Definitely not that difficult if you don't want to understand absolutely every little details of it and if yoWell, this was quite something to read!!
Definitely not that difficult if you don't want to understand absolutely every little details of it and if you already have a background knowledge of the history of philosophy discussed here.
(Which, admittingly, is quite extensive, chronologically it goes something like this : Plato, Neoplatonism, Aristotle, Duns Scot, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Bergson, Freud, Foucault)
(Therefore, reading chronologically the books on those philosophers written by Deleuze will be quite useful and is thus recommended!)
Let's try to summarize (disclaimer, I've read it in French and didn't check the English version to check if the translations of the concepts' names are adequate with it) :
- It is above all a metaphysics of Difference
- Everything is difference, the repetition itself is a difference without concept (eg: the clock goes: "tick-tock 1, tick-tock 2,..." and not "tick, tick, tick")
- Every difference is an intensity: the differentiator of difference (differenc/iation)
- Every difference can go through something like this : E-E differentiates itself as e-e which differentiate itself as (e)-(e), etc.
- Difference is no longer an empirical relation but becomes a transcendental principle that constitutes the sufficient reason of empirical diversity (for example, it is the difference of electrical potential between cloud and ground that constitutes the sufficient reason of the phenomenon of lightning)
- Intensity is always affirmative
- Any notion of negation, identity, Same, equality is an illusion of re-presentation
- Nothing is negated, everything is differentiated and affirmed
- Nothingness (following Bergson) is a pseudo-concept
- The world is virtual (genetic, structural) AND actual (the actualization of virtualities in the sensible)
- Each difference is differentiated (virtual) and differenciated (actual)
- Both are equally real, no degree of reality à la Plato
- Ideas are virtual and can be actualized in the sensible, thanks to intensivities, by differentiation in intensities
- The Ideas are themselves simulacra, everything is already a copy of a copy, there is no original: The world is bottomless (absence of foundation, therefore unlike Plato, the Ideas are not the foundations of reality) (interdependence of virtual Ideas and real instances)
- One is already multiple, unity is already multiplicity, all difference is intensive multiplicity which affirms itself
- The intensities concretize themselves in the sensible and become a re-presentation for us via our thought.
- The world of re-presentation (reflective copy of what presents itself to us) is where we find the notions of identity, equality, Same, in the concrete qualities and quantities of phenomena, at the scientific level. However, one could say that although real, it is what is the least actual, closest to illusion, since they are only necessary abstractions of thought to give themselves pseudo-coherence.
- The issue here is ethical: Do not limit yourself to re-presentation, otherwise you will lose yourself in the illusion of the abstraction of human thought: “common sense”, “obviousness”, cogito etc.
- Also a problem with science: being fooled by the notions of Reason, identity, equality. Deleuze uses numerous research and scientific thoughts of his time to show the danger of this trap
- Deleuze's conception of the world is panpsychist: Everything is consciousness, everything experiences, everything attracts and rejects each other, is born and dies, repeats itself by differentiating itself, differentiates itself by repeating itself...
- Dying is only the dispersion of intensities which had crystallized into a “Me”
- Fiction of the "Me", of the subject: Crystallized agglomeration of intensities which constitute themselves in a "center", giving the impression, through the re-presentation, of a uniform, continuous, lasting "I" throughout the time
- This “I” is in reality constantly integrating and disintegrating, it is a fragile, heterogeneous construction, dependent and in constant interaction with its environment, it is not a part of it, it *is* part, it is always multiple and multiplied by the multiplicities (hence the differences)
- To think is to create. Thinking only happens when there is a shock, an encounter that forces us to think
- Thinking is therefore above all creating a new problem, for new solutions. The common mistake is to think about the same problems over and over again; problems that persist over time are false problems, poorly posed
A final point on Ideas to clarify that it is indeed an anti-Platonism and not just a subversion of it:
- Ideas are concrete universals
- Therefore, in no case abstractions (re-presentation of thought)
- They are based neither on identity (Plato), nor on unity (Kant), nor on contradiction (Hegel) but on differential genesis
- The Ideas are virtually dialectical (method of division based on difference) but actually variable according to their field of usage (maths, physics, sociology, politics, psychology, etc.)
- They do not answer the question “What is X?” but to the various minor questions: “How much?” "When?" "Who?" "Or?" “To what extent?” “From what point of view?”, etc.
- These questions is what make possible to define the differential Ideas in the immanence of the intensivities that they structure
- Virtual idea: structuring genesis Current idea: multiplicities of differential intensitivities (which are therefore genetically and structurally actualized from their virtuality)
Now, If I have to criticize the book, I would do so on a pragmatic level:
It is a brilliant metaphysics which allows a revolutionary conception of the world, of humanity, of politics etc. But is it pragmatically viable?
Can we really use it for concrete purposes if our name is not Deleuze or a researcher who has spent his life on the subject?
Which raises the question: To embrace the complexity of reality, if we need metaphysics that are as complex as this one. As fluid as they are, how can we bring about change in practice without going astray, without oversimplifying the reality with which we have to deal? Without having to rely on thinkers who have spent their lives on it, can we really make it accessible?
Besides, I wonder if, in the end, in its applications, it is not just a much more subtle and precise pragmatism (in the sense of James, Dewey, ... I might oversimplify things here though) (it's also interestingly quite similar in its fluidity and ambition to Whitehead, who doesn't seem to be mentioned here)
Which is a good thing for its own accuracy compared to the accuracy needed to describe the real world.
But, which is a bad thing in terms of its actual practicability for the living beings that need it to do what is most needed after all :
Changing the world for the better.
Small addition about the (at least French) book's edition : Why is there no subtitle written for each sub-chapter, even though those subtitles do exist in the table of contents at the end of the book?
Did they do it to prevent the reader from reducing the content of a subchapter to its subtitle? Idk.
But, this, imo, makes it artificially way harder and intimidating to read than it should. Anti-Oedipus has the same edition problem. (I checked the English version of Anti-Oedipus and they did write the subtitles of the sub-chapters, you are lucky!!)...more
The function of Reason : To promote the art of life.
2 Types of Reasons : - Pratical : characterized by Ulysses, focused on methodology and results - SpThe function of Reason : To promote the art of life.
2 Types of Reasons : - Pratical : characterized by Ulysses, focused on methodology and results - Speculative : characterized by Plato, concerned only by itself, is its own end and is about finality (in an ultimate way)
Reason is used to : 1 - Live (Survival) 2 - Live well (Improve survival) 3 - Live better (Beyond survival)
Fatigue is the antithesis of Reason. It is the return to the ways of custom (Rhythm), short term goals (Transience) and relapse (Blindness to novelty).
There is 2 universal trends in the universe : - Downward : Entropy, Chaos - Upward : Evolution, Order
Reason as an adjusted search for purpose is a pragmatism and is against a naive rationalism.
The theory of evolution does not explain the trend of increasing complexity in organisms A pebble or a cockroach survives much better than a horse or a human. The pragmatic and finalist function of the reason explains it well.
Reason judges the significant glimpses of novelty it perceives Reason is the organ of emphasis of novelty :
In the animal body, we can observe the appetition towards the upward trend, with Reason as the selective agency. P. 24
Whitehead wants to reintroduce finalism into the world, removed by modern science. He heavily criticizes scientific materialism and most scientists as obscurantists and dogmatists. Scientists are the new clergy :
Science has always suffered from the vice of overstatement. In this way conclusions true within strict limitations have been generalized dogmatically into a fallacious universality. P. 27
Large sections of the clergy were the standing examples of obscurantism. Today their place has been taken by scientists. Today scientific methods are dominant, and scientists are the obscurantists. Pp. 43-44
He wants to bring up a new cosmology intertwining causal efficacy and causal finality. This is the intertwining of the 2 types of Reason : speculative and pratical.
In the last chapter, speculative Reason becomes the plane to flight above the world with the necessity to land again on it with new insights : Novelty.
To this end, he wants to reintroduce speculation into science and philosophy as the transcendance of methodology. Thus is born again the very important concept of speculative philosophy into Whitehead's thought. But he wants to do it with proper limitations. Speculation can, as the common meaning suggests, be unproductive or foolish. It must always stay in the realm of adequacy with experiences of the real world. To this end :
The proper satisfaction to be derived from speculative thought is elucidation. It is for this reason that fact is supreme over thought. P.80
Thus, speculative Reason disciplined by practical Reason calls for progress: it allows novelty. Nothing is stable. Everything follows a downward trend that we must counter with an upward trend.
Our experience shows us an appetition, with final causation for ideal ends, apart from physical tendencies :
But mere blind appetition would be the product of chance and could lead nowhere. In our experience, we find Reason and speculative imagination. There is a discrimination of appetitions according to a rule of fitness. This reign of Reason is vacillating, vague, and dim. But it is there. Pp. 89-90 (End of the book)
A very thorough guide to Whitehead's Process and Reality. Really helps getting into it. I can now, hopefully soon, get into Whitehead's master work itA very thorough guide to Whitehead's Process and Reality. Really helps getting into it. I can now, hopefully soon, get into Whitehead's master work itself!...more
Incredibly clear and simple, you can use it as a very good introduction to Process & Reality by reading it front to back! It's amazing that a book so Incredibly clear and simple, you can use it as a very good introduction to Process & Reality by reading it front to back! It's amazing that a book so short can deliver so much without feeling overwhelming. It can sometimes be dense, you probably won't read it in one shot and it is certainly not the way to go. Take your time to digest everything because it really is worth it....more
I really feel like, for better or for worse, this paradigm scheme can apply to any history of any field, in my opinion, it is its strength more than iI really feel like, for better or for worse, this paradigm scheme can apply to any history of any field, in my opinion, it is its strength more than its weakness....more
Loading...
