This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gilles Deleuze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Life section starts with “Deleuze was born into a working-class family in Paris and lived there for most his life.” In L'abécédaire entry “E comme Enfance”, Deleuze describes his own family as “right-wing bourgeois” and his father as a factory owner engineer. So, maybe there’s some left-wing wishful thinking involved in this mistake ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.184.119 ( talk) 06:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Deleuze, a heavy smoker, suffered from a debilitating pulmonary..." The insinuation that tobacco caused the disease is based in what evidences? I erased the "heavy smoker" thought I'm sure tomorrow it will be back. Big Pharma everywhere...
His suicide was like Koestler's: euthanasia. But he didn't leave any note. -- Justana ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The concept of a plane of immanence is not put forward as a metaphysical model of reality as such but rather as a model of how the particular intellectual modality Deleuze defines as philosophy grounds itself, is able to reflect, to contemplate, and to communicate its ideas. Contrast with the plane of reference (associated with the intellectual modality of science) and the plane of sense (most closely associated with the third component of his trinity of intellectual modalities: art). To the best of my reckoning, in WIPh, D&G don't profer a metaphysical doctrine so much as postulate that all such intellectual systems are constructivisms which are deployed, with varying degrees of success, and with varying unintended consequences, against the inscrutable chaos of reality, the chaosmos. As constructivisms, these modes are all creative activities ("science is no less creative than the arts or philosophy") and the created systems carry the signiatures of their creators, much as our vocal utterances carry signiatures of the bearers physiological constitutions and individualities. As such, there is never any complete final metaphysics, nor in all likelihood will there ever be a complete final science, but rather creative and multifaceted evolutions contingent upon situational necessity as perceived by the desires and sensory cognitive configurations of future generations of artists, scientists, philosophers, and here we might add religious/occult constructions, the atmosphere of which envelops WIPh like completion and death. Which is well fitting and may have been an intentional implication (a joke of sorts), suggestion may be found in the way D&G differentiated philosophy from religion in WIPh. Trancendence vs immanence. And Deleuze's own fraught relationship with transcendence. Trancendent hieranchies freeze creation, effectively killing the free creative play on the plane of immanence. That's about the edge of what I'm remotely confident that I understand about it. ...some other stuff: Figures (found in Hegel, as constituent elements in the creation of Concepts: is this what Deleuze meant by Figures in relation to Religion?) vs Concepts. -- joshua.cullick ( talk) , 1 January 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
My (non-logged in) edit to "Reception" qualifying the current "it's just not influential in english" language with references to the school associated with Manuel de Landa were quickly reverted with no justification, even though it was cross-reference to Manuel de Landa and Intensive science and virtual philosophy, both of whom substantiate the claims I had made. I actually got into De Landa because of those wikipedia pages.
It's absolutely inadmissible that an encyclopedia article about Deleuze fails to mention De Landa, but I don't want to get into a revert war. Can we agree on some language for this?-- Dnavarro ( talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to find out which of the D&G articles garners the most traffic on this site. I thought this might be of interest to other editors interested in the D&G articles. All stats for June 2010:
Also related are:
But neither article has any substantial treatment of D&G
DionysosProteus ( talk) 14:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
somthing abute verilo or that guy that wrote piosophy based on time and speed ? maybe sombody sohuold write somthing abut what some foks belive his network way of thinking belongs to internt sosiology and cyberspace ontologi ? was he not used as a big thinker abut this in the 1990 ? or just a link to those foks that build on his ideas what sombody called secondaery intelectuels(hard and negri ?) or is it too much postmodernsim too menntion? (like manuel castells and sassen maybe even bauman think his writeing are just postmodern nonsens ) murakaim 82.147.33.187 ( talk) 12:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is overwhelmingly negative - detailing numerous critiques without giving equal time to the positive influence on scholars such as Braidotti, DeLanda, Massumi, Patton, and many more. 198.72.191.223 ( talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Instead of mysteriously referring to a "disease," it's preferable to be specific: tuberculosis. I also removed a comment about tracheotomy, losing power of speech, and being "chained like a dog" to a respirator, because the citation ( http://philosophy1.narod.ru/www/html/library/pdf/113444.pdf) doesn't support that. It says there was a rumor about a tracheotomy, and other sources have him making phone calls the day of his suicide. KD Tries Again ( talk) 05:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Do we need the sentence: "What remains worthwhile in Deleuze's oeuvre, Žižek finds, are precisely those concepts closest to Žižek's own ideas"? Seems to be basically equivalent to saying "Zizek agrees with precisely those concepts with which Zizek agrees..."? 109.149.106.136 ( talk) 22:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use a picture with slightly less motion-blurred hands here? -- 178.1.117.153 ( talk) 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who originally added to the article the sentence about the philosopher's atheism on the "Life" section. It read "Like many of his contemporaries, including Sartre and Foucault, Deleuze was an atheist." Not even a day afterwards, the user User:FreeKnowledgeCreator changed the sentence to the very dry "Deleuze was an atheist". I didn't quite understand why he did that. It seemed a silly change. Then I visited his page and learned he is a Christian conservative, which made me think the edit might have been done because of a conflict of interest. Seeing as Sartre and Foucault were both atheists like Deleuze and directly related to him (they are both mentioned in the article several times) and also considering that "Deleuze was an atheist" is a very loose, uncontextualized sentence, I suggest we go back to my original phrasing of the information. Please, write down your opinions/votes so we can settle this. (For more information on the discussion, see the user's talk page.) Clausgroi ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite new to this but it seems to me that there is a problem with the part of the statement "Like many of his contemporaries". Asides from Sartre and Foucault, who are these others? Rather than contextualizing the fact of Deleuze's atheism this surely raises more questions than it answers. Also, do we think that perhaps more information could and should be provided regarding his atheism itself? What form did it take and how did it influence his life and work? Was it identical with the atheism of his "contemporaries"?
I am not a total neophyte, but to admit that I found this article was virtually unreadable. Could someone please make the semiotics a bit clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bticho ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a Deleuze-Guattari scholar with ten years of reading experience. I disagree wholly with the presentation of difference-in-itself on the Wikipedia page; cf. Difference and repetition on Leibniz's "orgiastic" representation of the infinite.
Deleuze's structuralism relates the two terms of a differentiation via a third difference which differenciates them (i.e., external logic of relations).
Furthermore, this does not reach the infinitely large, as Deleuze is not only an empiricist, but a transcendental idealist (remember that Kant defined the conditions of experience as empirically real, and transcendentally ideal). The concept of Erewhon (or Kantian subjectivity, which organizes the pure intuition of sensibility in an asymmetrical synthesis of the sensible into absolute and ideal space-time); larval subjects (Leibnizian singularities); and Poincaré's eternal recurrence theorem (limit or hole-border of the thermodynamical real) can be used to demonstrate all of this. Raoulsie ( talk) 09:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
"Gilles Louis René Deleuze (/dəˈluːz/ də-LOOZ"
Is this the American pronunciation? Why, given that he was French, is it given priority over the French pronunciation? Certainly here in the UK I would never have thought to pronounce it other than the French way. And how do Americans pronounce his first name? "Gills"? (as in the fish organs), "Jills"? And why is the pronunciation of the first name omitted? Hundovir ( talk) 15:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
the "Zizek 2004" citations are for his writing for which book? There are 2 2004 Zizek proses cited on this pg. FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 10:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This article claims that: “In Nietzsche and Philosophy, for example, Deleuze claims that Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality (1887) is an attempt to rewrite Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781), even though Nietzsche nowhere mentions the First Critique in the Genealogy, and the Genealogy's moral topics are far removed from the epistemological focus of Kant's book.”
However, Nietzsche mentions and twice cites the First Critique in On the Genealogy of Morality. In book I, section 13, Nietzsche refers to the “Kantian ‘thing-in-itself’,” which is a concept that appears in the First Critique at the heart of its “epistemological focus”. The context of the reference, in which Nietzsche argues that the separation of a subject from its actions is a consequence of the “seduction of language (and the fundamental errors of reason petrified within it)” is evident in “popular morality” in the notion of a free subject who can choose to refrain from their actions and thus be held responsible for the actions they do choose. Nietzsche connecting a fundamental error of reason (itself a concern of Kant’s First Critique) to Kant’s ‘thing-in-itself’ and the notion of a free, morally responsible ‘subject’, thus seems to indicate that the moral topics of the Genealogy are not “far removed from the epistemological focus of Kant’s book”. Furthermore, in Book III section 12 of the Genealogy, Nietzsche discusses Kant’s concept of the “intelligible character of things” and cites CPR B 564ff. Note that this is also an epistemological concept of Kant’s that Nietzsche discusses. Nietzsche also quotes and cites the CPR in book III section 25 of the Genealogy, in which he derides the claim that Kant’s critique of dogmatic theology and the fundamental errors of reason in the First Critique actually posed any danger to the ascetic ideal. It’s arguable that Nietzsche’s treatment of the ‘ascetic ideal’ as the primary focus of book III of the Genealogy is in many ways a direct argument against there being a clear separation between the “moral topics” he discusses and the supposedly disinterested “epistemological focus” of modern philosophy. Nietzsche also engages in a critique of Kant’s conception of aesthetics as a ‘disinterested’ operation in section 6 of the third book of the Genealogy, which again seems to show that Nietzsche sees such exclusive categorizations like the properly moral being “far removed” from the properly epistemological or the disinterested aesthetic contemplation of beauty are, in fact, highly suspect.
The way that this article presents Deleuze’s claim that the Genealogy is “an attempt to rewrite Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason” is arguably a misconstrued, or “heterodox,” interpretation itself, that conveniently leaves out all context and clarification, including what was present in the same sentence that the article questionably paraphrases. Dionysianwavves ( talk) 00:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
More than 20 thinkers were added without any meaning whatsoever (examples: Hegel, Battaile, Aristotle, Bachelard, Fichte, Holderin and many more). 77.85.226.98 ( talk) 10:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there more than one model of society in "classical" liberalism? well there's the social contract everywhere even in classical works like Plato's Republic. Is Spinoza or Nietzsche a classical liberalist!? and what has this sentence got to do with the key of Nietzsche? this sentence has no relevance to this section: "In a classical liberal model of society, morality begins from individuals, who bear abstract natural rights or duties set by themselves or a God". I'm deleting it. it's here if someone explains its relevance by constructing an argument for its inclusion. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 07:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gilles Deleuze article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Life section starts with “Deleuze was born into a working-class family in Paris and lived there for most his life.” In L'abécédaire entry “E comme Enfance”, Deleuze describes his own family as “right-wing bourgeois” and his father as a factory owner engineer. So, maybe there’s some left-wing wishful thinking involved in this mistake ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.184.119 ( talk) 06:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
"Deleuze, a heavy smoker, suffered from a debilitating pulmonary..." The insinuation that tobacco caused the disease is based in what evidences? I erased the "heavy smoker" thought I'm sure tomorrow it will be back. Big Pharma everywhere...
His suicide was like Koestler's: euthanasia. But he didn't leave any note. -- Justana ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The concept of a plane of immanence is not put forward as a metaphysical model of reality as such but rather as a model of how the particular intellectual modality Deleuze defines as philosophy grounds itself, is able to reflect, to contemplate, and to communicate its ideas. Contrast with the plane of reference (associated with the intellectual modality of science) and the plane of sense (most closely associated with the third component of his trinity of intellectual modalities: art). To the best of my reckoning, in WIPh, D&G don't profer a metaphysical doctrine so much as postulate that all such intellectual systems are constructivisms which are deployed, with varying degrees of success, and with varying unintended consequences, against the inscrutable chaos of reality, the chaosmos. As constructivisms, these modes are all creative activities ("science is no less creative than the arts or philosophy") and the created systems carry the signiatures of their creators, much as our vocal utterances carry signiatures of the bearers physiological constitutions and individualities. As such, there is never any complete final metaphysics, nor in all likelihood will there ever be a complete final science, but rather creative and multifaceted evolutions contingent upon situational necessity as perceived by the desires and sensory cognitive configurations of future generations of artists, scientists, philosophers, and here we might add religious/occult constructions, the atmosphere of which envelops WIPh like completion and death. Which is well fitting and may have been an intentional implication (a joke of sorts), suggestion may be found in the way D&G differentiated philosophy from religion in WIPh. Trancendence vs immanence. And Deleuze's own fraught relationship with transcendence. Trancendent hieranchies freeze creation, effectively killing the free creative play on the plane of immanence. That's about the edge of what I'm remotely confident that I understand about it. ...some other stuff: Figures (found in Hegel, as constituent elements in the creation of Concepts: is this what Deleuze meant by Figures in relation to Religion?) vs Concepts. -- joshua.cullick ( talk) , 1 January 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
My (non-logged in) edit to "Reception" qualifying the current "it's just not influential in english" language with references to the school associated with Manuel de Landa were quickly reverted with no justification, even though it was cross-reference to Manuel de Landa and Intensive science and virtual philosophy, both of whom substantiate the claims I had made. I actually got into De Landa because of those wikipedia pages.
It's absolutely inadmissible that an encyclopedia article about Deleuze fails to mention De Landa, but I don't want to get into a revert war. Can we agree on some language for this?-- Dnavarro ( talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to find out which of the D&G articles garners the most traffic on this site. I thought this might be of interest to other editors interested in the D&G articles. All stats for June 2010:
Also related are:
But neither article has any substantial treatment of D&G
DionysosProteus ( talk) 14:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
somthing abute verilo or that guy that wrote piosophy based on time and speed ? maybe sombody sohuold write somthing abut what some foks belive his network way of thinking belongs to internt sosiology and cyberspace ontologi ? was he not used as a big thinker abut this in the 1990 ? or just a link to those foks that build on his ideas what sombody called secondaery intelectuels(hard and negri ?) or is it too much postmodernsim too menntion? (like manuel castells and sassen maybe even bauman think his writeing are just postmodern nonsens ) murakaim 82.147.33.187 ( talk) 12:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is overwhelmingly negative - detailing numerous critiques without giving equal time to the positive influence on scholars such as Braidotti, DeLanda, Massumi, Patton, and many more. 198.72.191.223 ( talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Instead of mysteriously referring to a "disease," it's preferable to be specific: tuberculosis. I also removed a comment about tracheotomy, losing power of speech, and being "chained like a dog" to a respirator, because the citation ( http://philosophy1.narod.ru/www/html/library/pdf/113444.pdf) doesn't support that. It says there was a rumor about a tracheotomy, and other sources have him making phone calls the day of his suicide. KD Tries Again ( talk) 05:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Do we need the sentence: "What remains worthwhile in Deleuze's oeuvre, Žižek finds, are precisely those concepts closest to Žižek's own ideas"? Seems to be basically equivalent to saying "Zizek agrees with precisely those concepts with which Zizek agrees..."? 109.149.106.136 ( talk) 22:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use a picture with slightly less motion-blurred hands here? -- 178.1.117.153 ( talk) 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who originally added to the article the sentence about the philosopher's atheism on the "Life" section. It read "Like many of his contemporaries, including Sartre and Foucault, Deleuze was an atheist." Not even a day afterwards, the user User:FreeKnowledgeCreator changed the sentence to the very dry "Deleuze was an atheist". I didn't quite understand why he did that. It seemed a silly change. Then I visited his page and learned he is a Christian conservative, which made me think the edit might have been done because of a conflict of interest. Seeing as Sartre and Foucault were both atheists like Deleuze and directly related to him (they are both mentioned in the article several times) and also considering that "Deleuze was an atheist" is a very loose, uncontextualized sentence, I suggest we go back to my original phrasing of the information. Please, write down your opinions/votes so we can settle this. (For more information on the discussion, see the user's talk page.) Clausgroi ( talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite new to this but it seems to me that there is a problem with the part of the statement "Like many of his contemporaries". Asides from Sartre and Foucault, who are these others? Rather than contextualizing the fact of Deleuze's atheism this surely raises more questions than it answers. Also, do we think that perhaps more information could and should be provided regarding his atheism itself? What form did it take and how did it influence his life and work? Was it identical with the atheism of his "contemporaries"?
I am not a total neophyte, but to admit that I found this article was virtually unreadable. Could someone please make the semiotics a bit clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bticho ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I am a Deleuze-Guattari scholar with ten years of reading experience. I disagree wholly with the presentation of difference-in-itself on the Wikipedia page; cf. Difference and repetition on Leibniz's "orgiastic" representation of the infinite.
Deleuze's structuralism relates the two terms of a differentiation via a third difference which differenciates them (i.e., external logic of relations).
Furthermore, this does not reach the infinitely large, as Deleuze is not only an empiricist, but a transcendental idealist (remember that Kant defined the conditions of experience as empirically real, and transcendentally ideal). The concept of Erewhon (or Kantian subjectivity, which organizes the pure intuition of sensibility in an asymmetrical synthesis of the sensible into absolute and ideal space-time); larval subjects (Leibnizian singularities); and Poincaré's eternal recurrence theorem (limit or hole-border of the thermodynamical real) can be used to demonstrate all of this. Raoulsie ( talk) 09:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 08:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
"Gilles Louis René Deleuze (/dəˈluːz/ də-LOOZ"
Is this the American pronunciation? Why, given that he was French, is it given priority over the French pronunciation? Certainly here in the UK I would never have thought to pronounce it other than the French way. And how do Americans pronounce his first name? "Gills"? (as in the fish organs), "Jills"? And why is the pronunciation of the first name omitted? Hundovir ( talk) 15:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
the "Zizek 2004" citations are for his writing for which book? There are 2 2004 Zizek proses cited on this pg. FatalSubjectivities ( talk) 10:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This article claims that: “In Nietzsche and Philosophy, for example, Deleuze claims that Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality (1887) is an attempt to rewrite Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781), even though Nietzsche nowhere mentions the First Critique in the Genealogy, and the Genealogy's moral topics are far removed from the epistemological focus of Kant's book.”
However, Nietzsche mentions and twice cites the First Critique in On the Genealogy of Morality. In book I, section 13, Nietzsche refers to the “Kantian ‘thing-in-itself’,” which is a concept that appears in the First Critique at the heart of its “epistemological focus”. The context of the reference, in which Nietzsche argues that the separation of a subject from its actions is a consequence of the “seduction of language (and the fundamental errors of reason petrified within it)” is evident in “popular morality” in the notion of a free subject who can choose to refrain from their actions and thus be held responsible for the actions they do choose. Nietzsche connecting a fundamental error of reason (itself a concern of Kant’s First Critique) to Kant’s ‘thing-in-itself’ and the notion of a free, morally responsible ‘subject’, thus seems to indicate that the moral topics of the Genealogy are not “far removed from the epistemological focus of Kant’s book”. Furthermore, in Book III section 12 of the Genealogy, Nietzsche discusses Kant’s concept of the “intelligible character of things” and cites CPR B 564ff. Note that this is also an epistemological concept of Kant’s that Nietzsche discusses. Nietzsche also quotes and cites the CPR in book III section 25 of the Genealogy, in which he derides the claim that Kant’s critique of dogmatic theology and the fundamental errors of reason in the First Critique actually posed any danger to the ascetic ideal. It’s arguable that Nietzsche’s treatment of the ‘ascetic ideal’ as the primary focus of book III of the Genealogy is in many ways a direct argument against there being a clear separation between the “moral topics” he discusses and the supposedly disinterested “epistemological focus” of modern philosophy. Nietzsche also engages in a critique of Kant’s conception of aesthetics as a ‘disinterested’ operation in section 6 of the third book of the Genealogy, which again seems to show that Nietzsche sees such exclusive categorizations like the properly moral being “far removed” from the properly epistemological or the disinterested aesthetic contemplation of beauty are, in fact, highly suspect.
The way that this article presents Deleuze’s claim that the Genealogy is “an attempt to rewrite Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason” is arguably a misconstrued, or “heterodox,” interpretation itself, that conveniently leaves out all context and clarification, including what was present in the same sentence that the article questionably paraphrases. Dionysianwavves ( talk) 00:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
More than 20 thinkers were added without any meaning whatsoever (examples: Hegel, Battaile, Aristotle, Bachelard, Fichte, Holderin and many more). 77.85.226.98 ( talk) 10:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there more than one model of society in "classical" liberalism? well there's the social contract everywhere even in classical works like Plato's Republic. Is Spinoza or Nietzsche a classical liberalist!? and what has this sentence got to do with the key of Nietzsche? this sentence has no relevance to this section: "In a classical liberal model of society, morality begins from individuals, who bear abstract natural rights or duties set by themselves or a God". I'm deleting it. it's here if someone explains its relevance by constructing an argument for its inclusion. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 07:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)