Видео

Thank you so much for the kind words, that's very nice of you to say! I really appreciate it. I don't have this particular definition in mind tbh. I wonder if he means the *search* for power, meaning politicians, tyrants and all those who thrive by imposing affects of sadness on others? Because he says something like that in the seminar on Spinoza: trying to control others through force and coercion is not a show of force but a form of hate (in one's self, against one's own power to act). Seems there's a lot of truth to it!

@@deleuzephilosophy I think that's exactly it, we could consider power as a force in the sense of Spinoza, but in the lowest form possible because it impedes bodies from doing what they can (like in reactive forces). It seems contradictory perhaps, but I tend to read Deleuze trying to apply some sort of logical intuition to his texts. There's something beyond his strong logic that needs to be grasped and whenever I see people that rejects his philosophy entirely, the more I think his thought can be applied.

Very glad to hear it's useful to you! Thanks for watching.

If you're more interested in another aspect of his thought then absolutely go for it, there's nothing heretical in that ;)

Thank you 🙏

😂

My pleasure, thanks a lot for watching, Kyle!

Thank you so much, welcome to Deleuze - U 😂

🧑‍🏫

Well, then, I suggest, that you find out from where the confusion arises. I'm the kind of elective non-academic philosopher enthusiastic (fool), and I'm gona say, that go back to the ancient Athens in this case. It's like if you have a knot in understanding mathematical basic concepts, it's gona affect the whole thing!

@Artholic100 Nice schizo post 👍 Get back to me when you feel like being coherent

@picardcook7569 nice Ad-hominem. Come back to me once you get past it.

@Artholic100 Nice non-sequitur, get back to me when you learn what an ad hominem is

@picardcook7569 OK. Look. What was the thing you thought was overcomplicated in this "nonsense"? Or are we gona print every error here we can imagine? When you accuse me of being crazy, but you didn't even bother to inform in first place anything other than stating your non-understanding, I then tried to ask, if there was something in the context of this which made it overcomplicated or what? I admit, that I am indeed sometimes not as clear as I have to be.

Glad to hear, thank you for watching!

Thanks a lot :) Really happy you like this content!

Deleuze and Foucault absolutely are disciples of Nietzsche, but they add a lot to his thought I think (and dropped the moustache)

@@deleuzephilosophy it was all about the moustache i guess 🤣

@@Sherlockarim Was it Dali who came up with the idea of "radar moustache"? He may have been on to something 😂

@deleuzephilosophy exactly, i was about to mention him, he called it "anti Nietzscheien" or something 🤣

​@@deleuzephilosophylove the response as it is what it is!

Thank you :)

You're welcome, glad to hear it's useful!

Indeed, the type of causality implied here is the immanent cause (as oppose to the emanative and transcendent types of causes), meaning that the cause remains in itself in order to produce its effect

I really appreciate the kind words :) Thank you for watching!

zizek is baby poopoo brain just stick with the french ones

Thanks a lot! I don't know enough about Zizek tbh and I wouldn't know where to start, but any book/article recommendation would be welcome

Thank you :)

Thanks a lot, I'm thankful for you as well!

Chaos for whitehead is a given that goes into as a negative prehension to the superject experiencing the universe (chaos includes) but not only, it is also necessary for novelty to occur. Creativity and chaos do seem exchangeable in his theory. But then again we are open to the discussion of different types of chaos that amount to the ultimate creativity. Here I’m quoting from p.110 of Process and reality “the societies in an environment will constitute its orderly element, and the non-social actual entities will constitute its element of chaos. There is no reason, so far as our knowledge is concerned, to conceive the actual world as purely orderly, or as purely chaotic. (…) thus if there is to be Progres beyond limited ideals, the curse of history by way of escape must venture along the borders of chaos in a substitution of higher for lower types of order.”

Hey Kyle! Yes I completely agree, "doing something I didn't know I could do" is a perfect formula. It's quite interesting to see that it's the exact same thing that happens in sports, music and also writing (which I think Deleuze evokes in these terms in some places), where we're being "lead by the body". I appreciate you watching!

@ thanks for making the videos 💙💙

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!

Good question! The passage from common notions to eternal essences is done when the subject becomes active (Spinoza calls bliss "active contemplation"), that is, when I become able to affect myself with objects (ideas) that I create--typically, philosophical concepts. This does not produce common notions, as, in a certain sense, this knowledge is individual (even though it can be shared), but it produces adequate and individual knowledge nonetheless. So while we can never really grasp external objects in their complete noumenal reality, we can grasp "what we do" completely, to the extent that we create something new.

@@deleuzephilosophy Thank you!

Thanks for watching, glad you liked this video!

Thanks a lot Brian, I really appreciate it! Well that's certainly my hope ;) I'm glad you appreciate this content!

You could debunk it, if it was something like a scientific model or an axiomatic system, but that's precisely what metaphysics isn't

@@deleuzephilosophy Well, you need to tell that to all the metaphysicians who have been debunking each other's theories for the last 1,000 years.

​@@RayG817 It's true that philosophers disagree, of course, but to say that Bergson's metaphysics can be debunked means 1) that you treat it like a scientific model, which it isn't, and 2) that you know something about it that Bergson didn't, which is impossible. Having and formulating different metaphysical problems doesn't mean that other problems are wrong, but rather that they express different interests. Also, I can't find anything about "persuasive or emotive speculation" in Russell's essay on Bergson--which thus appears to be a claim that is extremely unfair to both Russell and Bergson.

@@deleuzephilosophy His concept of elan vital has been debunked by genetics. His concept of duration was debunked by Einstein's theory of Relativity. His concept of intuition attempted to debunk Kant's theory of Knowledge...and lost.

​@@RayG817 Elan vital is not a fact which is incompatible with genetics, it is not something material. Bergson tried to find a metaphysical intuition by an inspiration from the knowledge given by the facts with biology for example, but this intuition is not a real fact like a material thing. Likewise, genetics are not something more than a material thing. Elan vital is something more than just a theory of genetics. Genetics seems to prove that everything is innate, in the genome, but we can't find our spirits in the genome, we just find matter. We can't prove that all the consciousness is already in a gene, or a sperm. Bergson says that consciousness developps interacting with matter. Bergson wrote a book about Einstein theory, he explains that Duration is not the Time of Einstein, because the concept of time by einstein is space dependant. Duration is out of space.

You're welcome, thank you for watching!

Well, there's a passage in the seminars where Deleuze explains that the humanities tend to avoid final causes in order to maintain the scientificity of their discourse, which means that they "get stuck" at the structural level. People like Gabriel Tarde or Gustave Guillaume tried to create a genetic method by studying the micro-level of society/language. I'd imagine other people today in the humanities have tried similar things!

You're welcome, thanks for watching! Happy readings

You're welcome, thank you for watching and for the request! It's a big endeavour, but I'll definitely think about it.