Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 5h

Which is to say it’s the only way to save the information from crumbling, from disintegrating into noise.

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 5h

Redundancy is presented as the diminution of theoretical information that is supposedly ‘a priori’ by right. But something else appears at the same time. Redundancy is the only way of fighting against noise.

1 1 5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12h

And he said that literature and poetry begin when there is information. Barthes too once said something similar. It’s very odd to make this kind of affirmation.

5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12h

It’s interesting because the idea that language is by its very nature informative is one that corrupts us to such an extent that… I think of a case like that of Sartre, who at a certain point felt the need to identify what it was that characterised language, or to be precise, poetry or literature.

1 1 7

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 20h

which are given or which are the form of what is given.

4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 20h

It is in this sense that it is not simply a form of presentation of what appears, it will be a form of the representation of what appears. The prefix re- indicates here the activity of the concept in opposition to the immediate or passive character of space and time

1 1 6

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

He’s an austere philosopher, a severe philosopher, he uses all sorts of complicated words but they’re never just for effect, he’s not a lyrical type.

1 6

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

between spatio-temporal determinations and conceptual determinations, and that’s the sort of miracle of knowledge. And Kant constructed his whole system of new concepts to get to that point.

1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

What incredibly new thing does Kant bring to the history of time? Once it is said that determinations of space and time are irreducible to conceptual determinations, there would be no possible knowledge unless nevertheless and despite everything we were able to establish a correspondence

1 1 7

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

that individuation precedes differenciation in principle, that every differenciation presupposes a prior intense field of individuation.

5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

while extensive parts are relative to an individual rather than the reverse. It is not sufficient, however, to mark a difference in kind between individuation and differenciation in general. This difference in kind remains unintelligible so long as we do not accept the necessary consequence:

1 5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

Qualitative or extensive interpretations of individuation remain incapable of providing reasons why a quality ceases to be general, or why a synthesis of extensity begins here and finishes there. The determination of qualities and species presupposes individuals to be qualified,

1 1 4

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 1d

The individual is neither a quality nor an extension. The individual is neither a qualification nor a partition, neither an organisation nor a determination of species. The individual is no more an ‘infima species’ than it is composed of parts.

1 12

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

Hippias triumphs everywhere, even already in Plato: Hippias who refused essences but nevertheless did not content himself with examples.

2

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

and 'Who?' abound - questions the function and sense of which we shall see below. These questions are those of the accident, the event, the multiplicity - of difference - as opposed to that of the essence, or that of the one, or those of the contrary and the contradictory.

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

It should be noticed how few philosophers have placed their trust in the question 'What is X?' in order to have Ideas. Certainly not Aristotle...Once the dialectic brews up its matter instead of being applied in a vacuum for propaedeutic ends, the questions 'How much?', 'How?', 'In what cases?'

1 2

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

This was the outcome of a distortion of the dialectic. Moreover, how many theological prejudices were involved in that tradition, since the answer to 'What is X?' is always God as the locus of the combinatory of abstract predicates.

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

Philosophers began to talk like young men from the farmyard. From this point of view, Hegel is the culmination of a long tradition which took the question 'What is X?' seriously and used it to determine Ideas as essences, but in so doing substituted the negative for the nature of the problematic.

1 1

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 2d

When Socratic irony was taken seriously and the dialectic as a whole was confused with its propaedeutic, extremely troublesome consequences followed: for the dialectic ceased to be the science of problems and ultimately became confused with the simple movement of the negative, and of contradiction.

1 6

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

Every time science, philosophy and good sense come together it is inevitable that good sense should take itself for a science and a philosophy (that is why such encounters must be avoided at all costs).

3 7

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 3d

It’s always the same story, if you like. Meaning that to choose is always to choose between choosing and not choosing, given that not choosing is to choose by saying I have no choice.

2 10

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

Everything you do, everything you say, implies a certain mode of existence. Which mode? Discover the modes of existence!

3 11

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

it’s everything that takes pleasure one way or another in sad affects, everything which is depreciating and depressing. That’s the satirics. It’s obvious that all of morality goes under the name of satirics.

1 5

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 4d

It’s in the scholia that he says what an ethics is, to make an ethics is to make a theory and a practice of powers of being affected, and an ethics is opposed to a satirics. What he calls a satirics is tremendous enough:

1 1 6

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 5d

Becoming-horse? Becoming-dog? What does becoming-beetle mean, for Kafka?

5