Manuel DeLanda - The Philosophy of Gilles Deleuze

[@johannesbongers]

Thank you for so much beauty!

[@keshavnandhan1234]

definetly one of the most decent lecture of deleuze ive heard on youtube. most say some vile stuff. a quick protip: one should listen and read deleuze directly or if u are like me translated and then get on these lectures.

[@cthulhu7397]

Amazing

[@AB-gw6uf]

Wonderful

[@brynicecream5824]

❤

[@OjoRojo40]

One of the greatest leftist of the last century. Guattari too by the way, thanks for the video!

[@alexistinsleypope9327]

Leftist ??? Sounds rather pejorative - Deuleuze was a brilliant and innovative thinker.

[@OjoRojo40]

@@alexistinsleypope9327 Pejorative?? Quite the opposite. Have a good day!

[@singleoneonly]

@@alexistinsleypope9327 He called himself a leftist repeatedly, especially when referring to his marxist framework.

[@o.s.h.4613]

@@singleoneonly It would be difficult to extend what he meant by leftist back then to what is leftist today-even as a “leftist” myself, Deleuze is not any more a Marxist alone than he is a Freudian critiquing Marx. What Deleuze said about himself isn’t exactly what’s important-what we should look at is his thought. Deleuze often takes and reappropriates terms, especially in his characterization of himself as a “proud metaphysician.” He’s not using it in the sense endemic to the times of Kant, but rather to Heidegger, but not in disagreement with him either. We can do much better, as philosophers, than associating an ontologist with his strict political ideology, and then fleeing the scene with a somewhat pedantic “Have a good day!”

[@singleoneonly]

@@o.s.h.4613 Are you trying to insist that this label couldn’t describe deleuze himself? His reappropriating of various terms obviously causes him to become especially idiosyncratic, but insisting that it somehow forces him out of his marxist credentials seems incredibly silly. My argument doesn’t rest with his labeling of himself but his project, which is undeniably leftist/anti capitalist/communist/marxist, etc.

[@henkaipan8]

35:00

[@giordanobruno9601]

DeLanda looks a bit like a lobster here.

[@sounaksen507]

Xd

[@Cuervodelpantano]

One day, after a conference here in Latin America, many people were discussing this. They said that De Landa was not human, but that he was a lobster. I think we are discovering something big

[@ecstaticthunders8487]

I have to disagree with the idea that the creationist account is at odds with a process-oriented one which includes morphogenesis as a generative principle. God has been described as a lure for feeling and appetition, or as the goal of the movement from essence and potentiality to actuality, or even as the source of all creativity. In all these descriptions He is an active creator, not a passive one. He, in fact, supplies the reason and subjective aim of all creatures - that is union with Himself. Creation in the Christian worldview also extends beyond Genesis. The universe is still becoming. Christ's life, death and resurrection weren't afterthoughts, but were built into God's creative plan. The image of Christ on the cross drawing all men towards him represents the attractive power of God (John 12:32). Prior to Christ, the Law was required to act as both symbol of the order of things, and to guide man's becomings. It was an object for meditation (Joshua 1:8). It prefigured the Messiah, who as the logos acts as the goal of all creation and images all order and rationality in the universe (Heraclitus understood this. His Logos was not static but active). Christ is the law made flesh(Matthew 5:17 + John 1) The Psalmist writes about creation praising God (Psalm 19), and St Paul writes about creation yearning for the revelation of the sons of God (Romans 8:19). There is motion here, there has been a process of change, bringing creation to some deeper 'conception' of the goal and end of all things. It might be said that creation praised God purely through the expression of identity, but Christ's incarnation brought in an entirely new metaphysical order in which nature now responds to the decaying human condition. Creation now yearns for the great restoration. It is stirred by the revelation that our identity is still becoming and being perfected. And yes, this does make us the focal point of things, but our redemption is equivalent to the redemption of all creation since it was our fall which set things awry in the first place. This is an integral vision of all things participating in the Divine. Desire for sanctification and redemption drives the engine of all creation. This places all creation in direct relation to God, not with 'life' as an animate principle. (Consider also that the atoms that comprise your body exist in this mode) As humans, we can now read a Song of Songs irradiated by the light of Christ, who entered into His own creation (the bridegroom) and is now enthroned in Heaven in the flesh. There is humanity in the trinity. God's plan was, from the start, to be embodied within creation. It might be said that having tasted this, and experienced Christ in the flesh, that all creation now groans for Christ's return. The reality of creation is far richer and deeper than many people (including we Christians) understand. I hope that I've made that a little clearer. One might say that God is allowing all things the liberty to self-create, lured onwards by Him. The end is the freely chosen union of all things in God.

[@matthewjohnstone4412]

"A dead god and Sodomy are the thresholds of the new metaphysical ellipse" - Foucault.