4

Mozibur's answer is great. I would just add that their "hostage-taking" of language is in almost every instance thoroughly grounded in literature or science (or other philosophers in turn). In particular, consider reading Lautman, Ruyer and Simondon; these are critical sources for Deleuze, and will make many of his subtleties more clear (Nietzsche and ...


3

Reading these books leaves me dumbstruck Unsurprising. It was my first reaction; and one D+G pick up from Nietzsche; they're using the aesthetics of the transgressive; which in certain fields - ie Art has been reduced to banality; but philosophy with its dedication to Enlightment Reason is virgin soil for such virile techniques. Delueze & Guatarri ...


3

I would speculate that it has to do with the (apparent) indispensability of numbers. To unpack that a bit, I want to begin by talking about what it would mean for the word "dog" not to exist. Taking the word "dog" as a sign, let's divide it into signifier and signified, taking care to identify both as essentially abstract. What I mean by that is that the ...


3

Lifted from the preface by Foucault, p.xiv in the 2004 Continuum version : "it would be a mistake to read Anti Oedipus as the new theoretical reference (you know, that much heralded theory that finally encompasses everything ...) I think for this question context is very important. I think context is the neglected dimension which leads a lot of people to ...


3

This is an extended commentary to the question. In the beginning of Matter and Memory Bergson clearly declares his dualism: This book affirms the reality of spirit and the reality of matter... It is, then, frankly dualistic. (p.XI) In principle, this should prohibit any possibility of physicalist development. However, a literal understanding of his ...


3

A short answer would, I think, be that he doesn't. It is the Id made concrete as Machines? Of course this militates against Seems warning, not to take it as a synthesis of Marx & Freud, but he represents this as two separate juxtaposed economies of flows - the libidinal & economic - whereas Deleuze appears to be explicitly merging the two ...


2

Thinking creates its “concepts” out of the visible, in order to designate the invisible. .. Does this connect to Deleuzes idea of philosophy as he wrote in What is Philosophy? The answer to this must be no, it does not connect. What is Philosophy draws 3 clear distinctions - Art; which he describes as the creation of percepts and affects; science; which ...


2

Rex Kerr answers your question well to the extent that you ask about the desires, perceptions, and knowledge of individual inquirers or scientists. We may be able to will ourselves to perceive things in a certain way out of sheer force of desire, up to a point. What point that is exactly becomes an empirical psychology question. I suspect that for some ...


2

Although theoretically it is possible to hallucinate everything when moved by sufficiently strong desire (up until one dies), in practice people almost always retain considerable sensitivity to their environment. Thus, no, you cannot accurately say that a scientist's desire is producing their reality. It's helpful to desire to be doing science when one is, ...


2

I think that it is misleading to speak of "words". Words obviously exists. According to me, we have to speak of "concepts". Trying to "compress" a Treatise of Ontology in a few lines, we have objects; we are used to think at them as something that we can "see and touch" : the table, my keybord, the dog in the street. Obviously, we have no problem in ...


2

Spinoza's treatment of cosmology and theology is unique in the philosophical tradition. It is certainly true that God plays an essential role throughout Spinoza's thought. He always appears, however, in the very strange form signaled by Spinoza's recurrent phrase, "God, or nature." For Spinoza, only what is capable of independent being and cognition counts ...


2

This stuff is confusing You're not the only one. In their article “1914: One or Several Wolves?” Deleuze & Guattari accuse Freud of being nothing more than a speculator who misunderstands the truth and goes on with meaningless associations. One thinks, et tu brute. However Gayatri Spivak acknowledges their poetic brilliance. The difficulty, is that they ...


2

Since you are training to be a social scientist, you should read the chapter "Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari" in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science (published in French in 1997, then in English in 1998). Sokal and Bricmont argued that the use of scientific terms by Deleuze and Guattari and ...


2

Any move away from Freud is going to be a positive move, an evasion and ironically a reduction of human scope. So from the negativity of the Weltschmerz "period", see book below, we see a positive way of evasion through the Super Man (Nietzsche), and I don't know D&G, but if you will read Russell Jacoby's book, Social Amnesia, you will see various moves ...


1

I don't have a clear picture of Taussig's discussion of this topic as I have not read him in a long time, but your closest bet to getting a Deleuzian response to this question would be via the work of Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, particularly in Cannibal Metaphysics. He does perhaps the most or any contemporary author to flesh out the transformation Deleuze ...


1

The body without organs is neither an image of the potentialities of a given organization of an empirical body, nor a phase space per se; it is rather the condition of openness that subtends every phase space endowing the self-organization of virtual structure with pliability, or plasticity (thus linking it with the eternal return as the global structure of ...


1

Here's what rhizome.org says about it in their glossary: The "Body without Organs" or BwO is a term Deleuze and Guattari have taken from Antonin Artaud which consists of an assemblage or body with no underlying organizational principles, and hence no organs within it. The BwO is a post-Enlightenment entity, a body but not an organism. You never reach ...


1

Not sure this will be an answer per se, more of a long comment. Re (1) Zourabichvilli (whose book is excellent) ties the concept of event back to Hegel and Heidegger (whom Deleuze mentions in conjunction with DR). Some of what Deleuze is picking up on can be found in Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology," i.e., the event as epoch-defining. A key ...


1

I might suggest looking at Postulates of Linguistics, the fourth plateau I think, which deals with this in a little more depth. I wanted to draw together a few lines and thoughts here to maybe help bootstrap some further analysis. Quickly: D+G's strategy involves deployment of mutually-exclusive dualisms or binarisms; in order to shatter or crystallize the ...


1

This is unpacked a bit further on in Thoburn's introduction: In Deleuze and Guattari's monist thought, then, 'life' has no primary forms or identities but is a perpetual process of configuration and variation, where politics is an art of composition, an art that affirms the variation and creation of life: "'molecular' or 'minor' processes, against ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible