Статті в журналах з теми "Deleuze"
Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Deleuze.
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Deleuze".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
1
Junutytė, Laura. "KAI KURIŲ GILLES’IO DELEUZE’O SĄVOKŲ TEORINĖS IŠTAKOS." Problemos 76 (January 1, 2009): 225–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2009.0.1930.
Анотація:
Straipsnyje analizuojama dviejų Deleuze’o tapsmo ontologiją paveikusių klasikinių filosofų – Benedikto Spinozos ir Gottfriedo Leibnizo koncepcijos, ieškant jų įtakos pagrindinėms Deleuze’o sąvokoms. Tyrimo atspirties tašku pasirinkti Deleuze’o veikalai, skirti analizuoti minėtiems autoriams, kuriais remdamasis Deleuze’as kūrė savo autorinę filosofiją. Straipsnyje remiamasi teze, jog Deleuze’o filosofija nesuvokiama be nuorodų į klasikinę filosofiją. Jo sąvokos – senųjų sąvokų keitimo ir atnaujinimo rezultatas. Straipsnio pradžioje nagrinėjama Deleuze’o santykio su klasikiniais autoriais problema: kokios priežastys ir motyvai skatino Deleuze’ą domėtis filosofijos istorija pasirenkant mąstytojus, išvengiančius filosofijos tradicijos? Kokia prieiga prie klasikinių tekstų jam būdinga?Pagrindiniai žodžiai: imanencija, išraiška, būties vienbalsiškumas, klostė, įvykis.The Theoretical Origins of Some Gilles Deleuze’s ConceptsLaura Junutytė SummaryThe article analyzes the conceptions of Benedictus Spinoza and Gotfryd Leibniz, the authors who mostly influenced the ontology of becoming of Gilles Deleuze. The main object of this research is the first Deleuze’s publications about the traditional philosophers who became the basis for creating his original philosophy. The main thesis of this article is that Deleuze’s philosophy is incomprehensible without references to traditional philosophy because his concepts are a result of the transformation of old concepts. In the beginning of the article, the problem of Deleuze’s relationship with classical philosophers is considered: what kind of reasons and motives forced Deleuze to follow the history of philosophy and to choose the authors who avoid the tradition of philosophy? And what method was applied in reading these classical texts?Keywords: immanence, expression, univociy of being, the fold, the event.
2
Bogue, Ronald. "Speranza, the Wandering Island." Deleuze Studies 3, no. 1 (June 2009): 124–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1750224109000518.
Анотація:
Michel Tournier's novel Friday is the subject of an important essay of Deleuze's, in which he presents the concept of the ‘a priori Other’. Alice Jardine and Peter Hallward have offered critiques of Deleuze via readings of this essay, but neither takes into consideration the full significance of Tournier's novel or Deleuze's commentary. Jardine and Hallward provide divergent and only partial perspectives on Deleuze. If there are several Deleuzes, each defined by a critical point of view, there is also a single Deleuzian problem that informs the Tournier essay and Deleuze's thought as a whole.
3
Boundas, Constantin V., Daniel W. Smith, and Ada S. Jaarsma. "Encounters with Deleuze." Symposium 24, no. 1 (2020): 139–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/symposium20202417.
Анотація:
This interview, conducted over the span of several months, tracks the respective journeys of Constantin V. Boundas and Daniel W. Smith with the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. Rather than “becoming Deleuzian,” which is neither desirable nor possible, these exchanges reflect an array of encounters with Deleuze. These include the initial discoveries of Deleuze’s writings by Boundas and Smith, in-person meetings between Boundas and Deleuze, and the wide-ranging and influential philosophical work on Deleuze’s concepts produced by both Boundas and Smith. At stake in this discussion are key contributions by Deleuze to continental philosophy, including the distinction between the virtual and the actual and the very nature of a “concept.” Also at stake is the formative or pedagogical impact of a philosopher, like Deleuze, on those who find and fully engage with his texts, concepts, and project. Cette interview, menée sur plusieurs mois, suit les parcours respectifs de Constantin V. Boundas et Daniel W. Smith avec la philosophie de Gilles Deleuze. Au lieu de « devenir Deleuzien, » ce qui n’est ni souhaitable ni possible, ces échanges reflètent un éventail de rencontres avec Deleuze. Il s’agit notamment des premières découvertes des écrits de Deleuze par Boundas et Smith, des rencontres en personne entre Boundas et Deleuze, et du travail philosophique vaste et inluent sur les concepts de Deleuze produit par Boundas et Smith. L’enjeu ici étant les contributions clés de Deleuze à la philosophie continentale, y compris la distinction entre le virtuel et l’actuel, et la nature même d’un « concept. » Mais il y a aussi l’impact formateur ou pédagogique d’un philosophe, comme Deleuze, sur ceux qui trouvent et s’engagent pleinement dans ses textes, ses concepts et ses projets.
4
Bennett, Michael James. "Deleuze and Heidegger on Truth And Science." Open Philosophy 1, no. 1 (September 14, 2018): 173–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2018-0013.
Анотація:
Abstract Deleuze and Guattari’s manner of distinguishing science from philosophy in their last collaboration What is Philosophy? (1991) seems to imply a hierarchy, according to which philosophy is more adequate to the reality of virtual events than science is. This suggests, in turn, that philosophy has a better claim than science to truth. This paper clarifies Deleuze‘s views about truth throughout his career. Deleuze equivocates over the term, using it in an “originary” and a “derived” sense, probably under the influence of Henri Bergson, who does similarly. Moreover, William James and pragmatism were to Bergson what the early analytic philosophers Frege and Russell are to Deleuze: excessively scientistic foils whose confusions about truth arise as a result of failing to distinguish science from philosophy. By situating Deleuze’s conception of truth in relation to the early Heidegger’s, which it to some extent resembles, the paper concludes by suggesting that, surprisingly, neither kind of truth Deleuze licenses applies to science, while both apply to philosophy. Science is indifferent to truth in the way that some of Deleuze‘s readers have incorrectly wanted to say that he thinks philosophy is.
5
Sanzhenakov, A. A. "Deleuze’s History of Philosophy as Creativity." Siberian Journal of Philosophy 16, no. 3 (2018): 250–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2018-16-3-250-257.
Анотація:
The article is devoted to the attempt to reveal the specific nature of Deleuze’s work on the history of philosophy. For this purpose the author analyzes the historical method of Deleuze from two angles. First, he explores the Deleuzean point of view on the history of philosophy. Second, he presents commentators’ account on the work of Deleuze on the history of philosophy. It is shown that, in the opinion of the French philosopher, the history of philosophy in the ordinary sense is a repressive discipline which needs to be overcome. On the other hand, it is shown that the Deleuzean negative attitude towards the history of philosophy and some philosophers of the past arises from his anti-Platonism and an attempt to build an alternative line of metaphysics. In general, the history, according to Deleuze, should not aim to preserve the past (to be a doxography), but, on the contrary, should provide the conditions for creativity.
6
Baranova, Jūratė. "KANTAS IR DELEUZE’AS: KOKIA YRA GILIAUSIA VAIZDUOTĖS PASLAPTIS?" Problemos 84 (January 1, 2013): 153–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2013.0.1771.
Анотація:
Straipsnyje nagrinėjama Kanto nužymėtos ir Deleuze’o eksperimentiniame mąstyme rekonstruotos vaizduotės kaip vieno iš trijų proto gebėjimų raiškos lauko alternatyvos. Siekiama atsakyti į paties Deleuze’o išsikeltą kantišką klausimą: kokia yra giliausia paslaptis? Aptinkamos kelios atsakymo alternatyvos. Šiame tyrime paaiškėjo, kad Deleuze’o atsakymai į paties išsikeltą klausimą „kokia yra giliausia vaizduotės paslaptis?“ patiria metamorfozes, kurios apsuka ratą. Nuo pradinės pozicijos, kai vaizduotė veikia tik paklusdama intelektui ar protui, ji juda link laisvo trijų nepriklausomų sugebėjimų – intelekto, proto, vaizduotės atitikimo, paskui – link jų nedarnios dermės, jų kovos, kuri skatina kiekvienos naują atsiskleidimą, galiausiai – prie vaizduotės anihiliacijos, kuri leidžia užgimti naujai minčiai, taigi, ratas apsisuka ir grįžtama prie jų dermės naujame lygmenyje, moderuojant filosofiniam skoniui. Tačiau visas šias metaformorfozes jungia viena bendra Kanto suformuluota prielaida: vaizduotė niekada neišvengia triadinės priklausomybės, ji neveikia viena; ji galima tik santykyje su intelektu ir protu, t. y. kitais trimis jai paraleliais ir simultaniškais sugebėjimais.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: Kantas, Deleuze’as, vaizduotėKant and Deleuze: What is the Deepest Secret of Imagination? Jūratė Baranova Abstract The paper discusses the problem of possible philosophical understanding of imagination from the Kantian-Deleuzean point of view. At the begining of his philosophical carreer, one can say, “early Deleuze” in 1963 published the book „Kant’s Critical Philosophy“ (La philosophie critique de Kant). The same year he wrote an essay “The Idea of Genesis in Kant’s Esthetics”. In both texts returning to Kant’s book Critique of Pure Reason, Deleuze notices, that it is widely acknowledged that schematizing is an original and irreducible act of imagination: only imagination can and knows how to schematize. Nevertheless, the imagination does not schematize of its own accord, simply because it is free to do so. It schematizes only for a speculative purpose, in accordance with the determinate concepts of the understanding; when the understanding itself plays the role of legislator. This is why it would be misguided to search the mistery of schematizing for the last word on the imagination in its essence or in its free spontaneity. “Schematizing is indeed a secret, but not the deepest secret of imagination,” – writes Deleuze. Some questions arise at this point. The first one – who speaks here: Kant or Deleuze? The second one – what is this deepest secret of imagination, as an intrigue of this kantian-deleuzean voice? How many possible answers to this question one can discern passing from “early Deleuze” to “late Deleuze”? In this article the author discoved some possible metamorphosis or twists of imagination in the experimental reading of Deleuze. It starts from the submissive position being directed by Understanding or Reason, to the free accord of three independent faculties, towards their discord, even fight, even death of the imagination for the sake of the thought and at least – the whirl closes and comes to the same point but from a different point of view: imagination, together with understanding and reason participate as an integral part of philosophical taste in later Deleuze. But one point united all these different adventures of imagination. Imagination always acts only in relation to the understanding and reason, it never plays free. It could never be able to play alone. Keywords: Kant, Deleuze, imagination.
7
Satoor, Christopher. "‘A Part’ of the World: Deleuze and the Logic of Creation." Deleuze Studies 11, no. 1 (February 2017): 25–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2017.0250.
Анотація:
Is there a particular danger in following Deleuze's philosophy to its end result? According to Peter Hallward, Deleuze's philosophy has some rather severe conclusions. Deleuze has been portrayed by him as a theological and spiritual thinker of life. Hallward seeks to challenge the accepted view of Deleuze, showing that these accepted norms in Deleuzian scholarship should be challenged and that, initially, Deleuze calls for the evacuation of political action in order to remain firm in the realm of pure contemplation. This article intends to investigate and defend Deleuze's philosophy against the critical and theological accounts portrayed by Hallward, arguing that Deleuze's philosophy is not only creative and vital but also highly revolutionary and ‘a part’ of the given world. It then goes on to examine Hallward's distortion of the actual/virtual distinction in Deleuze because Hallward is not able to come to grips with the concept of life in Deleuze's philosophy. We live in an intensive and dynamic world and the main points of Deleuze's philosophy concern the transformation of the world. Deleuze is not seeking to escape the world, but rather to deal with inventive and creative methods to transform society.
8
Luna, Wendyl. "Re-thinking Thought: Foucault, Deleuze, and the Possibility of Thinking." Foucault Studies 1, no. 27 (December 30, 2019): 48–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.22439/fs.v27i27.5891.
Анотація:
This paper examines how Foucault and Deleuze understand each other’s work, arguing that they are united in their common endeavour to make it possible to think again. Focusing on Foucault’s ‘Theatrum Philosophicum’ and Deleuze’s Foucault, it shows how each of Foucault and Deleuze considers the other as someone who opens anew the possibility of thinking. The first section examines Deleuze’s interpretation of Foucault’s work. It demonstrates that, despite sounding as if he is elucidating his own philosophy, Deleuze is correct in saying that Foucault re-thinks thought by positing the disjunction between the articulable and the visible, among other things. Turning to Foucault’s review of Deleuze’s works, the second section explains why Foucault deems Deleuze’s notion of thought as a disjunctive affirmation. By underscoring the disjunctive role ‘and’ plays in the disjunctive affirmation of ‘the event and the phantasm’ and/or of thought itself and its object, Foucault considers Deleuze as someone who re-thinks thought not by conceptualising it but by thinking difference. The paper concludes that, while each endeavours to consider thought in a new light, both Foucault and Deleuze believe that the other makes it possible to think again.
9
Bell, Jeffrey A. "Making Sense of Problems." Journal of Speculative Philosophy 36, no. 2 (July 1, 2022): 244–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.36.2.0244.
Анотація:
ABSTRACT In this article I extend Gilles Deleuze’s understanding of sense, as developed in Logic of Sense, by developing a metaphysics of problems. In doing this, we can appreciate the role Hume’s philosophy plays in Deleuze’s thought, and most importantly how we can understand sense in the context of making sense of life. With this perspective in place, we compare Deleuze’s project with Pierre Bourdieu’s and, finally, apply the notion of making sense to the history of the emergence of capitalism. With this discussion of the history of capitalism, we see how Deleuze draws from both Hume and Marx, or, in short, we sketch a Deleuzo-Humean political theory.
10
Nilsen, Remi. "Om Deleuze uten Deleuze." Agora 23, no. 01-02 (March 18, 2005): 265–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.18261/issn1500-1571-2005-01-02-19.
11
Zepke, Stephen. "‘A work of art does not contain the least bit of information’: Deleuze and Guattari and Contemporary Art." Performance Philosophy 3, no. 3 (December 21, 2017): 751. http://dx.doi.org/10.21476/pp.2017.33145.
Анотація:
Deleuze and Guattari’s rejection of Conceptual art is well known, and sits awkwardly with the current hegemony of ‘post-conceptual’ artistic practices. Equally awkward is Deleuze’s ontological and political dislike of photography, which produces a ‘snapshot’ or representation of becoming, placing cliched images directly into our brains, controlling our actions and reactions by denying us the power to think creatively. In Cinema 2 Deleuze will extend this argument to the new ‘electronic image’, which like Conceptual art turns the plane of composition into a ‘flatbed’ plane or ‘screen’ that simply formats information, and with it our interfaced brains. Today, conceptual practice, photography and digital technologies are all simply taken for granted by contemporary art, which is also happy to use “D&G” as well. But doesn’t Deleuze and Guattari’s thought require a more critical application? Doesn’t it demand a minor war-machine? What would this be in the case of contemporary artistic practice? Amongst various possibilities this paper will explore the sublime ramifications of a Deleuzean image of ‘thought’, and its position as the ‘immanent outside’ of art’s post-conceptual trajectory.
12
Mayell, Charles. "The Rise and Fall of the Simulacrum." Deleuze Studies 8, no. 4 (November 2014): 445–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2014.0165.
Анотація:
Deleuze adopts Nietzsche's manifesto for an overturning of Platonism. However, the consensus view is that Deleuze's project is best understood as a revision not a repudiation of Platonism. Deleuze's engagement with Platonism centres on The Sophist. Out of Plato's concept of phantasm, Deleuze fashions a new concept: simulacrum. In Difference and Repetition, simulacra are invited to rise and affirm their rights; and yet Deleuze later abandons the concept entirely. Why? Although suitable for the purposes of critique, it became otiose in wider applications. More generally, and against the consensus view, I argue that the trajectory of the concept of the simulacrum is emblematic of Deleuze's anti-Platonism.
13
Neapolitanskiy, Maksimilian S. "The Imperishable Kant: Deleuze on the Consistency of the Faculties of Reason." Kantian journal 42, no. 4 (2023): 215–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-11.
Анотація:
The influence of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy on the ideas of Gilles Deleuze was quite substantial. However, analyses of the correlation between the ideas of the two philosophers have not yet received proper research attention, especially in Russian-language literature. To reveal the essence and history of the development of Deleuze’s attitude to Kant, the former’s work, Kant’s Critical Philosophy: The Doctrine of the Faculties (1963), in which the French philosopher aims to find the potential limits of interpretation of Kant’s philosophy. Deleuze appeals to Kant’s study of faculties, in which he finds contradictions and “gaps” that find their solution in the Critique of Judgment. Deleuze refers to the free coherence of the faculties as to “something third”, which gives options for reactualising Kant’s philosophy without striving to overcome it. I also provide a brief history of the issues related to Kantian philosophy, appearing in the works of Deleuze — from a course of lectures on the problem of grounds, given by the young Deleuze at the Lyceum Louis the Great in Paris, to his last article published in his lifetime, “Immanence: A Life”, in which Deleuze brings up the question of the transcendental field. Despite the fact that Kant and Deleuze are more often contrasted than considered as possible allies, and despite the cases of criticisms of Kant by Deleuze, I defend the thesis that their philosophical projects are firmly linked. Considering Kant’s presence in Deleuze’s study, I conclude that Kant’s philosophy has shaped some key aspects of the French philosopher’s thinking — in particular, the concept of “transcendental empiricism” — and also has influenced Deleuze’s ideas about difference, becoming, ground and immanence.
14
Maxwell, Grant. "Differenciating the Depths: A ‘Jungian Turn’ in Deleuze and Guattari Studies." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 17, no. 1 (February 2023): 112–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2023.0504.
Анотація:
Although it is not clear that Deleuze and Guattari were simply and unambiguously Jungians, they extensively engaged with Jung’s depth psychology in both affirmative and critical ways. It is striking that Deleuze expresses a strong affinity between his work and that of Jung in several texts; Jung’s influence on Deleuze has not tended to be emphasised by scholars, though there is a rapidly growing ‘Jungian turn’ in Deleuze and Guattari studies. This article briefly extracts the influence of Jung on Deleuze and Guattari and, more extensively, explores profound resonances between Deleuze's Difference and Repetition and James Hillman's Re-Visioning Psychology.
15
Buchanan Carroll, Lucas. "Deleuze Among the Scotists: Difference-In-Itself and Ultima Differentia." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 16, no. 3 (August 2022): 331–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2022.0482.
Анотація:
This article presents an interpretation of Deleuze’s concept of difference-in-itself. I argue that this is best understood as an ad(o/a)ption of Duns Scotus’s concept of ultimate difference. After suggesting that the influence of Scotus on Deleuze extends beyond their shared commitment to the univocity of being, I turn to briefly review Deleuze’s notion of absolute difference. I proceed from there to explain Scotus’s accounts of univocity and ultimate difference, throughout noting the many stark parallels with Deleuze. On the basis of this Scotistic reading of Deleuzian difference, I then show how Deleuze’s synthesis of univocal being and difference-in-itself can be uniquely situated within the fourteenth-century Scotistic disputations on the predicability of univocal being to ultimate difference. I conclude with some suggestions on possible further connections between Deleuze and medieval metaphysics which are opened up through this association of Deleuze with Scotus and the Scotistic tradition.
16
Ribeiro Guimarães Vinci, Christian Fernando. "Deleuze and philosphy as experimentation." Griot : Revista de Filosofia 24, no. 1 (February 29, 2024): 96–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.31977/grirfi.v24i1.3609.
Анотація:
Retomando o famoso prólogo ao livro Diferença e Repetição, no qual Gilles Deleuze pontua se aproximar o tempo no qual não seria possível escrever um livro de filosofia como outrora, procuraremos pensar a evocação deleuziana da necessidade de adotarmos um novo tom e novas regras para o exercício filosófico. Acreditamos que retomar esse apelo do filósofo nos lançaria no coração da concepção deleuziana e deleuzo-guattariana da filosofia como um exercício de experimentação. A fim de perseguir quais tons e regras estariam no horizonte do filósofo francês, buscaremos nos aprofundar nas analogias experimentadas por Deleuze em seu prólogo, ao sugerir que um tratado filosófico deveria soar tanto como uma espécie de romance policial quanto como uma ficção científica. Esse excurso, defendemos, não apenas nos auxiliaria na compreensão deleuziana e deleuzo-guattariana da filosofia como experimentação, como também possibilitaria rascunhar algumas pistas sobre o papel da história da filosofia no coração dessa concepção outra apresentada por Deleuze.
17
Medien, Kathryn. "Palestine in Deleuze." Theory, Culture & Society 36, no. 5 (January 12, 2019): 49–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276418816369.
Анотація:
In the late 1970s and early 1980s French philosopher Gilles Deleuze authored a series of articles in which he reflected on the formation of the state of Israel and its subsequent dispossession and colonisation of Palestine and the Palestinian people. Naming the state of Israel as a colonial state, Deleuze’s under-discussed texts connect Israel’s programme of colonisation to that of the United States and the persisting dispossession of indigenous peoples. In so doing, this article argues, Deleuze offers an analysis of the development of capitalism that takes seriously its relation to colonial violence. Having called attention to Deleuze’s writings on Palestine, the conclusion of this article asks why these texts have been marginalised by Deleuze scholars. It asks how we might think of this marginalisation as contributing to the subjugation of Palestinian life, and as indicative of how relations of colonialism structure western social theory.
18
Dillet, Benoît. "What Is Called Thinking?: When Deleuze Walks Along Heideggerian Paths." Deleuze Studies 7, no. 2 (May 2013): 250–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2013.0105.
Анотація:
When on the last page of What Is Philosophy?, Deleuze and Guattari (1995: 218) claim that philosophy needs a non-philosophy, this statement is the result of a long engagement with the problem of thinking in society. It is this engagement that we intend to reconstruct in this article. By developing an original definition of thinking after Heidegger, Deleuze is able to claim that philosophy is not the only ‘thinking’ discipline. Our point of departure is Deleuze's constant reference to a phrase from Heidegger's lecture course What Is Called Thinking?: ‘We are not yet thinking’ ( Deleuze 1988 : 116, 1989: 167, 1994: 144, 2002: 108; Deleuze and Guattari 1995: 56). This phrase points to the demand for a new distribution of the relation between philosophy and its outside. The purpose of this article is to trace Heidegger's influence on Deleuze's definition of thinking and to raise two points. First, Deleuze borrows some elements of Heidegger's definition of thinking to further his own understanding of politics as an involuntary practice. For both, the question of thinking is political. Second, by departing from Heidegger, Deleuze can democratise the definition of thinking, beyond its confinement to philosophy, by turning to cinema. Deleuze calls cinema the art of the masses because it brings the masses in contact with external signs. Finally, in the last part of this article, we will discuss how Deleuze raises stupidity (and not error) as a transcendental problem that should be constantly fought. In this way, we hope to shed light on how Deleuze moves from Heidegger's question ‘what is called thinking?’ to the problem of stupidity and shame.
19
Kearnes, Matthew. "Chaos and Control: Nanotechnology and the Politics of Emergence." Paragraph 29, no. 2 (July 2006): 57–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/prg.2006.0014.
Анотація:
This article looks at the strong links between Deleuze's molecular ontology and the fields of complexity and emergence, and argues that Deleuze's work implies a ‘philosophy of technology’ that is both open and dynamic. Following Simondon and von Uexküll, Deleuze suggests that technical objects are ontologically unstable, and are produced by processes of individuation and self-organization in complex relations with their environment. For Deleuze design is not imposed from without, but emerges from within matter. The fundamental departure for Deleuze, on the basis of such an ontology, is to conceive of modes of relating to the evolution of technology. In this way Deleuze, along with Guattari, provides the basis for an ethics and a politics of becoming and emergent control that constitutes an alternative to the hubris of contemporary reductionist accounts of new areas such as nanotechnology.
20
Žukauskaitė, Audronė. "SOCIALINIŲ INSTITUCIJŲ KRITIKA GILL ES’IO DELEUZE’O IR FELIXO GUATTARI FILOSOFIJOJE." Problemos 76 (January 1, 2009): 39–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2009.0.1944.
Анотація:
Straipsnyje analizuojama socialinių institucijų kritika, išplėtota Deleuze’o ir Guattari knygose Anti-Oidipas ir Tūkstantis plokštikalnių bei trumpame, bet reikšmingame Deleuze’o tekste „Prierašas apie kontrolės visuomenę“. Deleuze’as ir Guattari kuria mašininę visuomenės sampratą: jų teigimu, skirtingas socialines ir ekonomines formacijas įmanoma įsivaizduoti kaip virtualias mašinas, kurios gali aktualizuotis bet kuriuo istoriniu momentu. Analizuodami valstybės aparatą, Deleuze’as ir Guattari vengia nuorodų į konkrečias valstybes; veikiau jie kalba apie universalią valstybę-formą, kuri veikia kaip užgrobimo aparatas. Valstybė-forma suvokiama kaip suvienodinantis ir standartizuojantis principas, o karo mašina, priešingai, siekia sulaužyti sustingusias formas ir kurti inovacijas. Šie du agregatai – valstybės aparatas ir karo mašina – apibūdina ne tik valstybę ir jai besipriešinančias jėgas, bet persmelkia visas žmogaus veiklos sferas: mokslą, filosofiją, meną. Deleuze’o ir Guattari formuluojama valstybės aparato kritika artima Michelio Foucault disciplinos visuomenės teorijai. Foucault galios samprata taip pat yra mechanicistinė: galia persmelkia sociumą įsikūnydama disciplininiuose aparatuose. Deleuze’as disciplinos visuomenės teorijai priešpriešina savąją kontrolės visuomenės sampratą: priešingai nei disciplininė galia, kuri buvo ilgalaikė, visa apimanti, tačiau netolydi, kontrolė sukuria tolydų ir nuolat kintantį galios tinklą, kuris apraizgo visas žmogaus veiklos sferas.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: socialinės mašinos, valstybės aparatas, karo mašina, disciplinos visuomenė, kontrolės visuomenė.Critique of Social Institutions in Gilles Deleuze’s and Felix Guattari’s PhilosophyAudronė Žukauskaitė SummaryThe article discusses Deleuze’s and Guattari’s notions of society and state. In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari analyze the territorial, despotic and capitalist machines which are seen not as different stages of historical evolution but as different types of an abstract machine. In A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari develop the mechanistic notion of the state: the state – form is an abstract machine or a diagram which can be actualized in different historical state forms. The state – form is juxtaposed to another type of assemblage called the nomadic war machine. If the state-form functions as a principle of unification and standardization, the war machine is seen as a principle of metamorphic transformations and innovations. Deleuze and Guattari’s theories of society and state are compared with Michel Foucault’s mechanistic notion of society. Deleuze contrasts his notion of control society to the notion of discipline society by Foucault. If the mechanisms of discipline are discontinuous and function in precise space areas, the mechanisms of control produce continuous and all-encompassing networks which totally merge with our corporeal existence.Keywords: social machines, state apparatus, war machine, discipline society, control society.
21
Williams, James. "Science and Dialectics in the Philosophies of Deleuze, Bachelard and DeLanda." Paragraph 29, no. 2 (July 2006): 98–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/prg.2006.0019.
Анотація:
This article charts differences between Gilles Deleuze's and Gaston Bachelard's philosophies of science in order to reflect on different readings of the role of science in Deleuze's philosophy, in particular in relation to Manuel DeLanda's interpretation of Deleuze's work. The questions considered are: Why do Gilles Deleuze and Gaston Bachelard develop radically different philosophical dialectics in relation to science? What is the significance of this difference for current approaches to Deleuze and science, most notably as developed by Manuel DeLanda? It is argued that, despite its great explanatory power, DeLanda's association of Deleuze with a particular set of contemporary scientific theories does not allow for the ontological openness and for the metaphysical sources of Deleuze's work. The argument turns on whether terms such as ‘intensity’ can be given predominantly scientific definitions or whether metaphysical definitions are more consistent with a sceptical relation of philosophy to contemporary science.
22
Saldanha, Arun, and Hannah Stark. "A New Earth: Deleuze and Guattari in the Anthropocene." Deleuze Studies 10, no. 4 (November 2016): 427–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2016.0237.
Анотація:
Twenty years after his death, Deleuze's thought continues to be mobilised in relation to the most timely and critical problems society faces, foremost amongst which is the Anthropocene. What might the significance of Deleuze and Guattari be in relation to the new and urgent set of concerns that the Anthropocene engenders? Deleuze's work presaged much of the concept of the Anthropocene, not only in his sustained challenges to humanism, anthropocentrism and capitalism, but also through his interest in geology and the philosophy of time. Guattari gave his work an ‘ecosophical’ and ‘cartographical’ dimension and spoke of a ‘mechanosphere’ covering the planet. Together, Deleuze and Guattari advocated a ‘geophilosophy’ which called for a ‘new earth’ along with ‘new peoples’. Not only does the work of Deleuze and Guattari offer a range of useful concepts that can be applied to contemporary global problems such as anthropogenic climate change, peak oil and the exploitation of the nonhuman, but it also models the kind of interdisciplinarity that the epoch of the Anthropocene requires. This special issue of Deleuze Studies engages the many philosophical tools provided by Deleuze and Guattari and their interlocutors in order to critically approach our particularly tense moment in terrestrial history. Simultaneously, it asks how this moment could change the ways in which Deleuze and Guattari are further developed.
23
Evans, Fred. "Deleuze, Bakhtin, and the ‘Clamour of Voices’." Deleuze Studies 2, no. 2 (December 2008): 178–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1750224108000275.
Анотація:
This paper pursues two goals. The first concerns clarifying the relationship between Deleuze and the Russian linguist and culturologist, Mikhail Bakhtin. Not only does Deleuze refer to Bakhtin as a primary source for his emphasis on voice and indirect discourse, both thinkers valorise heterogeneity and creativity. I argue Deleuze's notions of ‘deterritorialisation’ and ‘reterritorialisation’ parallel Bakhtin's idea of ‘heteroglossia’ and ‘monoglossia’. Clarifying the relationship between Deleuze and Bakhtin leads directly to the second of my two other goals. I will argue that an important difference in their characterisation of voice reveals a strong point in Deleuze's philosophy, one related to the political sphere. At the same time, however, Deleuze's particular way of articulating this point conceals a weakness, one related to the idea of the subject. I will conclude my paper by suggesting a way to address this weakness.
24
Choat, Simon. "Deleuze, Marx and the Politicisation of Philosophy." Deleuze Studies 3, Suppl (December 2009): 8–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1750224109000695.
Анотація:
Against those who wish to marginalise Deleuze's political relevance, this paper argues that his work – including and especially that produced before his collaborations with Guattari – is not only fundamentally political but also profoundly engaged with Marx. The paper begins by focusing on different possible strategies for contesting the claim that Deleuze is apolitical, attempting to debunk this claim by briefly considering Deleuze's work with Guattari. The bulk of the paper is concerned with a close examination of the appearance of Marx in both Nietzsche and Philosophy and Difference and Repetition, establishing that the ‘pre-Guattari’ Deleuze was fully engaged with both politics and Marx and demonstrating that the concepts and arguments of the Marxist politics of the Deleuze–Guattari books can be traced back to Deleuze's own work. It is argued that an analysis of Deleuze's work on Marx is significant not only for deepening our understanding of Marx, but also for understanding the possibilities for Deleuzian politics.
25
Faucher, Kane X. "Critical Forces: True Critique or Mere Criticism of Deleuze contra Hegel?" Deleuze Studies 4, no. 3 (November 2010): 329–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2010.0103.
Анотація:
The principal concern of this paper is to track the first wave of criticism directed against Deleuze's relation to Hegelianism as it has appeared in the English-speaking world. To this end, we assess the criticisms offered by Stephen Houlgate, Judith Butler, and Catherine Malabou, each of whom, in their respective ways, accuse Deleuze of misreading Hegel, claiming that his rejection of Hegelianism merely reinforces a secret or unacknowledged Hegelianism inherent in his own critique. Despite the brisk treatment Houlgate grants Deleuze, his charges are by far the most serious, and hence it is to these that much of the discussion is dedicated; but the aim is to show how each of these claims concerning Deleuze's misreading of Hegel themselves involve a misreading of Deleuze.
26
Reynolds, Jack. "Transcendental Priority and Deleuzian Normativity. A Reply to James Williams." Deleuze Studies 2, no. 1 (June 2008): 101–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1750224108000184.
Анотація:
I am grateful that someone whose work I greatly admire could be the philosopher to so eloquently and succinctly cut to the heart of the problem that I posed in the previous issue of Deleuze Studies. James Williams' critical reply leaves me, prima facie, confronted by a stark alternative: either I have misunderstood Deleuze, or I have illustrated problems and lacunae in Deleuze. I will suggest, however, that this is a false alternative, and that Williams' and my divergent accounts of The Logic of Sense – and even Deleuze's oeuvre as a whole – is better understood as a situation of ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or’, and hence that my interpretation of Deleuze isn't wrong, but necessarily iconoclastic.
27
Rojas, Cristóbal Durán. "The Contiguity of the Continuum: A Kafkian Leibniz." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 18, no. 1 (February 2024): 60–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2024.0542.
Анотація:
Deleuze’s philosophy is permeated with the problem of the continuum. The idea that the coexistence of durations is implied in the concept of duration itself allows Deleuze to offer a fresh perspective on multiplicity, which is distinct from Bergson’s approach, and which proposes new perspectives on the continuum. While Deleuze critiques Leibniz’s view on this concept by highlighting the non-uniform nature of the continuum, the infinitesimal still plays a significant role in his analysis. However, in his late reading of Leibniz, Deleuze emphasises that folds, rather than infinitesimals, should be considered as the smallest components of the continuum’s labyrinth. This implies that there is a union of indiscernible cuts in the continuity, cuts that do not create gaps or breaks in the overall coherence, but rather a labyrinth. I will show how, in exploring this problem, Deleuze and Guattari draw inspiration from Kafka, in order to relate continuity to contiguity. This relation reveals an internal difference that defines the distinction between what is continuous and what is contiguous. This, in our view, marks a considerable shift between Deleuze’s early reading of Bergson and his late reading of Leibniz, and it allows Deleuze to further develop his idea of the continuum.
28
Widder, Nathan. "The Mathematics of Continuous Multiplicities: The Role of Riemann in Deleuze's Reading of Bergson." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 13, no. 3 (August 2019): 331–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2019.0361.
Анотація:
A central claim of Deleuze's reading of Bergson is that Bergson's distinction between space as an extensive multiplicity and duration as an intensive multiplicity is inspired by the distinction between discrete and continuous manifolds found in Bernhard Riemann's 1854 thesis on the foundations of geometry. Yet there is no evidence from Bergson that Riemann influences his division, and the distinction between the discrete and continuous is hardly a Riemannian invention. Claiming Riemann's influence, however, allows Deleuze to argue that quantity, in the form of ‘virtual number’, still pertains to continuous multiplicities. This not only supports Deleuze's attempt to redeem Bergson's argument against Einstein in Duration and Simultaneity, but also allows Deleuze to position Bergson against Hegelian dialectics. The use of Riemann is thereby an important element of the incorporation of Bergson into Deleuze's larger early project of developing an anti-Hegelian philosophy of difference. This article first reviews the role of discrete and continuous multiplicities or manifolds in Riemann's Habilitationsschrift, and how Riemann uses them to establish the foundations of an intrinsic geometry. It then outlines how Deleuze reinterprets Riemann's thesis to make it a credible resource for Deleuze's Bergsonism. Finally, it explores the limits of this move, and how Deleuze's later move away from Bergson turns on the rejection of an assumption of Riemann's thesis, that of ‘flatness in smallest parts’, which Deleuze challenges with the idea, taken from Riemann's contemporary, Richard Dedekind, of the irrational cut.
29
Bennett, Michael James. "Deleuze and Epicurean Philosophy: Atomic Speed and Swerve Speed." Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy 21, no. 2 (December 11, 2013): 131–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jffp.2013.599.
Анотація:
This paper reconstructs Gilles Deleuze’s interpretation of Epicurean atomism, and explicates his claim that it represents a problematic idea, similar to the idea exemplified in early, “barbaric” accounts of the differential calculus. Deleuzian problematic ideas are characterized by a mechanism through whose activity the components of the idea become determinate in relating reciprocally to one another, rather than in being determined exclusively in relation to an extrinsic paradigm or framework. In Epicurean atomism, as Deleuze reads it, such a mechanism of determination can be found in the famous atomic “swerve”. It is necessary to bear this interpretation of Epicurean atomism in mind when understanding Deleuze and Guattari’s promulgation of a new image of thought in What is Philosophy?, which has an explicitly Epicurean inspiration. The paper argues that this inspiration is particularly evident to the extent that Deleuze and Guattari identify the sub-representative feature that lies at the heart of their new image of thought with “chaos”, defined as “infinite speed”. I claim that infinite speed, this otherwise puzzling feature of What is Philosophy?, ought to be understood in the light of Deleuze’s interpretation of Epicurus. Moreover, the Epicurean distinctions between different speeds must be read together with Deleuze’s appropriation of the metaphysics of the ancient Stoics, who, although widely recognized as Deleuze’s Hellenistic counterparts, lack important theoretical resources that the Epicureans provide for Deleuze.
30
Smith, Daniel W. "Deleuze." Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry 5, no. 11 (2010): 57–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/jphilnepal20105116.
31
Broggi, Paride. "Deleuze." Chiasmi International 11 (2009): 495–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/chiasmi20091194.
32
Dosse, François. "Deleuze." Sciences Humaines Les Essentiels, HS15 (August 24, 2023): 118–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/sh.hs15.0118.
33
O'Sullivan, Simon. "From Stuttering and Stammering to the Diagram: Deleuze, Bacon and Contemporary Art Practice." Deleuze Studies 3, no. 2 (December 2009): 247–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e1750224109000622.
Анотація:
This article attends to Deleuze and Guattari's idea of a ‘minor literature’ as well as to Deleuze's concepts of the figural, probe-heads and the diagram in relation to Bacon's paintings. The paper asks specifically what might be usefully taken from this Deleuze–Bacon encounter for the expanded field of contemporary art practice.
34
Mader, Mary Beth. "Philosophical and Scientific Intensity in the Thought of Gilles Deleuze." Deleuze Studies 11, no. 2 (May 2017): 259–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2017.0265.
Анотація:
The physical sciences include highly developed fields that investigate intensities in the form of intensive quantities like speeds, temperatures, pressures and altitudes. Some contemporary readers of Deleuze interested in the physical sciences at times attribute to Deleuze a common, contemporary scientific concept of intensive magnitude. These readings identify Deleuze's philosophical conception of intensity with an existing scientific conception of intensity. The essay argues that Deleuze does not in fact lift a conception of intensity from the physical sciences to embed it as the fundamental term in his differential ontology.
35
Lundy, Craig. "Emerging from the Depths: On the Intensive Creativity of Historical Events." Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy 18, no. 1 (January 26, 2010): 67–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jffp.2010.171.
Анотація:
This paper will explore the possibility of a creative philosophy of history in the work of Gilles Deleuze. It will do so by focusing on Deleuze’s concepts of ‘intensity’ and ‘depth’, as discussed in his seminal work Difference and Repetition. By analysing these concepts in light of several historical thinkers whom Deleuze significantly draws upon (Bergson, Péguy and Braudel), I will show in this paper how Deleuze promotes a theory of history that is not opposed to his philosophy of becoming and creativity, but in concert with it.
36
Pakzad, Zahra. "Gilles Deleuze’s Point of View for Biographical Trends of Frances Bacon’s Ideas." Asian Social Science 12, no. 3 (February 23, 2016): 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n3p50.
Анотація:
<p>Francis Bacon as a precursor of modern painting, in addition to reputation in the fields of visual arts, has attracted the attention of many philosophers and scholars of the twentieth century due to its creative and controversial works. One of these philosophers is Gilles Deleuze. Gilles Deleuze is written numerous works in various fields ranging from photography and cinema to the history of philosophy. In a book entitled “Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sense”, Deleuze presented a new understanding of the concepts contained and hidden in Bacon’s paintings of Bacon. Seeking to explore Bacon’s position in painting and also Deleuze’s position in the philosophy, the current study intends to analyze Deleuze philosophical interpretation of the works of Bacon.</p>
37
Campbell, Iain. "Beyond the ‘Last Phenomenology’: Rhythmic Modulations in Gilles Deleuze’s The Logic of Sensation." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 17, no. 3 (August 2023): 301–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2023.0520.
Анотація:
This article reconstructs Gilles Deleuze’s engagement with phenomenology, and with the phenomenological problematic of sensation, in his Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. Considering Deleuze’s adoption, from the phenomenology of art, of notions of sensation and rhythm, it examines how Deleuze complexifies these phenomenological notions by aligning them with his profoundly non-phenomenological notion of the body without organs, as well as with the concepts of modulation and the diagram. In mapping Deleuze’s complexification of rhythm and his development of a logic of rhythmic modulation, this article shows how Deleuze immanently refines an approach to working beyond phenomenology, through phenomenology.
38
Orlandi, Luiz B. L. "QUE SE PASSA ENTRE ENSINAR E APRENDER?" APRENDER - Caderno de Filosofia e Psicologia da Educação, no. 25 (October 20, 2021): 12–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.22481/aprender.i25.9637.
Анотація:
O presente artigo tem como propósito um convite para pensar o que se passa entre ensinar e aprender em Deleuze e Guattari. Para tanto, parte da ideia de que não se trata de explicar Deleuze, e nem de tomá-lo como critério, mas de ver o transdiferencialismo deleuzo-guattariano como a mais forte inspiração contemporânea a respeito da problemática das conexões verbais em filosofia. Isso é claro para nós, pois não há linhas de fuga sem fugir pelos verbos.
39
Dawkins, Roger. "From the perspective of the object in semiotics: Deleuze and Peirce." Semiotica 2020, no. 233 (March 26, 2020): 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0154.
Анотація:
AbstractFrom Peirce, a sign represents something other than itself, an object, for some third; from Deleuze, a sign can create and erase an object, for some third. He makes this claim in the cinema books, without detailed explication. It is a fleeting reference to the Peircean triad developed in his semiotics; moreover, references to “objects” in Deleuze’s discussions of signs in his other work are often generic. In this essay, I explain what it means in Deleuze’s semiotics for a sign to create and erase its object. My method is to use the perspective of the object in the semiotic triad to compare Deleuze and Peirce’s semiotics. Deleuze’s sign that creates and erases its object marks a clear departure from Peirce’s semiotics. For Deleuze, like Peirce, an acquaintance with the object independent of the action of the sign is necessary for semiotics. Of most significance is that for Peirce, thinking with signs necessarily involves modifying prior knowledge of the object – meaning one’s conception of the object is a version of what was already known; while for Deleuze, thinking with signs can involve producing ideas at a second remove from the object – in turn, creating and erasing new object(s). Ultimately, this essay contributes to research on Deleuze’s cinema books by undertaking a detailed reading of a part of his discussion that has not been analyzed. Furthermore, in producing Deleuze’s concept of a sign that creates and erases its object, this essay reminds us how we think – and could think – with signs, reaffirming the importance of semiotic analysis for discussion about thinking with signs. Finally, this essay contributes to scholarship on Deleuze’s and Peirce’s semiotics.
40
Eckstrand, Nathan. "Deleuze, Darwin and the Categorisation of Life." Deleuze Studies 8, no. 4 (November 2014): 415–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2014.0164.
Анотація:
I begin with Deleuze's criticism of the Darwinian concept of difference as leading to the inaccurate assumption that difference occurs within individuals and species. Deleuze radicalises Darwin's theory by disrupting the ontological stability of species and extant individualities. I examine how Deleuze's project relates to punctuated equilibrium and the discovery of the amount of variation within the human genome, showing that these recent developments make Deleuze's critique less applicable by showing that Darwinian classification schemes should include a greater openness to difference. A complete alignment between evolutionary biology and Deleuze may be impossible given the limitations of evolutionary biology, but evolutionary biology can rethink the ontological permanence it gives to species and individuals.
41
Jampol-Petzinger, Andrew. "Faith and Repetition in Kierkegaard and Deleuze." Philosophy Today 63, no. 2 (2019): 383–401. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtoday2019812274.
Анотація:
In this paper, I compare Gilles Deleuze’s and Søren Kierkegaard’s concepts of “repetition.” Although Deleuze (and interpreters after him) have argued that Kierkegaard’s use of this concept valorizes the role of unity in selfhood, I claim that, in Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous works, repetition in fact serves as a practical task linked to self-overcoming and rebirth. From this perspective, I argue that Kierkegaard’s conception of repetition as a function of “faith” can helpfully inform an understanding of Deleuze: self-overcoming in Deleuze will have many features in common with a Kierkegaardian conception of acting out of faith.
42
Rushton, Richard. "Passions and Actions: Deleuze's Cinematographic Cogito." Deleuze Studies 2, no. 2 (December 2008): 121–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/e175022410800024x.
Анотація:
When writing about cinema does Deleuze have a conception of cinema spectatorship? In New Philosophy for New Media, Mark Hansen argues that Deleuze does have a conception of cinema spectatorship but that the subjectivity central to that spectatorship is weak and impoverished. This article argues against Hansen's reductive interpretation of Deleuze. In doing so, it relies on the three syntheses of time developed in Difference and Repetition alongside an elaboration of Deleuze's notion of a ‘cinematographic Cogito’. In this way, the article offers a way of understanding the processes of cinema spectatorship from a Deleuzian perspective.
43
Rebello Cardoso Jr, Helio. "Peirce’s resonances on Deleuze’s concept of sign: Triadic relations, habit and relation as semiotic features." Semiotica 2018, no. 224 (September 25, 2018): 165–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0212.
Анотація:
AbstractThis article inspects Peirce’s resonances on Deleuze’s semiotic. Whereas most of the literature agrees that Deleuze adapts Peirce’s semiotic to serve his Bergsonian-based theory of sign, this article claims that the relationship of Deleuze with Peirce’s writings is more foliated than it may appear at first. The development of this hypothesis invites to trace back Deleuze’s works before his very acquaintance with Peirce in the 1980s. Therefore, one of Peirce’s classical issues – the role that relations and habits play for the triadic conception of sign – is considered with Deleuze’s early studies, in which he developed this same issue as to approach Hume (habit and relation, 1953) and Proust (triadic sign, 1964). This background echoes years later in Deleuze’s incursion to Peirce’s semiotic in the 1980s ninety-two classes and two books on cinema. In fact, Deleuze’s own triadic conception of sign and his acknowledged pragmatist inclination prove to be closer to Peirce’s pragmatism than the scholarly literature tends to think or argue. The aim of this article is not, however, to build an overwhelming philosophical identity between Deleuze and Peirce, it sets up instead a steadier basis from where to understand their differences. Deleuze’s ignored five-year long lectures on cinema shows to be exegetically revealing with respect to his debts towards Peirce.
44
Bell, Jeffrey. "Between Realism and Anti-realism: Deleuze and the Spinozist Tradition in Philosophy." Deleuze Studies 5, no. 1 (March 2011): 1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2011.0002.
Анотація:
In 1967, after a talk Deleuze gave to the Society of French Philosophy, Ferdinand Alquié expressed concern during the question and answer session that perhaps Deleuze was relying too heavily upon science and not giving adequate attention to questions and problems that Alquié took to be distinctively philosophical. Deleuze responded by agreeing with Alquié; moreover, he argued that his primary interest was precisely in the metaphysics science needs rather than in the science philosophy needs. This metaphysics, Deleuze argues, is to be done ‘in the style of Whitehead’ rather than the style of Kant, and in developing this metaphysics Deleuze draws heavily on Spinoza. The present essay examines this Deleuzian-Spinozist metaphysics done in the style of Whitehead, the ‘metaphysics science needs’, drawing on the writings of David Hume and Bruno Latour in the process. This discussion will in turn enable us to situate Deleuze's metaphysics in relation to contemporary debates concerning speculative realism and correlationism, and especially Quentin Meillassoux's critique of the latter. Our conclusion will be that the kind of metaphysics Deleuze pursues is neither correlationist nor straightforwardly realist, but rather charts a course between realism and anti-realism.
45
Wasser, Audrey. "How Do We Recognise Problems?" Deleuze Studies 11, no. 1 (February 2017): 48–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2017.0251.
Анотація:
This article approaches Gilles Deleuze's notion of problems through a series of thinkers Deleuze draws on in developing this notion: Heidegger, Plato, Kant, Bergson and Nietzsche. Taking these thinkers as its guide, it sketches six broad characteristics that accompany an investment in problems, ultimately arguing that problems are attained through the activity of critique. It echoes Deleuze's essay ‘How Do We Recognise Structuralism?’ by asking: for whom do problems exist? What does Deleuze recognise in those who recognise problems? And what do those who recognise problems make visible for us?
46
Letteri, Richard. "Becoming Giuliana: Antonioni'sRed Desertand the Capitalist Social Machine." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 15, no. 1 (February 2021): 91–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2021.0423.
Анотація:
This essay employs Deleuze and Guattari's analysis of the capitalist social machine to explore Michelangelo Antonioni's Red Desert (1964). More specifically, it addresses the psychological struggles of the film's female protagonist, Giuliana, with respect to duelling forces of capitalist deterritorialisation and Oedipal reterritorialisation. The essay also brings together Deleuze's cinema works with his and Guattari's schizoanalysis to show how Antonioni's use of the time-image itself functions as a deterritorialising force, particularly with respect to the film's pivotal island fantasy scene, where, if only momentarily, Giuliana engages in the Deleuzean act of becoming.
47
de Vet, Tessa. "Can We ‘Crown’ Anarchy? A Critical Approach to Deleuze’s An-archic Notion of Difference." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 18, no. 1 (February 2024): 81–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2024.0543.
Анотація:
The aim of this paper is to problematise the idea of Deleuze as an anarchic thinker on the ground of his metaphysics. Focusing on his early work, it investigates the notion of ‘crowned anarchy’ that Deleuze borrows from Antonin Artaud and which he uses to describe his conceptualisation of the univocity of being. While this notion has recently been used as a catchphrase in post-anarchist writings, it has received little to no critical investigation. The first section of the paper investigates the relation between ontological anarchy and difference for Deleuze. The second part aims to show the problems surrounding a coronation of anarchy, and goes back to Artaud’s Heliogabalus, or The Anarchist Crowned (1934). The third section problematises the anarchist status of Deleuze’s ontology by arguing that the idea of difference serves as the principle of sufficient reason. With this, I argue that Deleuze does not leave the archic paradigm of philosophy – which should make us reconsider describing his ontology as anarchist. The final part concludes with the underlying problem, the relation between metaphysics and politics, and offers a suggestion for the useability of Deleuze’s (and Guattari’s) work for the projects of anarchism today.
48
Novak, Kyle. "We Still Do Not Know What a Body Can Do." Symposium 25, no. 2 (2021): 75–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/symposium202125217.
Анотація:
Throughout much of his career, Deleuze repeats a problem he attributes to Spinoza: “we do not even know what a body can do.” The problem is closely associated with Deleuze’s parallelist reading of Spinoza and what he calls ethology. In this article, I argue that Deleuze takes ethology to be a new model for philosophy which he intends to replace ontology. I ground my claim in Deleuze’s sugges-tion that Spinoza offers philosophers the means of “thinking with AND” rather than “thinking for IS.” The argument is developed through Deleuze’s monographs and collaborations on Spinoza and alongside his meta-philosophical critique of the Image of Thought.
49
Žukauskaitė, Audronė. "GILLES’IO DELEUZE’O IR FELIXO GUATTARI MIKROPOLITIKA ŠIUOLAIKINĖS FILOSOFIJOS KONTEKSTE." Problemos 75 (January 1, 2009): 34–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2009.0.1978.
Анотація:
Straipsnyje analizuojama Gilles’io Deleuze’o ir Felixo Guattari kuriama mikropolitikos samprata, kuri priešpriešinama makropolitikai, veikiančiai pripažintų politinių teorijų ir apibrėžtų tapatybių lygmenyje. Mikropolitikos projektas siejamas su tapsmo mažuma, mažosios literatūros, mažosios politikos sampratomis, kurios nukreiptos ne į tapatybės kūrimą, bet į tapsmo procesą, inovaciją, eksperimentą. Deleuze’as ir Guattari teigia, jog tapsmas mažuma yra universalus procesas, kurio tikslas – kiekvieno individo autonomija. Deleuze‘o ir Guattari universalaus tapsmo koncepcija priešpriešinama Alaino Badiou kuriamai karingojo universalizmo sampratai. Badiou postuluojamas universalizmas iš pirmo žvilgsnio yra panašus į Deleuze’o ir Guattari siūlomos tapsmo teorijos universalumą, tačiau abiejų teorijų turinys radikaliai skiriasi. Deleuze’ui ir Guattari pats tapsmas mažuma yra universalus procesas; Badiou, priešingai, mažumas ir skirtumus pasitelkia tam, kad juos redukuotų į lygybę ir vienodumą. Badiou siekia panaikinti skirtumus dėl universalizmo, kuris pasiekiamas per tiesos įvykį, bendrą visiems ir kiekvienam.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: mikropolitika, mažoji literatūra, tapsmas mažuma, paskirybė, universalizmas.Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s Micropolitics in the Context of Contemporary PhilosophyAudronė Žukauskaitė SummaryThe article discusses Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of micropolitics in relation with the notions of minor literature and becoming-minoritarian. The concept of minor literature appears in Deleuze and Guattari’s Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature and is defined by three characteristics: 1) the deterritorialization of language; 2) the connection of the individual to a political immediacy; 3) the collective assemblage of enunciation. The notion of minor literature is closely related with the notion of becoming-minoritarian developed in A Thousand Plateaus. Deleuze and Guattari claim that becoming-minoritarian is the universal figure of consciousness. In this sense, any kind of becoming is a revolutionary act, because it changes the political constellation of power and enables the repressed to reach an autonomous condition. The concept of becoming-minoritarian is introduced to the contemporary political context through the notion of minor politics, discussed by Nicholas Thoburn. Minor politics is seen not as a fetishization of marginal identity but rather as a possibility to legitimize the existence of those who lack any social identity. In this sense, the notions of becoming-minoritarian and minor politics are contrasted with Alain Badiou’s claim to universality: the question is raised as to whether becoming-minoritarian should necessarily end in autonomy, as Deleuze and Guattari argue, or, by contrast, whether it should seek to universalize the minor and in this way raise the claim for universal justice.Keywords: micropolitics, minor literature, becoming-minoritiarian, the particular, universalism.
50
Whitlock, Matthew G. "The Wrong Side Out With(out) God: An Autopsy of the Body Without Organs." Deleuze and Guattari Studies 14, no. 3 (August 2020): 507–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2020.0414.
Анотація:
While the Deleuzo-Guattarian concept of ‘body without organs’ (BwO) is developed alongside their critique of Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, it is also developed alongside their critique of Christianity, most poignantly in the sixth plateau of A Thousand Plateaus. Here Deleuze and Guattari quote Antonin Artaud in order to show how ‘the judgment of God weighs upon and is exercised against the BwO’. In order to understand this relationship between judgement of God and the BwO, this essay explores Deleuze's critiques of Christianity in his earlier works and concludes that the BwO, much like Artaud's own poetry, is developed in contrast to an internalised form of Christianity.