HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 ноя 2024
- Today we talk about Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche's work. We talk about difference taken to radical new levels. The image of thought from the history of philosophy. Nietzsche framed as the enemy to the dialectic. Active vs Reactive forces. Deleuze's thoughts on art as a vehicle for the creation of the new instead of our typical approach via acquiring more information. Hope you love it! Be well. :)
Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.
Website: www.philosophi...
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Social:
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
X: / iamstephenwest
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
If only we could have gotten these two greats together in one room!
Your series on Deleuze has been so good
Fascinating. Deleuze was very good at loosening up thought and how we think by opening up his own perspective. Such an influence on me and how I try to structure my thinking around free association and process.
Hello steven! Long time listener here. I want you to know i really value your work. Your an excellent communicator and teacher and your only bias seems to be towards greater knowledge and understanding. I love how you started at the beginging or recorded philosophy and try to follow its evolution chronologically. So i was watching a video about gods essences vs energys and how it compares to the allegory of the cave and i realized theres a whole untapped wealth of knowledge there. The saints and scholars and monks of the orthodox traditions were well aware of secular philosophy and im pretty sure have been using Socratic debate to refine religion for 2000ish years. Eastern orthodox atleast, they seem to have kept the tradition unbroken. So im planning on going through the anthology of the saints chronologically and see whats interesting in there. Im still reading through the bible and i guess ill pick up trying to find writing from the next gen of church leaders after that. Im a slow reader though. I didnt know if this would interest you or other people. I am nobody and you owe me absolutely nothing but i thought it would be neat, and benificial to me and mabey others, and hopfully interesting to you if you mabey did like a mini series or weave some episodes into your main channel on the subject. Idk if thats a big ask or not. I was hoping not cause i imagine you just reading and demoloshing 1000s of pages of thoughts for breakfast, like mabey it would be fun? I love thinking, really struggle with reading though. I look forward to your future episodes regardless of the content. I hope you are enjoying your life. God bless.
Ps.ruclips.net/video/WbbOEnWULEQ/видео.htmlsi=XTVW7b4OYY8z1c-W ruclips.net/video/WbbOEnWULEQ/видео.htmlsi=XTVW7b4OYY8z1c-W
Thats the video i refenced. Im sure its boring to you but i mentioned it so im linking it.
Brilliantly explained 👌
Thanks a lot .
Awesome Sunday now!
You make my life better! 🙏
MINE TOO!
We want some videos on Philosopher Jason Reza Jorjani!! The point of departure for his project is, in Philosophy, Nietzsche and Heidegger, in Politics, Schmitt and Huntington, and in Paranormal Studies the likes of Jacques Vallee and Stephen Braude. Fascinating and controversial stuff (as it should be).
I am impressed by this philosophy very much.
Nice. I was just thinking about the compatibility of Deleuzes philosophy with that of Hegel, as some modern readings suggest to question the teleology and dialektische Aufhebung part. What unites them is the emphasis on process, immanent difference (universal tensions) and the inevitable confrontation of differing things. But then again, there isnt much of the original Hegel left.
I believe I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say yes, we would definitely like to hear an episode on Heidegger's critique of Nietzsche 🍻
So there would be a constant back and forth between the definition of an object caused by the network of negations, the determination by negation, by all the things it is not; and the practical fluctuation of its use, the ever changing definition made by "time", considering time as the mental snapshot society can do of a certain thing. We wouldnt be able to perceive time if the objects in space didnt move at all, if time is that snapshot, and things dont move at all, we wouldnt perceive any change at all, so no time passing either.
If reality is really just all of us playing a puzzle together, we will inevitably reach the point where we start just taking other's pieces from where they were placed and using it in another place to try to solve the perpetual problem of the puzzle never being a real nor complete picture of reality. We could agree as a society with the placement of many but we would invariably need to start re adjusting them so we can start anew or create new patterns that helps us advance in a certain set of conditions in time.
The constant seeking of dialectical contradiction is but us taking setting the pieces of the puzzle in a way that fits and aligns the image for us, yet inevitably leave an insurmountable gap somewhere in the puzzle, a gap others will identify as a problem eventually and inexorably because things would reach a standstill and time would stop to pass if people just accepted a particular placement of the pieces and basically completely stopped doing absolutely anything.
The slowing down of cultural time mark fisher talks about, i think its but society fighting for an decreasing number of free pieces to reconfigurate , we become bored, depressed in a place that seems virtually timeless as we cannot indulge into moving pieces at all, so we cannot solve the contradictions that are present in a puzzle with infinite pieces, infinite shapes and colors, that are set in place and determined by the ever-watchful eye of certain political and social forces outside of individual control.
The dialectical master-slave dichotomy is never an ever-pressing problem if we have a multiplicity of spheres which we can contrast it with, in other words, if we can go somewhere else and be ourselves or move and reconfigurate the placement of some of the puzzle pieces, yet its ominous force is present and reinforced not by reality as it is but as our perception of reality fluctuates and becomes determined only by its sociological determination of the self. The contradictions and negations present in any given dialectical juxtaposition are only ever fully present if the forces making those things collide are in place, but not as something that pushes us towards conflict, but as distinct conflicts that have magnetism over us, and we go towards the one that catches our eye more strongly as we think we have the tools or puzzle piece to solve it.
Amazing! Now I want to read Deleuze
Art is the subtle and indirect way of conveying the cost of lessons learned or the cost of lessons yet to be learned.
Awesome episode!! Wow.
I love listening to your podcast, it gives me a lot to talk about with my students. Recent episodes have left me wondering why it took Western philosophers so long to come back to ideas that Taoism expressed a long time ago. Perhaps my view of Taoism is overly idealistic, so I'm curious if there are any criticisms of Taoism that have been made.
Great stuff.
Psychoanalyst:
“Your criticisms of psychoanalysis point to a rigid and dogmatic mind. One that is unable to process ideas that fall outside the bounds of your own books and theories.
Deleuze:
"C'est l'hôpital qui se moque de la charité."
I infer little and assume even less but all I hear is desire;
[...] it is another town that corresponds to each point of view,
and each point of view is another town.... And always another
town within the town.
--Deleuze, _Logic of Sense_
Nietzsche sure did wrecked serious havoc in the lyceums immediately around Paris in the 1950's.
Lover, I'm off the streets
Gonna go where the bright lights
And the big city meet
With a red guitar on fire
Desire
--U2, _Desire_
Make it _New_
--Ezra Pound
9:30 the opposite of this though would be if someone wrote a poem and claimed it was creative. They said “look everyone I wrote a poem, it is the first poem that doesn’t have any words and is all pictures and acting!”
Everyone would say, well yes it’s different but it’s not creative as the bounds of the concept allow it to be creative. It’s the bounds themselves that allow it to be creative.
Also I think non contradiction is important and can be lost if there are no bounds to terms. The words essentially become meaningless.
It would be like saying “I drove a car to work today” and the person said “no you didn’t you stayed at home eating cheetos” and the person responds “well by drove I meant sit, I’m so creative I actually think that driving can include not moving and not being in a car, and by work I meant sitting down eating cheetos, I’m so free minded that I think that working can mean not making money scrolling on tik tok”
I was thinking something similar, I've read psychology research that suggested that without constraint, most people are uncreative. Rules make good servants and bad masters.
@@heorieob Very true! The power of the creative product is relative to the perceived constraints beforehand! What would seem very creative would be someone making a boat out of only bottles, this would not seem creative if they had access to every type of material.
I would say that’s all true on an abstract level. But creativity that Deleuze usually advocates for is affectivity though. What’s important to Deleuze is to produce affectivities in other people’s that increase power. In the examples you used it really just confuses people, confuses communication and robs people of power by forcing them to think instead of producing an impetus to act. I think comedy is a good example of how we can use word play to produce the effect of laughter in an audience as laughter can be a source of energy that helps us feel better in life and continue on with our struggles. So creativity should be careful in taking pride in the abstract creations and instead find pride in what it actually does in the world for ourselves and others.
@@kylerodd2342 so here’s using philosophy as a pragmatist instead of a claim of truth? Would he be classified as an anti realist?
Let me know if I’ve missed the mark entirely I’m not trying to put words in your mouth
@@josephrichards7624 to your first question, yes and no, depending on what sense you speak of pragmatism. To your second question, no. Deleuze is a metaphysician doing his best to contextualize reality through philosophy; using philosophy to help us grasp things about reality that are basically unthinkable.
Yes!!! You mentioned long ago a possible video on Wittgenstein and Heidegger (i think??) That would be so cool!! I also am highly interested in anti-humanist anarchism. Thank you for work!
Thank you ... (Courtesy? A long-lost art.)
I'm a Patreon supporter and would love for you to do a series on Alan Watts
What about "trying" to look at Nietzsche (and yourself) as Deleuze's machines with in machines?
Im guessing you said that in a different way in there somewhere but hoping to be reaffirmed.
This probably fucking slaps
Heidegger would be fantastic
Can we please do question concerning technology
Love it… art, art, art… but what is art? Many views about it.
What works of Deleuze would you recommend for someone who’s never read any of his work?
I haven't read all of Deleuze's translated work, however,
his _Desert Islands_ is pretty tame. Also, his interviews/
dialogues with Claire Parnet conducted while Claire was
still a student of philosophy are super cool as well.
Around here, the work that is often cited and bantered about the most
is his short essay _Postscript on the Societies of Control_
It is widely available and a pretty provocative piece. One could
read it in five minutes but it is deceptive in it's density.
I read _Anti-Oedipus_ and _A Thousand Plateaus_
and I wouldn't recommend starting with either
one of those texts unless your very life was on the line or
something like that. No kidding.
His academic published opus would require entrenchment in the field
before it could be digested and not many have that kind of time or
familiarity. Specialized stuff. Yet it has been purported that his work
is cited in the research of a Nobel Prize winner in biology.
Maybe, Deleuze's _Negotiations_ (1993) would be the most accessible
work toward approaching him for the nonreader of Deleuze?
I don't know the Deleuze canon proper. I was kinda pushed into his work during a period of high conflict and
I happen to appreciate Deleuze a bunch. He was a very generous thinker and the English translations seem
really well cared-for.
good luck to you--be well
@@OftheRefrain thank you very much for this most detailed rejoinder, much appreciated.
@@davidrivera79 Legit. Anyone wanting to delve into Deleuze or any work West
puts on the table is a friend of mine. Oh, btw, Deleuze's biographies on 'thinkers'
are all well received biographies. Deleuze did a bunch of great writing.
What's more, West has a whole series on concepts Deleuze wrote on.
If you goto the home page and scroll down you'll find upwards of four or
five episodes West devoted to Deleuze. Deleuze is cool af.
Be well.
Deleuze is a trip. Cheers--
@@OftheRefrain What about Nietzsche? I appreciate your perspective, you rule!
@@davidrivera79 Seriously, read Nietzsche from the start, when he was young and had a huge crush on Wagner's wife. _The Birth of Tragedy_ onward... proceed in order, seriously... it is a rich literary experience.
Once his headaches got bad he jumped onto the aphoristic style we know him for and the work goes to new dizzying heights on the back of Montaigne's stylistic legacy. Necessity can be advantageous for all of us. Nietzsche is rad.
For laughs, Nietzsche is never funnier than he is in his posthumously published
_Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks_ that tiny volume is hilarious. I would suggest reading that whenever.
It is like a book of jokes and quips. Nietzsche had a great sense of humor that I think is all too often overlooked.
What about AI art?
Hey man.... give us Heidegger. :)
Respect for smashing the Nietzschean reality distortion field😂
I believ you deleted my comment... think it was this video. Must say I am disappointed that instead of either ignoring it or beter jet responding to it you chose to silent my voice. There is much power and I would argue violence in silencing someone. For someone who presents a variety of ideas I would like to think you are able to hear a perspective that goes against your endeavour in some way. My comment was not offensive or an attack on you as an individual. I noted a contradiction in what you advertise on Apple podcast and your mission to educate on Philosophy... as I could not post on Apple I did it here.
But ... OMG ... who was more "reactive" than Nietzsche himself? Did nothing more than put forth an elegantly written analysis and critique (no original philosophical theory) ... and ... did not even live his own life according to the paragons he admired! (Yet another in a looonnnggg line of effete academicians 🤦🏻♀️.)
Definitely interested in your interpretation on Big H and the technology angle 📐. Great work as ever. Thank you.