What does /lit/ think of Deleuze?
I have been working through his corpus and think that, like Nietzsche, it is going to take quite some time for society to catch up to his work.
I'm not well-versed enough to really understand his work on philosophy. His work with the other arts is pretty easy to read and often interesting, though you can feel him reaching hard to deviate from what was previously believed about certain writers. Sometimes it works, other times not.
Don't forget Spinoza.
Spinoza-Nietzsche-Bergson (and later Kant) are Deleuze's homeboys.
Spinoza especially to the extent that Deleuze is rectifying Nietzsche's gross misrepresentation of Spinoza.
In fact, I'd say Spinoza is much more central to Deleuze than Nietzsche. He wrote his secondary thesis on Spinoza and lectured on him extensively.
I agree with this. It's the same with his philosophy. Sometimes it seems like it is an over the top attempt to break with the establishment. That said, his philosophy is about the possibility of and need for complete ruptures in thinking -- complete creativity in the face of a society that tends to over organize and totalize everything. I guess the question is whether his experiment in overcoming a system that overcomes everything was successful or not?
>Nietzsche's gross misrepresentation of Spinoza
Can you expand on this? What do you take to be N's misrepresentation of Spinoza?
I've read Leibniz and the Baroque and loved it but I have yet to get to his work on Spinoza. That said, I can see how Spinoza's monism would factor heavily into the Body without Organs/Plane of Immanence. I assume that is what the new/neomaterialists gravitate towards in Deleuze
I had a bit of issues with it but if you are familiar with Deleuze's work you should be able to manage. I'm actually trying to learn French so I can read all the texts as they were written (plus Derrida, Foucault, Althusser, Lacan etc etc)
Nietzsche juxtaposes his will to power with Spinoza's conatus (power/striving/acting/will to exist) and paints the latter as lacking on two main grounds: 1) it is necessarily teleological in that it seeks some end, in this case self-preservation; 2)it is conservative and in its self-preservation, limits power to some fixed quality/quantity.
On (1), Spinoza very clearly equivocates conatus, power/striving/willing with the essence of existence itself. Conatus doesn't strive for existence, it is the essence of existence. On (2), Spinoza very often talks about an increase in power, both in the active joy of understanding and reason and in the reactive joy of the passions.
Nietzsche does have some grounds to stand on concerning Spinoza's very strict devaluation of the passions in their role to play in power. But he misrepresents Spinoza (in the genealogy I believe) for reasons that are difficult to conceive.
And moreover, Nietzsche never read Spinoza's work itself. He read a secondary source on philosophy that had a section concerning Spinoza.
Thanks. I see where you're coming from. I had never actually bothered probing this. I do think that regardless of the misrepresentation Nietzsche's work still stands in its own right, much like Sartre's misreading of Heidegger in Being and Nothingness is still respected (though I would say that in many ways it is just a rehashing of Hegel)
Thanks, I will check this out
I think Nietzsche's greatest contribution to a critical reading of Spinoza is his questioning of the limits that are placed on humanity in Spinoza's system (which while a dynamic system of power, still posits pretty strict limits on the horizon of power for finite things like man).
Nietzsche opens us up to the possibility that man may not be as fixed to limitations as is thought and he posits this (interestingly given his valuation of the passions) on a lack of true understanding of our essence. "We are strangers to ourselves."
Deleuze takes up this line of critique beautifully.
>In fact, I'd say Spinoza is much more central to Deleuze than Nietzsche. He wrote his secondary thesis on Spinoza and lectured on him extensively.
Kiiinda, but here's a detailed sketch:
Deleuze starts with Bergson, he's obsessed with him, and he gets his main and initial concepts (virtuality, becoming, internal difference) from him. The reason for this is that he sees in Bergson a good way to overcome Hegel. His first published writing in his 20s is just about this potential of Bergon's philosophy.
Then he enters into his Nietzsche phase, he sees the limits of Bergson, but perceives Nietzsche through him. The product of that phase is his Nietzsche book.
Then he seems to really get into Spinoza, although he knows him well already from before. It is Spinoza's influence that commands Bergson and Nietzsche from now, but the latter two are still smeared all over his works, Nietzsche being mentioned explicitly more often.
Of course there are many other influences, but it has become a cliché to say that these three are the main ones.
He was full of shit, just like every other 20th century French philosopher. In 1000 years, he will be forgotten. You're better off reading Nietzsche or Spinoza or Locke or Hume or Berkeley or Descartes or Plato or Aristotle.
Why bother? Don't believe me. Waste your time reading Deleuze while I'm reading the greats. I don't care.
>Why bother? Don't believe me.
I would have to be clinically retarded to believe some random shitposter just like that. You're delusional.
>I don't care.
Is that why you're not not-posting in this thread?
>implying I haven't read all of those authors. And Berkeley? Really? You think he is going to be remembered for what? Same with Locke. Most of his work on epistemology and metaphysics has been abandoned. The only reason his political philosophy is still widely read is because it is foundational for capitalism, which is the dominant economic order today.
Also, see this
tbh I thought the same thing when I first encountered Debord but reading more of his work I realized that it was a bit too heavy on the classical marxism. I think some of the other situationists had more interesting contributions than Debord. That said, he was really good at writing manifesto like works that captured the situationist moment well.
>I think some of the other situationists had more interesting contributions than Debord.
Like? I myself haven't read Debord seriously yet, just for that reason you mentioned (him being still close to classical Marxism).
What do you think of Baudrillard? Is there a strong connection between his and Debord's work?
I like a lot of the unattributed stuff but Raoul Vaneigem comes to mind. This: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/5 is pretty good. It suffers some of the same issues as Debord but I find it to be much more creative and leaning towards anarchism. The collection on that site is amazing.
Also, not the same person you are asking but I'd say there is an interesting connection. In some ways you could say Baudrillard's hyper-reality is an extension (or 'logical conclusion') of Debord's understanding of the spectacle.
Colebrook isn't that good as a first intro, I found it more of a summary that connects Deleuze with literature than a good explanation or clarification. Still worth a read of course.
Try Protevi's plan after, it's pretty tight:
>When a critic seized upon Deleuze's unusually long, uncut fingernails as a revealing eccentricity, he replied: "I haven't got the normal protective whorls, so that touching anything, especially fabric, causes such irritation that I need long nails to protect them."
>my university library doesn't have Spinoza: Practical Philosophy
>not sure how to do an inter-library loan here
>can't find it anywhere online
I'm doomed to remain forever ignorant of the details of Deleuze's views on Spinoza.
In a sense it is another expression of rhyzomatics, or perhaps another example of it. As with most of Deleuze's work there are a number of different ideas all bound up here.
First, at a very basic level Deleuze sees the history of philosophy as an extended, extensive, and systematic codification of the world. However, he believes that certain thinkers work outside of this by engaging with 'nomad' thinking (Authors like Spinoza, Hume, Nietzsche, Bergson etc). I haven't read the whole thing, but this article seems to get into that a bit: http://csmt.uchicago.edu/annotations/deleuzenomad.htm
On another level, nomadology is one of the major currents of A Thousand Plateaus. Whereas Anti-Oedipus spends a great deal of time trying to explain the schizo moment, ATP is an experimentation with it, where the text can be read in almost any order and understood in a multitude of ways. Arguably engaging with it forces the reader to unleash the nomadic potentials of their thoughts/experience, revealing the nomadic subject hidden beneath the apparent order of the 'individual'.
He describes it in more 'concrete' terms in Ch. 12 of ATP called Treatise on Nomadology -- The War Machine, which was translated and published before the rest of the book. You can read it here: http://humanities.wisc.edu/assets/misc/Deleuze.pdf
Not really, at least that I know of. The leddit subs are really circle-jerky. Every now and then there is a good thread there but for the most part its full of people trying to prove how smart they are rather than having an actual discussion. Aside from the occasional shitposts I find the discussion pretty good here. Sometimes it's even on par or better than discussions I have with academics in 'real' life
I'd say Bergson and Nietzsche are very foundational for his thinking. Personally I jumped right into his later stuff with Guattari (Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus) but that was after an MA in philosophy. Most people recommend starting with his early, more systematic texts. If you know Bergson his book Bergsonism is a good place to start, so is his book on Nietzsche. People also tend to recommend Difference and Repetition. Personally I find Pure Immanence: Essays on A Life to be a really succinct summation of some of his major themes. It's only 100 pages and pretty clear: http://projectlamar.com/media/Pure_Immanence.pdf
>Arguably engaging with it forces the reader to unleash the nomadic potentials of their thoughts/experience, revealing the nomadic subject hidden beneath the apparent order of the 'individual'.
So reading it will change me?
Could not recommend this book and Manuel DeLanda more, very explicitly influenced by Deleuze. It made A Thousand Plateaus so much easier to get into.
been meaning to take this out of the library but i have exams coming up so i haven't for fear of distracting myself (and here i am on 4chan), pretty psyched to read this after i get them out of the way