Gilles Deleuze: Against the Dialectic (Nietzsche & Philosophy, Part 1 of 2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ธ.ค. 2023
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0ZARzVC...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
#nietzsche #philosophypodcast #thenietzschepodcast #history #philosophy #historyofphilosophy #deleuze #postmodernism #ancientgreece
Part 1 of my analysis of “Nietzsche & Philosophy”
Giles Deleuze is one of the most significant figures of French postmodernism, famous for his work with psychoanalyst Felix Guattari. In this episode, we're going to consider Deleuze's work, Nietzsche and Philosophy. In the words of Deleuze, the opposition to Hegel runs through the entirety of Nietzsche's work as its cutting edge. Nietzsche's philosophy is truly 'against the dialectic': as Nietzsche's work is perspectival and pluralistic, which represents the only significant challenge to the dialectical mode of thought. In contrast to dialectical labor and seriousness, Nietzsche's way of thinking affirms difference. Nietzsche asserts that being is not premised on negation, but affirmation, in which each force asserts its difference and enjoys that difference. In Deleuze, we find a new systemization of Nietzsche, in which Nietzsche's critique of morality, religion and the sciences can be reconceptualized as part of a struggle on Nietzsche's part against the triumph of reactive forces. Deleuze offers us a new language for discussing and understanding Nietzsche's work, and a radical re-evaluation of the eternal recurrence and the will to power. In this first part of our two-part series on Deleuze, we're going to consider Nietzsche's anti-Hegelianism, Deleuze's interpretation of sense, value & genealogy, the concepts of active and reactive, Nietzsche's typology, the metaphor the dicethrow, and the eternal return considered as a Nietzschean theory of time.
00:00 🤖 Philosophy has traditionally been associated with the dialectic, where opposing ideas lead to the recognition of truth.
01:10 🧠 Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic explores the quest for mutual recognition in human history.
04:20 📜 Gilles Deleuze positions himself as anti-dialectical, challenging the Hegelian tradition.
06:59 🔄 Deleuze focuses on metaphysics, particularly questions of ontology and reality.
10:27 🔄 Nietzsche emphasizes the affirmation of difference over dialectical negation, opposing Hegel's view.
14:27 🌍 Nietzsche's philosophy sees nature as a multiplicity, with each force striving for uniqueness and affirmation.
17:12 💡 Deleuze argues that genealogy explains the origin of values, missing from Hegelian accounts.
20:54 🧐 Deleuze contrasts Nietzsche's focus on "who" produces representations with the dialectician's focus on "what" is reality.
23:23 🎲 In romantic analysis, every point is connected, and the center is multiple, reflecting the chaotic nature of human thought.
24:14 🔄 Pluralism, influenced by Nietzsche's perspectivism, opposes dialectics, which Nietzsche saw as the philosophy of reactive individuals.
26:28 🎭 Greek tragedy reconciles opposing forces represented by Apollo and Dionysus, demonstrating the cyclical nature of life.
27:36 🤔 Nietzsche's early work in "The Birth of Tragedy" was criticized for its dialectical aspects but had deeper issues, like considering existence blameworthy.
31:28 🧐 Schopenhauer was an atheist who believed existence was ungodly, while Hegel saw godliness in the world, leading to their philosophical opposition.
36:13 🎮 Heraclitus represented a tragic thinker who viewed life as innocent and just, contrasting with the idea of life being blameworthy.
42:08 🎲 Existence justifies itself in the perspective of innocence, where life is inherently valuable and not in need of external justification.
44:22 🎲 The dice throw metaphor in Nietzsche's thought opposes the idea of an infinite repetition of events, emphasizing the importance of each unique moment.
46:03 🎲 Embracing chance in life means recognizing that chance is intertwined with necessity. Embracing chance is an affirmation of necessity and becoming.
47:11 🎲 Nietzsche's philosophy involves a double affirmation of becoming and being in becoming, not through faith in eternal return.
48:17 🃏 Pascal's wager is not about affirming chance but fragmenting it into probabilities of gain and loss; it's an anthropological, not theological, concern.
49:27 ⚖ Understanding Nietzsche involves perceiving resentment and bad conscience within one's thought, avoiding the Christian perspective of condemning life.
53:41 🕊 Nietzsche's final dichotomy is between the Christian worldview and the tragic perspective, with Christianity triumphing in valuing suffering and afterlife redemption.
55:32 🔄 Nietzsche's typology is pluralistic, and each type of philosopher must be understood in their own genealogical context, encompassing biological, psychological, social, and political aspects.
58:00 🧬 Nietzsche's philosophy involves a relationship between dominant (active) and dominated (reactive) forces, with active forces remaining unknown, and consciousness serving reactive forces.
01:03:50 🔍 Science tends to understand organisms through the lens of reactive forces, which is limited and biased, missing the perspective of active forces.
01:06:12 🤔 Consciousness is valuable for reflection and redirection when instincts or impulses fail, but it tends to identify with reactive forces and representational thinking.
01:08:44 📜 The concept of truth is undetermined and depends on the value and sense of what is believed; it is not an absolute but a reflection of thought's forces.
01:09:11 🤔 Thought cannot exist in isolation; it depends on forces that influence it.
01:10:05 🧠 Delo argues that truth is not the essence of thought; sense and value are its elements.
01:11:11 🧐 Thinking is not a solitary activity but a result of various forces seizing thought.
01:13:24 🌌 Nietzsche criticizes science for trying to equalize quantities and deny differences.
01:15:11 🧘 Adoria, the refusal to respond to repeated stimuli, characterizes scientific thought.
01:17:44 🔄 Nietzsche's eternal return emphasizes the eternality of difference, not sameness.
01:19:47 🔄 Reactive forces invert the perspective of active forces, leading to conflicts in values.
01:25:11 🧩 Reactive forces separate active forces from their actions, leading to their triumph.
01:30:25 🤯 Man's reactive nature is the foundation of humanity, but Nietzsche contemplates the possibility of another sensibility.
01:30:53 🔄 Reactivity has been fundamental to human existence, making it challenging to imagine an active, affirmative humanity.
01:32:00 🌍 Nietzsche's metaphysics portrays a world of objects detached from their actions, giving rise to doctrines of free will and moral responsibility.
01:32:29 🤔 Nietzsche questions who benefits from the concept of free will and moral responsibility and suggests they serve to assign blame to humanity.
01:33:10 🛤 Delo explores how humanity can transition from a state of being a thing to becoming a force once more.
01:33:50 🧙♂ Delo sees Nietzsche's Overman as an image of humanity with an affirmative sensibility, emphasizing play, creativity, and a new feeling about life.
01:34:42 🌟 Nietzsche opposes the dialectic because it doesn't lead to a synthesis of opposites but instead aligns with the active or reactive forces, representing good and bad respectively.
Massively helpful index. Wow, thank you.
Who is Delo? lol @ AI-generated slop
these are the best! these emojies :)
@@DelandaBaudLacanianthe French Philo. DELUZE/RHIZONE
This is by far one of the best channels on TH-cam
I concur
"Opposition is difference seen from the bottom." - Gilles Deleuze
I've been waiting a long time for this one to happen on this channel. Thanks, dude.
I love that you read your work and give it in lecture form. So clearly, so succinct, even though you delve deeply into the material.
The series from Heraclitus-->Nieztsche-->Deleuze is amazing
The great Ephesian lineage
This was immensely enjoyable. Your manner is highly appreciated.
Excellent lecture, thoroughly enjoying !
Thank you for this blessing.
This insight of speciation rather than dialetics is most helpfull. Thank you. (all the insights are masterful also).
Just got this book for Christmas so I’ll be enjoying this while reading along.
Incredible channel. So much respect!
When you read Genealogy of Morality for the podcast, I'll keep in mind that the person who wrote it wasn't a Gengus Khan but but a sickly son of a rural preacher man.
Absolutely!
And as Nietzsche has written all decadent german philosopheres like Luther and Kant where Preacher son.
Just like he was.
The greek parable of the hawk and sparrow..
The hawk looks down at the sparrow caught and held tightly in its tallons, and it asks.. 'why do you struggle'?
@jackjonesforever1964 so much of his sister remains it kinda hard to know where he stops and she starts.
@@DJWESG1 well thank goodness we're apes and not sparrows
I'm really enjoying this, thank you.
I follow you on Spotify. Thanks for all you do!!!!!!
FINALLY getting to Deleuze. YESSSIRR
Thank you 🍻
It is vain madness to oppose the Dialectic.
Great work.
You gave so much info, my head split.
same here... i listened to this a couple times and there is a lot I still can't quite grasp firmly
@@guzzopinc1646 Yup. Blessings.
I chipped a nerve in my medula
Thank you
There is an interesting connection to be made, per analogiam, of the dice throw and the excitation of gambling or Mahjong and the politics(or, life) within its history. The winner, or the loser, does not exist; but players in a game who have embraced the thrill of life as it besets itself around everything; a chance, luck or unluck, one still is and continues again. Tragically, the man who does not 'win' stands in dejection, but will most likely return anyhow. This is not to say of the fascinating evolution of eastern gambling like Mahjong and how it transferred itself to Japan and the Yakuza, etcccc. Anyhow, I feel obligated to thank you for this episode, for you have brought about a good thought, a fresh matter of perspectives!
'He who dares Rodders.. he who Dares' - only fools and horses
Thing is, the program was created with political economy in mind, and more specifically to encourage ppl to be part of the game, and not rely on benefits.
great video. would love more on heraclitus but idk if you're a request-consider-er type
I studied philosophy bachelor in uni. Never graduated, 12 years later. This lecture is mush appreciated as a reminder of why I love philosophy. This is very much high quality.
Lol really?
@@intazario lol really?
Sign up to the cheapest or free uni, write a essay, collect your points. Don't think, just act.
Hell yeah brother
Although it doesn't function in exactly the same way, the concepts of the (un)differentiated, show a remarkable amount of analogy to the concepts of the (un)conditioned in Buddhist philosophy. Love the podcast!
this is true .. .there is this guy .. Debashish Banerji from CIIS who examines the relation of particularly deleuze philosophy to ancient indian philosophy ...
also, of course, there are already plenty of concepts of the (un)conditioned and (un)differentiated in hegel where these things are very clearly systematized .. so ... deleuze's slavish relation to hegel has this root ... but he never sublates it .. can't emancipate himself from hegel, poor thing... his work is just completely factitious and yet with such desperate pretense of originality ...
Yes!!! around clock time 1:21:09 the narrator misquotes a famous saying but it is a veiled reference to the biblical sibling rivalry rage of Cain and Abel which is; 'familiarity breeds contempt'!
~
Agape Salute! Ciao!
In English you might say 'you can have too much of a good thing'
Regarding 'familiarity breeds contempt' reference, the point in the biblical reference is that here we have a scripture metaphor of the Creator deeming 'family law' different from 'civil law'. No Capital Punishment!
It's all in the family.
Agape salute! Ciao!
D and G my favs
Deleuze and Nietzsche are the best
YES FINALLY Thank you for doing a video on Deleuze. Can you at some point do a video on Klossowski's book on Nietzsche too? I think its even better than Deleuze's interpretation
Keegan, I just want to say thanks for the podcast. Like the baker of cinnamon buns in the Dionysmas Special, my life has been changed. Thanks to the podcast, I rarely see eye to eye with anyone, anymore, but that’s fine. I never really did. Whether it was the Catholic upbringing, the enlightenment values than underpin our society, or the whole Wokeness thing, I tried them all on, but they were all just hand-me-downs that didn’t fit. I’m an artist (a painter) and I listen while I paint. Nietzche is the only philosopher I have found who really understands art. You do a great job of breaking the ideas down into understandable chunks. I have listened to every episode at least three times. You are certainly doing your bit to bring forth the Overman, so hats off! Nietzche’s ideas are emerging in my paintings now. Feel free to use any of my images for the podcast. What I’m really looking forward to is learning about the many philosophers whose work is influenced by Nietzche, and how Nietzchian ideas are (or are not) seen as relevant in today’s philosophical circles.
www.danoliverart.com/
Try Merleau-Ponty's later work on aesthetics. One example is his essay 'Cezanne's Doubt" MP approaches art from a phenomenological vantage, which is to say, from embodied first person subjective experience. I also think Gadamer had some interesting things to say about art regarding its relation to Truth, but I've only had time to skim his massive 'Truth and Method' thus far and so am unable to provide you with a detailed summary. Happy reading!
@@namarupa3015 Thank you!
I am an artist and retired art teacher, but I disagree with you . Nietzsche destroyed art like everything else. It became psychotic and delusional like him.
Hey man, I’ve been watching this video on and off for the past 2 days, love it.
I’m curious if you believe that Nietzsche is compatible with the Anarchist spirit of thinkers like Malatesta, Goldman, Kropotkin, Rocker. (Kind of a simplistic phrasing, you get what I mean, I think)
It's probably sad on my part thst I don't know the writers you mention, however, his writings never made any meaningful impact on British radicalism or socialism.
I haven't gotten into anarchists besides Goldman, I'm moreso a Marxist and pretty much everything about Nietzche and Delueze's postmodern idealism with the unconscious self (the active mind stemming from I think, therefore I am) being the driver of our existence is wholly antithetical to dialectical materialism since Marxists see the material conditions and the necessity to produce in order maintain our survival (the reactive and material mind) as the driver of human existence (e.g. I act/practice what I think, therefore I am)
I will once again give one of these frenchmen a chance but only because it is this channel, so far the mental baitin's of these guys always just left the impression of a very much "on the spectrum" fixation on words when i encountered them.
Edit: I think the Qabalah of Aleister Crowley are actually more interesting reflections on the relations of opposites, i just cannot get into french philosophy lol
so true ... second half of 20th century frenchmen though... let's be precise .. unlike them ..
more and more i find it plausible that they've been actively promoted by the dominant culture exactly for their obfuscating properties, and as a diversion from organized marxism ...
i truly see nothing in deleuze but deliberate sophistry aiming to cover a complete lack or originality ... and whatever meaningful there is in him is just regular hegelectizing...
and in crowley there's a real attempt at clarity ... he really wants to be understood ...
Deleuze is outlining Nietzsche's ontology that goes back to Heraclitus, but we find it in Daoism and Buddhism as well. It's strange to me that you'd think that the French Nietzscheans (Bataille, Deleuze, Derrida, and Foucault) is sophistry. Do you know what Plato was doing when he told you that there exists a World of Forms? He was setting up the idea of philosophers as priests, telling the unwise what the Forms are. Aristotle was Alexander's court philosopher, but Alexander went his own way and ended up in India. Unlike Aristotle and many of the Greeks, he wasn't racist and chose to adopt Persian customs. That's why we remember Alexander and not Aristotle. Then we have Cicero defending the corrupt oligarchy of Rome. Caesar admired Alexander because real recognizes real. Brutus was the Judas and the patricians were the Pharisees. That's why we remember Caesar and not Cicero and Brutus.
" Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the philosophers with the most potential in the whole world, not only in the West, not only in Germany. His insights are significant for everybody. But he was misunderstood by all his contemporaries.
That's the usual fate of every genius.
It is almost routine, not an exception but a rule, that the genius is bound to be misunderstood by his contemporaries, for the simple reason that he is far ahead of his time. So there is always a revival after the death of a genius. It may take one hundred years, two hundred years, but a genius always has a revival.
It is unfortunate that by the time people start understanding him, he is no more. And he suffers the misunderstandings all around him his whole life. He lives almost alone, with no communication with his contemporaries; and by the time he is being understood, he is no more. He never comes to know the people who will understand him.
So it was absolutely certain that Friedrich Nietzsche would have a great revival, and his words and his insights would be echoed all over the world - not only in the world of philosophy, but in the world of religion, morality, aesthetics. Whatever he touched, he always brought something absolutely new to it.
And that's the trouble - because for thousands of years people have understood a thing in a certain way. When a person like Nietzsche turns all the tables - which centuries have founded - and alone, single-handedly, fights against the whole past, it is a very difficult situation - and more so for a Western philosopher who has no understanding of meditation.
He naturally gets very frustrated. It is bound to bring him insanity - the misunderstanding of the people. Everybody misunderstands him. In the world full of millions of people, there is not a single person with whom he can have a heart-to-heart contact, communion. He is in a desert - it drives him mad. That's what happened with Nietzsche.
He lived a life of immense frustration, because he was giving great insights to the world; and in return - only condemnation. He was bringing new light - and not a single friendly response.... Even his friends were not friendly about his philosophical approaches. That finally drove Nietzsche to madness; he died a madman.
His death in madness is a condemnation of the whole Western approach. In the East people have been misunderstood, but because there was an underlying meditative silence and peace and contentment, and a deep understanding that this is just how things are - they are bound to be misunderstood - there was a natural acceptance of it. They were not frustrated, they were not angry; they were not going insane or committing suicide.
But in the West it has been almost always the situation with every great philosopher - the misunderstanding from all corners, from all dimensions, and the deep expectation of the person of being understood. He is not a meditator; he cannot accept the situation of misunderstanding, that it is natural, that he cannot do anything about it, that he will be understood when the time is ripe.
He will not be here.... But it does not matter whether he is understood or not: he is perfectly contented that whatever is true to him he is giving to the world. Now it is up to the world when to understand, or not to understand it. He is not dependent in any way on the response of people.
But Western philosophy, Western religion both have missed the quality of meditation. And that creates a new thing. When a man like Nietzsche goes mad, the enemies, who are all around - the people who misunderstood him and drove him mad - take advantage of the situation of his being mad. They start saying that it is his philosophy which is basically wrong, that has driven him mad.
His madness becomes a proof that he is a wrong man - that he is not only mad today, he has always been mad. Whatever he has said is insane. So it becomes a more solid ground on which to refute the person completely, to erase him completely - and that's what happened with Nietzsche.
But a revival was certain. You cannot continue to misunderstand something which has even a little bit of truth in it - and Nietzsche has tremendous insights. If they can all be understood, it will help the Western mind to change many things.
For example, Nietzsche was the only one - even in his madness he would not sign his name without writing over his signature "Antichrist." Even in his madness that much was absolutely certain to him: that he was anti-Christ, that Christ has created a tradition which is immensely dangerous to humanity, that he has polluted the human mind, even about small things.
Where Christ had always been praised, people were surprised that Nietzsche would find a very solid criticism. For example, when Christ says, "If somebody slaps you on one cheek, give him the other too," Nietzsche was the first man to say that this is an insult to the man who has slapped you.
Now, it needs a certain intelligence to understand what he is saying. He is saying, in giving him the other cheek you are reducing him to subhumanity; you are becoming a god. Behave like a human being: give him a good slap the way he has given you one."
I don't think Nietzsche lived a life of immense frustration, as you suggest. All the evidence suggests that he was quite cheerful and satisfied with his life. Also, I think it is a mistake to assume his mental breakdown resulted from any lack of recognition. I think it is pretty clear from his writing that his life and purpose had basically run it's course. I think his will just gave out after its purpose had been served.
What did Nietzsche say that was truly original? His will to power hardly a revelation. Basically he just regurgitated the ideas of Hobbes, Carlyle, Machiavelli, De Sade and Schopenhauer, but made them more accessible with his novelistic, poetic flourishes .
I suppose his real lasting influence is superficial, more in style than content. Inspiring the likes of Sartre, Foucault, Rand with their mix of literature and philosophy.
@@JAMAICADOCKwow you just regurgitated my advisor's exact words, albeit in a different order.
@@JAMAICADOCK " Nietzsche is one of the most important beings in the whole history of man, of the same caliber as Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Mahavira, Buddha, Zarathustra. He would have become an enlightened being, but something went wrong. Instead of going through a breakthrough. he went through a breakdown
What really went wrong was the Western atmosphere, the whole Western intellectual climate. The responsibility is that of the Christian Church. The Christian Church is the culprit. It has destroyed the possibility of many many people like Friedrich Nietzsche becoming enlightened.
The East cannot be held responsible because in the East intellectual freedom has always existed, has always been respected. No intellectual in the East has been crucified like Jesus; no philosopher has been poisoned like Socrates; no mystic has been murdered like Al-Hillaj Mansur. And the East has known more people like Socrates than the West, and the East has produced more people like Jesus than the West, and the East is studded with mystics like Al-Hillaj Mansur. But never, not even for a single instant, have we destroyed anybody's freedom. We have respected freedom as the ultimate value. Hence, when a man becomes enlightened and attains to the ultimate truth we say he has attained to moksha. The word moksha means absolute freedom, unconditional freedom, a freedom from which no fall is possible.
But Christianity has been very dictatorial. The ultimate consequence was that only the mediocre people remained in the Church and the intelligent people left the Church, or even if they remained in the Church they remained only formally; their hearts were not with the Church.
Friedrich Nietzsche became so disgusted with Christianity... And he knew only Christianity; he never knew anything about Zen, Sufism, otherwise he would have been a totally different man. The breakdown may not have happened; the breakdown may have changed into a breakthrough. He fought against the whole tradition of Christian domination, so much so that finally he became Anti- christ. He was fascinated by the personality of Jesus, but because Jesus is at the root, unfortunately - not that he intended to be at the root of the Christian Church, but it happened so, that the whole Church is based on Christ's idea - Friedrich Nietzsche became Antichrist. In his last days he had started signing his name "Antichrist Friedrich Nietzsche." He went mad. He risked his sanity, but he saved his freedom.
I respect the man, I love the man. I would have liked him to become a Buddha - he had all the potential - but he was in a wrong climate. He needed the Eastern freedom and the Eastern soil.
His antagonism became so great that not only did he become against Christ, he became an archenemy of God himself, because as he looked deeper into the phenomenon he found that Jesus is not the real foundation of the Christian Church - the real foundation rests on God, on the idea of God. Unless you remove that very foundation the Church cannot collapse.
Hence his statement that God is dead. You may not have heard the whole statement; this is only a part, and the whole is very significant. The whole statement is: "Rejoice! God is dead and now man is absolutely free." Then it makes sense. "Rejoice that God is dead! Now there is nobody to dominate you. There is nobody above you; you need not be afraid of any God - you can forget all about God and Jehovah."
Because the Jewish-Christian-Mohammedan idea of God is not of a very nice fellow; he is not a gentleman. The Jewish God who is at the root of both the Christian and the Mohammedan God says himself, "I am a very jealous God. Those who are against me, I will destroy them. Those who are not with me are against me. Those who are with me will have all the pleasures of heaven, and those who are not with me will suffer eternal hellfire."
Nietzsche says, "Rejoice, God is dead! There is no heaven and no hell. Don't be afraid of hell and don't be greedy for heaven, because there is no God. God is dead, and man is absolutely free."
This has been done in the East in a far more subtle, delicate way. Mahavira says there is no God - for the same reason as Nietzsche. Mahavira says if there is a God then man cannot be free. There is a very significant logic in it. If there is a God then man cannot be free. How can man be free?
because man is just a created creature. God decided to create you, so he created you. If he decides tomorrow to uncreate you, he will uncreate you. What freedom have you got? It is God's decision to create you the way you are; you are not responsible for it. How can you be held responsible for all the instincts that have been given to you by God?
Mahavira said: See the futility of the whole argument of the theists. See the ridiculousness of the whole idea of man's self-condemnation - because of sex, because of anger, because of greed.
What can man do? If God created man in this way, then God is responsible, not man. And why did he create this type of man and this type of world? If anybody has to suffer, then God has to suffer, not man. Man is only a creature.
It is like if you make toys. Now if something is wrong with the toy, who is responsible? You cannot condemn the toy. You make machines. If something goes wrong, then you are responsible, not the machine.
When atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you cannot condemn atom bombs or atomic energy; you can only condemn the politicians who used atom bombs there, you can condemn the scientists who created those atom bombs. And Albert Einstein felt it continuously after Hiroshima and Nagasaki - he was sad.
And the day he died somebody asked him, "If you are going to be born again what would you like to be? Would you like to be a physicist, a mathematician again or not?"
Einstein said, "No, never! Rather than being a physicist I would like to be a plumber, because I have done so much harm to humanity" - unconsciously, of course.
But you cannot say that about God, that he has created man unconsciously. If even God is unconscious, then what is the possibility of man ever becoming conscious?
Mahavira says there is no God, because only in the non-existence of God does man become responsible. And I agree with Mahavira, with Buddha, with Nietzsche. The first and the foremost quality of a religious person is self-responsibility, to feel that "I am responsible for whatsoever I am. It is my choice. I have been given all the alternatives. I was born open-ended; nothing was predetermined. Whatsoever I am, it is my responsibility - good or bad. There is no fate, no God."
Mahavira denied God, but he never went mad like Nietzsche. Meditation saved him. Buddha denied God - not only God, Buddha went a step further; in fact, now there is no further to go - Buddha denied God and Buddha denied self. Buddha said there is no God and no self. Buddha said if there is a self, then again you cannot be totally free. Your self will have certain qualities and those qualities will go on persisting; they will be intrinsic. Your freedom will be conditional. The first thing is to get rid of God; the second thing is to get rid of your self. Then your freedom is total. Then there is only freedom and nothing else. But Buddha never went mad for the simple reason that meditation saved him.
Nietzsche would have been a Mahavira or a Buddha, but there was no meditative dimension available to him. Once you deny God, the whole mountainous responsibility of your being falls on your own head. You can be crushed by it. That's what happened: Nietzsche was crushed under his own freedom, he was not able to cope with the freedom.
God, as Christians, Mohammedans, Jews and Hindus have conceived him, does not exist. But I will not say, like Mahavira or Buddha or Nietzsche, that there is no God. I say life is God. In fact, I don't want to use the word "God," my own preference is bhagavata, godliness. The existence is full of godliness, and in deep meditation you become part of that godliness. If God is life, synonymous with life, then there is no question of God dying. Life cannot die; it is eternal.
There are two tombstones seen on a remote part of the planet. On one is written: "God is dead, signed Friedrich Nietzsche." On the other is written: "Nietzsche is dead, signed God."
And I think the second is truer - Nietzsche is dead. God is not dead in Nietzsche's sense, because his idea of God was basically wrong. It was a Christian idea: God as a person, and a dominant person.
One of the great Indian mystics, a baul of Bengal . . . The word baul means a madman. The bauls are really mad - madly in love with God. This mad baul Chandidas says: "Sabar upar manusatya. Tahar upar nahin - Man's truth is the highest truth. There is no other truth higher than that." He is saying the same thing as Nietzsche, but in a more positive way. He is declaring man's godhood, man's godliness. Nietzsche simply denies, and affirms nothing. His denial brings a negative emptiness. Chandidas denies, but his denial brings a positive emptiness.
@@willieluncheonette5843go outside brother.
I had better read the book. So much to unpack here. I came to maturity on the Hegelian dialectic. As a mature still inquiring person I am now more interested in being. So thank you. I meant to major in philosophy; I was diverted by literature and media and radical politics!
Thank you again, essentialists, for your contribution to philosophy.
Happy 2024!!! Today is New Years Eve.
🙏❤️🌎🌿🕊🎶🎵🎶
"We need a way in which the animal, guided by reason, may romp but will not bite."
Abraham Myerson 😊
"Oh, what a tangled web do parents weave when they think their children are naive."
Ogden Nash
"The merely informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth."
Alfred North Whitehead
"Consciousness is the inner voice that warns us someone may be looking."
H.L. Mencken
There are as many nights as days, and the one as just as the other in a years course. Even a happy life can not be without a measure of darkness, and the word "happy" would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness.. It is far better to take things as they along with patience and equanimity."
C.J.Jung
Hegel’s dialectic shouldn’t be reduced to a schema, or simplified by pointing to the master slave dialectic.
Hegel specifically points out that you shouldn’t schematize and simplify his phenomenology to any one specific stage.
While he relies heavily on the holy trinity.
Ofc he'd say that, how else can he remain untouched? "Don't point out to obvious flaws!"
The stimulus and the response
booba and booty
The this stimulus and and the that response
Your videos are great.
42:00 "right logic was defeated by wrong logic" - this is the theorycel, 'history as ideas' viewpoint. What actually happened is that technological and structural changes compelled a new way of viewing the world.
Great chanell
where’s part 2?
I’m only pointing this out cause I’ve been listening to your videos nonstop and cause you’re a musician, there’s a ton of “air” noise in this video. Especially noticeable on the “s”. I bet you could run the recording through some de-esser or another plugin and get rid of the majority of it.
"Life is cruel. Why should the afterlife be any different”
- Davy Jones
What about Walt Whitman?
59:53
Stupid question: how active - reactive dichotomy different from dialectic and even more importantly from prior Appolo - Dionysus one?
in deleuze's mind they are different because he has some sort of one sided understanding of dialectic ... but his arguments are just not convincing, the most coherent expression of his argument being his reinterpretation of the master-slave dialectic, presented here at 19:28 ...
..i find that the rather reasonable opinion, that deleuze is full of crap, is much too underrepresented..
I think the problem here is that Deleuze is overlooking the foundation of metaphysics: Aristotle's prosaic survey of schools of philosophy: Platonic, his own, materialist and Sophistical. Hegel addresses these schools in his own way and never makes them negations of an essence. It would not even be possible to do so. What Hegel does is to employ a way of thinking about these basic schools in a way that relates them inside a whole, as Aristotle had done.
This one really stumps me. I felt I had a decent understanding of Spinoza, Heraclitus, and Nietzsche, before trying to understand Hegel (and I actually came to see Hegel as someone rather aligned with Spinoza and Nietzsche's pantheistic-like understanding of the universe) but now I'm not too sure I understand much of anything no more 🥲
Kant actually loved debate and repartee, good wine and good company. People think of him as austere and difficult, but that's not who he was.
Good text. Brasil
someone who actually reads. . . props
Strange, as its fundamental to all human thought that has ever been thought by a human being.
Are animals who are less conscious, just as reactive as we are? Does the genealogy of our morality trace back into our evolutionary roots to creatures as prey/predators?
Maybe our history as both predator and prey offers a different thesis to that of other animals.
The irony is that Deleuze like his idols and contemporary thinkers, falls into the dialectical trap just as soon as he opposes it. He wasn't far from freeing himself, and us from it, so long as he stressed the connectedness and (metaphorically) the rizomatic nature of concepts. In a sense he was a precursor of the idea of knowledge representation and semantic ontology. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with dialectics insofar as it is understood as a process and not an essence.
✔️ ✅️
By saying there is a dialectic, one is not arguing with others or oneself that there isn't, thus disproving the dialectic.
If the arguing gets one to the truth, then the arguing is not the truth.
I'm dumb, not the truth, but an archetype.
Deleuze's way of philosophising is frequently called POST-STRUCTURALIST and there are reasons why this makes sense. Deleuze would not be pleased at all with being called "postomdern(ist)" (or even a thinker of postmodernity) and he expressed that view on several occassions...
why is there no bibliography?
Klossowskis vicious circle would be a wish come true. and Cioran
Click like first....😊
This is SUSPICIOUSLY close to Plastic Pills video: Deleuze on Nietzsche: Against the Dialectic; in name, form and content specifics. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (which has been around for 2+ years)
Never heard of it, and upon a cursory glance its not even similar. Yeah, they’re both videos about Deleuze and Nietzsche…. That’s about the extent of it.
@@untimelyreflections Fair enough. You two defs have similar talking points, but I can imagine that's quite normal for the medium, format and topic. Looots of similar content on the tube. I apologize if my comment came across as accusatory. But I'll stand by my position of lots of similarity. But that may just be down to the nature of the topic. Anyways. Thank you for adding to the conversation. 🌱
Well we are both talking about the same book which has a chapter entitled “Against the Dialectic” in it. But I guarantee you he didn’t pull the same quotes I pulled from reading the text, even without having to go see what quotes he used, since mine are deep cuts/fairly long quotes.
@untimelyreflections I've noticed more of these sorts of video in the last few years. Each offer a slightly different take. However I think most exist in a pale attempt to rethink marx.
Both were right, Hegel and Nietzsche. One is seeing from general perspective, the other is seeing from the individual point of view. How you could be affirmative about your nobility if there was no one in opposition to you who serve you?
The problem with Nietzsche is that he didn't understand christianity at all which is not about negation of life, but overcoming animalistic aspect of it to live pure human life. Christians do not judge life but other humans, they are not slaves with resentment attitude (although most religious people are just like that). Christians reject everything that leads back to paganism, back to practical, natural life, Greeks celebrated political animal, they only recognize animal-natural-practical aspect of human being (except Plato and Socrates), old cultures like Babylonians etc as well did the same. Christians actually are seeking for superhuman, Man who is noble in the sense that he lives in thoughts and feelings above the nature and animalistic drives, they got the same goal that Nietzsche does. Eternal return is not about another chance, is the opposite, what you do now you will have to repeat forever, it is again pure christianity in Nietzsche's philosophy since doing something forever could mean only heaven or hell.
Hegel on other side did recognized the freedom only, freedom from dialectics which is nature and He close the chapter there so he didn't understand christianity either. To be free is not only from something but also be free to do something. So we need nature and the dialectic to move forward, to take an advantage from freedom, but we have to use it like the masters not like the slaves who are subject to nature and animalistic aspect of being.
They both got confused thanks to Eastern ideas, Buddhism mainly.
@eldoradose what in your opinion is better for overcoming animalistic aspect of life, ten Hail Marys or self-flagellation?
@@blyysm Animalistic means reaction to the environment, food, mood, comfort etc. Human as an animal is the slave of drives caused by the body and this belongs to the nature and the elementals. Freedom starts from morality, and it is not against life. To be moral means to be pure from chains of selfish desire, to act not because my unconscious (the body or Dionysus) is urging me, but to act because my "I" my essence want it. There is nothing of resentment if one wants to sacrifice his own pleasure for another being, because sharing spreads life, egoism is denying life, denying the mother, is like claiming "I own everything to myself only, my parents, country, history did nothing form me, I am like a snake self-sufficient from the moment I was born".
We all suck a breast of our mothers and our mothers are always against selfish of the masters because this brings death and misery, not life.
Nietzsche was christian in his philosophy but he had bad relations with his father priest and the childhood environment, so he is fighting with German culture and its pathological interpretation of christianity.
@@exlauslegale8534 People at the gym are doing self-flagellation every day, thy got their own daily mantras also.
@@blyysm Christianity does not deny eating, sex, ownership, is not about body deny but the resurrection of the body, and this means that eating, sex, material luxury, all comforts of the body is not the goal of your life (because this is the goal of "the last man"), but to improve everyday to become The Ubermensch at the end of the cycle, since original cosmology of christianity (the Revelation) is based on platonic cosmology, the end of our cycle is "the last judgement".
Most of today's so called "christians" do not understand this, so Nietzsche was against them, and this was his household and the environment he grow up with and be educated in.
you are confusing healthy cardio with wounds on your back caused by a whip@@eldoradose
In my view, this limiting and dogmatic application of the dialectic method produces, most of the time, not syntheses, but rather endless, sterile, and poisoning discussions that only generates further polarization and an impoverished perception of the world, a monoculture of thought, if I'm allowed a possibly cheap analogy. Thank you for the insights, this is exactly the type of critique and new perspectives the reactive and combative ‘left’ needs (or should it be called the ‘not-right’? Haha).
I think Nietzsche and Deleuze are missing the mark here.
If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody remembers it falling, did it make a noise?
This is the main question in the poem Ozymandias. The poem is narrated in a very weird second hand observation kind of a way. And it's unclear if the narrator is telling the truth, but we are relying on the narrator's story.
Ozymandias represents this will to power, but what does it amount to in the end? It amounts to nothing in the grand scheme.
Furthermore, there is all this flowery language of I decide and I choose, but does anybody choose to be born? Does anybody choose where or when or to whom they are born? If I were born elsewhere and if I were born to somebody else, I would be equally confident that I'm me, so what does this me-ness of me amount to? It's all a LARP.
Not only do I not choose my birth, I also don't choose the average desires that follow from my birth, such as the desire to eat and be housed, and indeed the desire to seek power and even have an identity. All these average desires are a consequence of my birth and they are all unchosen by me.
Bro is on the Robert Sapolsky hard determinist route.
@@henrytep8884 No, within the framework of existence one is free to make choices. Not totally free because the choices are guided by genetically acquired desires.
Inspite of this guiding, one can choose to commit suicide for instance, although its very hard because of natural proclivities.
All that being said outside of the framework of existence, pre-birth, one does not have a choice. Is that a lie? The unborn cannot choose to be born. That birth is 100% determined from outside the self.
@@benjaminfranklin7263 no I’m just saying your belief(description) of our choices on spawn point align heavily with Robert Sapolsky, who is a hard determinist. I’m not judging you, just making an observation. He is a hard determinist though. I’m in agreement with you, but I know recently many who have come to that conclusion might have heard it from Robert Sapolsky.
The view of life as tragic is itself a valuation. Do non-human animals view life as tragic? I don't believe they do. So it's only with the rise of human self-consciousness that life is seen as "tragic."
It is a view before it is a valuation. Aside from an infinity, to the question "Is life tragic?" there could be about 3 or 4 types of short answers. 1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Yes and No. 4. The question is or appears nonsensical or meaningless to the respondant. "Yes, life is tragic", "well, what do you mean tragic?", "that the concentration of life's tragic elements is dense enough during a life time compared to other elements as to tilt my apprehension of it in that general direction." "No, life is not tragic" "How so?" The mass of non-tragic elements overwhelms the mass of tragic elements as life traverses its inevitable path". "I don't understand the question?"
Then there is the bias of positive numbers. "Is life tragic?" 0. No 1. Yes. The 1 would out of the mere potentiality of being stated conquer 0. Light defines itself and the darkness around, being defies its own absence. The question thus contains its own answer to the positive. Note that this remains true for the opposite and alternatives of tragedy as a subject matter
Another question could be "Is life tragic or is life X?" in which case we have a fairer matchup consisting of a positive against another positive. This is a more evenhanded valuation, a clash, a duality, a part and a counterpart, two seperate subjects paired with one object each. It leaves out third possibilities and illuminates the bias of positive numbers
To be honest, I have never been able to make any sense of Deluze. And if this summary is accurate, it seems like a bunch of random assertions. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I'm just being different.
lol... genealogically different... in any case not dialectically opposed
You won’t get it. It’s not for you
@@_7.8.6 It's not for you.
Moslem and judaism are examples of the clashing dialogue.
Which Hegel was Deleuze ‘against’ - the Young (esoteric) or the Old (exoteric)? There is the claim that the Marxist Dialecticians were descendants of Hegel, but the ‘Marxist’ dialecticians (Engels, etc.) were also anti-Hegelian. They thought they had turned Hegel on his head. Many anti-Bolshevik Marxists disagreed with that assessment. Indeed, as Collette notes, Marx himself said that the problem was not with Hegel’s philosophy being upside down, but that commodity production creates an upside down world (which Hegel accurately portrays, in its upside down-ness). The Marxist Dialecticians (Engels, etc.) tried to place their dialectic in an unconscious nature to prove that the outcome (Socialism) was pre-determined. But did the Young / Radical Hegel have any such ‘teleology’? A teleology is not present in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1806) since it was reflective, not predictive, since mutual recognition had already been established in the Haitian Revolution (1804).
You are completely right in everything you say. I would say that Deleuze is opposed to the dialectic at a more molar level , because his epistemology is transcental epmricism. It spirals out in different directions after Deleuze's Hume essay. Then he uses Nietzsche and Spinoza in a more free way to stress multiplicity. There are some that have found affinities beatween Hegel and Deleuze, for example Deleuze never left Marx truly, who in turn never abandoned the dialectic method especialy when he was writing Kapital. The OP video does a good job of explaining the different notions of multiplicty. I think that is the source of the major disagreement.
This is why we talk about 'Marxism b4 marx', books with same and similar titles exist. See Winstanly for further details.
His name is spelled "Gilles" not "Giles".
Nietzsche’s prescient insight into Mob Wokism:
“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Deleuze is beyond left or right.
Is Nietzsche really against Hegel, maybe in some sense, but I think Nietzsches biggest opponent is Platos Socrates, in other words " pure reason", representation of the "second or other, higher world". To me Nietzsche is also dialectic thinker. I think Deleuze is taking too bold statement making Nietzsche Too " anti- hegelian".
You say "Hegel argues" or "the Hegelian position", but using this type of language about Hegel seems to risk a mischaracterization of the dialectic. If the dialectic is not a fixed position or a specific argument, then using this type of language - and therefore attributing fixed viewpoints to Hegel - seems to be misleading.
th-cam.com/video/S7FW0GoSLKI/w-d-xo.html
Isn’t the entire point of Nietzsche’s mature thought that the ressentiment embodied by Christianity and every other major system of values is limiting by virtue of existing on a binary? It seems to me that yes he’s attempting to reach beyond dialectical thought but that the motor of ressentiment is inherently dialectical. Christianity was such a horrible thing for Nietzsche because it was a properly slave morality which had been appropriated by the elite and was thus limiting them. It seems to be that all of this assimilation of Nietzsche as a rhizomatic figure would necessarily only work on the level of his aims and not his means. Even Nietzsche’s implicit favoritism to the elite as the effective role in bringing about the beyond good and evil is itself predicated on an arbitrary opposition between the master and slave class in the terms of intelligence. What the beyond good and evil amounts to is merely a relocation of the dialectical tension a step further between those that recognize the poverty of morality and those that do not. Then, past the abstractions of metaphysics there stands the question of how such a program is to be implemented concretely. What does the man beyond morality do? He must necessarily build himself a framework otherwise he risks falling back into de facto morality through his inheritance from the institutions he takes part of. (By this I mean he could not simply do whatever he wants because what he wants is already at risk of capture by his station in life. I.e he wants power because aristocratic imperatives, ethical constructs, move him so) How does this new system of organization escape a dialectical relation with the previous when the two main avenues of its own differentiation amount to a negation of morality as a concept or the slave class as a culture? The positive essence of such system is lacking because Nietzsche’s prior analysis is a purely negative one. Without the positing of what amounts to an entirely new metaphysical principle no such effort would ever leave the ground. Then, that in turn raises the issue of how such a new metaphysical principle would individuate itself from the host of traditional concepts which make up its prehistory without standing in a dialectical relation to them or the rest of the objects in its field.
And you could argue that that’s what he’s trying to do with the will to power but I think that the will to power is probably the purest example of dialectical thought in all of Nietzsche’s corpus. The will negates itself in order to create the positivity of morality. Should the will follow a Deleuzian pluralistic approach then it would simply augment itself. Not to mention that I believe your characterization of Deleuze as some thinker of pure positivity isn’t really correct when the core of his approach is a focus on difference as such. The rhizomatic nature of deleuze’s thought is due to the fact that difference (negation) is the operative term (over identity) in the construction of being meaning that the sprawling net of seeming positivity is constructed through the operation of difference.
Why does Deleuze believe science is concerned chiefly with flattening out or eliminating "difference", whatever that is supposed to mean? What does that mean, in the first place. Science is replete with nosology, distinctions, on a molecular level---see Sam Harris, for example, and his denial of free will due to neural wiring. I suspect if one critiques science in a serious way, one must be trained, even on an undergraduate level, in biology, or physics, etc.
That's a good question. When I read Deleuze there are tons of times that he states something that sounds completely absurd. For a long time I just thought he was a charlatan. Now I have come to think that there are definitely a lot of interesting thoughts in his writing but at the same time his writing style is so thorny that one almost has to assume some kind of obfuscation.
Technology is probably more "the flatterer of difference" than science itself although the former is much the product of the latter
Actually, I listened again and understood what was meant. Basically both Nietzsche and Deleuze assert that science consistently eliminates difference in order to make calculations. In the world no two things are exactly alike but science is willing to approximate and round off what mathematically would be an infinite fraction. Like compact discs for example --the fluid and continuous waves of sound are approximated into one's and zero's of digital information. Thus, the uniqueness of the sound is made into a model of the sound that has lost information and has lost its particularity. This example can be transferred to all of scientific activity and then you get the generalization that science "flattens difference." One might also say that languages, in general, flatten difference.
@@guzzopinc1646 Or even conciousness with its pattern recogniztions and sensory distinctions between the relative importance or non-importance of a specific object in a given sitiation.
Threats and hopes are general in outlook and fall seldom victims to sudden change. Man is hungry in general before he decides to digest a meal in particular.
Science is the formal embodiment of this human urge for understanding natural arrangements through symbols, signs, formulas and categories. The scientist abhores paradoxes, vacuums or inconsistencies in understanding
Nieitsche & Deluze seem to be justifying arbitrary hierarchy of power which justifies racial or socioeconomic supremacy. Basically a coercive will to power is justified. On the other hand Hegel & Marx seem to believe in a dialectic as communicative rationality where the only coercion is the power of the better argument. The will to power justified by Deluze gives rise to fascism…while dialectics give rise to the evolution from the right of kings & feudalism to democracy & communism. Deluzian Difference leads to entropic heat death of the social & then of the self. while The dialectic is an asymptotic curve of becoming
this first 5 minutes is completely wrong, this is a ridiculously bad misunderstanding and making-up of what Hegel thinks
Pretty typical for people like you to say something like that and then fail to explain where its wrong or why. Probably because… you can’t.
if you're not with us you're against us and we define our opponents.
that trash thinking of smooth brains
Am I with myself or against myself? The internal dialectic - the struggle is not between two people or individuals but ‘within’ one individual or people (or class). What happens when you define your ‘opponent’ as yourself? Do you try to dominate yourself? Impose your own narrative on yourself? Should I go to work to make money (in my ‘interest’) or take a day off (also in my ‘interest’)? If you are not with yourself, you’re against yourself. This internal element of the dialectic is almost always missed by people who do not understand what Hegel was highlighting. The smooth brain is simplistic in its trash thinking of the ‘you’ as a pure singularity and its ‘other’ as someone else rather than internal to itself.
if you are at war with your "EGO" that's a materialism issue.
it's the difference between knowing ones mistakes are lessons to that can be learned from.
or
or a mistake is something you never take accountability of but demand others pay for.
Nietzsche's terms are developed from a fantasy world that he created; there never was an aristocracy that was not Christian.
So Nietzsche created the concept of a Master mentality; even though the actual existing aristocracy in Europe adhered to Christian morality. He redefined the meaning of an aristocracy to be individuals that made their own rules and gave no heed to the existing aristocracy residing in Europe. Nietzsche's terms are developed from a fantasy world that he created; there never was an aristocracy that was not Christian. Was he elevating the relatively new arrivals on the scene, the bourgeoisie; as the true aristocracy? It would be a self-serving move, as during Nietzsche’s era the bourgeoisie had more “economic power," than the aristocrats.
> there never was an aristocracy that was not Christian
Ancient Greece and Rome would like a word.
Oh, and like every other bronze age empire and after.
@@untimelyreflections That is true, but they did worship gods.
Hey pin the goddam link to the next part for Christ's sake. Thanks.
I would really like to listen to this, but my ears can't handle all the hard S's. Need a better microphone or something!
Your channel has made me realise something very debilitating. Wow
I apologize.
God doesn’t appear on earth as a flesh and blood man. Good video anyway tho. True statements will lead to a non-thumbs-down next time :D
This isn't my belief, its the statement of Christian belief. Are you saying that Christians don't believe in the incarnation? What a weird remark. And also, fyi, no one can see the thumbs down anyway.
@@untimelyreflectionsdefine your conception of belief? The common conception of belief seems to be “I assent to statements x and y and take them to be facts”
If this is your notion of belief, I would point you to the early church fathers, which do not hold this notion of belief, but instead take belief to mean something more along the lines of “I commit myself to acting in accordance with x and y”, which is what FAITH is supposed to mean.
Which is why true Christians are not required to “believe” anything… instead it’s more accurate to say they have FAITH in certain things.
Too many big words 😂 “dialectic”
I thought God was Nietzsche's enemy.
You thought that because you have no understanding.
GOATEDDDDDDD