Manuel DeLanda - The Philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. 2007 1/5

[@Vlady011]

I agree. That's the problem with philosophy departments in North America and elswhere. Let me tell you, my Political Science lectures where we actually study Deleuze, Derrida, Levinas (and even Badiou) are filled with philosophy students. Philosophy as a disciple has stopped being serious as a result of the emphasis given to the analytical tradition.

[@rajasmasala]

egs, manuel delanda, thank you, thank you, thank you. you're making everything a lot easier for me.

[@albertomunoz1]

It is very important for the world to upload all this videos from EGS!!!!

[@volumexxvii]

Dawkins' language always remains trapped in a superficial scientific framework, while the language of Deleuze penetrates philosophically. Deleuze may sometimes be difficult, but most certainly worth the effort.

[@egsvideo]

thank you for the comment. please read and enjoy: A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History by Manuel De Landa. i hope this helps. thank you.

[@marxesque]

it seems to me that there's much more to be gained by simply reading the chapter from A Thousand Plateau's which he discuses then listening to someone lecture on it... "better a fool on your own account than a sage on another's approbation"

[@pawsoned]

@Hofsteder read "Gilles Deleuze - an Introduction" by Todd May. He explains Deleuze's philosophy and gives plenty of examples of "valuable, original insight by Deleuze". However, to put them in a short comment limited to 350 characters is simply too reductive.

[@glovearm]

The HUMAN IDEA of expression is based on consciousness and that is the point; expression is NOT dependent on consciousness but receptivity.

[@Deleuzeshammerflow]

architecture and philosophy intersect nicely. Of course, building walls may not concretely be philosophical but notions of space and aesthetics are...

[@ArnoldKlein]

Yes, he is, and me too.

[@mikebott6940]

i am very curious as to who discounted spinoza as a philosopher.

[@defcon25]

What do you want explained? I'd be glad to help

[@elsafralves]

can you explain us?

[@pilkingtonphil]

"In other words, the negation of the negation is useless, because the unconscious is productive and knows no negative." But the unconscious only "exists" (in Freudian metapsychology) in relation to the conscious and preconscious agencies. Freud and Lacan are very clear on this - see Freud's paper on Negation, for example. Without the "negating" agencies of the conscious and pre-conscious (secondary processes) the very idea of the unconscious couldn't come into existence.....

[@FritzThaulove]

Why dont you put them on, do a fashion shoot and get in the next issue of vice? Maybe that would pass as beauty too.

[@DaimonTheFallen]

@OmarThePug Just because it appears to be 'crazy' to you doesn't make it so. It's kind of funny how many people misread Deleuze so constantly.

[@jackspicerisland]

If you're curious, check out the school of Soviet philosophers in the late 1920's who understand him not as a philosopher but as a particularly gullible theologian.

[@pilkingtonphil]

Incidentally, does anyone ever get the impression that aesthetic theories derived from Deleuze's work are to actual art what attempts (such as those of Timothy Leary) to ground psychological theories in the experience of chemical induced delirium are to actual psychology? And if such is even remotely the case wouldn't it follow that establishing some sort of quality control would be impossible due to the impenetrably narcissistic (i.e. shut-off) character of the psychologist/aesthetician?

[@joelbryant8463]

Is the word he is using "exposivity" or something else?

[@cevemeve]

Paraphrasing american yaqui indian philosophy is not a bad way of developping ideas... specially when you have a more global vision than just tie your theory to one single culture, on a region, or a time period. Yaqui philosophy, by the way, joins many other visions... just as the one practiced (actually) by the kogi in Colombia.

[@erzzr]

@royalyon "non-evolutionary" something tells me you haven't read DeLanda or Deleuze...

[@pilkingtonphil]

Crystals expressing themselves? Why is it that somebody ostensibly setting out to discuss scientific ends up sounding like a proponent of some new-age "crystal healing" tripe? I mean if the vast majority of what we convey to each other is through the use of spoken/written language then isn't it important to recognise when certain expressive and terminological methods overlap?

[@pilkingtonphil]

Crystals expressing themselves? Why is it that somebody who is ostensibly setting out to discuss aspects of the sciences ends up sounding like a proponent of some sort of new-age "crystal healing" tripe? I mean if the majority of what we convey to each other takes the form of discourse then isn't it important to point out to these similarities in expressive style and terminological usage?

[@jackspicerisland]

Stick-in-the-muds everywhere will tell you that Deleuze is 'not philosophy.' Of course these folks are animated by the same spirit that claimed Nietzsche wasn't philosophy, that Spinoza wasn't. These are the accountants of philosophy who, I guess, would have us all reading Russell and Frege and nothing else. Ick. That said, DeLanda WAS more fun when he was driving the getaway car for Joe Coleman.

[@pilkingtonphil]

"In other words, the negation of the negation is useless, because the unconscious is productive and knows no negative." That's kind of the problem with Deleuze though. He gives full precedence to the unconscious even though both Freud and Lacan stressed the importance of the conscious and preconscious agencies in the make-up of consciousness. Just look at Freud's paper on "Negation". He seems to imply that in order to become conscious, to organise ideas etc. we first have to introduce negation.

[@4ourthofjuly]

The humanities should be restructured in general. I cant buy in to deleuze having any explanatory power, it does seem more like art. I think he said something like art, philosophy, and science are 3 different ways to understand the world. I only see science, and some sort of "analysis" innate to humans. A bit like Russell wrote about.

[@28g34ajbsd]

to be "more like"? :) you mean, more like the animals that therefore we always already are? :)~

[@Meerkeime]

Well, you obviously aren't acquainted with too many "professional philosophers, then. But that's ok, no need to feel sad...

[@28g34ajbsd]

Umm... I don't believe Deleuze would use the term unconscious except to trash it.

[@joyclean]

american yaqui indian philosophy paraphrased. carlos castaneda as continental; poisoned in a river of come-lately discourse.

[@SuricataJoe]

Well, may be they are charlatans, maybe they aren't. Thats the whole point of thinking, is it not? If you feel theoretically strong and fierce enough do care to enlighten the rest of the community, we will be very thankful. But if it is just BS do not bother, there is already plenty around in the world…

[@bigpiimpiiin]

Deleuze was influenced by the artistic side of humans.

[@28g34ajbsd]

Yes, and this is why analytic philosophy is actually *the* most boring thing in the world.

[@Ontologistics]

Deleuze does not offer anything of insight. It's superficiality dressed as depth. It gives Philosophy a bad name.

[@pilkingtonphil]

Crystals expressing themselves? Why is it that somebody ostensibly setting out to discuss scientific ends up sounding like a proponent of some new-age "crystal healing" tripe? I mean if the vast majority of what we convey to each other is through the use of spoken/written language then isn't it important to recognise when certain expressive and terminological methods overlap?