You’re not completely wrong about accelerationism but you’re not right either. In his first accelerationist text Circuitries Nick Land already differentiates between short range (what you criticize) and long range runaway circuits (what he likes). You can listen to Mark Fisher’s Anti-Vital for a good overview of his thought. I'd love to see an actual close reading of Lands early 90s texts.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

16 күн бұрын

@@nikomasi130 Thanks for making this clarification! I do intent to cover Land at some point, although everyone I know who likes Land is annoying so that turns me off a little, ya know?😅😂

@Bathing_in_NOISE

15 күн бұрын

​@@gavinyoung-philosophy Accelerationism as an objective, analytic thesis based on the inertia of the structural tendencies of the techno-capital complex (object = x), and without some of Land's romantic portensions toward death and destruction (which is what makes him over-prioritize deterritorialization), is simply true in my view (e.g., see Baudrillard, Zizek's commentary on Land, Byung Chul Han, etc.). Capital absorbs and integrates every value system that seeks a path outside its contricting gaze. The accelerationist thesis understands the inhuman potential of the techno-capital relation as outweighing any possible line of flight created by 'humans' that seeks to contradict it, and so the singularity of the future AI (a peak embodiment of the techno-capital tendency), which will exert more productive power than any human or human organization, is currently pulling all other lines of flight around it (like a black hole, into which we are invariably sinking without there being some unforeseeable, mass catastrophe event). Now, what to do about this issue sprouts an endless series of political objectives (nihilism, right-acc, left-acc., etc.), but the structural integrity of the accelerationist thesis remains relatively consistent across each ideology. In doing so, I'd argue most of these ideologies are faithful to the logical roots of D&G's original project, and have only extended D&G to their proper conclusions (assuming those theorizing understand what structural positions their political viewpoint should entail if it is to be an intelligible and possible course of action or reaction).

@zamplify

15 күн бұрын

⁠that's what he meant about y'all being annoying ❤

@Bathing_in_NOISE

15 күн бұрын

​@@zamplify 🤷hey i don't want to talk to me either, doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

@nikomasi130

14 күн бұрын

​@@gavinyoung-philosophy That's what they said of Socrates :D

Imagine creating a thoughtful, intelligent philosophy video and the comments are whining that you pronounce things like a grown-up.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

14 күн бұрын

@@zamplify Most relatable comment I’ve gotten in a while lol

Your lectures are so interesting and well articulated. Thank you for your work, you'll make an excellent professor.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

22 күн бұрын

@@lsobrien This comment made my day. Thank you for your kind words :)

that thumbnail is great

@gavinyoung-philosophy

18 күн бұрын

@@matthewglenguir7204 Thanks! Another commenter explained that it’s from an early 2000s PlayStation ad!

@minmax5

18 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Oh yeah! I've totally seen that ad before, great choice.

You are making a great contribution to me and the world Mr. Professor Gavin Young

@gavinyoung-philosophy

21 күн бұрын

I’m glad I could help, my friend :)

Important words, well delivered! Really appreciate it! Keep it going!!

@gavinyoung-philosophy

11 күн бұрын

@@francis5518 Thanks a lot my friend!

@francis5518

11 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Thank you for your dedication and for sharing some of its fruit!!

@gavinyoung-philosophy

11 күн бұрын

@@francis5518 It’s my pleasure! Knowing others enjoy it, especially enough to let me know, helps make my (and our) world go round!

Thank you for your channel. I love how clear and calm you explain everything and your modesty. I hope you stay like that :)

@gavinyoung-philosophy

20 күн бұрын

@@isabelkolonel8066 Thank you for these kind words! It means a lot :)

Great video, really clarified things for me.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

21 күн бұрын

I’m so glad!

You may have the least confusing videos regarding Deleuze on youtube, thank you! Have you considered a couple videos on Cinema 1 and 2?

@gavinyoung-philosophy

21 күн бұрын

Such kind words! Thank you :) I have yet to read them and don’t feel particularly compelled to, but I imagine I will delve into Deleuze’s entire oeuvre by the time my graduate studies are completed 😜

Great video and good reality check of actual philosophy for those who form whole belief systems or develop quick lazy judgments off of pop philosophy. Also as a nitpick, it’s okay to not pronounce philosopher names “correctly”, no one actually cares as long as you’re not straight up butchering them, but forcing it butchers them more than if you just let them roll off the tongue. Please disregard what I said if that’s your comfort.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

22 күн бұрын

@@pichirisu Appreciate the remarks. I apologize if it comes off as pretentious, I just like to make a conscious effort to pronounce people’s names as they actually are. Then again, pobody’s nerfect so my French is doubtless sub par.

@sssurreal

18 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy nothing wrong with that i mean the names are in the title of the video i dont think its any more difficult to understand than if you mispronounced them

@gavinyoung-philosophy

18 күн бұрын

@@sssurreal It’s not a mispronunciation. That’s what their names are, it’s just not American enough for him.

@sssurreal

18 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy exactly what I’m saying id rather hear a albeit more rough, accurate names than “easier to understand” Mispronounced names 👍

@pichirisu

18 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy That's not what I was saying at all and that was very insulting. Please grow up. I will remember to not recommend any of your work to students, my peers, and coworkers, from here on out. Thank you.

Very interesting concept

@gavinyoung-philosophy

11 күн бұрын

@@ted_umeh I’m glad you think so!

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the relationship between D&G and their contemporaries in the philosophy of science and early STS, as there do seem to be some pretty notable similarities. The Kuhnian paradigm seems like it could very well be thought of as a territory, albeit a more epistemologically focused one, with anomalies being the deterritorialized objects that are not merely destructive but rather reterritorialize into a different or new paradigm. Feyerabend's "Against Method" is arguably seen an even more radical call for proactive experimentation with methods of thought. Star and Griesemer's "Boundary Object" seems like another mode to think of the deterritorialized object as well. Is the difference simply that D&G have a more general focus, beyond the "formal" knowledges?

@gavinyoung-philosophy

19 күн бұрын

You’re correct; there’s much overlap here. I’ve always found Kuhn’s paradigm shift very closely allied with D&G’s work, at the very least implicitly. Foucault was interested in understanding science as a discourse that doesn’t allow for certain kinds of knowledge, and it’s clear that D&G are operating in a very similar vein. It seems that much of this work in epistemology is building off of many of the discoveries regarding relativity and inertial reference frames, thus calling into question the objectivity of knowledge both inside and outside of scientific discourses. I couldn’t comment on the others you mentioned because I’m not familiar, but they’re doubtless interrelated.

@ALiterateMango

19 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Thanks!

so clear

@gavinyoung-philosophy

18 күн бұрын

@@rodrigofernandezvillela I’m glad!

How highly do you recommend reading Deleuze’s work on Nietzsche? Seems, to this video, pretty rich.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

21 күн бұрын

@@martin_quarto If you like Nietzsche, you’ll find it highly valuable. His essay on Nietzsche in “Pure Immanence” is exceptional for its biographical content, Deleuze’s philosophical contributions explaining the eternal return, and its concise list of Nietzsche terms defined in a very coherent fashion. I have yet to read “Nietzsche and Philosophy” but I’ve heard only good things about it!

Can you link to the cover photo, it's diabolical

@gavinyoung-philosophy

21 күн бұрын

@@af-ne5re Wish I knew exactly what it was! Search “Deleuze and Guattari” on Google and it should be near the top of images.

@andreimaria979

21 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophyIt’s an early 2000s PS2 ad (:

@gavinyoung-philosophy

21 күн бұрын

@@andreimaria979 Haha thanks for the identification!

Great intro

@gavinyoung-philosophy

18 күн бұрын

@@catrielnievas4668 Thank ya!

Kafka nailed it.

I'm not heard that word before, sounds upspin

Deleuze explains this in like 5min in Deleuze A to Z if I recall correctly. Found it helpful just to listen to him talk directly vs listen to other people talk for him.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

12 күн бұрын

@@ageofbumfires5216 Just adding some context within the larger philosophical paradigm and situating the concept among his others. Nothing wrong with clearing the air :)

this sounds exactly like Zizek but in a different language

@gavinyoung-philosophy

20 күн бұрын

He was doubtless influenced by them. He’s wrote some stuff critiquing D&G, but it seems that based on that he has never actually sat down and read them.

❤❤

Yes but, it is not because a line of flight CAN turn into line of death that it SHOULD therefore reterritorialize. The point is to perpetually evade (flight, flee, which is similar in this way to the Derridean deferral) from the Hegelian synthesis that awaits dauntingly at the end of the reterritorialization process (for D&G and all other postmodernists, Hegelian synthesis = negating difference, turning back to identity, etc., etc.). D&G are explicit about this, you don't turn into a rhizome just to go back into a tree later. The line of flight in itself is not a line of destruction (they criticize Freud on this point with his "pulsion towards death"). A line of flight should evade both the capture by identity [totalitarianism] and the death spiral of absolute negation [fascism]. The line of flight is not a destruction, a negation, etc. "But to involve [one the many synonyms they give to deterritorialization] is to form a block that runs its own line "between" the terms in play and beneath assignable relations." D&G and Derrida are extremely alike. The point is to inhabit the liminal space between identities that is composed of pure differences. This liminal space is not the void left by a lack or a destruction, but a space to be creatively "filled", etc.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

2 күн бұрын

You’re right about this liminal, in-between space; Homi Bhabha plays with a similar concept in “The Location of Culture”. But a line of flight “in itself” isn’t useful or valuable at all. It all depends on the becomings it helps facilitate. So when one is met with such a liminal space, the goal in not just to sit in that space and fester, since this would be to treat the destruction of previous identities/values as an end in itself - it would be to treat lines of flight as having some inherent value. But lines of flight are only valuable or desirable insofar as they can help direct us towards a space to be filled creatively. So a line of flight isn’t positive or negative; it’s just a description of where the holes/rough edges are in an assemblage. Now a line of flight can lead to both positive (creative, affirmative, etc) becomings or the reterritorialization onto the tree or the abstract like of death.

@raphbiss1

2 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy We agree on the whole, but the problem lies I think with the use of the term "destruction". "since this would be to treat the destruction of previous identities/values as an end in itself" I think what D&G want to avoid is the Hegelian opposition. They don't want to "oppose" the State, or any hierarchy for that matter, with their lines of flight. They don't want to to destroy the State (and thus become it). The point is to always go "between", not to destroy. To inhabit the liminal space between binaries, etc. This liminal space is not the result of destruction. But of perpetual flight or evasion. Of "creation" in the Deleuzian sense (which is very close, I might add, to the Derridean "text" and "writing").

@gavinyoung-philosophy

2 күн бұрын

Yeah you’re right that it’s a very subtle distinction. I think if we want to understand Deleuzian theory in any meaningfully applicable sense, then, for example, flying between the imposed gender binary and coming up with new, creative modes of gender expression is effectively destroying the gender binary, precisely insofar as, by revealing the liminal space yet to be occupied, we have destroyed the traditionally-supposed efficacy of those categories as absolute. So it’s great to talk about creation in the abstract, but when it comes down to it, every act of creation takes with it some necessary destruction, even though it may be (and it) a positive, productive act that uplifts previously ignored differences.

@raphbiss1

2 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy "every act of creation takes with it some necessary destruction, even though it may be (and it) a positive, productive act that uplifts previously ignored differences." But that is Hegelianism, that is precisely what they want to avoid. For D&G you have to maintain yourself in this liminal BwO space composed strictly of vectors and intensities, etc. or get "rooted" back.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

2 күн бұрын

That’s not Hegelian. That is thoroughly Nietzschean, one of the principle influences on Deleuze. Remaining within that liminal space means that some actions will be immediately creative and some immediately destructive, even in a larger creative project of becoming-x

delöz

Interesting interpretation, but please just say D&G.

do u need a girlfriend

@gavinyoung-philosophy

19 күн бұрын

I’m engaged

@goustwilliam4747

18 күн бұрын

I do.

Good video, but you should mispronounce names rather then saying them correctly

@gavinyoung-philosophy

9 күн бұрын

@@SolvableMattB haha so has been the prevailing sentiment of those who have made their voices known on my comments section…

@SolvableMattB

9 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy im only kidding around. had i read the comments i would have made a more original joke tho.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

9 күн бұрын

@@SolvableMattB Haha no worries that was an effort on my part. Reading again, the comedic effect is palpably obvious🤦‍♂️

To much reading not enough living

@gavinyoung-philosophy

20 күн бұрын

Reading is the foundation for a well-lived, intentional life. Without it, one is blind.

@AI-Hallucination

20 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy phenomenological investigations. I grew up in South Africa I was educated in Britain they were so uninformed it was scary.

@AI-Hallucination

20 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy Westerners are very uninformed sorry to say it.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

19 күн бұрын

That’s quite the generalization and frankly a bit racist, don’t you think?

@AI-Hallucination

19 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophy racism is a western construct.. Back to the enlightenment you go if you are a Marxist,you group think. I will give you some fingerprints and blood splatter Deleuze and Guattari are blinded by Marx to merge Marx and the coke head Freud (Nietzsche) they are incompatible. Herbert Marcuse attempted it.

I think that when you pronounce their names “correctly” it is impeding your ability to communicate with the audience. I see a couple other commenters saying something to the same effect. I was just talking with a friend the other day about how universal this pet peeve is: when someone (such as a newscaster) is speaking in a midwestern accent but then says “Meh-hico” or “Pear-ee” instead of just saying Mexico or Paris the way that 99% of midwesterners would. I think that it is very distracting and might turn people off, in part because it comes across as pretentious or a bit try-hard. But I really don’t think it makes you look uninformed to pronounce things in the Americanized way, and if you are worried about this, you could always address it by initially pronouncing the names correctly, then pronouncing the names in their “incorrect” but more Americanized forms (which you then use moving forward). Many people have only read the names (and not heard them spoken with their French pronunciations) and so many listeners will be getting lost when you suddenly “speak French” for one or two words at a time. Another commenter made the suggestion to just say “D&G” instead. I second this suggestion. Good video.

@gavinyoung-philosophy

15 күн бұрын

@@kylelumpkin7517 Thanks for the compliment and suggestion. I certainly consider it, so we’ll see how my thought process develops throughout my career :)

@ted_umeh

11 күн бұрын

@@gavinyoung-philosophyplease don’t listen to them. It’s very respectful to pronounce other languages properly if you can. “Westerners” should learn from you if anything!

@gavinyoung-philosophy

11 күн бұрын

@@ted_umeh I appreciate your words of encouragement :) Thanks!