Immanence can be explained in a much easier way. Immanence is opposed to transcendency. If you believe in God, than your world is transcendent. God is outside the world, since he is not subjected to the laws of the physical world (he can perform miracles, for example). If you agree to Spinoza's philosophy, then your god is immanent. God is Substance, and subjected to the physical laws of the universe. That's immanence.
+wildcatrj I agree, except that I think we ought to be able to find a way to describe immanence that doesn't depend on a binary opposition. Would it be reasonable to suggest that immanence is the result of the collapse of the opposition transcendent/nihilist? Or something along those lines?
"Why does one write? Because it is not a case of writing. It may be that the writer has delicate health, a weak constitution. He is none the less the opposite of the neurotic: a sort of great Alive (in the manner of Spinoza, Nietzsche or Lawrence) in so far as he is only too weak for the life which runs in him or for the affects which pass in him. He does not ask 'What is writing?' , because he has all its necessity, the impossibility of another choice which indeed makes writing." from deleuze's essay "on the superiority of anglo-american literature"
Deleuze was an unlikely hero of English soccer hooligans in the 1980s and concrete terraces all over the country often reverberated to chants and songs summarising some of his more obtuse theories
To Matthew D: respectfully, I don't think that Philp Godchild has bungled immanence at all. Widcatrj is right in his explanation of immanence. For Deleuze, yes, immanence is what Wildcatrj says. But it is more than that and it is this 'more' that Philp Goodchild manages to point out. I think his notion of surfing, which he uses at the end of his talk, is very eloquent here. It means that, no, we cannot create concepts that allow us to view the world as though from some kind of a high tower. If one is high up in a tower, you may be the feeling that what you see below (the world) can now finally be pictured, i.e. you can have a representation or image of the world that allows you to see it as a whole and thus to dominate intellectually: you see all its parts and how one part fits in with all the others, etc. But Deleuze would probably say that the view from a high tower is impossible or rather that it is an illusion. Since we are always IMMERSED in the world, then all you can do is to surf on the forces that buffet this world. That is what the notion of immanent plane (without the possible of a transcendant stance) forces us to do: surf.
Not only that, but Deleuze's general disposition is to struggle against any fascist rigidity. This includes philosophical conceptual thought that attempts to dictate notions of total meaning and complete representation. The example of the tower is nice, but I would also add that for Deleuze, the "tower" here is also inadequate because it can not take into account various active processes that deviate from the structural norms of the "tower". Deleuze believes life is inherently creative and in perpetual movement, thus philosophy is an engagement of experiemental genesis that while necessarily be viewed as aberrant from the hierarchical "tower" of institutional thought.
+Robert Richard Agreed. The surfing analogy is especially good because it nicely intersects D's concepts of flow and de-territorialization. Each ride on the wave ifs different; the surfer creates a line of flight from the mass and force of the wave, thus de-territorializing the molar wave force involved and sweeping it away into a multiplicity of possible rides. Surfing is not a state of being (or mind); it's an act of becoming. (I'm an antiquated surfer myself, so I've always enjoyed this aspect of D's thought). :-)
+Derrick Mullins really, is that so? was that also a major concern for Deleuze, against ridgity and absolutism? because I keep seeing that as a major problem in thinking, and really liked how that was also a major concern of Rorty's.
“To read any section of it you have to understand the concepts that have been introduced and developed in any other section of it , so it doesn’t have a linear structure .. “ uhm maybe mean to say it is ,philosophy ??😐
Wonderful video. One correction, emphysema is not necessarily cancer, it is pulmonary and can coincide but not codependent. Great presentation, Deleuze is hard to get at but this is part of his importance and attraction to those selectively meant to get closer - imho
funny how all the pseudo intellectuals here take the post-modernist observations of subjective experience as facts... Go read Neitzche again,,, think you missed something.....
(one way of understanding immanence) “Thought is a kind of environment that we enter into and already are in ..” ermm say what again ? 🧐 😶🔫 (another) “Thought is part of reality .” Well that should settle it 👨⚖️ .
Perhaps the opposite is the case. Is not reality, the plane upon which we understand relations, constituted by a preexisting substance, is reality, not just a recoil that represents & expresses the state of human understanding? I'd posit that reality is a euphemism of what is real.
@@5thdisciple940 Yes, Deleuzean imminence is more like Spinoza and not much like Kant. Another foundational concept derived from Spinoza (though it was not original with him) is the univocity of being. This undergirds his rejecting the classical image of thought in order to develop a philosophy of "Difference and Repetition." If one is going to read only one book by Deleuze, that's the one to read. I'm surprised that this video made no mention of it.
@@construct3 Yeah man, any line of thinking that dips its roots in the concepts of Spinoza, more often than not, makes great & very awe-inspiring theory.
The first half of this presentation is a very nice if brief and selective biographic summary. So far, this is fine. The second part that attempts to summarize his philosophy is, to me, not so successful. Goodchild -- again and again -- falls into representation -- little narratives of ideation -- and this was, as much as anything - Deleuze'a antagonist. The immanent for D is not circumscribed by thought, but is that concurrent differencing of the milieuthat forces thought not upon us but into the extant and then not as a representable relation between subject and object (man and wave) but as the problematic intensity of transcendental empiricism, as the output which is non-resembling -- closer to the seismograph to the earthquake than the wave and rider but even that analogy is faulty if it is taken as two things related rather than a dynamic and differential relation without object or subject.
Ideas for D are in the virtual -- the same dynamic multiplicity as everything else -- this narrates his thought as fixed actualizations -- the exact opposirte of his central thought.
This is an introduction. Had the presenter gone with word-salad, as you have, he would have got nowhere. In any case, insofar as ideas are representations, they are not in the virtual. The virtual is non-representational. It is becoming and not what has become.
Thank you! Deleuze was one of those weird dudes I've been scared for so long and I always felt the need of him (and don't get me even started with how cool is to name your book [book series?] "Capitalism & Schizophrenia") due to their relationship to Semiotics. Anyway, Mr. Goodchild is a tremendous lecturer. He gave me a couple of mini heart attacks.
Adults that lean out too far while grasping air kind of know what they are doing. Maybe they lean out as much as they can wanting to become air itself. Because that's what they are lacking. And it's by falling through it that they end up not lacking it anymore.
""...from Darwin to Derrida..." can the second be even mentioned in the same sentence with Darwin???" - people like Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Holy fck its a war.
no offence, but what a dry ponce, everything Gilles was not. The style and language of this presentation collide with the philosophy it's attempting to describe. I would also argue that this presentation captures the way in which Deleuze has been generally treated/analysed within Anglophone scholarship, i.e. literal application, obsession with translating and applying his every word in a petty way. This, I believe, has to do with the poor English translations of Deleuze's work that fail to transfer that lyricism in his philosophy and sense of whole that is so distinctive of Deleuze's writing. Anyone into Deleuze who can read French or Italian, I urge you to read his works in either one of those languages: you will discover the real Gille Deleuze.
It should be a crime to not mention Difference and Repetition when discussing Deleuze's major works.
Egg zackly
What would be an appropriate punishment?
@@senior.danzig having sun beams come out of your ass
@@senior.danzig perpetual consciousness of the basic problematic stupidity that undergirds even your most well developed concepts.
And Logic of Sense…
Speed up to 1.25. Thank me later.
or sooner
1.75 here
no, im not an english speaker so it works for me, thanks anyway
i will wait until tomorrow to thank you
hilarious! Thank you. I was not fussy about the subject matter though...what a million white men think about things.
Outstanding commentary....well put...excellent
Immanence can be explained in a much easier way. Immanence is opposed to transcendency. If you believe in God, than your world is transcendent. God is outside the world, since he is not subjected to the laws of the physical world (he can perform miracles, for example). If you agree to Spinoza's philosophy, then your god is immanent. God is Substance, and subjected to the physical laws of the universe. That's immanence.
Nice, very nice.
+wildcatrj I agree, except that I think we ought to be able to find a way to describe immanence that doesn't depend on a binary opposition. Would it be reasonable to suggest that immanence is the result of the collapse of the opposition transcendent/nihilist? Or something along those lines?
+wildcatrj Like Harry Potter.
I agree with wildcatrj, I thought it was a curious way to introduce the concept of immanence. A good first intro to Deleuze nevertheless.
like Pantheism? never read Deleuze or Spinoza:(
Talking for 20 minutes saying nothing about the philosophy of Deleuze
incredible, especially the wave bit... fantastic thank you
It seems to me all the best philosophers had some sort of sickness.
Awareness of mortality and human fickleness really elevates prespective
"Why does one write? Because it is not a case of writing. It may be that the writer has delicate health, a weak constitution. He is none the less the opposite of the neurotic: a sort of great Alive (in the manner of Spinoza, Nietzsche or Lawrence) in so far as he is only too weak for the life which runs in him or for the affects which pass in him.
He does not ask 'What is writing?' , because he has all its necessity, the impossibility of another choice which indeed makes writing."
from deleuze's essay "on the superiority of anglo-american literature"
Or the two books on Cinema which remain the greatest of all works on cinema..
Deleuze was an unlikely hero of English soccer hooligans in the 1980s and concrete terraces all over the country often reverberated to chants and songs summarising some of his more obtuse theories
😂
To Matthew D: respectfully, I don't think that Philp Godchild has bungled immanence at all. Widcatrj is right in his explanation of immanence. For Deleuze, yes, immanence is what Wildcatrj says. But it is more than that and it is this 'more' that Philp Goodchild manages to point out. I think his notion of surfing, which he uses at the end of his talk, is very eloquent here. It means that, no, we cannot create concepts that allow us to view the world as though from some kind of a high tower. If one is high up in a tower, you may be the feeling that what you see below (the world) can now finally be pictured, i.e. you can have a representation or image of the world that allows you to see it as a whole and thus to dominate intellectually: you see all its parts and how one part fits in with all the others, etc.
But Deleuze would probably say that the view from a high tower is impossible or rather that it is an illusion. Since we are always IMMERSED in the world, then all you can do is to surf on the forces that buffet this world. That is what the notion of immanent plane (without the possible of a transcendant stance) forces us to do: surf.
Not only that, but Deleuze's general disposition is to struggle against any fascist rigidity. This includes philosophical conceptual thought that attempts to dictate notions of total meaning and complete representation.
The example of the tower is nice, but I would also add that for Deleuze, the "tower" here is also inadequate because it can not take into account various active processes that deviate from the structural norms of the "tower". Deleuze believes life is inherently creative and in perpetual movement, thus philosophy is an engagement of experiemental genesis that while necessarily be viewed as aberrant from the hierarchical "tower" of institutional thought.
+Robert Richard Agreed. The surfing analogy is especially good because it nicely intersects D's concepts of flow and de-territorialization. Each ride on the wave ifs different; the surfer creates a line of flight from the mass and force of the wave, thus de-territorializing the molar wave force involved and sweeping it away into a multiplicity of possible rides. Surfing is not a state of being (or mind); it's an act of becoming. (I'm an antiquated surfer myself, so I've always enjoyed this aspect of D's thought). :-)
+Derrick Mullins really, is that so? was that also a major concern for Deleuze, against ridgity and absolutism? because I keep seeing that as a major problem in thinking, and really liked how that was also a major concern of Rorty's.
12:30 is that similar to how Wittgensteins Tractatus is self destructive? And collapses in on itself?
He kicked the ladder back down after using it to climb up.
At least, that's what Wittgenstein said.
2:29 I fear you are forgetting one: Salamon Maimon.
“To read any section of it you have to understand the concepts that have been introduced and developed in any other section of it , so it doesn’t have a linear structure .. “ uhm maybe mean to say it is ,philosophy ??😐
It structure is wild even for a philosophy book
Useless
Worst video about Deleuze. He is making sense of Deleuze in theological fashion which Deleuze strongly denies
Nice video on Kant, what was Delueze up to philosophically?
Wonderful video. One correction, emphysema is not necessarily cancer, it is pulmonary and can coincide but not codependent. Great presentation, Deleuze is hard to get at but this is part of his importance and attraction to those selectively meant to get closer - imho
Excellent explanation.
THANKs to p.GOODchild, TECHNIQUE, pragmatic
Gilles DEREUZE. affected
us......TueM.
Very good commentary...thank you.
funny how all the pseudo intellectuals here take the post-modernist observations of subjective experience as facts... Go read Neitzche again,,, think you missed something.....
(one way of understanding immanence) “Thought is a kind of environment that we enter into and already are in ..” ermm say what again ? 🧐 😶🔫
(another) “Thought is part of reality .” Well that should settle it 👨⚖️ .
Perhaps the opposite is the case. Is not reality, the plane upon which we understand relations, constituted by a preexisting substance, is reality, not just a recoil that represents & expresses the state of human understanding? I'd posit that reality is a euphemism of what is real.
@@5thdisciple940 Yes, Deleuzean imminence is more like Spinoza and not much like Kant. Another foundational concept derived from Spinoza (though it was not original with him) is the univocity of being. This undergirds his rejecting the classical image of thought in order to develop a philosophy of "Difference and Repetition." If one is going to read only one book by Deleuze, that's the one to read. I'm surprised that this video made no mention of it.
@@construct3 Yeah man, any line of thinking that dips its roots in the concepts of Spinoza, more often than not, makes great & very awe-inspiring theory.
Yes yes.
Deleuze was from a right-wing bourgeois family.
The first half of this presentation is a very nice if brief and selective biographic summary. So far, this is fine. The second part that attempts to summarize his philosophy is, to me, not so successful. Goodchild -- again and again -- falls into representation -- little narratives of ideation -- and this was, as much as anything - Deleuze'a antagonist. The immanent for D is not circumscribed by thought, but is that concurrent differencing of the milieuthat forces thought not upon us but into the extant and then not as a representable relation between subject and object (man and wave) but as the problematic intensity of transcendental empiricism, as the output which is non-resembling -- closer to the seismograph to the earthquake than the wave and rider but even that analogy is faulty if it is taken as two things related rather than a dynamic and differential relation without object or subject.
Could you clarify. I'm a little put off by his interpretations of D, but I don't know why?
Ideas for D are in the virtual -- the same dynamic multiplicity as everything else -- this narrates his thought as fixed actualizations -- the exact opposirte of his central thought.
This is an introduction. Had the presenter gone with word-salad, as you have, he would have got nowhere. In any case, insofar as ideas are representations, they are not in the virtual. The virtual is non-representational. It is becoming and not what has become.
Totally agree. I saw your comment after posting mine. This presentation is everything Gilles was not.
thank you!
Thank you
excellent
Thanks Doc
Thank you! Deleuze was one of those weird dudes I've been scared for so long and I always felt the need of him (and don't get me even started with how cool is to name your book [book series?] "Capitalism & Schizophrenia") due to their relationship to Semiotics.
Anyway, Mr. Goodchild is a tremendous lecturer. He gave me a couple of mini heart attacks.
Deleuze has some of the coolest book names; a thousand plateaus sounds so awesome haha
so good
Good child.
Full video please
No seriously, it does
Concepts? Is this like the lacanian signifier?
No.
Men talking about what lots of other men think...dear me...what I think is that men aren't the only ones who think :)
Adults that lean out too far while grasping air kind of know what they are doing. Maybe they lean out as much as they can wanting to become air itself. Because that's what they are lacking. And it's by falling through it that they end up not lacking it anymore.
""...from Darwin to Derrida..." can the second be even mentioned in the same sentence with Darwin???" - people like Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Holy fck its a war.
Does Deluze grasp schizophrenia?
Not in the way it is described in the DSM. He and Guattari use the word to mean something else entirely.
no offence, but what a dry ponce, everything Gilles was not. The style and language of this presentation collide with the philosophy it's attempting to describe. I would also argue that this presentation captures the way in which Deleuze has been generally treated/analysed within Anglophone scholarship, i.e. literal application, obsession with translating and applying his every word in a petty way. This, I believe, has to do with the poor English translations of Deleuze's work that fail to transfer that lyricism in his philosophy and sense of whole that is so distinctive of Deleuze's writing. Anyone into Deleuze who can read French or Italian, I urge you to read his works in either one of those languages: you will discover the real Gille Deleuze.
What a ponce-like response!
auto die dact?