Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13h

Hippias triumphs everywhere, even already in Plato: Hippias who refused essences but nevertheless did not content himself with examples.

2

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13h

and 'Who?' abound - questions the function and sense of which we shall see below. These questions are those of the accident, the event, the multiplicity - of difference - as opposed to that of the essence, or that of the one, or those of the contrary and the contradictory.

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13h

It should be noticed how few philosophers have placed their trust in the question 'What is X?' in order to have Ideas. Certainly not Aristotle...Once the dialectic brews up its matter instead of being applied in a vacuum for propaedeutic ends, the questions 'How much?', 'How?', 'In what cases?'

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13h

This was the outcome of a distortion of the dialectic. Moreover, how many theological prejudices were involved in that tradition, since the answer to 'What is X?' is always God as the locus of the combinatory of abstract predicates.

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13h

Philosophers began to talk like young men from the farmyard. From this point of view, Hegel is the culmination of a long tradition which took the question 'What is X?' seriously and used it to determine Ideas as essences, but in so doing substituted the negative for the nature of the problematic.

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13h

When Socratic irony was taken seriously and the dialectic as a whole was confused with its propaedeutic, extremely troublesome consequences followed: for the dialectic ceased to be the science of problems and ultimately became confused with the simple movement of the negative, and of contradiction.

1 6

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

Every time science, philosophy and good sense come together it is inevitable that good sense should take itself for a science and a philosophy (that is why such encounters must be avoided at all costs).

3 7

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

It’s always the same story, if you like. Meaning that to choose is always to choose between choosing and not choosing, given that not choosing is to choose by saying I have no choice.

2 8

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

Everything you do, everything you say, implies a certain mode of existence. Which mode? Discover the modes of existence!

3 11

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

it’s everything that takes pleasure one way or another in sad affects, everything which is depreciating and depressing. That’s the satirics. It’s obvious that all of morality goes under the name of satirics.

1 5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

It’s in the scholia that he says what an ethics is, to make an ethics is to make a theory and a practice of powers of being affected, and an ethics is opposed to a satirics. What he calls a satirics is tremendous enough:

1 1 6

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

Becoming-horse? Becoming-dog? What does becoming-beetle mean, for Kafka?

5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

It’s the same individual so long as the overall ratio of motion and rest, speed and slowness, remains. What does becoming-animal mean? It doesn’t mean an imitation, though we have to imitate because there has to be something we can fall back on.

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

I therefore call the longitude of a body the set ratio of speed and slowness between the infinite parts composing said body, parts which only belong to the body based on these ratios of speed and slowness, motion and rest.

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

It’s not the study of an animal’s way of life; it’s much more the study of what affects it’s capable of. Spinoza calls his book ‘The Ethics’—not morality. Ethics, ethology. What can a body do, which means, what can it handle?

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

and those looking at affects remain rather indifferent to organs and functions—so much so that they had to coin a new word to describe what they were working on. They called it ethology.

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

I say that, given its organs and functions, this is what the animal is capable of. It seems like these can be reconciled, but in fact, it’s not the logic that matters: the people focused on the organs and functions of animals have never worried about affects,

1 5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

if need be, two things said to be of the same species might have degrees of power much more different that two things of different species.

1 14

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

Let’s try to imagine how Spinoza saw things. He did not see genera, species, he did not see categories, so what did he see? He saw differences of degrees of power… I said broadly that to each thing will correspond a kind of degree of power and that,

1 3 20

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

And then there are things that are divisible. Dualism is not defined by two, dualism is defined by the employment of the one and the multiple as adjectives. This is already true in Duns Scotus.

5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

The ground of dualism has always been: ‘there are things that are one’. Here one always recovers Descartes, because today we are talking about Descartes, i.e. Lacan.

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

saying that this is nonetheless odd. You see, we indeed saw the difference between the two conceptions of philosophy. In the first conception of philosophy, that I am calling abstract, they have but a single image that haunts them, it’s the tree.

2

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

It was even thought that the processes didn’t stop colliding into each other, and since an aggregate can include the most heterogeneous givens, we opposed, for example, the processes of arborization to processes of rhizome,

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

But all this, it’s just words. A fuzzy aggregate, how does one define it? Uniquely through what occurs to it after. It’s an aggregate in which a series of consolidations is going to be produced.

1 2

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

It’s a fuzzy aggregate, that is, a collection of disparates; we still have to choose them, the disparates. It’s in this way that there’s a Combinatory. We choose them in light of given problems. Fine.

1 2