Unconscious libidinal investments of group or desire are distinct from preconscious investments of class or interest. Non-familial libidinal investments of the social field are primary in relation to familial investments. Social libidinal investments are distinguished according to two poles: a paranoiac, reactionary, fascisizing pole and a schizoid revolutionary pole. It was not by means of a metaphor, even a paternal metaphor, that Hitler was able to sexually arouse the fascists. It is not by means of a metaphor that a banking or stock-market transaction, a claim, a coupon, a credit, is able to arouse people who are not necessarily bankers. And what about the effects of money that grows, money that produces more money?

Author:Taular Gajinn
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):3 September 2019
PDF File Size:7.25 Mb
ePub File Size:5.76 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Difference, in other words, goes all the way down. To confront reality honestly, Deleuze argues, we must grasp beings exactly as they are, and concepts of identity forms, categories, resemblances, unities of apperception, predicates, etc.

He therefore concludes that pure difference is non-spatio-temporal; it is an idea, what Deleuze calls "the virtual". Assuming the content of these forms and categories to be qualities of the world as it exists independently of our perceptual access, according to Kant, spawns seductive but senseless metaphysical beliefs for example, extending the concept of causality beyond possible experience results in unverifiable speculation about a first cause.

Deleuze inverts the Kantian arrangement: experience exceeds our concepts by presenting novelty, and this raw experience of difference actualizes an idea, unfettered by our prior categories, forcing us to invent new ways of thinking see Epistemology.

Simultaneously, Deleuze claims that being is univocal , i. Deleuze borrows the doctrine of ontological univocity from the medieval philosopher John Duns Scotus. Scotus argued to the contrary that when one says that "God is good", the goodness in question is exactly the same sort of goodness that is meant when one says "Jane is good". That is, God only differs from us in degree, and properties such as goodness , power , reason , and so forth are univocally applied, regardless of whether one is talking about God, a person, or a flea.

Deleuze adapts the doctrine of univocity to claim that being is, univocally, difference. Moreover, it is not we who are univocal in a Being which is not; it is we and our individuality which remains equivocal in and for a univocal Being.

For Deleuze, there is no one substance, only an always-differentiating process , an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding. In Nietzsche and Philosophy , for example, reality is a play of forces; in Anti-Oedipus , a " body without organs "; in What is Philosophy?

Truth may be hard to discover—it may require a life of pure theorizing, or rigorous computation, or systematic doubt—but thinking is able, at least in principle, to correctly grasp facts, forms, ideas, etc. Deleuze rejects this view as papering over the metaphysical flux, instead claiming that genuine thinking is a violent confrontation with reality, an involuntary rupture of established categories.

Truth changes what we think; it alters what we think is possible. By setting aside the assumption that thinking has a natural ability to recognize the truth, Deleuze says, we attain a "thought without image", a thought always determined by problems rather than solving them.

Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational—not sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift. Michel Foucault , in his essay "Theatrum Philosophicum" about the book, attributed this to how he begins with his metaphysics but approaches it through language and truth; the book is focused on "the simple condition that instead of denouncing metaphysics as the neglect of being, we force it to speak of extrabeing".

But when substantives and adjectives begin to dissolve, when the names of pause and rest are carried away by the verbs of pure becoming and slide into the language of events, all identity disappears from the self, the world, and God. A philosophical concept "posits itself and its object at the same time as it is created.

In his later work from roughly onward , Deleuze sharply distinguishes art, philosophy, and science as three distinct disciplines, each analyzing reality in different ways. While philosophy creates concepts, the arts create novel qualitative combinations of sensation and feeling what Deleuze calls " percepts " and " affects " , and the sciences create quantitative theories based on fixed points of reference such as the speed of light or absolute zero which Deleuze calls "functives".

According to Deleuze, none of these disciplines enjoy primacy over the others: [46] they are different ways of organizing the metaphysical flux, "separate melodic lines in constant interplay with one another. Hence, instead of asking traditional questions of identity such as "is it true?

In a classical liberal model of society, morality begins from individuals, who bear abstract natural rights or duties set by themselves or a God. Following his rejection of any metaphysics based on identity, Deleuze criticizes the notion of an individual as an arresting or halting of differentiation as the etymology of the word "individual" suggests. Guided by the naturalistic ethics of Spinoza and Nietzsche, Deleuze instead seeks to understand individuals and their moralities as products of the organization of pre-individual desires and powers.

The first part of Capitalism and Schizophrenia undertakes a universal history and posits the existence of a separate socius the social body that takes credit for production for each mode of production : the earth for the tribe , the body of the despot for the empire , and capital for capitalism. Where societies of discipline were characterized by discrete physical enclosures such as schools, factories, prisons, office buildings, etc.

Modern society still suppresses difference and alienates persons from what they can do. To affirm reality, which is a flux of change and difference, we must overturn established identities and so become all that we can become—though we cannot know what that is in advance.

The pinnacle of Deleuzean practice, then, is creativity. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could ever bear on the work to come? Deleuze once famously described his method of interpreting philosophers as " buggery enculage ", as sneaking behind an author and producing an offspring which is recognizably his, yet also monstrous and different.

And the same goes for philosophical concepts, since there are distinct concepts of these spaces. The following list is not exhaustive, and gives only the briefest of summaries. You should not question it. However, May believes that Deleuze can discard the primacy-of-difference thesis, and accept a Wittgensteinian holism without significantly altering his practical philosophy.

They give examples of mathematical concepts being "abused" by taking them out of their intended meaning, rendering the idea into normal language reduces it to truism or nonsense. In their opinion, Deleuze used mathematical concepts about which the typical reader might be not knowledgeable, and thus served to display erudition rather than enlightening the reader.

As sexuality historian Alison M.







Related Articles