"Immanence: A Life", Deleuze's ultimate metaphysical vision

In this video we examine Deleuze's last published text, "Immanence: a life", and we try to reconstruct his ultimate metaphysical vision. We also look at the notes about the actual and the virtual published in 1996.
My (not very active) Twitter/X: / deleuzephilo
Support:
Patreon: / deleuzephilosophy
Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/dele...

[@balaipisto7539]

This was a very rewarding watch ! Keep up the good work, I can't tell you how much it means to see content of such rigor and clarity on Deleuze here !

[@deleuzephilosophy]

I really appreciate it, thank you very much!

[@jonasdornelles7094]

I'm delighted and surprised as always, by your power of deep reading of Deleuze's works. Thank you so much by this one, bring a new perspective in so many texts. I don't have any doubt: you are a life! 😅

[@shakie6074]

Goddamn dude you killed this one. I’d love to hear Deleuze’s crystallization vs Baudrillard’s. Obviously a ton of difference (pun intended) btw the two, but I have t found two thinkers who so properly diagnosed contemporary reality as they both respectively did.

[@exlauslegale8534]

@shakie6074 only one of these philosophers is a nihilist and another is afirmative to life, guess which one is which…

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Oh thank you so much! I can't speak to Baudrillard's crystal but there's a very interesting paragraph in Bergson's "Matter and Memory" where he talks about "crystallisation". I'm almost certain Deleuze noted the term, being the careful reader that he was. Bergson says: "The nascent generality of the idea consists, then, in a certain activity of the mind, in a movement between action and representation. And this is why (...) it will always be easy for a certain philosophy to localize the general idea at one of the two extremities, to make it crystallize into words or evaporate into memories, whereas it really consists in the transit of the mind as it passes from one term to the other" (p.324 in the old edition). He uses the same expression elsewhere in the book. It seems to me this is pretty much what Deleuze is pointing at: the (mediated) general idea has an immediate aspect as well. It would be quite interesting to see if Baudrillard uses it in a similar way. Great paper topic imo!

[@darillus1]

@@exlauslegale8534 Baudrillard is somewhat jokingly pessimistic in his writing, yet he lived to 77 with cancer sadly taking him, whereas Deleuze was quite optimistic at least in his writing, yet he did commit suicide at the age of 70...its not so easy to pigeonhole a person as you may think

[@shakie6074]

@@deleuzephilosophy I’ve never gotten into Bergson but have been meaning to. Any recs on a good starting point for his project??

[@deleuzephilosophy]

@@shakie6074 I'd just read his texts tbh, they are very accessible. "Matter and Memory" is incredible, you'll recognise a lot of Deleuze's own themes, and his PhD, "The immediate data of consciousness", is particularly brilliant as well.

[@ColinMusique]

Thank you very much for all your work ! For this video (I had no idea this text even existed...) and for your whole channel. As a french guy who likes Deleuze's philosophy very much but struggles to grasp all the technicalities, you offer some valuable ressources... I wish some content of this quality existed on the french YT about his philosophy :D Keep up the good work, it's most appreciated ! 🤝

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're very welcome, thank you for watching! I'm glad this content is helpful. I don't know if you've heard of the seminars? Deleuze is quite tough to read but he was an incredible teacher, and thanks to his students some of his seminars were recorded. I've regrouped the audio archives we have on my soundcloud if you want to give it a listen: soundcloud.com/user-375923363

[@ColinMusique]

​@@deleuzephilosophy Your Soundcloud is amazing !!! I know his seminars indeed, I discovered him through his lessons on Spinoza actually (I guess I'm not the only one... Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, Foucault, Deleuze, they constitute a little galaxy of its own, I went down the rabbit hole :p), and I know of a YT channel (@sociophilosophy ) which gathered a lot of these seminars. I think your Soundcloud will have my preference from now on though, because I much prefer podcasts to videos, I don't like having YT running for hours (especially for that kind of content), so you're solving a problem for people like me :D And I agree he was a fantastic teacher, his tone, his pace, his way of chaining ideas... Clarity and intelligibility aside, there's something almost poetic in his speech, a very distinctive energy at least that makes him quite enticing to listen to. In France anyway, he's still famous for his Abécédaire and his little seminar in La Fémis, which are more than enough to get hooked :D Thanks again for your work and these ressources, have a great day 🍻 (And I apologize if my english is a bit clunky)

[@ColinMusique]

​@@deleuzephilosophy Your Soundcloud is amazing !!! I know his seminars indeed, I discovered him through his lessons on Spinoza actually (I guess I'm not the only one... Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, Foucault, Deleuze, they constitute a little galaxy of its own, I went down the rabbit hole :p), and I know of a YT channel - @SocioPhilosophy - which gathered a lot of these seminars. I think your Soundcloud will have my preference from now on though, because I much prefer podcasts to videos, I don't like having YT running for hours (especially for that kind of content), so you're solving a problem for people like me :D And I agree he was a fantastic teacher, his tone, his pace, his way of chaining ideas... Clarity and intelligibility aside, there's something almost poetic in his speech, a very distinctive energy at least that makes him quite enticing to listen to. In France anyway, he's still famous for his Abécédaire and his little seminar in La Fémis, which are enough to get hooked :D Thanks again for your work and these ressources, have a great day 🍻 (And I apologize if my english is a bit clunky)

[@ColinMusique]

​​@deleuzephilosophy This is amazing !!! I know his seminars indeed, I discovered him through his lessons on Spinoza actually (I guess I'm not the only one... Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, Foucault, Deleuze, they constitute a little galaxy of its own, I went down the rabbit hole), and I know of a YT channel (SocioPhilosophy) which gathered a lot of these seminars. I think your soundcloud will have my preference from now on though, because I much prefer podcasts to videos, I don't like having YT running for hours (especially for that kind of content), so you're solving a problem for people like me :D And I agree he was a fantastic teacher, his tone, his pace, his way of chaining ideas... Clarity and intelligibility aside, there's something almost poetic in his speech, a very distinctive energy at least that makes him quite enticing to listen to. In France anyway, he's still famous for his Abécédaire and his little seminar in La Fémis, which are enough to get hooked :D Thanks again for your work and these ressources, have a great day ! (And I apologize if my english is a bit clunky)

[@deleuzephilosophy]

@@ColinMusique Merci beaucoup, pareillement!

[@76Terrell]

Thanks for putting this great presentation together! Whenever I think about this essay and his view on a life, it reminds me of the impersonal phenomenology of flow state/ optimal experience/ implicit learning and would appreciate hearing more perspectives about these similarities

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're welcome, thank you for watching! I agree, it's a unique text that would need volumes to be covered. Thanks for the suggestions as well, I'll keep them in mind. I've been wondering about Deleuze's relation to phenomenology for a while and I don't have a definitive answer, but I think he would side with Bergson rather than the phenomenologists (at least as far as metaphysics is concerned). An argument could be made, perhaps, that this is because Bergson does not being with the "consciousness of" something, rather he begins with the "image", the foundation of consciousness. This is not to say that Deleuze would completely disagree with the phenomenologists, in fact I think he uses phenomenological language quite often... A delicate point for sure, but quite fascinating!

[@76Terrell]

​@deleuzephilosophy Thanks for the response! I was using phenomenology to just reference broadly an understanding of lived experience to talk about the phenomena in the field of psychology called flow state/optimal experience or as implicit learning in cog sci that engages with how people lose their sense of self when fully immersed in a task that requires the right balance of skill and difficulty. A band lost within the flow of creating music together is one way I've been trying to think practically about the value of this view of a life. But to more specifically engage with your concern for the limits of consciousness within a more technical engagement with phenomenology, I absolutely agree and have gotten a lot of value out of the philosopher Erin Manning who takes a schizoanalytic approach to using Bergson and Whitehead to explicate neurodiverse phenomenology in relation to affect theory to deconstruct standard assumptions about agency/intentionality/volition

[@deleuzephilosophy]

@@76Terrell Thanks for the precision, I see what you mean. If I had to make a guess I'd say these states have to do with the third synthesis of time as defined in D&R, that is, the impersonal process of selection which selects affects of joy, those that increase the power to act. It's quite interesting to relate almost mystical experiences, such as making music, to learning, as you suggest. I never thought about it but this may perhaps be why Deleuze develops the theme of learning in D&R!

[@anegrey]

These explanations are so clear and the diagrams are great, definitely subscribing.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thanks for the sub!

[@Lmaoh5150]

Awesome video. I come back to this essay a lot. Short, sweet, and provocative

[@MarkMelchior-lb6vv]

Wave theory comes to mind. Like the taoist practitioner states " the chi follows the mind". As in the the the movement of lift hands can be actuated in two different ways, either tell the hands to rise and they follow 'li' or to instead, sink the Chi and open the pathway to your hands so they rise. This may be the basis of wave theory at its root.

[@FrankNFurter1000]

A wonderful overview, thank you

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you for watching!

[@FrankNFurter1000]

@@deleuzephilosophy So, even better - I watched this prior to falling asleep last night... and I dreamt about this concept, and it began to make even more sense! My brain can do nice things for me sometimes...

[@FriendlyEsotericDude]

Oh my god. Clarity! ❤😍

[@websurfer352]

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics changes all that, in that every possible case save those that are impossible, is real in some world in varying degrees of decoherence from ours!!

[@comradethatmetalguy]

This work is amazing and invaluable. Thank you so much for this.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much for the comment :) Really glad it can be helpful to you.

[@roulimonade]

Thanks a lot for sharing all these thoughts (yours and deleuze's)

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're very welcome, thank you for watching I appreciate it!

[@lessismore4470]

Very close to all kinds of spiritual practices like Buddhism, Advaita-Vedanta or Sufism (or Christian mysticism). Thank you.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're welcome. Yes, there definitely could be a parallel there.

[@kylerodd2342]

I’ve watched all your videos and KZbin didn’t recommend your last two. I was just wondering if you put out any and look you up and there the videos were. Glad you’re posting. Sad I didn’t see sooner 😢

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thanks for letting me know Kyle, it seems sometimes the algorithm works in mysterious ways. But I appreciate you checking up on my channel and keep watching!

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

As a psychology stundent interested in spinoza and immanence this was very helpful

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Very happy to hear it! Thank you for watching

[@ElectricBrown1]

"How does one philosopher regard another? 'Take your time," -Ludwig W

[@websurfer352]

Ambiguity in terms often coined terms not precisely defined is characteristic of philosophical writings but it need not be that way, terms could be more precisely defined as close to physical referents when explained in terms of analogy and/or metaphor as possible.

[@GiuseppeMazza-x4s]

Brilliant! Thank you

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you for watching!

[@blanche1813]

Thanks for the upload!!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thanks for watching!

[@hangingthief71]

Im convinced that deleuze could of been one of us who experienced what can only be felt through the heart, eternity might be the word for it, and all the strange things that brings into consciousness.

[@hangingthief71]

Which, by way of electrophysiology and parapsychology makes me think of the physics part of deleuze's metaphysics, could the plane of immanence akin to the something like a unified quantum field? Now, to be clear, I don't understand quantum physics enough to talk about stuff like that scientifically, but I think so.

[@K4iT3c]

It's infinite!

[@DelmaRaySmithJr]

This for sharing yourself this way

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you for watching!

[@Bellyoflion]

Just halfway through but thoroughly enjoying this, I’m curious if you have any thoughts contrasting Deleuze’s use of transcendence with Levinas’? It’s something I’ve been thinking around lately but without any real conclusive thoughts on

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you for watching, glad you enjoyed it! Well, my thoughts on Deleuze and Levinas are probably not more conclusive than yours but it likely has to do with Deleuze's relation to Existentialism and phenomenology. If I'm not mistaken Levinas makes transcendence an ethical concern and assigns it to the demands of the other, so he maintains it within personalist coordinates (don't quote me on this), whereas for Deleuze transcendence remains completely metaphysical.

[@Artholic100]

I don't really know if philosophy sparks anxiety inside of me, or is this love, but it seems, that the only thing to do is to keep going on. Funny contingency, I've done years a go exactly the same kind of digital painting of a sphere which occupies and reflects a mountainscape such as is shown in the conclusion. Actual and virtual fascinates the heck out of me.

[@Rivulets048]

Such great graphics and clear commentary. Are you in academic philosophy at all? I'm fortunate enough to be able to sit in on a few classes a semester but don't know if it's worth pursuing a degree in

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much! Really glad you enjoy this content. Yes I'm doing a PhD on Deleuze's theory of affect at the moment. Philosophy is definitely worth pursuing if you have an interest in it, on your own or academically. It's something for life. Personally I did both, I left academia after my MPhil but kept working on Deleuze until I found this research position thanks to incredible people in Deleuzian circles. I was quite fascinated by the seminars (still am), but they were all scattered so I reassembled them (you can access them here if you like: soundcloud.com/user-375923363). It's a good complement to the texts. There are many ways to read Deleuze, I think it's perfectly fine to read him on your own in a more "affective" way, you can get a lot from it. An academic angle will help you get some of the allusions and technicalities, it's a rewarding experience for sure.

[@tyogrady866]

Does that link work for anyone else?

[@yassirel653]

Thank you❤

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're very welcome, thank you for watching :)

[@darillus1]

I like your take on Immanence: A Life, I actually ran out and bought Pure Immanence after watching this, it also includes essays on Hume and Nietzsche, I really like Nietzsche, but have limited knowledge of Hume, do you think you will ever cover Hume?

[@deleuzephilosophy]

I might be doing something about "Empiricism and subjectivity" (Deleuze's first book about Hume) at some point, yes. Not sure exactly what yet, we'll see. Thanks for the comment and happy readings!

[@tyogrady866]

Wonderful work. Deleuze has so many terms of art that I have trouble just wading in. Are there any primers you recommend reading? So many commentators on commentators attack each other as promoting grave misreadings, and that makes sense since it is going to take a long time for us humans to digest Deleuze.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thanks a lot! Very true, we're not done exploring the rhizome. Finding the authors that you like in a field can be a very individual thing, but personally I enjoy reading Ian Buchanan, Dan Smith, Charles Stivale, Nathan Widder, James Williams, Chantelle Gray, to mention a few. In French, Jean-Clet Martin, Frédéric Worms, François Zourabichvili and Igor Krtolica have been great reads. There is a lot to gain in reading Deleuze's references, in particular Bergson, Peirce and Nietzsche, but also some contemporaries of Deleuze, including Barthes, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and of course Foucault. The best strategy, I'd say, is to grab everything that comes near you and give it a look without feeling that you must read the whole texts. The quick turnaround will help you find the authors that suit you best.

[@nkenn-sp4pp]

powerful vid fam

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Many thanks 🙏

[@santibeis]

Mind blowing

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much!

[@coleride]

My head hurts and I don't understand, though I want to. Is this Crystal or this whatever a description of some moment in time that is somehow between one moment in recognizable time and the next? As if time's arrow consisted of particles or fractions?

[@kieranryan6148]

My take away was… a little bit of immanence is good for you.. sorry most of what was narrated although clear and logically sounding hung in the air around.. sorry i‘m a bit of a noob on this subject matter 😁

[@exlauslegale8534]

My guess is that your speculative third chapter wouldn’t be called “Rhizomatic Structures” but rather “Rhizomatic Machines”, since Deleuze was a poststructuralist (trading structures for machines) 😶

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Very good point

[@deponensvogel7261]

What is the decisive difference between a structure and a machine, in the eyes of a poststructuralist?

[@deleuzephilosophy]

​@@deponensvogel7261 Perhaps that a structure is given, linear and static, it produces predictable outcomes (hence for example Oedipal reductionism), whereas machines are constructions, active syntheses of time that can create feedback loops

[@exlauslegale8534]

@@deponensvogel7261 Structure conflates the virtual and the actual, or the molecular and the molar. Structure is static, it lacks becoming. kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYnWk6WrlNF4msk

[@Oscar.Vasquezzz]

My question for you is do you see the inherent similarities between this metaphysical framework and Religious and spiritual ideas across the world that all make sense when viewed this way? Other comments reference taoism, but also Nirvana, “Christ consciousness” and other transcendent beliefs have existed for millennia, and behind the mantra and wide cultural differences always lies the same belief and trust in the One mind, Heart, God, system, virtualization, behind it all

[@deleuzephilosophy]

A likely answer in my opinion is that Deleuze would not see similarities between immanence and spiritualities that lead to a kind of ultimate unity, principle, system or identity, nor with spiritualities of nothingness (which I think is the central aspect of Buddhism). He might opt rather for a spirituality of multiplicity, but not in the sense of paganism obviously. Rather in the sense of something that is not just different by comparison to us, but "differently different" on the one hand, and infinitely close to us on the other hand. Something like "God or nature", perhaps, as Spinoza says.

[@teugene5850]

I have found this immensely useful in my own journey. I have never agreed with Deleuze, but I am approaching his metaphysics with great care (while reading the Germans). There is something profound here.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you for the comment, I agree: this text is quite profound metaphysically speaking. Actually, some of the Germans, especially Schelling and Fichte, are good to have in mind when we approach Deleuze.

[@teugene5850]

@@deleuzephilosophy exactly agree mate. I have just finished with both Fichte and Schelling and I see the turn taken by Hegel (the dialectical being internally consistent within itself in difference) which Delueze strongly disagrees with. I may read the logic of sense before DR.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

​@@teugene5850 Sounds good, LoS is more practical, while D&R is very dense and theoretical. I do have series on both on this channel if you want to have a look. I'm currently reading Henrich's "Between Kant and Hegel" which is excellent I think, but if you happen to know another good reader for that period I'd appreciate your advice.

[@teugene5850]

@@deleuzephilosophy will comment there.

[@hangingthief71]

I do not understand the 'classical' distinction of the real and the possible, where does it come from? I get this is a common place distinction, but it makes no technical sense to me. Is it aristotelian or something? (I thought that was actual vs possible) Having only seriously studied Charles Sanders Peirce and Deleuze and guattari I am nonplussed, I view 'Real' as it originated in the medieval problem of universals(or at least as Peirce insisted it did) a sense that seems lost in the colloquial use of the term real, and confused in most of modern philosophy. Didn't virtual/actual come from scholastic philosophy too? Maybe I'm confused but everyone seems confused. Apologies if this is addressed later on I am not even 2 minutes into the video.

[@hangingthief71]

So, to me, and I don't have this quite figured out; the real would be a universal term that holds the diverse singular instances of that term in a relation of multiplicity so that the quality is apprehended by a transcendent (or immanent, I don't know if the distinction made here still holds) unity in each instance. So I fail to see how that sort of real is opposed to the possible along with contingency and necessity, not saying that it can't be, it's just that I'm having difficulty in translation. A comparative study of Peirce and the projects deleuze worked on is very interesting and tricky especially since they are opposites in their approach to terminology. But I tend to agree with Peirce that the problem of universals is a key to understanding, even though I don't quite understand.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

So Deleuze develops this opposition in a few places in the seminars, it's related to the philosophy of essences, the Platonism that Deleuze proposes to overturn in D&R and which dominated philosophy probably up until Nietzsche (with exceptions, in particular the Stoics, Scotus and Spinoza, who offer another view of essence and being). To give a simple example, if you say "There will be a naval battle tomorrow" (which is a possible statement), and then it turns out that there is no naval battle, then the possible statement becomes impossible. It's the problem of future contingents. As Deleuze says, the problem, which created a huge stir in Antiquity and which motivated much of Stoic philosophy, is that "out of the possible emerges the impossible". And so, possibility cannot be real. Hope that helps!

[@hangingthief71]

@@deleuzephilosophy thank you very much for your answer, and yes it did help answer my answer, though the original answer I posted was malformed and ignorant, apparently I only have short memory because I like weed and couldn't recall some things I should have known. And I definitely need to watch your video again now, thank you for the content and reply. These problems especially regarding futurity are important for me to figure out to understand what happened. This passage, and others, from Fredrick Sternjfelt's Diagrammatology In turn helped answer our answers and I think it may relate what the two of us are talking about. _3) Continuity thus forms the central feature of Peirce’s realism with respect to such “real possibilities”: That which is possible is in so far general and, as general, it ceases to be individual. Hence, remembering that the word "potential" means indeterminate yet capable of determination in any special case, there may be a potential aggregate of all the possibilities that are consistent with certain general conditions; and this may be such that given any collection of distinct individuals whatsoever, out of that potential aggregate there may be actualized a more multitudinous collection than the given collection. Thus the potential aggregate is, with the strictest exactitude, greater in multitude than any possible multitude of individuals. But being a potential aggregate only, it does not contain any individuals at all. It only contains general conditions which permit the determination of individuals. (“The Logic of Continuity”, 1898, 6.185)_ Have a good day, any person who reads this

[@hangingthief71]

So the rough translation into Peirce would be virtual-firstness-actual-secondness-(this should be understood like double articulation, lobsters, as in the virtual is the secondness of the actual's firstness and vis-versa) and the discontinuity or rupture from immanence made by the pairing of the two would be realized by transcendence for deleuze and would be realized by a third term for Peirce that would stand in a relation of thirdness to each of the first two terms. Something like that.

[@hangingthief71]

Also, a little later on pdf pp 31 sternjfelt quotes ''The logic of continuity" yet again and I just have to copy and paste here because it really drives what the two of them were talking about home with simple example _Let the clean blackboard be a sort of diagram of the original vague potentiality, or at any rate of some early stage of its determination. This is something more than a figure of speech; for after all continuity is generality. This blackboard is a continuum of two dimensions, while that which it stands for is a continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions. This blackboard is a continuum of possible points; while that is a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or is a continuum of possible dimensions of a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or something of that sort. There are no points on this blackboard. There are no dimensions in that continuum. I draw a chalk line on the board. This discontinuity is one of those brute acts by which alone the original vagueness could have made a step towards definiteness. There is a certain element of continuity in this line. Where did this continuity come from? It is nothing but the original continuity of the blackboard which makes everything upon it continuous. What I have really drawn there is an oval line. For this white chalk-mark is not a line, it is a plane figure in Euclid's sense -- a surface, and the only line there, is the line which forms the limit between the black surface and the white surface. Thus the discontinuity can only be produced upon that blackboard by the reaction between two continuous surfaces into which it is separated, the white surface and the black surface. The whiteness is a Firstness -- a springing up of something new. But the boundary between the black and white is neither black, nor white, nor neither, nor both. It is the pairedness of the two. It is for the white the active Secondness of the black; for the black the active Secondness of the white. Now the clue, that I mentioned, consists in making our thought diagrammatic and mathematical, by treating generality from the point of view of geometrical continuity, and by experimenting upon the diagram._ (“The Logic of Continuity”, 1898, 6.203-4). Now Peirce says this mere secondness is nothing without a thirdness, correctly, this is where peirce and deleuze differ though it seems they reach the same conclusion. Peirce, an imminently repressed man of state, concerned his logic with extracting Law from God's judgement, thirdness is a lobster. whereas Deleuze, who understood the vital importance of nothing, was more concerned with Life's answer to the judgement of God. Deleuze is Peirce's evil twin.

[@websurfer352]

Deleuze’s immanence is self-contained and inherent yet relational and emergent?? Those two sets of properties are at odds with each other, how could an entity be self-contained and yet be relational, if you had a left which was self-contained and inherent, meaning it need not have a right to define it the that lead to contradiction in terms because left and right are what science calls complementary values you can only have a left in reference to a right, each defines the other!! Emergent entities are greater than the sum of their parts but that does not negate that the parts are the metaphysical ground of the emergent entity?? If you had a junkyard of car parts and a whirlwind came and it left with a fully assembled working car, the working car is emergent but would it, could it have appeared without the junkyard, these are things one must ask to create a precise philosophy!! If without the junkyard the working car could not have appeared then that makes the junkyard of car parts a metaphysical ground of the emergent fully working car?? To do philosophy precisely and do away with ambiguity you must work counterfactuals and think it both ways back and forth like a scientist would!! - Jaime Tan

[@theszachrai]

These are the literal teachings of the Buddha

[@K4iT3c]

Some of it. Not the actual metaphysics but many of the inferences that follows from such a view. *The* Buddha neglected to answer questions of metaphysics. He also declined to answer questions on the self and unity. Seeing these as more concepts for the monkey mind to grab hold of. The Buddha preferred to stay silent on such subjects speaking instead on practical teachings such as the 8 fold path and the 4 noble truths.

[@K4iT3c]

Good to know that Deleuze finally got to where much of eastern has been for thousands of years. This sounds very much like Trika Shaivism as well as Advaita Vedanta

[@godswilly94]

I was thinking the same thing

[@K4iT3c]

@hallucinatingsiren I'm sorry that you find them indecipherable. Indian children don't seem to have too big of a problem with it. With that being said whether or not one specific tradition speaks to you or not has nothing to do with which tradition predates the other. It's not like Deleuze came up with his theories as a way to make Hindu mythology more accessible. 🤷‍♀️

[@weasel-rp7td]

Why are you like this?

[@0x0void]

​@@weasel-rp7tdyeah lmao, people don't seem to understand that non dualistic hinduism is a literal minority for most hindus. Most hindus are polytheists but usually hold one god supreme, basically dualistic philosophy.

[@core-nix1885]

Don't know why you make it sound like a competition.

[@andre-gs2ic]

tampons

[@TheAffirmationBrother]

We are going to be friends

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Looking forward to it!

[@jacksonelmore6227]

All of this is intuitively obvious

[@Torkieh]

how the fuck is this intuitive. Are you out of your mind?

[@jacksonelmore6227]

@tristanreynolds5748 neither

[@jacksonelmore6227]

@tristanreynolds5748 I agree with that, that’s all in line, insightful 🙏👍🏻

[@Torkieh]

dude is working with transcendental fields and mfs come here and say it’s obvious… smh

[@jacksonelmore6227]

@@Torkieh it literally is though, it’s only not obvious when you make it a scientific endeavor, he’s describing spiritual and metaphysical truths

[@lynnfisher3037]

Stuff and nonsense

[@nostromothegreat]

Why does Deleuze not respect his readers enough to write clearly?

[@darillus1]

it's not out of disrespect, that he writes the way he does, it's out of respect for his intended readers of whom will have a background knowledge on previous philosophers, concepts and theories that will actually understand it.

[@87Julius]

​@@darillus1 This might have been a dubious answer, as Deleuze did have the aspiration to write for non-philosophers. Saying that you need academic prequisites to follow him isn't so great, although it may very well be true. I think another way to reply to this kind of off-hand comment is simply this : why don't you have the respect to carefully read him? Why go about being condescending to a thinker who put his entire life in his texts? In the end, the idea that philosophy should be "clear" essentially means that it should say what you already know. It's useless.

[@darillus1]

@@87Julius you don’t need to be an academic to read Hume or Nietzsche, which will really help you understand the language that deleuze is using in this text, unfortunately you will be fighting a losing battle with a lot of deleuzes later work without any prior knowledge or understanding of some of the words he is using.