Principles of Deleuze's Philosophy

• To read in the book club

  • priv

• Deleuze

• This book aims to understand the underlying principles of Deleuze’s various thoughts.

• Introduction

  • “Deleuze’s philosophy” is a very ambiguous concept.
    • Whether Deleuze is political or not, the discussion on page 6.
      • It is based on the principle of ”becoming” while emphasizing passivity.

        • Change occurs through the acceptance of some force.

      • It became political through collaboration with Guattari.
        • It’s also wrong to consider collaboration as Deleuze’s philosophy.
    • There were many books on Deleuze that were more like explanations and interpretations of other philosophies.
      • It’s also wrong to call those books Deleuze’s philosophy.
    • Therefore, we should think about where Deleuze’s philosophy can be found.

• Chapter 1

  • 1.

    • About Deleuze writing his own philosophy under the guise of explaining other people’s thoughts.

      • Why does he do that? (blu3mo)
        • If Deleuze is saying something important that we should accept, then I guess we should accept it. (blu3mo)

    • The point of using the free indirect discourse.

      • It’s neither direct speech nor indirect speech.
      • Wait, isn’t free indirect discourse just unclear writing by the speaker? (blu3mo)
      • Based on this, the author claims that Deleuze is not applying his principles to specific events, but rather thinking about the events themselves.
        • Because the method of free indirect discourse cannot be generalized and naturally appears in each specific case.
        • In other words, by quoting and reporting specific events, it is natural to make the events themselves the subject of thought.
        • ??? (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)
          • I feel like I understood the logical structure, but I don’t know what they’re talking about.

    • Well, this itako-like attitude is a vision that Deleuze desperately came up with, so is free indirect discourse a means to express it in an exaggerated way?

    • But the itako is just step 1, and then…

    • Why is this kind of discourse necessary in the first place?

    • Deleuze’s opinion on what philosophers should do in philosophical research:

      • Discover the concepts and questions that exist behind their thoughts, even if the philosophers themselves are not consciously aware of them.
      • This part, the nested structure of speakers like “Deleuze “Bergson “Hume ”~~""", is depicted precisely by free indirect discourse.

    • He calls this underlying aspect the image of thought.

      • He considers this when exposing implicit assumptions in verbalizing thoughts.
      • In approaching this, the distinction between what is discussed and what is being discussed becomes ambiguous.
        • The person discussing describes what they believe to be present in the thought of the object being discussed.
        • So, it becomes free indirect discourse, according to the explanation.
          • I see, if the image of thought that the person discussing has found is correct(?), then there is no problem with using free indirect discourse.
          • It doesn’t seem like a reason why it wouldn’t work with other discourse types though. (blu3mo)(blu3mo)
            • Deleuze can assimilate himself with the object being discussed in his thinking if he wants. Just when explaining it to others, use direct or indirect speech, is the feeling. (blu3mo)
  • • Immanent plane

      • Concepts are defined only by the relationships between concepts and are not defined by causes outside of those relationships, i.e., beyond that plane.

        • I don’t quite grasp the meaning of “concepts are defined”. (blu3mo)
        • Concepts have meaning only in relation to other concepts, like that? (blu3mo)

    • Concepts are both relative and absolute.- The concept of “inherent planes” is a collection of concepts that are not discussed in the context of synthesis of elements.

• When different assumptions are established, different inherent planes are created.

• By criticizing existing planes and the questions that arise from them, new planes and questions are established.

  • This is the perspective of philosophical research.
  • Criticizing questions is the only way to establish questions.

• Chapter 2

  • Kant criticizes Hume’s empiricism and develops transcendentalism.
    • That’s good, but transcendentalism does not address the issue of the origin of the subject.
      • The existence of the subject and the self is assumed.
      • Kant is saying that concepts such as a priori and pure reason, which are brought up to avoid empirical skepticism, need to be discussed in terms of how they are generated.
    • Therefore, Deleuze proposes transcendental empiricism.
      • While it is good to search for something transcendent in transcendentalism, Kant has not been able to do so.
      • If you want to do it properly, don’t make the self and reason transcendent (i.e., do not explain the process of their generation), but thoroughly examine the processes of their generation.
      • The deserted island example:
        • Objects cannot be objects without others, including the self.
        • Hume referred to the belief in the objectivity (existence) of invisible objects as “belief,” but Deleuze explains the process of its generation through others.
      • Based on that, “events” are presented as something transcendent that cannot be explained by the process of generation.
    • As a practical application, psychoanalysis is mentioned.
    • Freud, for example, depicted the process of generation without assuming the self or the superego.