I'm excited to read to give it a read! One question up front though: I've only read the first few pages that are available free online and listened to what you've said here, but I've noticed there's no reference to Deleuze. Is this because you mostly worked on the book before reading Difference and Repetition? Or, because you reject Deleuze's metaphysics? Obviously, there are many parallels to be made with Bergson's metaphysical interpretation, but I do think the ways Deleuze differs from Bergson (e.g., Deleuze's grounding of quality within quantity) are important.
Great question. I did form my metaphysics prior to reading _D&R,_ so I ended up approaching it from a slightly different direction than Deleuze. Having said that, I definitely don't reject Deleuze's metaphysics. On the contrary, I find his ideas (and his notion of metaphysical "Ideas") very compelling. However, I feel Deleuze is somewhat more descriptive than explanatory. His descriptions of metaphysical Ideas (undetermined, determinable, determinate, actualisation, incarnation, intensity, etc.) are elucidating and clarifying, but not, I would say, particularly _explanatory,_ at least not in the way that I have approached metaphysics. I don't think what I've written disagrees with anything Deleuze says, I just come at it from a different angle. Of course, you can be the ultimate judge of that...
I look forward to reading your book Nathan.
Thanks Norma. I hope you like it.
All the best Nathan❤
Thank you!
Congratulations! Can’t wait to check out your book! 🎉
Thank you! I hope you enjoy it.
@@absurdbeing2219 I’ve been diving into the beginnings of it for the past ten minutes and I’m already loving it. Fantastic work.
When will we see a video series on your own book? 😊
That's way, way down the list!!
Although, there might (fingers crossed) be an interview discussing it at some point.
I'm so excited to read it. Congratulations!! Thank you so much for the work that you do!🔥🔥
Thanks a lot. And you're welcome!
I'm excited to read to give it a read! One question up front though: I've only read the first few pages that are available free online and listened to what you've said here, but I've noticed there's no reference to Deleuze. Is this because you mostly worked on the book before reading Difference and Repetition? Or, because you reject Deleuze's metaphysics? Obviously, there are many parallels to be made with Bergson's metaphysical interpretation, but I do think the ways Deleuze differs from Bergson (e.g., Deleuze's grounding of quality within quantity) are important.
Great question. I did form my metaphysics prior to reading _D&R,_ so I ended up approaching it from a slightly different direction than Deleuze. Having said that, I definitely don't reject Deleuze's metaphysics. On the contrary, I find his ideas (and his notion of metaphysical "Ideas") very compelling.
However, I feel Deleuze is somewhat more descriptive than explanatory. His descriptions of metaphysical Ideas (undetermined, determinable, determinate, actualisation, incarnation, intensity, etc.) are elucidating and clarifying, but not, I would say, particularly _explanatory,_ at least not in the way that I have approached metaphysics.
I don't think what I've written disagrees with anything Deleuze says, I just come at it from a different angle. Of course, you can be the ultimate judge of that...
grats
Thank you!