Manuel De Landa. Metaphysics As Ontology: Aristotle and Deleuze's Realism. 2011

www.egs.edu/ Manuel De Landa, philosopher, artist and author, talking about the ontology of Aristotle and Gilles Deleuze. In this lecture, Manuel De Landa discusses metaphysics, universality, particularity, generality, singularity, realism, mathematics, and social science in relationship to Leonhard Euler, Kurt Gödel, Henri Poincaré and Michel Foucault focusing on a priori truths, virtual capacities, affects, differential calculus, necessity and contingency. Public open lecture for the students and faculty of the European Graduate School EGS Media and Communication Studies department program Saas-Fee Switzerland Europe. 2011. Manuel De Landa.


Manuel De Landa (b. in Mexico City, 1952), based in New York since 1975, is a philosopher, media artist, programmer and software designer. After studying art in the 1970s, he became known as an independent filmmaker making underground 8mm and 16mm films inspired by critical theory and philosophy. In the 1980s, Manuel De Landa focused on programing, writing computer software, and computer art. After being introduced to the work of Gilles Deleuze, he saw new creative potential in philosophical texts, becoming one of the representatives of the 'new materialism'. Manuel De Landa is Adjunct Professor at University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and the Gilles Deleuze Chair of Contemporary Philosophy and Science at the European Graduate School EGS, he was Adjunct Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation at Columbia University (New York). He currently lectures extensively in the United States and Europe, and is lecturer at the Canisius College (Buffalo, NY) and at the University of Philadelphia. Manuel De Landa's essays are published in numerous journals, and he is the author of War in the Age of Intelligent Machines (1991), A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History (1997), Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (2002), and A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity (2006).

[@naturphilosophie1]

One admirable and lasting contribution Deleuze makes to philosophy is his ability to remain an anathema to all isms. Realism, Idealism, Materialism etc all become merely signposts in true thinking, all with their byroads and dead ends, they nevertheless resonate with one another to lead somewhere else. Each ism can become a dictator, even good ideas when taken alone become blockages to thinking. He wants us to see beyond isms.

[@endoscented]

I don't think his goal was to compare the two at all. He makes clear he is speaking from a Realism point of view. Also, most mathematics (including those he referenced) that delve into philosophy treat their theorems, numbers, and the laws of mathematics as a Realist would.

[@naturphilosophie1]

@jsearle84 because Deleuze is different than Peirce and Aristotle.

[@masbbo]

Aristotle's difference minus the eternal (via evolutionary theory). And a mathematical approach to individuation.

[@masbbo]

Still don't understand why properties (states) are not apprehended relational? Seems like a problematic 'ontological commitment'.

[@Krelianx]

Badiou has no mathematical skills? Have you read The Concept of Model, Number and Numbers, or Logics of Worlds? Granted, Peirce's contribution to mathematics is pretty extraordinary, but to say Badiou had no 'actual mathematical skills' is pretty damn stupid.

[@TAEHSAEN]

1. He says that "atom is an Individual Singular" by saying that atom's life span began with the big bang. However, the ball of gas, which lead to the big bang, wasnt it made up of atoms itself? So hasnt Atoms ALWAYS existed and are Universal? 2. What was the point he was trying to make by showing that we can put atomic bonding into mathematical terms? There IS logic here as well (of energy) behind WHY these structures occur. So how does this prove that math > logic? Or am I missing the point?

[@alexalien2456]

An object is existence without being and the horror of existence is what an object is and existence without being is all around us for we live in a world of objects that exist-there without being-there and to our absolute horror there are even humans there that exist without being existing-there-without-being-there for existing-there is not being-there: Ontology for Heidegger is Obology just as Ontology for Harman is Obology and Obology for Heidegger and Harman is objectified-being-into-obing.

[@jsearle84]

Why not simply talk about Charles Sanders Peirce and Aristotle? Unlike Deleuze or Badiou, Peirce had actual mathematical skills and is much easier to read.