading journey with brilliant friends. the lineup this time with elliot, tim, cam, jake, and drew here and there! <3
January 21, 2019
An absolutely incredible text. These two thinkers have been stellar. It is tragic that D&G are resented and despised in the academy. Yes, they are obscure. They have developed new concepts and created a new dimension of thought and discovery. This might sound overly dramatic, but there is deep truth in this work. Reading Deleuze’s other works [on modern philosophy] have helped quite a bit (Spinoza, Leibniz, Bergson, et al). It is easy to dismiss, but when one takes their time, the beauty unfold. Just like Hegel, Kant, Heidegger, and every other thinker who has not just spoken to a time, but catalyzed historical transformation through speaking to a people.
May 3, 2013
Intricate and extremely rich, maybe a wee bit complicated for a rookie philosopher (= me), this book allows to grasp the beauty of Deleuze's complex writing, developing some of the authors' favored themes (the "concept", the "plan d'immanence", and interrelationships between philosophy, science and art).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 200 reviews