00:00 - 6:30 What does the philosopher do? Create concepts. 6:29 - 9:00 What does the film maker do? Create blocks of movement-time. (And other arts & sciences?) 9:00 -- 13:52 The common limit (of the creative disciplines) of space-time. Types of space. Bresson. 13:52 - 22:28 On domain specificity of ideas. What happens when a film maker wants to adapt a novel? Kurosawa/Dostoevsky. 22:28 - 24:05 On dreams. 24.05 - 30:15 Another idea that is cinematographic: dissociation between 'to see' and 'to speak'. 30:15 - 32:32 Having an idea is not reducible to communication. Information as order words, a system of control. A society of control. 32:32 - 37:19 Foucault; two types of society, sovereign and disciplinary. 37:19 - 41:43 Where does the work of art fit into the critique of the society of control? Art, counter information, acts of resistance. 41:40 - ... Reprise: what is it to have a cinematographic idea? On the disjunction of sound and sight. Straub and speech act as act of resistance. 44:40 - The two faces of the act of resistance: human and art. Both resist death. End.
The fluidity of his ideas, the manner in which his ideas coalesce to stimulate further thoughts and considerations about the nature of connection and repetition through behaviour is nice to see...
Basically how listening to hegel was described as well and clearly how people thought of Socrates. It’s all the same brain guys same foldings and unfolding a we just need to grab a hold
Kailee Deleuze you should do whatever you can to become a great philosopher and then criticize Deleuze so that every philosophy student would be confused reading Deleuze's criticisms of Deleuze
"It may perhaps be so in 50 years time. Yes that is certainly the future. Workshops and factories are cracking at the edges. Is it worth sub-contracting more and working from home? Because you know that control societies will no longer pass through places of confinement [e.g. schools, companies]. We should watch them closely to see the themes which are given birth to, those which develop over the next forty or fifty years for they will explain how great it would be to pursue both school and a profession. It will be very interesting to see what the identity of schools and professions will become with constant training which is our future." There is a perfect relationship between Deleuze's 1987 lecture and our quarantined society. Irony is ... we are confined, but who can deny that we're perhaps on our way to a less controlled society?
Watch the second episode of the 1st series of Black Mirror and you'll get a sharper understanding of what (IMO) Deleuze had in mind, saying these words - worth mentioning - much in the spirit of Foucault...
Wunderbach to see how after five minutes he hits his stride and moves forth with jubilation . By the way movement time is wrong. D says movement duration....of course one has to have read Bergson to realize why he does not refer to time but to duration.
The subtitles were not shown at the very end of the segment on dreams, right before 24:05, does anybody know what was stated or if it was summed up in an earlier subtitle?
Same concern here! would appreciate if some french speaker could translate for us ;) Edit: done some digging. He is saying: "Well, no one is ever caught in someone else's dream. But the question is not if the idea is true or false. The question is if it is important, interesting or beautiful. And it is the same question for science or philosophy"
“The people are missing and not missing at the same time.” The people who resist are missing yet the people who create a work of art which might become an act of resistance are there. Hmm... 🤔
Where is the applause? Everybody lost in a thoughtful rapture perhaps. Does anyone know of any books, particular passages in his writing which display this level of clarity, in terms of being able to follow his train of thought? I own D and R and L of S, but I lack the background to keep up with the references or key issues he's engaging with. But I know he's written a lot so maybe someone could recommend an easier text (not with Guattari please).
Hey everyone, does anyone know where I can find more about the idea of 'society of control' that Deleuze touches on and attaches to Foucault? I've got Discipline and Punish by Foucault but it alludes mainly to a society of discipline, not a discipline of control, though I haven't finished it so I might have not gotten onto that. Can anyone give me any directions? I'm just very interested in this idea. Thanks!
Having only a passing knowledge of Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus and the conception therein of Desiring-Machines, would that book possibly be a starting point for the society of control? As they state on page 2, There is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a process that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together. Producing-machines, desiring-machines, everywhere schizophrenic machines, all of species of life: the self and the non-self, outside and inside, no longer have any meaning whatsoever. Just a shot in the dark.
Garland41 Beautiful! Thank you for the reply. I've had Anti-Oedipus in the back of my head for the last week, so interesting to think about. I'm wondering whether I should wait to buy it in French or in English, I know it can make quite a bit of difference to how you understand the text. Will definitely look more into it, but very much appreciate your short synopsis of the idea of desiring-machines!
late to the party, but he has a short essay called "Postscriptum on the Societies of Control", in which he explores theses concepts more thoroughly, drawing from a lot of stuff: Foucault, De Sade, Burroughs, and probably to some extent Bataille, Pierre Klossowski et al. hope you have found your ways in the paths of thought.
I think his most powerful idea is the appreciation for concept creation , the role of an artist, a designer, or a philosopher or entrepreneur is to create concepts, to create things that weren't there before that Is Deleuze's most powerful idea that we call all learn from... just the idea that the creation of concepts or things is a powerful engine for human potential I think it's a vastly useful idea when compared to his other ideas that are more in tune with Marxism and Post Modernism, still interesting stuff just not as useful/powerful
And this idea is the negation of the essence of philosophy itself, i.e. to discover the truth, and of science (an inferior part of philosophy after all, Aristotle docet): typical postmodernist position. He confuse Idea and Concept, contrary to Plato.
1 1 actually, Deleuze is quite clear that throughout the history of philosophy -and that which underlies the work of all philosophers and their associated concepts (including Plato, by the way)-is the addressing of, and engaging with, very specific *problems* that each philosopher had a necessity to contend with. If, as a reader of a given philosopher, one doesn’t access/locate the particular problem that that thinker is contending with, then a crucial dimension of understanding, according to Deleuze, will remain out of reach.
@Sakalee You could read Schopenhauer on the differences between Idea and Concept (ante rem, in re etc.) or also medieval philosophers. Deleuze is without a doubt interesting on philosophy of art (like Schopenhauer), but in any other philosophical discipline is a disaster in my opinion, overall in history of philosophy (particularly on Nietzsche e.g.). Its approach is too arbitrary, he says with a metaphor that he practice 'enculage' on historical philosophers (interview with Parnet), f.e. of Nietzsche in his principal work he considers partially only one book of him (Genealogy of morality), and ignore with purpose his former masters (Wagner and the danzican, but also Theognis etc.). The result is a very fake Nietzsche, that resemble more a sort of extravagant hippy than the one that exalted the Manusmrti and Napoleon (its heirs are more thinkers like Spengler). But is only one example. I think its metaphysics is too relativistic, a characteristic typical of postmodernists, and his concept of philosophy reductive: this is why philosophy become only 'creativity', i.e. a form of Will to Power. And IS Will to Power, but Nietzsche never thinked Truth in its maturity in a relativistic manner, contrary to postmodernists. His style of writing is also very debatable (for example in certain works, like the 'Anti-Oedipus'), to say it in an euphemistic way. Bye. P.S.: English isn't my language so its not easy for me to express an articulated philosophical discourse in a little space.
5 лет назад+7
You didnt understand a thing. He never said artists make concepts. Just philosophers create concepts. Artists make percepts.
1 1 Nietzsche presents his philosophy of truth in a very early text, and therefore very simple to read, called “On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense”, where he expresses the same concept of truth than Deleuze’s, which is a matter of language, linguistics, and semiotics. It’s not just that truth is relative, it’s more that truth lives only in the world of word-order and therefore anthropomorphically only. To put philosophy as that discipline that seeks The Truth is just plain reductive and simplistic from this point of view. Not to speak of science where truth doesn’t even exist as information isn’t even a topic of debate.
@@vincentantiguo Yes of course. My comment is nothing more than a pathetic stream of platitudes, abstractions and absurd conjectures presented as deep insights. How could anyone have missed that?
00:00 - 6:30 What does the philosopher do? Create concepts.
6:29 - 9:00 What does the film maker do? Create blocks of movement-time. (And other arts & sciences?)
9:00 -- 13:52 The common limit (of the creative disciplines) of space-time. Types of space. Bresson.
13:52 - 22:28 On domain specificity of ideas. What happens when a film maker wants to adapt a novel? Kurosawa/Dostoevsky.
22:28 - 24:05 On dreams.
24.05 - 30:15 Another idea that is cinematographic: dissociation between 'to see' and 'to speak'.
30:15 - 32:32 Having an idea is not reducible to communication. Information as order words, a system of control. A society of control.
32:32 - 37:19 Foucault; two types of society, sovereign and disciplinary.
37:19 - 41:43 Where does the work of art fit into the critique of the society of control? Art, counter information, acts of resistance.
41:40 - ... Reprise: what is it to have a cinematographic idea? On the disjunction of sound and sight. Straub and speech act as act of resistance.
44:40 - The two faces of the act of resistance: human and art. Both resist death. End.
thanks for your notes
thank you
thanks
Thank you very much!
Thank you!!
The fluidity of his ideas, the manner in which his ideas coalesce to stimulate further thoughts and considerations about the nature of connection and repetition through behaviour is nice to see...
you fail
Basically how listening to hegel was described as well and clearly how people thought of Socrates. It’s all the same brain guys same foldings and unfolding a we just need to grab a hold
No it is actually quite horrifying to witness
"blocks of movement-time", "order words", "counter-information", "acts of resistance". so much was put in motion.
I don't speak any French but the manner in which he presents his ideas are fundamentally engaging, a philosophical theatre.
Yup deleuze is great
This is so beautiful
so many brilliant ideas
Name one.
Thanks for English subs
My last name is Deleuze
are you related?
Delouse
Chinaman's Chance idiot
Kailee Deleuze you should do whatever you can to become a great philosopher and then criticize Deleuze so that every philosophy student would be confused reading Deleuze's criticisms of Deleuze
@@musmerized658 Now THAT'S some high effort trolling
Quel esprit! Mais quel esprit!
Fantastic content. Thank you!
I love Deleuze!
"It may perhaps be so in 50 years time. Yes that is certainly the future. Workshops and factories are cracking at the edges. Is it worth sub-contracting more and working from home? Because you know that control societies will no longer pass through places of confinement [e.g. schools, companies]. We should watch them closely to see the themes which are given birth to, those which develop over the next forty or fifty years for they will explain how great it would be to pursue both school and a profession. It will be very interesting to see what the identity of schools and professions will become with constant training which is our future."
There is a perfect relationship between Deleuze's 1987 lecture and our quarantined society. Irony is ... we are confined, but who can deny that we're perhaps on our way to a less controlled society?
I thought exactly the same
just curious, what do you think a less controlled society would be like?
@@hc77-94 we’ll only know when we get there
Watch the second episode of the 1st series of Black Mirror and you'll get a sharper understanding of what (IMO) Deleuze had in mind, saying these words - worth mentioning - much in the spirit of Foucault...
Psychopolitics has taken the place of biopolitics as the means of production have changed in this manner
Legend
An important message
Wunderbach to see how after five minutes he hits his stride and moves forth with jubilation . By the way movement time is wrong. D says movement duration....of course one has to have read Bergson to realize why he does not refer to time but to duration.
The subtitles were not shown at the very end of the segment on dreams, right before 24:05, does anybody know what was stated or if it was summed up in an earlier subtitle?
Same concern here! would appreciate if some french speaker could translate for us ;)
Edit: done some digging. He is saying: "Well, no one is ever caught in someone else's dream. But the question is not if the idea is true or false. The question is if it is important, interesting or beautiful. And it is the same question for science or philosophy"
The subtitles are crap, by the way
Simply: if what I see doesn't match what I hear: either could be fake; but ultimately both-together demonstrate the unreal
“The people are missing and not missing at the same time.”
The people who resist are missing yet the people who create a work of art which might become an act of resistance are there. Hmm... 🤔
Informação é sistema de controle.
C’est vraiment cinématographique
What a master of thought!
How? Why do you say that?
i hurt to read this
Where is the applause? Everybody lost in a thoughtful rapture perhaps. Does anyone know of any books, particular passages in his writing which display this level of clarity, in terms of being able to follow his train of thought? I own D and R and L of S, but I lack the background to keep up with the references or key issues he's engaging with. But I know he's written a lot so maybe someone could recommend an easier text (not with Guattari please).
Samuel Briault check out Dialogues w/Claire Parnet. It offers a conversational access to many of his concepts, concerns, and ways thinking/creating...
Cinema I: the movement image, Cinema II: the time image
read "on the superiority of anglo-american literature", it has most everything
Damn PA systems had cooler sound back then
amo
He didn’t mean dreams literally more expectations
English Audio: ruclips.net/video/UqAr5GOy9hk/видео.html
thanks
Science does not invent in the same sense that art does.
Aristotle
34:26
36:19
Le capitalisme est simplement plus doué que la philosophie dans la création de concept.
thats right
kek eu adoro assistir essas porras
Hey everyone, does anyone know where I can find more about the idea of 'society of control' that Deleuze touches on and attaches to Foucault? I've got Discipline and Punish by Foucault but it alludes mainly to a society of discipline, not a discipline of control, though I haven't finished it so I might have not gotten onto that. Can anyone give me any directions? I'm just very interested in this idea. Thanks!
Having only a passing knowledge of Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus and the conception therein of Desiring-Machines, would that book possibly be a starting point for the society of control? As they state on page 2,
There is no such thing as either man or nature now, only a process that produces the one within the other and couples the machines together. Producing-machines, desiring-machines, everywhere schizophrenic machines, all of species of life: the self and the non-self, outside and inside, no longer have any meaning whatsoever.
Just a shot in the dark.
Garland41 Beautiful! Thank you for the reply. I've had Anti-Oedipus in the back of my head for the last week, so interesting to think about. I'm wondering whether I should wait to buy it in French or in English, I know it can make quite a bit of difference to how you understand the text. Will definitely look more into it, but very much appreciate your short synopsis of the idea of desiring-machines!
Amazing! Thank you!
: )
late to the party, but he has a short essay called "Postscriptum on the Societies of Control", in which he explores theses concepts more thoroughly, drawing from a lot of stuff: Foucault, De Sade, Burroughs, and probably to some extent Bataille, Pierre Klossowski et al. hope you have found your ways in the paths of thought.
Il cherche sa respiration déjà si malade, bouleversant.
Kial la subtitoloj malaperas iam?
Deleuze is for those who can't handle the real philosophy and principles of science making
Lol
I think his most powerful idea is the appreciation for concept creation , the role of an artist, a designer, or a philosopher or entrepreneur is to create concepts, to create things that weren't there before that Is Deleuze's most powerful idea that we call all learn from... just the idea that the creation of concepts or things is a powerful engine for human potential I think it's a vastly useful idea when compared to his other ideas that are more in tune with Marxism and Post Modernism, still interesting stuff just not as useful/powerful
And this idea is the negation of the essence of philosophy itself, i.e. to discover the truth, and of science (an inferior part of philosophy after all, Aristotle docet): typical postmodernist position. He confuse Idea and Concept, contrary to Plato.
1 1 actually, Deleuze is quite clear that throughout the history of philosophy -and that which underlies the work of all philosophers and their associated concepts (including Plato, by the way)-is the addressing of, and engaging with, very specific *problems* that each philosopher had a necessity to contend with. If, as a reader of a given philosopher, one doesn’t access/locate the particular problem that that thinker is contending with, then a crucial dimension of understanding, according to Deleuze, will remain out of reach.
@Sakalee You could read Schopenhauer on the differences between Idea and Concept (ante rem, in re etc.) or also medieval philosophers. Deleuze is without a doubt interesting on philosophy of art (like Schopenhauer), but in any other philosophical discipline is a disaster in my opinion, overall in history of philosophy (particularly on Nietzsche e.g.).
Its approach is too arbitrary, he says with a metaphor that he practice 'enculage' on historical philosophers (interview with Parnet), f.e. of Nietzsche in his principal work he considers partially only one book of him (Genealogy of morality), and ignore with purpose his former masters (Wagner and the danzican, but also Theognis etc.). The result is a very fake Nietzsche, that resemble more a sort of extravagant hippy than the one that exalted the Manusmrti and Napoleon (its heirs are more thinkers like Spengler). But is only one example.
I think its metaphysics is too relativistic, a characteristic typical of postmodernists, and his concept of philosophy reductive: this is why philosophy become only 'creativity', i.e. a form of Will to Power. And IS Will to Power, but Nietzsche never thinked Truth in its maturity in a relativistic manner, contrary to postmodernists.
His style of writing is also very debatable (for example in certain works, like the 'Anti-Oedipus'), to say it in an euphemistic way. Bye.
P.S.: English isn't my language so its not easy for me to express an articulated philosophical discourse in a little space.
You didnt understand a thing. He never said artists make concepts. Just philosophers create concepts. Artists make percepts.
1 1 Nietzsche presents his philosophy of truth in a very early text, and therefore very simple to read, called “On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense”, where he expresses the same concept of truth than Deleuze’s, which is a matter of language, linguistics, and semiotics. It’s not just that truth is relative, it’s more that truth lives only in the world of word-order and therefore anthropomorphically only. To put philosophy as that discipline that seeks The Truth is just plain reductive and simplistic from this point of view. Not to speak of science where truth doesn’t even exist as information isn’t even a topic of debate.
"nonsense machine"
Science invented that men can get pregnant then?
hmmmm what? this is over complicated
Do the Jews after they stole twenty lap tops from the Catholic have the right to teach the Catholics religion!
Roger DArcy psychiatric help required old BOY..
What?
Nothing is being said
What a pathetic stream of platitudes, abstractions and absurd conjectures presented as deep insights.
You mean your comment?
@@vincentantiguo Yes of course. My comment is nothing more than a pathetic stream of platitudes, abstractions and absurd conjectures presented as deep insights. How could anyone have missed that?
Victor Grauer yeah thanks for clearing that up
Victor Grauer ah, quick to quote yourself but offer no genuine critique.
old gheys are full of nonsense
Terrible
why
haha why?
*Terrific
Diav Nasx 👍🏼
From “Terrible” -> “terrific”: that’s a wonderful Deleuzean deterritorialization!
nonsense