This is by far the most thorough Deleuze content on KZread. Really appreciate your videos!

@deleuzephilosophy

7 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm thrilled to hear that you find the content thorough and valuable.

@conquerimagination5470

7 ай бұрын

Yes, this channel is fantastic. I understand a little bit more every time I (re)watch the videos.

You are a very good professor! It’s definitely not easy to explain such difficult concepts in a fast, didactic and funny way (including the help of cartoons!). Thank you so much for your wonderful job.

@deleuzephilosophy

4 ай бұрын

You're welcome Lorena, glad you appreciate this content and in particular the Sponge Bob characters :) Thank you for watching!

Thank you so much for these! I just finished your series on D&R the other day. Unbelievably helpful, but l I still need to go back through and let it all really sink in before I start the text.

@deleuzephilosophy

7 ай бұрын

You're welcome, thanks a lot for watching! I'm really glad if these videos can help you get more familiar with Deleuze's thought.

Excelent as always!

Superb.

I finally understood deleuze!

@deleuzephilosophy

7 ай бұрын

:D You'll have to tell me the secret!

I appreciate all the content you put out on Deleuze, it really aids in my understanding. What would you recommend to read as an introduction to Deleuze? His book on Nietzsche was great and that helped me understand his Nietzsche better but that didn't really help me with his own though (if that makes any sense) Do you have any recommendations? Thanks

@deleuzephilosophy

7 ай бұрын

Thanks Ehsan, I'm glad this content is helpful to your understanding of Deleuze. As to recommendations, I would say that "Logic of sense" may give you the most concrete and vivid pictures, and "What is philosophy?" a quite finalised version of D&G's thought. If I could speak to myself ten years ago on this topic, I'd say this: pay attention to the words, first and foremost to the "declension" of activity, passivity and "nihilism" in each book. For example, in "Anti-Oedipus" D&G talk about affirmative forces of commerce and exchange, reactive forces in the form of surfaces of inscription (power, centralised states), and the "dynamic result", axiomatic Capitalism, which is manifested in both authoritarian states (where social axioms are reduced to a minimum) and social democracies (where new axioms are created all the time). In the books on cinema, Deleuze explicitly develops Peirce's firstness, secondness and thirdness. In "Difference and repetition" it's difference, repetition, eternal return. I know this is very rough (and probably incorrect as such) but it's a helpful reading tool. Another thing I would say is this: allow yourself to be "charmed" by the texts. They have a certain "poetic" dimension in their clearest moments that exceeds mere factuality. Concepts are living things, as Deleuze often says, let them work their way to you. Apologies if this isn't very helpful. I get versions of this question quite often (and I ask it myself), so I'll try to think about it more.

@xbird532

Ай бұрын

Deleuze did a lot of his philosophy through others. His monograph on Nietzsche tells you as much about Deleuze as it does Nietzsche; he finds tools to articulate his own philosophy in the work of Nietzsche.

Thank you for this superbly original reading! Have you considered committing it to writing as an article? I think it's worth it. Would you say, perhaps, that the 'desert island' can be linked to the 'empty square' of LoS or 'How to Recognise Structuralism'? Speaking of, I think you should really do a video on HRS!

@deleuzephilosophy

7 ай бұрын

Thanks a lot for the comment, I really appreciate it! And thank you for the suggestion as well, I haven't considered making it into an article but that'd be something to think about (articles take so much time to write, though). The way I understand the empty square in HRS is as a term (i.e., what relations are made of) that is in the process of changing and therefore "missing from its place", always where you don't expect it. I think it's a way for Deleuze to make the point that terms are themselves relations, i.e. differences. You could link it to "Desert Islands" for sure, perhaps around the theme of the "passage". That'd make for an interesting text actually!

very interesting

@deleuzephilosophy

7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

I've been doing some supplemental reading of Nietzsche Marx and Freud to begin reading Deleuze but I'm not sure in what order to approach his work. Is the list he made a good guide or can someone recommend a different order?

I'm sorry. I don't know what prerequisites I should have read/viewed before this, or what philosophy scholars are in the comments here, but I'm beyond lost. This video went too fast, very few of the terms were explicitly defined, the quotes which were mentioned seemed so dense and full of words whose meanings are, at best, vague and, at worst, reassigned altogether, that they're impenetrable. I've rewatched it three times and I'm nowhere. - So the "given" is... external stimuli? Qualia? Is Hume just saying that there is an objective reality outside of our subjective experience? - Why do you list the three types of relations without defining any of them or relying on them for subsequent explanations? Actually, nevermind. By the time we get to contrasting Kant and Hume's views on anything, I have too many questions to list in a youtube comment. I wish you success.

@deleuzephilosophy

3 ай бұрын

Hey there, sorry if this video gives you a feeling of being lost, it's quite the opposite of what it purports to do! It's true that there is a certain philosophical background that's needed to approach Deleuze, and sometimes I go fast on certain points because there is so much to say. But to address your questions and to understand this text, I think what matters here is to bear in mind the two philosophies that are at play (empiricism and rationalism), and how the two perspectives that we naturally have on desert islands (as origins, new departures, but also as geographical facts or points in a structure that we call a "map") produce in the mind a fundamental process that Deleuze calls repetition. This process is informed by the senses (external stimuli), which give us the knowledge of proximal objects; we are also influenced by reason, in the sense that we naturally relate these objects with each other according to other relations: resemblance and causation (contiguity, resemblance and causation are the three fundamental relations in Humean empiricism). So what Deleuze describes in this early text (which I would advise you to read or re-read, if only for its aesthetic value) is how this dualism, this dual perspective, creates a tension between these many relations that can (or should) lead us to both enrich our objective perceptions, and objectivise the myths we create. The desert islands that are our singular minds tend to oscillate between these two poles, myth and rationality. This text is a very early attempt at a philosophy of immanence, it's quite moving in many ways. But again, I'm sorry if I couldn't make it clearer, I hope this comment helps a little.

@Bennick323

3 ай бұрын

@ephilosophy I appreciate your attempt to reply and clarify, genuinely. However, I feel there's still not enough information here for me to have a real understanding of what's going on. - What is an "origin" or a "new departure" in this context? - What is this fundamental process called "repetition"? What's actually involved in it? - How do you define "contiguity", "resemblance", and "causation" in this context? Is it actually necessary to understand these more deeply to understand the rest of what you're explaining, or are you just listing them to list them? It seems odd to bring them up without explaining precisely how they are each employed. - What are the diametrically opposed components of the dualism/dual perspective being proposed here? Origins & departures vs geographical facts on a map? Empiricism vs Rationalism? Resemblance vs Causation? Myth vs Rationality? There are many pairs to choose from in your short explanation there. To be clear, I'm coming to your channel as someone who is very much a beginner in Philosophy. I don't know if the purpose of your channel is to explain the texts to beginners like me, or merely to summarize them for those who are already well versed in the study (in which case, maybe you're doing a good job. I don't know.). I get that there is clearly so much to say, which is why you might feel you need to go fast through certain topics, and perhaps you can for people who have done this a while, but for myself, it seems like you're glossing entirely over the definitions for terms that are necessary to arrive at any kind of meaningful conclusion, especially when they're used in these unusual ways. I genuinely want to see your channel succeed, as I would want anyone's educational work to succeed. I think it would serve you better to be more patient with each topic and systematically go through them. I may go read the text, but within reason and with respect, I don't think you should be expecting everyone coming across your channel to have read that text before this video. At the very least, if you feel they should, maybe identify precisely which readings to go to. Many of them, like me, probably expect it to serve as a resource to translate these concepts more thoroughly. I hope this feedback helps.

@deleuzephilosophy

3 ай бұрын

@@Bennick323 I think that one way to go about these terms is to take them at face-value, in their most common-sensical aspect. -Origin or new departure would thus refer to the hopes and dreams we entertain, when thinking about desert islands. -Repetition, at the simplest, refers to the recurrent contents of the mind (why do I think about this or that again and again? Why does this happen to me again and again?) It also has an ontological value, it's what happens when two ways of thinking, myth and science, or empiricism and rationalism, encounter. -Contiguity, resemblance and causation are types of relations: two things can be related because they're contiguous (the apple and the phone are related because they're on the same table), or because there is a resemblance between them (the apple and the banana resemble each other insofar as they're fruits), or because there is a relation of causation between them (the movement transmitted from pool ball 1 to pool ball 2). -Dualisms occur in the course of creating these mental images, and indeed for philosophy that translates into the problem of empiricism vs. rationalism (sense-data and reason, if you will). “Let us extract opposites from things after understanding that we have introduced them there”, as Nietzsche says. I certainly appreciate the feedback. Also, I wanted to mention that nobody understands Deleuze fully, so don't be disappointed if some things remain unclear as you read him. There are moments of extreme clarity too. One way to read his texts (the way I did it at first) it by letting yourself be carried by the words. You'll see that sense will appear by itself, in time, you don't need to chase it especially if you're new to philosophy.

A whole lot of nothing. A PhD in B.S. See Jordan Peterson "What is real". Yawn.

@deleuzephilosophy

6 ай бұрын

I know very little about his content tbh, but from the extract you point at, I humbly disagree with the notion that there are "nihilistic philosophers" (Nietzsche, presumably?) that are "antithetical towards being". I don't think he believes it himself.

@jimandskittum

6 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy With 8 billion people and trillions of factors I don't think you can predict or categorize people through patterns or history.

@r_se

5 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy he's quite the admirer of nietzsche, i think he's referring to derrida and/or foucalt.

@deleuzephilosophy

5 ай бұрын

@@r_se Thanks. Maybe he doesn't know that they are Nietzschean, especially Foucault.

@r_se

5 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy oh, for sure. to my understanding his readings are really reductive and he views foucault's writings on power only through the lens of going against all forms of hierarchy and as an attempt of reversing social power dynamics, as well as an attack on knowledge as a whole (what he calls nihilism) and derrida's deconstructionism as attacking the value of competency itself, as well as logic and the sciences as a whole, not just platonism. he correctly identifies that nietzsche is not a nihilist, despite proclaiming the collapse of the christian ethos (what peterson calls the metaphorical substrate of the west), he is not rejecting life, but he fails to notice the same exact idea of promoting play, reinvention and beginning anew in french philosophers like deleuze, derrida, foucault.