Those two concepts seems quite close but I’m not able to find much resource on their distinctions.

  • 1
    We discourage one-line questions because it is hard to tell what they refer to. Where did you encounter these terms? Is monad from Leibniz's works, and rhizome from Deleuze's? If you add context and references to the post it would be helpful. – Conifold May 16 at 7:05
  • 1
    Welcome to Philosophy SE! An explanation of the terms in your own words may also be helpful. – christo183 May 16 at 7:43
  • yeah 'monad' appears in a few places, right? would be nice if you explained why you thought they were "quite close" – another_name May 16 at 19:12

Leibniz's monads follow a principle of non-interaction. Monads cannot communicate with each other in the same way that Deleuze's rhizomes have flows of desire between one another. Monads are immortal and can only represent internal representations of relations, rhizomes themselves are temporary and can form alliances with one another forming temporary plateaus.

  • 3
    If you have references and quotes from Leibniz and DeLeuze this would strengthen your answer and give the reader a place to go for more information. Welcome. – Frank Hubeny May 16 at 16:56
  • pretty sure he's right, and this is in effect a pretty neat answer that i'm impressed with. is a rhizome a monad in a broad sense? – another_name May 16 at 19:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.