Episode 125 ... Deleuze pt. 1 - What is philosophy?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2024
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂
Thank you for starting on Deleuze.
11
1q
1
Qq
111
amazing podcast
i came across this on spotify and oh boy i feel so blessed, and also very happy that this was my first series and first real introduction to philosophy and that it was Deleuze because it really makes me more aware of my pre-existing notions on philosophy
can we PLLEEEAASSE get a transcript of this on your website??
😁
Dear Stephen - this is incredibly helpful for undergraduates like myself who are trying to grasp an overview of the work of a particular philosopher. Thank you!
Just discovered this channel! Wow I've got my mind blown on the quality of these podcasts.
Thank you very much for working on deleuze. I've read a thousand plateaus and therefore appreciate your take, both to explain his thought easy to understand and to engage with it from the perspective of the last book. It's always good to hear someone else say his reading of deleuze and guattari out loud, since it is actually not too rare that one would overlook something in his work. I'm looking forward now to start reading "what is philosophy?" Keep up the good work!
EXPLAIN DELEUZE TO ME RIGHT N-
Oh. Thank you.
There is no event. Nothing is taking place. It’s language in auto affection, and even less than that. “I’ll n’y a rien hors du texte” as great late Jacques Derrida stated. And as you stated: all we are attempting to do is to create the illusion of order amidst chaos.... Thank you for a wonderful podcast. Now I’m going back to my simulation... Oh I forgot, I’m still in it. With you.
Happy to see more and more videos on Deelooze!
This is extremely clear, I'm going to check out the rest of your videos on these difficult concepts and thinkers, thank you.
Amazing podcast... I tohave heard quite a lot about Deleuze and the work of Todd May (How one might live)... You explained them well. But the beauty was the way you looked at Deleuzian concept of creation and then how to read the past philosophies, especially from the perspective of creation of concepts in the field of immanence and much less as discovery...
This is so awesome, you're a great teacher! Thanks for making this content public.
Very accessible and thorough! Bravo! :)
The opening discussion made me recall Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live?" 1976. My first steps learning about worldviews was Schaeffer's writings. A controversial odd evangelical thinker.
His best quip, "Ideas have legs "
Deleuze would have dismissed Schaeffer's revelational authority...christianity's corner on the truth...but may have delighted in a Christian thinker willing to bandy with the thoughts of the day
Thanks for this podcast, we'll see if my parents buy this explanation for my philosophy major
It would be nice to hear something about his ontology and epistemology because there seems to be a lot of confusion about this. There are people who would claim that he was a realist (e.g. Manuel DeLande), while others would call him a postmodern thinker. Also, I think that it would be interesting to explore the recent developments in processual ontology that have revived interest in Deleuze. Anyway, great podcast!
Just gotta say this is brilliant. Insights here that need to widely known.
Gratitude! That is very good!
Being 70, lifelong learning, understanding, observation, experience, re-examination 24/7 365.
In my humble opinion, the 'who, what, when, where, why, how' of a conscious cognosentient beings existence, the 'who' and the 'why' are the questions that fall under the 'entropological' 'good-chaos' category of perpetual incompleteness, perpetual indeterminacy, perpetual uncertainty of unbeginning unending beginnings and endings, in other words perpetual motion, unanswerable yet perpetually intriguing to the conscious cognosentient being collective perpetual curiosity and awareness.
There is no manual
A truth in question.
That's my take ....
so what i get from this is:
philosophy: create the ideas
Science: compare the ideas
Art: play with the ideas
Glad you're back
Once again great video and thank you for expanding my view
2 ways to describe our surrounding QUALITY OR QUANTITY
So as a post-modern thinker, Deleuze doesn’t believe in an objective truth. And yet the goal of philosophy has been to construct concepts that deal with problems on the plane of immanence, “...to help the people understand the TRULY ungraspable chaos that reality is.”
Good stuff
I never thought about it this way. Can you dive deeper into this in your next video?
amazing teaching thank you:)
Deleuze's philosophy as a pre-empirical resembles, with a postmodern twist, Wolff's ontology.
why is everybody and their mothers uploading videos about Deleuze this month?
Ikr, including that reactionary vaporwave channel whatever it is called.
@@frankguan5044 trudiltom?
We are moving into the metamodern era. Deleuze and Guattari deconstructed postmodernism and proposed creative lines of flight and expression instead of simple deconstruction. Consider it meta-structuralism
@gindphace what other channels? Would like to check them out.
thx for the great video but just one thing , deleuze never said concepts are the act of extracting order out of chaos. he was obsessed by how concepts or percepts in art come to life as a sort of lightning that takes place in-between chaos and order.in fact,he based his concept of immanence on that very special idea of the nature of concepts.
seems to me uve fallen in the same greek dialectical ideas of chaos versus order ,etc ..
9:10 begging the question
so far - Hume and Deleuze, My Men!
Deleuze born 1925, had suffered from respiratory ailments from a young age,[28] developed tuberculosis in 1968 and underwent lung removal.[29] He suffered increasingly severe respiratory symptoms for the rest of his life.[30][31] In the last years of his life, simple tasks such as writing required laborious effort. On 4 November 1995 he died by suicide,[32] throwing himself from the window of his apartment.[33]
I'm listening to this in the middle of reading the book,. I'm not sure if personae refers to the human character rather it refers to the reflection of the character in the concept. It's like the personality of the concept which contains the cultural context, personality, aptitudes, interests etc. of the philosopher. The footnote in the version I'm reading makes a clear distinction about how personae shouldn't be mistaken for the personality of a character. I would really appreciate clarification from anyone. I love the podcast, thanks.
I too have a little quibble with the take on Conceptual Personae given in this podcast, its seems too univocal and definitive as it seems to link it only to the 'personae' of the philosopher philosophizing. The way I understood it as I read the book some time ago, was more as the figures standing for conceptual terrain in the plane of immanence of the concept developed - or rather like the way a name stands for an oeuvre that reflects immanence available for the concept at hand based on, as you said, cultural context, aptitudes etc. I think of the way that a working artist fully engaged with art in a conceptual and materially rich way would have in their approach the 'conceptual personae' of Duchamp as part of the interplay of their work with time and place. Just as for Deleuze his own authors of choice, Spinoza, Bergson, etc might be his 'Conceptual Personae'. I felt the term was more about the richness of the concept than the personality of the philosopher. -then again, it's been a while and this is off the top of my head.
@@pfflam So your take is that authorship isn't necessarily relevant to conceptual personae, rather it is more about a cultural lineage. That kinda connects how I took it to the way it is described in the podcast so thanks. Things will get clearer deeper into the book I guess.
@@efebezmez6903 Yes, though I also see it as involving authorship as well, though - right now I'm thinking I have good reason to go back and reread . . . which is pleasure . . .
Interesting
New subscriber to the channel. Have you hit on anti-abstractionism and Alan Watts?
If the nature of philosophy, which springs from the human brain/mind, is the bringing (creating) of order to the actual chaos of reality, then how is that ordering of the brain / mind possible if not transcendent from the supposed chaos? The very fact that the creation of schemas must necessarily be presupposed by an order which allows for that creation at all (thinking and other necessary artifacts of life as a human organism), show that chaos doesn't actually exist...
I took it more as reorganizing chaos and it's perceivable parts. The ingredients are not originating from a transcendent realm, but from the chaos itself, and only parts of it at that.
Please release the older episodes! Much love from Saudi Arabia
I cant wait for the next episode
Fuck, you are awesome guy! Thanks
Delueze 'thousand plateaus concept... please
What about religion and Theology?
I know this is a philosophy podcast but it would interest me even further if you added some episodes on psychology. I don’t know how interested or educated you are on psychology but i am very interested in both fields and i like your commentary quite a bit.
Thank you for sharing
This is good but Deleuze does not say anything about bringing order to the chaos so its not correct to say that is what the creation of concepts does. The desire itself to order the chaos is much closer to the desire of metaphysics pre-Deleuze-metaphysics of identity-than Deleuze’s metaphysics of difference.
@@xekoneet No, that is not what Deleuze means by creating concepts. That is a representational form of concept creation, where chaos is organized through rigid, singular representations or units of cohesion. Deleuze wants us to reject this way of thinking. Nothing is to be reduced to singular units, but seen as multiplicities and flows that are always shifting and resisting set forms. A concept is not a singular unit but a process, an entity in motion and flux, that never has a final or singular essence that it can be reduced to or understood as.
@@xekoneet The belief that through thinking you can stop time, or behold timeless or unchanging concepts, is a belief inherent to precisely the kind of metaphysics Deleuze sees himself as opposing. He calls that representational thought. He wants to re-conceive what it means to think in a way that pays homage to the becoming, or flux of reality, thus creating a new mode of metaphysics where concepts are not stable, static entities.
Why does each philosopher's theories make sense when you hear them explained? They can't all be valid since they often contradict each other. Hmmmm ...
17:00
Is Deleuze right on schizophrena?
Probably not, but he uses how people act as a way of describing a certain way of acting and thinking
18:42 - 20:30 that'll do er.
8:30
somewhere i heard simone de b. said something about cartesian mind body dualism. did she really? isn't that important to know (for us the common ppl) . was she controversial about that? there are almost no free audiobook of her books. in your free time if you feel right can plz do something about it.
😀 that was great!
I see no inherent meaning to life with the acception procreation and the creative act. Thank you for your creative channel. Thank you Gilles Deleuze.
No meaning in life if life doesn't mean anything to you; but if it does, you will find meaning in it
The answer to the question "What is philosophy?" is a pseudo-philosophical question and is not found at the beginning of philosophy as a Western thought-enterprise nor at the end of it. Philosophical thought is chasing the point of eternal return or the ever-same-instant of modern thinking. Sophological thinking is sur-grounded on extra-philosophical imperative, an urgent demand, an excess beyond containment of pure ontology or the System: co-liberative/co-differential justice. Western linear or regressive thinking or its ontico-ontological/temporal-topological horizon, otherwise known as development or progress is the root of delusion of Being.
You cannot philosophize philosophy. The question of whatness of philosophy is an unsettling or ungrounding question within philosophy. Oddly enough, it is the seed of its rise and eventual demise.
What is philosophy? is the most unphilosophical question. It is the end of philosophical thinking.
It seems strange that a single mind can encapsulate an entire area of study so completely that everything that came before, or after, serves as little more than a footnote. For astronomical movement it was Newton, and for philosophy it was Aurelius.
No matter how we parse it, or the details over which we choose to quibble, the ultimate goal of philosophy is to produce a user manual for the human experience. Meditation is that book. Other philosophers have a tendency disassemble the machine, gaze fixedly at a single component, and make broad proclamations. Aurelius is more humble than that.
Deleuze is the better Aurelian.
Deleuze, Derrida, and Foucault are the authors we read when we haven’t given purpose to our lives. They are the ones we look to when life is good, but we are miserable and want blame someone else for our suffering.
@@jackjmaheriii maybe not everyone is as weak as that
15 minutes passed and he still didn't define Philosophy. It's so frustrating.
He said he was contextualizing.
"the question we all need to ask ourselves" -- well well, take it easy. ! btw, rather then calling him Deluze, better: Delez, nearer to the french pronounciation.