To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DeleuzePhilosophy/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription!
In a sea of AI-slop videos and the infinite content-mill of youtube, it's rare to find a real human being producing gold in the form of decently informative content. I got very, very lucky today. Thanks for sharing. 🙏🏼
I'm susceptible to say this is one those yt channels I get emotional about, and for that reason I visit it once in a while. Great work in every sense possible. Kind of throws me back to maybe the laziest definition one can find on Deleuze's notion of power, stated by himself, intendedly, in the Abecedaire: 'Power is the lowest form of potency". It looks as a reduction, but to me it sums it up in an incredible way. Cheers and thank you!!
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.
brilliant video. makes me think about relating this idea of contagion to modern social movements. how states have been dealing with protests on a macro/microphysical level should explain how "contagious" they evaluate them to be - what are the implications to how to organise? it makes me think about Palestine as well, how there is such an intense exercise of both micro and macrophysical control, and how these are articulated.
Thanks a lot! Yes it's a very rich concept, there are likely many ways to use it for the present and for particular situations/current conflicts. If you're interested, studies by Ewald and Veyne may be a good starting point for theoretical considerations related to power!
Thanks a lot for this video, really interesting topic and analysis! I just have a question that I couldn't quite wrap my head around; how exactly does this conception of power not negate class-struggle in the marxist sense? Deleuze claims that they are compatible (quote at 6:34) but is the marxist theory of classes, and the struggle that emerges from them, not reliant on the exercise of power by one class upon the other? Or is there a distinction to do between power and authority?
Thanks for watching! I think one possible answer is that the distinction between classes is itself an effect of the play of forces. What Nietzsche calls "noble" or "strong" or "active", though, isn't synonymous with "dominant class" but rather with "active force". Such forces are always in minority. In NaP, Deleuze says: "One of the finest remarks in The Will to Power is: 'The strong always have to be defended against the weak'. We cannot use the state of a system of forces as it in fact is, or the result of the struggle between forces, in order to decide which are active and which are reactive" (58). So indeed, while a dominant class may exert violence on a dominated class, it is not necessarily an expression of power. Power would rather be where activity (creation) is found.
Deleuze's ghost sent me this at the best time. I am writing a paper on an algorithmic criminal justice sentencing program and am incorporating Postscripts into my analysis
I haven't formulated how it's relevant, but I love how the CC transcription toggles between writing 'Foucault' as either 'Fuku 'or 'Theo' and Deleuze becomes 'Dooz' . . .. micro-physics?!
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
Learning in the introduction about how power asserts itself by the institutional manipulation of knowledge then cutting straight to the Brilliant ad is so ironically jarring Lol if anything it’s an example of how postmodern philosophy is a self-relativization to its own problems-not necessarily a critique but an observation
You know, if I was selling loans at insane rates, that would be one thing. The Brilliant app is literally a product that I’d want my kids to use. Now if your point is that “selling things is bad”, I have bad news for you. Unless you come from high privilege or you’re a trustfund kid, you will have to sell something in life, even if you’re a teacher, a factory worker or an academic (especially if you’re an academic). Unless you go live in the woods, your choice isn’t whether you’ll sell something for a living or not, but *what* you’ll sell. Selling unethical things that destroy people (and your own soul with it) is easy; selling things that edify people is usually way harder-but, in my opinion, worth it.
can i make a heretical comment that i feel that foucault's writing and interest in "power" is not really as interesting as his ideas about studying and writing history but hey what do i know
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!
@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.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DeleuzePhilosophy/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription!
I’m thankful for Deleuze Philosophy
Thanks a lot, I'm thankful for you as well!
In a sea of AI-slop videos and the infinite content-mill of youtube, it's rare to find a real human being producing gold in the form of decently informative content.
I got very, very lucky today. Thanks for sharing. 🙏🏼
I really appreciate the kind words :) Thank you for watching!
I'm susceptible to say this is one those yt channels I get emotional about, and for that reason I visit it once in a while. Great work in every sense possible.
Kind of throws me back to maybe the laziest definition one can find on Deleuze's notion of power, stated by himself, intendedly, in the Abecedaire: 'Power is the lowest form of potency". It looks as a reduction, but to me it sums it up in an incredible way. Cheers and thank you!!
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.
@@blyntrly Agree, the more I read him, the more I realise how eminently practical his thought is!
I love your videos, man. It helps on my readings a lot. Thank youn
You're welcome, glad to hear it's useful!
It's 6:28 here and it's just the perfect time to watch this new fresh video.
Thank you :)
brilliant video. makes me think about relating this idea of contagion to modern social movements. how states have been dealing with protests on a macro/microphysical level should explain how "contagious" they evaluate them to be - what are the implications to how to organise?
it makes me think about Palestine as well, how there is such an intense exercise of both micro and macrophysical control, and how these are articulated.
Thanks a lot! Yes it's a very rich concept, there are likely many ways to use it for the present and for particular situations/current conflicts. If you're interested, studies by Ewald and Veyne may be a good starting point for theoretical considerations related to power!
Fantastic breakdown. I work in a corporate production plant and I can definitely see how this theory of power relates.
Thanks for the video! ❤
My pleasure, thanks a lot for watching, Kyle!
Thanks a lot for this video, really interesting topic and analysis! I just have a question that I couldn't quite wrap my head around; how exactly does this conception of power not negate class-struggle in the marxist sense? Deleuze claims that they are compatible (quote at 6:34) but is the marxist theory of classes, and the struggle that emerges from them, not reliant on the exercise of power by one class upon the other? Or is there a distinction to do between power and authority?
Thanks for watching! I think one possible answer is that the distinction between classes is itself an effect of the play of forces. What Nietzsche calls "noble" or "strong" or "active", though, isn't synonymous with "dominant class" but rather with "active force". Such forces are always in minority. In NaP, Deleuze says: "One of the finest remarks in The Will to Power is: 'The strong always have to be defended against the weak'. We cannot use the state of a system of forces as it in fact is, or the result of the struggle between forces, in order to decide which are active and which are reactive" (58). So indeed, while a dominant class may exert violence on a dominated class, it is not necessarily an expression of power. Power would rather be where activity (creation) is found.
This was extremely helpful. Thanks.
Glad to hear, thank you for watching!
Thankful for deleuze philosophy
Thank you :)
Thank you for ur genuine efford, ur works always give sparkling insides. i wonder would u consider of taking zizek and deleuze together?
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
Deleuze's ghost sent me this at the best time. I am writing a paper on an algorithmic criminal justice sentencing program and am incorporating Postscripts into my analysis
Very glad to hear it's useful to you! Thanks for watching.
I really like the cat at 4:10
I haven't formulated how it's relevant, but I love how the CC transcription toggles between writing 'Foucault' as either 'Fuku 'or 'Theo' and Deleuze becomes 'Dooz' . . .. micro-physics?!
Very nice!
This guy is always fire, I like before watching even. Big spender I know... Huge affectations!
🎉🕺🎠
Thanks a lot :) Really happy you like this content!
Good vibes bro
Wonderful!
Thank you 🙏
Power is a change in work which is a change in energy
😂
your channel is a deleuzian university. count me as a permanent settler/student✌
Thank you so much, welcome to Deleuze - U 😂
🧑🏫
Simples: princípio da individualização
Well whatever power is it must refer to causal forces. Power is indistinguishable from something causing something else.
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
nowhere, now here, oh, english, you scamp! you did it again!
Learning in the introduction about how power asserts itself by the institutional manipulation of knowledge then cutting straight to the Brilliant ad is so ironically jarring
Lol if anything it’s an example of how postmodern philosophy is a self-relativization to its own problems-not necessarily a critique but an observation
You know, if I was selling loans at insane rates, that would be one thing. The Brilliant app is literally a product that I’d want my kids to use. Now if your point is that “selling things is bad”, I have bad news for you. Unless you come from high privilege or you’re a trustfund kid, you will have to sell something in life, even if you’re a teacher, a factory worker or an academic (especially if you’re an academic). Unless you go live in the woods, your choice isn’t whether you’ll sell something for a living or not, but *what* you’ll sell. Selling unethical things that destroy people (and your own soul with it) is easy; selling things that edify people is usually way harder-but, in my opinion, worth it.
can i make a heretical comment that i feel that foucault's writing and interest in "power" is not really as interesting as his ideas about studying and writing history but hey what do i know
If you're more interested in another aspect of his thought then absolutely go for it, there's nothing heretical in that ;)
4:08 Garota de Ipanema
and by form, he means what? surely not that stupid platonic ideal bs?
so nothing more than what Nietzsche already said
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!
Can i mail you a tuna melt sandwich as thanks
Oh that'd be nice, thank you 😋
🤦♂️ overcomplicated nonsense
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.