Gille Deleuze (23)

1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-18 11:47 ID:yz2bN224

Hi everyone.
This past year I happened to have studied Deleuze a little at school (Art University, in Paris). I know really very little, if not nothing according to what the standards may be for /science/, precisely about his philosophy. But the classes were interesting.
Also it seemed to me that the topics discussed here were either related to science only (physics and such), to analytical philosophy, or antic philosophy.
That is why I'll start this thread, not knowing where it will go. If you don't know what to post, which is likely since there's not really any subject here actually, just write your opinion, or what struck you, things you've read... etc.

2 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-18 17:33 ID:eSx2FYfW

the standards here are very very very low, don't worry.

3 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-26 19:14 ID:f0wXSsf4

>>1
I really like Gilles Deleuze's books. My favorites are Thousand Plateus & What is philosophy ? (2 books written with Felix Guattari) but I really appreciate everything done by him. The books on cinema are really awesome too.
I read it in french (my first language).

There is this really good website La voix de Gilles Deleuze where you can listen to some of his lessons as Professor : http://www.univ-paris8.fr/deleuze/

4 Name: OP : 2007-07-27 11:20 ID:yz2bN224

>>3
Hehe that's my university ^^
He was a teacher there, and also the classes I had were done by a teacher who was doing a thesis on him. Seems that's the place to go if you want to study about him.
So far I've read What is Philosophy ? only. Seemed to me more of an esthetic than a system, I mean it has nothing to do with antic philosophy... A bit like a point of view (because, of course, well planes and concepts don't exist), a way of seeing things. That's the theme of the book : the scientific, artistic and philosophic ways of seeing and thinking.
And yet, he uses very precise words which have a precise meaning (I don't know them in english)...

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-27 13:22 ID:Heaven

>>4
Are you french ? So am I. That's kinda funny to have this discussion on a BBS for english speakers. Tell me who was your teacher ?

Our view of philosophy as something wich is systematical and that needs to be systematical is really modern and a bit dogmatic to my taste. In antiquity, Stoïcism was one of the only school who pretended to be systematical and who developed the concept of systema (see the excellent book by Victor Goldschmidt, Le système stoïcien et l'idée de temps, Vrin). Neoplatonism could only be described as a "platonic system" precisely because of the systematisation they opered on the Parmenides’ hypothesis. Epicurism had too many heretics. Aristotelism is another case.

Deleuze's philosophy has a strong classical philosophy background and I think every reader who wants to explore in depth his works also needs this kind of solid background. Same is true for every important philosopher even if it's not an obligation. In Deleuze's view, Spinoza is the one who speaks directly to non-philosophers. That seems weird as the Ethics is a very difficult book. But he's especially thinking about the fifth book on Freedom.

Commentators are not talkative about this point but Deleuze had a very good knowledge of ancient philosophy and many ancient philosophers and theories are mentionned in almost each books he have written : Empedocles and Presocratics, Plato, Stoïcism, Lucretius, Neoplatonists...

(Sorry for the grammatical conjugation errors)

6 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-07-28 16:18 ID:Heaven

WHAT

7 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-10-15 12:48 ID:9mIlXSSg

Can someone point out in a concise way what is interesting about Deleuze?

If you are studying Deleuze, consider that an healthy exercise,... ;-)

8 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-11-03 08:59 ID:Heaven

        ,:r: ´ ̄三二ー、
      ,r' ニ‐     =三、:::ヽ
      ,rr'" '"'' ‐三ニ=-、_::::ヽ
     .!::l       _,. =  r':::::;i、_
     ヽ:ヽ-‐_  _,.-,.  _,,,_ ヽ:::i !::::::::::ー.、
    ,r:!ヽ:!. _   _,::;'t.r::"  i! .l:::::::::::::::::::::ヽ、
   /::::::::::::l::i`:'フ':.   ` -'  .: '.ィ、::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::‐;、
  i:::::::::::::::::ヽ `  ;:  :.、   ::リ l:::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:':::::i
  !:::::::::::::::::::::i:.  ヽ -'´ ,.ヽ ; ! l:::::::::::::::::::::::;r:::::::::::!
  .l:::::::::::::::::::::::ヽ 、ー、-‐_'´  ,:r'r、!:::::::::::::::':::::::::::::':::::::!
  i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ヽ、 ´ _ r'ノ´:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::l
  ヽ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ̄::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i

       ジル・ドゥルーズ[Gilles Deleuze]
        (1925~1995 )

9 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 07:39 ID:nU5itgwU

I love Deleuze but his philosophy seems very complicated.
I've heard that Bergson and Spinoza are basics of his philosophy.
So I tried both. But frankly speaking, both are felt too metaphysical to me.

Deleuze says philosophy is creating new concepts.
But if his philosophy is based on out dated metaphysics, how can he say this is useful new concept?

10 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 09:32 ID:9mIlXSSg

>>9

I think that to have an interesting conversation, you have to add some more meat to your posts.

I mean, to say that Spinoza and Bergson are too metaphysical does not bring much,... Is Kant too philosophical? Is Nietzsche too bookish? In the same vein, what does it bring to say that Deleuze philosophy is based on dated metaphysics? Additions, subtractions and sex are as old as it can get, but they are still all the rage, at the moment.

So specifically, what do you love or criticize in Deleuze's philosophy, or whatever philosopher you want to discuss about?

11 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 15:05 ID:Heaven

English analytical philosophy ftw

12 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 17:03 ID:nU5itgwU

>>10

In 20th century many philosophical schools devoted themselves to criticizing metaphysics.
In many case the metaphysics mean philosophy itself.

Of course, philosophy has significance in the respect that it preserves and shows us the way of thinking that old time's people had.
But today sicence and culture are developed so much so that they need no more philosophy.
Do we believe philosopher's ambiguous theory more than sicientific well-examined knowledge?
No. Sicience has its own method to tell what is truth and what is not. And we rely on it.
Do we need philosopher's dogmatic theory when we do a cultural thing (for example, to make a TV show or create a web site)?
No. Our culture has its own way to create and develop itself. And we rely on it instead of consulting philosopher's arbitorary theory.
So we need no more new philosophy. If Deuleuze is a maker of a new philosophy, we need no more Deuleuze. If making new concepts it important, Deuleuze had to make his new concepts in the field of sicience or culture (people are wating new invention in this field), not in the philosophy.

It is interesting question why there are philosophers even today.
I think some people are attracted to philosophy because they are curious about this fact.

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 17:51 ID:9mIlXSSg

>>12

>It is interesting question why there are philosophers even today.

By the same reason that there are mathematicians today: both develop concepts and tools that can be used in science and real life,...

>If making new concepts it important, Deuleuze had to make his new concepts in the field of sicience or culture (people are wating new invention in this field), not in the philosophy.

Those worlds are not separate, philosophy feeds into science and culture, and gets inspired by both.

I think you need to realize that science is an offspring of philosophy, and that before the scientific method was formalized, both concepts where (con)fused. So it's not surprising that many old philosopher's stances sounded scientific but are not. Today it's much easier to avoid mixing both things.

Scientific theories are the elementary units of scientific knowledge. These theories are assemblies of concepts, many of which were first explored and developed by philosophers. This was true in the past, but remains true in the present. You just have to check the field of neuroscience or theoretical physics to see the close interaction between both disciplines: Borges was writing on the multiuniverse decades before the notion was formalized in quantum mechanics.

Philosophers develop and explore concepts. It's up to scientists to use or modify them to their needs. Same for the general population, they can reuse concepts to organize their lives or society.

>But today sicence and culture are developed so much so that they need no more philosophy.

That will only be true when science knows everything, and culture is perfect. I'm not holding my breath on that,...

>Do we believe philosopher's ambiguous theory more than sicientific well-examined knowledge?

One should not mix scientific knowledge with philosophical discussions. Which does not make philosophical discussions useless. They are a great mining source for new concepts.

>Sicience has its own method to tell what is truth and what is not. And we rely on it.

Science needs inspiration and imagination to build theories, and that's where philosophy can help.

>Do we need philosopher's dogmatic theory when we do a cultural thing (for example, to make a TV show or create a web site)?

Well,... Philosophy might for sure have an impact on WHY you do your web site, and most likely will also affect HOW you do it, since the HOW depends on the WHY. You must have some kind of philosophy grounding your actions, when you build a charity web site, for instance.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 19:12 ID:nU5itgwU

>>13

I understand your argument, which are said by many times by many philosophers and teachers.

But I think this argument depends on the vague usage of the word "philosophy".

Philosophy is basics and can inspire science. That's right. Philosophy uses concepts and is self confident that it makes conceps.
But this is not real. Most of philosophy teachers does not know nothing about other specialities. They only know and teach old philosophical theories and history of philosphy. They cannot do argue on scientific topics as well as professional scientist.
And professional scientist can develop scientific ideas very good without debating with a philosopher.

We can say that when making a new theory a scientist necesarily works his unconscious philosophy. But this is not fair because it is not philosophy which philosophical textbooks and philosophy teachers teach. The scientist could make his theory without reading any philosophical books. If philosophy had helped his works, He could be as well helped by comic books or video games.

Despite all of the above, I have enjoyed reading philosophical books. It is fan as well as reading literature books or religious books. It may not be scientific, but still interesting and to some extent impressing.
And I admit that there are some fields in which any solid scientific method have not found yet nor can be applied (for example, ontology, epistemology, theory of truth). In those fields philosophy can be argued nowadays whether we want or not.

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-05 22:28 ID:dhzfYOyo

>> But today sicence and culture are developed so much so that they need no more philosophy.
> That will only be true when science knows everything, and culture is perfect. I'm not holding my breath on that,...

Consider the past record of philosophy trying to explain things science could not, but now can, I don't see them being of much use in that role in the future, either.

Just because science does not yet have an answer for something, why would we need philosophers to sit around making bad guesses about it?

16 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-07 16:58 ID:9mIlXSSg

>Most of philosophy teachers does not know nothing about other specialities. They only know and teach old philosophical theories and history of philosphy. They cannot do argue on scientific topics as well as professional scientist.

Basically you're saying that a philosopher is not a scientist, and we agree. And it's obvious that a scientist should be able to do his job better than a philosopher should do a scientist's job. However, don't confuse philosophy teachers with philosophers, the same way you should not confuse science teachers for scientists. It's really not the same thing. We are talking about scientists and philosophers, and not teachers. Science teachers do not make science, and philosophy teachers do not make philosophy. And there's nothing wrong with that,...

>If philosophy had helped his works, He could be as well helped by comic books or video games.

Of course, and so can dreams, and whatever can feed someone's experience. But philosophy as been a much more powerful source of inspiration than comic books or video games (I'm joking, but you get the point).

Philosophy is not Science. We agree on that, no need to reiterate.

17 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-07 17:01 ID:9mIlXSSg

>Consider the past record of philosophy trying to explain things science could not, but now can, I don't see them being of much use in that role in the future, either.

Philosophy and Science were the same thing in the beginning, and now have a different role. Presently, philosophy is not about finding answers about the world, but explore concepts.

>Just because science does not yet have an answer for something, why would we need philosophers to sit around making bad guesses about it?

What you call bad guesses have been very fruitful contributions to scientific thought. But once again, don't criticize philosophers for not providing answers, that's not their job. Their job is to develop concepts, and you should criticize if they fail to do so.

18 Name: sage : 2008-03-07 20:55 ID:nU5itgwU

The problem is, what concept have philosphers made? (And is it useful for other specialities?)

What kind of concept? It is not a scientific concept(this is a scientists' job). It is not a cultural concept(this may be... a comic book or video game creater's job). So what can a philosophical concept be?

Philosphers' answer to this question is vary uncertain.

Deleuze deals with the question in his book "What is philosophy?"
But in a very abstract way.

19 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-08 00:17 ID:OuDZrW+i

> What you call bad guesses have been very fruitful contributions to scientific thought.

No, what I call bad guesses turned out to be completely disconnected from reality, and not fruitful in any way whatsoever.

But consider again exactly what I was responding to. It was the suggestion that the things science does not yet explain are the domain of philosophy. That is what I was reacting against.

20 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-08 16:52 ID:Heaven

Anyways, >>1, please listen to me. That it’s really related to this thread.

I went to the Left Bank a while ago; you know, the Left Bank?

Well anyways there was an insane number of people there, and I couldn’t get in. Then, I looked at the banner hanging from the ceiling, and it had “15 francs off” written on it.

Oh, the stupidity. Those idiots. You, don’t come to the Left Bank just because it’s 15 francs off, fool. It’s only 15 francs, 1-5 FRANCS for crying out loud.

There’re even entire families here. Family of 4, all out for some deconstructionist hermeneutics, huh? How fucking nice. “Alright, daddy’s gonna dialogue with the text.” God I can’t bear to watch.

You people, I’ll give you 15 francs if you get out of those seats. The Left Bank should be a bloody place. That tense atmosphere, where two guys on opposite sides of existential questions can start a fight at any time, the stab-or-be-stabbed mentality, that’s what’s great about this place. Women and children should screw off and stay home.

Anyways, I was about to start eating, and then the bastard beside me goes “I question the utilitarian justification of your assumptions.” Who in the world has pure utilitarianism as a reference point nowadays, you moron? I want to ask him, “do you REALLY want to ask him about the logical consequences of his proposal?” I want to interrogate him. I want to interrogate him for roughly an hour. Are you sure you don’t just like saying “utilitarian”?

Coming from a Yoshinoya veteran such as myself, the latest trend among us vets is this, falsifiability. That’s right, Popper's theorem of scientific falsifiability. This is the vet’s way of philosophizing. Popper's theorem of falsifiability means almost all of what we think of as philosophy is actually just mental wanking. But on the other hand it requires a bit more effort. This is the key. And then, it’s delicious. This is unbeatable.

However, if you take this position this then there is danger that you’ll be marked by the employees from next time on because they suspect you of scientism; it’s a double-edged sword. I can’t recommend it to amateurs.

What this all really means, though, is that you, >>1, should just stick with writing pseudo-profound graffiti on bathroom walls.

21 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-03-14 23:09 ID:p7Jnk2jN

>>20

> Coming from a Yoshinoya veteran...

``
/ <o> <o> \
\ \ O / /
``

22 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2008-10-08 15:33 ID:9mIlXSSg

>>19

>the latest trend among us vets is this, falsifiability. That’s right, Popper's theorem of scientific falsifiability. This is the vet’s way of philosophizing. Popper's theorem of falsifiability means almost all of what we think of as philosophy is actually just mental wanking.

Popper's theorem of falsifiability is not the alpha and omega of the scientific method, because it does not correspond to the way science is really developed. Scientists don't go around trying to prove their theories wrong, they try to find data supporting their data,...

And Popper's thinking can be corrupted to justify all kinds of agendas (such as creationism). For instance, if you abstract enough the theory of evolution and natural selection, you could claim that it can't be proven wrong, and is thus not scientific, which is a misrepresentation.

I think Popper's ideas are useful, but you have to consider other aspects. And one of them is what did the theory bring: did it allow to produce useful predictions, more importantly, did it enable the creation of useful tools?

When a theory allows the production of new tools it indicates that it approached something deep about the world reality. Religious theories do not create tools, for instance (never seen a faith propelled rocket).

As for philosophy, it does not produce new tools and is no science. But it opens the search space for new theories, and in that can be very useful for the scientific process, without being a scientific theory.

23 Post deleted.

This thread has been closed. You cannot post in this thread any longer.