Stiegler’s reading of Nietzsche isn’t that controversial. It’s worth remembering that Deleuze doesn’t adopt Nietzsche without qualification. The eternal recurrence “is univocity of being, the effective realization of univocity”. Its not simply Nietzsche nor is it Spinoza without qualification. Univocity in eternal recurrence, for D, implies identity and sameness but only the same of that which is different.
It's quite clear for me that Deleuze tried to dissolve identities as a something fundamental and a lens of viewing things but he don't exclude thinking about them as operational thing which later he tried to formalize as continuation and extention on fundation he built. We can treat his works as composed from two different periods, IMO it's change in focus but still continuation based on previous reflections, not something separated conceptually. Differential forces create identities but not become identities - it's still ongoing process of becoming. I think the problem can be in too dogmatic readings both of philosophers. While the value is in speculative and open-end thinking.
AI generated: Deleuze’s concept of the Body without Organs (BwO) comes from his collaboration with Guattari, and it draws from various sources, including Artaud and Nietzsche. It’s true that Nietzsche had a significant influence on Deleuze’s thinking, but interpreting how Deleuze adapted Nietzsche is complex, and the charge of misreading Nietzsche is not uncommon in philosophical discourse. Let's unpack the opposition. The Body without Organs (BwO): Deleuze and Guattari describe the BwO as a way of disrupting the rigid structures and stratifications of the organized body, whether these are biological, social, or psychological. The BwO represents a plane of pure potential, undifferentiated and open to new flows of energy, desire, and becoming. It’s a metaphor for breaking free from the oppressive structures that impose form and function on bodies, whether physical, social, or symbolic. In contrast, a body “with organs” refers to the traditional understanding of the body as an organism, organized around functions, hierarchies, and structures (with the organs being necessary parts for sustaining life in an orderly manner). Deleuze and Guattari are not rejecting the physical necessity of organs but rather the idea that life should be constrained by predetermined functions or identities. Nietzsche’s Influence: Deleuze was indeed heavily influenced by Nietzsche’s ideas, especially from The Will to Power and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics, his affirmation of becoming, and his concept of will to power resonated with Deleuze’s philosophical aims. For Nietzsche, life is a constant flux of forces, and the body is a vital site of these forces. However, Nietzsche does not propose the idea of a BwO explicitly, and some critics argue that Deleuze pushes Nietzsche further than Nietzsche himself would go. Nietzsche often speaks of the body in terms of its power, health, and hierarchy of drives-each organ or force in the body must play its role in the dynamic whole. Nietzsche’s emphasis is more on strength and organization-the flourishing body is one that achieves mastery through the effective organization of its drives and instincts, rather than a body that dissolves into pure potentiality. The Debate: Misreading or Creative Appropriation? The claim that Deleuze misread Nietzsche might come from a perceived tension between Nietzsche’s celebration of the strong body (which requires the proper functioning of organs, instincts, and drives) and Deleuze’s notion of the BwO as a refusal of the body's organizational structure. However, Deleuze wasn’t simply trying to repeat Nietzsche but rather extend and reinterpret his ideas for his own purposes. In Deleuze's reading, Nietzsche’s critique of organized structures (be they moral, metaphysical, or social) supports the BwO as a rejection of imposed structures and a call to embrace creative forces. From this perspective, Nietzsche’s emphasis on life as becoming resonates with Deleuze’s idea of a body that resists fixed identities and functions. Making Sense of the Opposition: Nietzsche’s Body with Organs: Emphasizes a well-ordered hierarchy of drives, instincts, and forces that lead to the flourishing of life and power. It involves organization, but this organization is dynamic, flexible, and self-overcoming. Deleuze’s Body without Organs: Is a more radical break from the traditional concept of the organized body, pushing for a plane of pure potentiality and becoming where rigid structures are dissolved. It challenges fixed functions, allowing new forms of life and expression to emerge. The tension between the two can be seen as one between organized power (Nietzsche) and unbounded potential (Deleuze). Deleuze’s interpretation can be seen as a creative reworking of Nietzsche’s ideas, even if it departs from Nietzsche’s original emphasis on order and strength in the body. The "misreading" critique arises if one sees Nietzsche as fundamentally about structuring power, while Deleuze seeks to dissolve such structures. In conclusion, the opposition reflects different emphases in the philosophical projects of the two thinkers: Nietzsche’s concern with mastery and life-affirming organization versus Deleuze’s push for fluidity and deterritorialization. While critics may argue that Deleuze misreads Nietzsche, Deleuze’s approach can also be seen as a productive and innovative adaptation.
I believe that Nietzsche reflected on his theory of the eternal return of the same as an approximation to being. This rather strange nod to ontology is still only an approximation. It is both scientific and mythical: a mixture. An observation that cannot be observed. A great distance in time which is no more than a possibility. It is an affirmation of the present moment as a reaffirmation. What is the status of this affirmation as reaffirmation? It is required as life's own self-affirmation as Will to Power: affirming self-creation. Yet there is always a doubling that cannot be identical but only affirmation as reaffirmation: a surplus of affirmation.
I think she's talking about some of the posthumous fragments, which is not really a coherent text. There's a text by Stiegler titled 'On the Future of Our Incorporations: Nietzsche, Media, Events' in which she assembles these fragments into a body that requires organs in order to open itself up to and to be able to incorporate the Dionysian flux. As she points out herself, this is quite a tendentious, polemic reading of Nietzsche, a political reassamblage of the posthumous fragments against the Deleuzian Nietzsche of the 60s.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Barbara Stiegler is a delight...
Stiegler’s reading of Nietzsche isn’t that controversial. It’s worth remembering that Deleuze doesn’t adopt Nietzsche without qualification. The eternal recurrence “is univocity of being, the effective realization of univocity”. Its not simply Nietzsche nor is it Spinoza without qualification.
Univocity in eternal recurrence, for D, implies identity and sameness but only the same of that which is different.
It's quite clear for me that Deleuze tried to dissolve identities as a something fundamental and a lens of viewing things but he don't exclude thinking about them as operational thing which later he tried to formalize as continuation and extention on fundation he built. We can treat his works as composed from two different periods, IMO it's change in focus but still continuation based on previous reflections, not something separated conceptually.
Differential forces create identities but not become identities - it's still ongoing process of becoming.
I think the problem can be in too dogmatic readings both of philosophers. While the value is in speculative and open-end thinking.
AI generated:
Deleuze’s concept of the Body without Organs (BwO) comes from his collaboration with Guattari, and it draws from various sources, including Artaud and Nietzsche. It’s true that Nietzsche had a significant influence on Deleuze’s thinking, but interpreting how Deleuze adapted Nietzsche is complex, and the charge of misreading Nietzsche is not uncommon in philosophical discourse. Let's unpack the opposition.
The Body without Organs (BwO):
Deleuze and Guattari describe the BwO as a way of disrupting the rigid structures and stratifications of the organized body, whether these are biological, social, or psychological. The BwO represents a plane of pure potential, undifferentiated and open to new flows of energy, desire, and becoming. It’s a metaphor for breaking free from the oppressive structures that impose form and function on bodies, whether physical, social, or symbolic.
In contrast, a body “with organs” refers to the traditional understanding of the body as an organism, organized around functions, hierarchies, and structures (with the organs being necessary parts for sustaining life in an orderly manner). Deleuze and Guattari are not rejecting the physical necessity of organs but rather the idea that life should be constrained by predetermined functions or identities.
Nietzsche’s Influence:
Deleuze was indeed heavily influenced by Nietzsche’s ideas, especially from The Will to Power and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche’s critique of metaphysics, his affirmation of becoming, and his concept of will to power resonated with Deleuze’s philosophical aims. For Nietzsche, life is a constant flux of forces, and the body is a vital site of these forces.
However, Nietzsche does not propose the idea of a BwO explicitly, and some critics argue that Deleuze pushes Nietzsche further than Nietzsche himself would go. Nietzsche often speaks of the body in terms of its power, health, and hierarchy of drives-each organ or force in the body must play its role in the dynamic whole. Nietzsche’s emphasis is more on strength and organization-the flourishing body is one that achieves mastery through the effective organization of its drives and instincts, rather than a body that dissolves into pure potentiality.
The Debate: Misreading or Creative Appropriation?
The claim that Deleuze misread Nietzsche might come from a perceived tension between Nietzsche’s celebration of the strong body (which requires the proper functioning of organs, instincts, and drives) and Deleuze’s notion of the BwO as a refusal of the body's organizational structure.
However, Deleuze wasn’t simply trying to repeat Nietzsche but rather extend and reinterpret his ideas for his own purposes. In Deleuze's reading, Nietzsche’s critique of organized structures (be they moral, metaphysical, or social) supports the BwO as a rejection of imposed structures and a call to embrace creative forces. From this perspective, Nietzsche’s emphasis on life as becoming resonates with Deleuze’s idea of a body that resists fixed identities and functions.
Making Sense of the Opposition:
Nietzsche’s Body with Organs: Emphasizes a well-ordered hierarchy of drives, instincts, and forces that lead to the flourishing of life and power. It involves organization, but this organization is dynamic, flexible, and self-overcoming.
Deleuze’s Body without Organs: Is a more radical break from the traditional concept of the organized body, pushing for a plane of pure potentiality and becoming where rigid structures are dissolved. It challenges fixed functions, allowing new forms of life and expression to emerge.
The tension between the two can be seen as one between organized power (Nietzsche) and unbounded potential (Deleuze). Deleuze’s interpretation can be seen as a creative reworking of Nietzsche’s ideas, even if it departs from Nietzsche’s original emphasis on order and strength in the body. The "misreading" critique arises if one sees Nietzsche as fundamentally about structuring power, while Deleuze seeks to dissolve such structures.
In conclusion, the opposition reflects different emphases in the philosophical projects of the two thinkers: Nietzsche’s concern with mastery and life-affirming organization versus Deleuze’s push for fluidity and deterritorialization. While critics may argue that Deleuze misreads Nietzsche, Deleuze’s approach can also be seen as a productive and innovative adaptation.
I believe that Nietzsche reflected on his theory of the eternal return of the same as an approximation to being. This rather strange nod to ontology is still only an approximation. It is both scientific and mythical: a mixture. An observation that cannot be observed. A great distance in time which is no more than a possibility. It is an affirmation of the present moment as a reaffirmation. What is the status of this affirmation as reaffirmation? It is required as life's own self-affirmation as Will to Power: affirming self-creation. Yet there is always a doubling that cannot be identical but only affirmation as reaffirmation: a surplus of affirmation.
you shot a lot of arrows stiegler but did you kill any birds
Loads of birds 🦢 are killed enough ... any other alternative ?? to be killed .,?
Philosophical arrows are the only kind that kill when the listener actually *comprehends* them as such
Excellent 👌
Steigler starts at 10:08
WHat are these lesser known texts of Nietzsche on mass media ?
I think she's talking about some of the posthumous fragments, which is not really a coherent text. There's a text by Stiegler titled 'On the Future of Our Incorporations: Nietzsche, Media, Events' in which she assembles these fragments into a body that requires organs in order to open itself up to and to be able to incorporate the Dionysian flux. As she points out herself, this is quite a tendentious, polemic reading of Nietzsche, a political reassamblage of the posthumous fragments against the Deleuzian Nietzsche of the 60s.
@@angwantibo thanks
not smart enough to understand please carry on
Be patient with yourself. Read as much as you can, and watch more videos. It will click when it's ready.