In the IEP entry on Deluze, there is the following:
Commenting on Lucretius, Deleuze makes the following, extremely similar, remark:
"The speculative object and the practical object of philosophy as Naturalism, science and pleasure, coincide on this point: it is always a matter of denouncing the illusion, the false infinite, the infinity of religion and all of the theologico-erotic-oneiric myths in which it is expressed. To the question ‘what is the use of philosophy?’ the answer must be: what other object would have an interest in holding forth the image of a free man, and in denouncing all of the forces which need myth and troubled spirit in order to establish their power?" (The Logic of Sense)
Deleuze’s philosophical naturalism is thus critical, Spinozist and Nietzschean
I can see how Nietzsche fits into this picture, but how does Spinoza? In his works, for example his Ethics his cosmology is firmly based on the idea of God:
By God, I mean a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality.
This does not sound as though it is dismissing the 'false infinite', but anchoring his conception of God in the infinite.
How does one resolve this inconsistency?
Earlier in the article, it says:
Indeed, for Deleuze, Spinoza combines the two things into one movement: a rejection of the transcendental in the action of creating a plane of absolute immanence upon which all that exists situate themselves.
The transcendental, seems here to be that beyond the universe, and having no connection with it; whereas making the world immanent in a neccessary substance, as Spinoza did, appears to be here Deluzes reason to regard his theory anti-transcendetal.
But, this seems to me to injure Spinozas thought in a sense, and also that much maligned word transcendetal; if only two of the infinitely many modes of the neccessary substance is cognisant to us - thought & extension; it appears then that infinitely many must be uncognisable by us in any way - if we could they would return to thought or to extension. Of course, here, one should not understand infinite in a mathematical way - as this makes the infinite cognisible, and again returning it to thought, at least in some sense.