Talk:Gilles Deleuze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France Portal
Gilles Deleuze is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


Contents

[edit] Influences

I included DJ Spooky among those influenced by Deleuze[1], but the reference was removed. I think it is important to include those within popular culture who've been influenced. DJ Spooky is certainly big enough himself to be a notable follower of Deleuze's work. I understand if people want to keep it to practicing philosophers, but that would seem to contradict Deleuze's entire philosophy.Troyc001 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to DJ Spooky from the info box, and although since there is a good citation for his inclusion putting him back would be fine. I think it may be preferable to limit the names in the infobox to philosophers or academics alone, but I don't know if there is precedent or consensus on that issue. In any case, feel free to replace his name in the box, or create an additional section in the article for pop-culture influences - but include the reference you provided so that it isn't removed again. Thanks for your contributions! - Sam 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Any preferences? Do people know of any other popular artists explicitly citing Deleuze's influence? If so, then a popular culture section could be useful and interesting. As well, it would allow for cross disciplinarity of the links, something that seems to accord with Deleuze's project.Troyc001 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have never cared for these vague "influence/d" lists, since they are so arbitrary and can easily lead to unwieldy lists. For example, I deleted Heraclitus, as Deleuze really only discusses him approvingly briefly in N&Ph. If you include Heraclitus, then you should include dozens of others. From the WikiProject Philosophy pages, I found the following [[2]]: "Entries in Influences, Influenced, and Notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." By this standard, the Influenced list would be severely trimmed. 271828182 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why was Leibniz deleted? He wrote a book about him.Troyc001 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Following the quoted guideline, since Leibniz's influence is not mentioned in the main text, I deleted it. Likewise with Hume. 271828182 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of deleting the names, which are presumably relavent as Troyc001 points out, we could simply add a paragraph to the article. Doing so would satisfy the guideline, and be more helpful than applying the guidline negatively. In any case, guidelines are not policies. User:Troyc001, can you write up three sentences about the book he wrote on Leibniz? - Sam 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


Your presumption may not be true. The unstated premise "if you write a book about someone, that someone is an influence on you" is false. If we "simply" add a paragraph on Leibniz (and Hume -- I deleted him as well), the following difficulties arise: (1) there is no independently verifiable way of deciding who merits being called an influence, and (2) adding new paragraphs reduces the coherence of the current article. The long-term effect of difficulty (2) is a gradual decay from encyclopedia article to a laundry list of disorganized information. (This is not a hypothetical -- a glance at many heavily-visited philosophy pages, such as Nietzsche's, shows how the "influence/d" lists already have decayed into such laundry lists of dubious accuracy and even less usefulness.) The underlying problem here, as I have been saying all along, is the vagueness of the term "influence", which forces choices that are ultimately original research. 271828182 17:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
While I know less of Leibniz' influence, the influence of Hume on Deleuze is undeniable. His empiricism is based upon his reading of Hume. I think an entire section outlining the meaning of his monographs would be useful and appropriate. This would accomplish the task of describing those philosophers whom he was directly influenced by, as evidenced by his engagement with them in his texts. While it is debatable the relationship between writing a book about someone and their influence upon you, I think all of Deleuze's monographs indicate important assemblages for him. Others whom he did not write books about would also have influenced him - for example, the negative influence of Hegel, whom he despised, and this could be further debated, but I think it should go without much debate that each of the thinkers about whom he wrote a monograph should be included.Troyc001 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Adding sections on all of Deleuze's works would at least double the length of this article, which I think is at an optimal length right now. It would also contribute to the entropic effect I described above, whereas the current article takes a synoptic approach. Fortunately, there is an easy compromise: separate articles for each book, which can easily be linked to from here. (There are already articles for Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, and Difference and Repetition, though the latter two are stubs.)
As for the matter of the Influence/d lists: your post indicates how unmanageably vague the notions are. Is Francis Bacon or Kafka really as important an influence on Deleuze as Bergson or Kant? And, as you say, shall we include negative influences? (Though I think Deleuze's relationship to Hegel was far more ambivalent than the conventional wisdom holds -- my friend Nathan Widder has written an essay on this topic called "Thought after Dialectics".) And if we make the Influences list identical to the list of Deleuze's monographs, isn't that a touch redundant? Can't an interested reader just look at the list of Deleuze's works and make their own judgment? 271828182 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it's very important to include Hume. He should also be mentioned in the body of the article as well. Deleuze's empiricism is explicitly inspired by Hume. If I know his work on Leibniz better, I may go to bat more for his inclusion as well, but I don't. Hume, however, I stand quite firmly by as an important influence. Also, although it is only a brief mention, it is noted that Empiricism and Subjectivity was about Hume.Troyc001 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with you (about Hume), but am not sure. The current article doesn't make Deleuze's debts to Hume clear (which may be my fault). I'll think about how to incorporate something about Hume in the main Philosophy section. In the meantime, anyone who has a good idea should feel free to add something. 271828182 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Badiou is listed as "influenced" by Deleuze. But his book about Deleuze, which is cited, is from beginning to end an account of his disagreements with Deleuze and rejection of Deleuze's philosophy. I can't think of any positive position Badiou has taken which is Deleuzian. KD

Good point. Badiou's been in that list since before I came to this page, so I never gave it much thought. You're quite right that Badiou universally disagrees with Deleuze. On the other hand, Badiou talks about Deleuze and contrasts his positions with Deleuze's so often, it could be argued that he is an important influence on Badiou, as an mirror. (Cf. Marx, who is definitely influenced by Hegel despite insisting that Hegel had everything upside down.) I could go either way. (Which, again, is a sign of how vague these "Influence/d" lists are.) 271828182 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but isn't it a slippery slope? I agree Marx was influenced by Hegel, but was he influenced by Stirner? I think not - he adopts much of Hegel's method, but attacks Stirner. I don't see Badiou taking on any of Deleuze's concepts or methods. Was Kierkegaard influenced by Hegel? Was Nietzsche influenced by Christianity? Their lives' work was attacking those things. Maybe that's a kind of influence, but I don't think it's what is usually meant by the term.KD
Where there is no agreed-upon definition, what is meant by the term can vary widely. That is the ongoing problem. I am inclined to use a narrow definition of "influence" as something like a necessary condition. Otherwise, these lists may as well be a page long in both directions. That's another reason I've limited Deleuze's influences to Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Kant. Under such a narrow definition, Badiou would probably be excluded from "influenced" (Althusser and Lacan are his key influences). But then, DJ Spooky would be off the list too. 271828182 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Badiou has repeatedly underlined his very limited knowledge of Deleuzes work up til the beginning of the 90's where he started to discover the similarities and differences to his own work. This was caused by Deleuze's rising star, not by intense reading, so to cite him as an influence seems mildly disrespectful. I'm deleting it, if no one protest's that is.Madsanders 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As regards, "Influenced": I just removed Juliana Eimer, who seems to be either a graduate student or junior philosophy professor with no books or known articles in English. This category should be reserved for figures of note if not repute, no? DocFaustRoll 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

She has a listing on RateMyProfessors.com; she's apparently taught intro-level philosophy classes at Penn State. Definitely nonnotable. --zenohockey 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

Can we get a citation for the following (preferably the Proust, though the place where Deleuze argues this most clearly in his own work would also be appropriate):

Deleuze considers traditional notions of space and time as categories imposed by the subject. Therefore he concludes that pure difference is non-spatio-temporal; it is an ideal, what he calls "the virtual". (The coinage refers not to the "virtual reality" of the computer age, but to Proust's definition of the past: "real without being actual, ideal without being abstract.")

--Erik.w.davis 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reception commentary

AntiOedipus IS potty-mouthed and jargon-laden. That's not subjective or POV, it's page 1 of the book onward.

I don't think "post-structuralist" is a useful term (since it's an English-American invention after the fact), and in 1972, many of the sources D&G refer to were and are structuralists (Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Saussure), not p-s'ers such as Derrida or Lyotard. But if you insist on including it as a description of how North American lit critters received AOE & ATP..... (though it encumbers the sentence with ugly, poorly understood jargon) .... sigh. 271828182 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if we can come to some concord here.... potty-mouthed comes off as more South Park than their brutal, direct honesty. Show me other pages that are "potty-mouthed". it makes them seem like 8 year old boys. and jargon-laden isn't quite it, how about "technical". Jargon is derisive POV. not that I would mind if it captured the nuance. And yes this is about litty critters so post-structuralism is what they were historically, writing, not pomo. And they were not treated so much as manifestos but as a new hermeneutic machinery, an entirely appropriate term of art for interpretation. Hell, it is an entire discipline with a venerable tradition and should be a part of every literate persons vocabulary. There is a chance here for someone to learn something about the history of how these ideas were recieved. Unless you can cite source s otherwise, I think you should surrender here. I have, in front of me, dated 1981, Jameson's Political Unconscious which mentions at the outset D & G using exactly the frame I am using to place them historically. I think you need to surrender a little ground here. I'm bringing greater accuracy to a very small part of a page that you seem to want to micro-manage. I terribly sorry if the terms of an art seem too technical or jargon laden. The introduction of a page can be gentle, but the nuances of the history of a subject should be accurately represented as well. In this I take as my model, pages such as the General Theory of Relativity page, which employ any number of terms of art but do so in the longer, for those who want to do their homework part. DocFaustRoll 05:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Scatological works better, and "jargon" is a pejorative term used mostly by people like Sokol. Probably not best to use it on this page, at any rate. Deleuze 05:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try a new version. Try letting the substance of it stand 271? DocFaustRoll 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Pomo is definitely not the right word for the D&G show something that was essentially a flash in the pan during the height of Theory in the 70's and early 80's. In fact pomo was a rueful designation given by Jameson in the later 80's, et al. to describe an historical shift; it's only gleeful proponent was one long forgotten Ihab Hassan. This is all ancient history now. DocFaustRoll 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


I've thought a little more about some of the issues cropping up on this page. There is a balance between accessibility which should be paramount in the introduction and succint accuracy which should be paramount in the extended treatment sections, including reception. My tastes generally run to more Classical writers and even the Analytic tradition and just plain Science, but I have no problem with the use of technical terms of art, in any discipline. Those terms can be and often are their own pages. Peruse some of the pages in Biology such as Protist or something in Astronomy such as White dwarf and you will encounter to use the pejorative, "jargon", or non-pov "technical" language even in the intros. Literacy and accuracy as well as succint clarity are of the order in all of these disciplines DocFaustRoll 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


There's a huge difference: scientific jargon is generally well-defined. The jargon of recent literary criticism, culture studies, "theory", etc. is generally poorly defined. If I want to know what anisotropy is, I can look it up and get a clear definition, with many examples, and (if I do a little work) an exact quantitative technique to measure it. If I want to figure out what a disjunctive synthesis is -- even Deleuze scholars don't have a clear, agreed-upon definiton. It's still worse with, say, Guattari's Chaosmosis.

Anyway, I've given up on "jargon". Will "esoteric" serve as a more neutral description of a style that regularly produces sentences such as "These figures do not derive from a signifier nor are they even signs as minimal elements of the signifier; they are nonsigns, or rather nonsignifying signs, points-signs having several dimensions, flows-breaks or schizzes that form images through their coming together in a whole, but that do not maintain any identity when they pass from one whole to another" (AOE 241)? 271828182 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Esoteric is more neutral, certainly, although you keep insisting inaccurately that D&G were taken as pomo manifesto, which is not true, historically. Perhaps they were in the 90's which was a full ten years after their initial reception, but how could they be so before the term pomo was even brought into popular use? Something of the history is now missing but it is somewhat minor. You've done an exemplary job on this page. Perhaps Brian Massumi should receive mention?

Also, post-structuralism is no narrow lit-crit coinage and has currency in anthro and is in fact more historically accurate. As it stands, nonetheless, the Deleuze page is exemplary and these little quibbles are minor. I defer to your zeal for this page and will not attempt a re-edit at this moment. By the way chaosmosis is just a play on chiasmus and mere punnery. None of the terms of the art are too much. Perhaps the punnery is? DocFaustRoll 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I have tried to rewrite the Reception section to address your concerns. In the course of doing so, however, I decided to cut the paragraph on Alliez, Lecercle, and Delanda, since (1) the choice of only those three is unjustifiable, and (2) an expansion of that subsection to include all those who have extended Deleuze's project would make an already too long article much larger. "Chaosmosis", btw, is a reference to Joyce, who coined the term "chaosmos" in Finnegans Wake. 271828182 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
See below where I bow to you. I wonder though at your insistence that the article is too long. A more summary introduction if possible might balance out the existence of longer discussion further down the page. There are so many other pages that need more work than this one, however, that I again bow to you. Cheers and good work. DocFaustRoll 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphysics => Ontology

I wonder if metaphysics is the best word for Deleuze also, why not ontology? what is left of metaphysics for a materialist but ontology? DocFaustRoll 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy of time is not usually considered part of ontology, but is always classed under metaphysics. And time is one of Deleuze's central concerns. 271828182 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Time as discussed by Deleuze has nothing to do with metaphysics and you should probably bow to the consensus. Witness the generally respected De Landa book on D. Not a single use of the word metaphysics and extensive use of Ontology. DocFaustRoll 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to bow to. This is an article on Deleuze, not Delanda. And Deleuze is not enamored of the word "ontology", especially in his later works. See, e.g., A Thousand Plateaus, p. 25: the AND "overthrows ontology". See also ATP, p. 98, and Dialogues, pp. 56f.: "philosophy is encumbered with the problem of being." By contrast, Deleuze uses "metaphysics" cheerfully and neutrally: e.g., in the afterword to the English edition of Bergonism, or at the beginning of What Is Philosophy: "the death of metaphysics isn't a question for us" (quoting from memory). Or Negotiations (p. 136): "I've never been worried about going beyond metaphysics." And "metaphysics", as I already pointed out, is a more general (and ancient) term than "ontology", including not only the theory of being, but also questions relating to time, truth, causation, necessity and possibility, etc., all of which are topics of interest to Deleuze. 271828182 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Fair enough. I like your rewrite of the influence section by the way. Nice job. You now have some of the history of the reception in order. Maybe some disambiguation from more traditional understanding of metaphysics is called for? There are plenty of loose uses of the the word ontology from my memory, where ontology is not just the problem of being, but no matter, why quibble over words that he bends the meaning of to his own purposes anyway. Chaosmos as combination of chaos and cosmos and as play on chiasmus are not mutually exclusive by the way, in Joyce, Deleuze or Guatarri. In fact all those senses play off of each other. DocFaustRoll 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zizek

I have revisited the section on Zizek's Organs without Bodies, restoring and expanding on my initial comments. Since some users felt that this previous summary was not even close to accurate, I have provided specific page references and quotations. 271828182 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you kept the thrust of the criticism, which is accurate as far as ziz goes, that D&G failed to anticipate the digi-dolce and gabbana-capitalism. It is currently not clear at the end, however, because it references something called zizek's ideas but does not mention them. Briefly recap what you think those ideas are.DocFaustRoll 04:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an article about Zizek. Readers can feel free to click on the link if they want that information. 271828182 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception and page length

It may be time to expand some aspects of the page, which I think is too short. The history of D&G's reception, for example, is not complete without mention of the 90's and internet culture. Lovink's "Dark Fiber", the Rhizome list, and nettime, etc. DocFaustRoll 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian Massumi deserves a mention and his own page and de Landa, et al. ought to be brought back DocFaustRoll 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Massumi has been added to the "influenced" list. Adding a full discussion of even just the names on that list, however, will double the Reception section. Including the internet culture material will open the gates on what qualifies and make it thoroughly unmanageable. As it stands, the article is 35K and just a bit too long. And I'd rather not take the step toward spinning the Reception section into a separate page -- as I recall, not too long ago there was discontent that this page did not have a reception & criticism section. 271828182 07:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that sounds like a good idea. Based on your excellent work on this page, and by the way, you just made that zizek section that much better, stylistically, I'd love to see what you do with some other pages in philosophy and criticism. You are also the current memory holder on this page as I have no history here to have memory of. You have my vote for creating a separate reception page. 0.02 DocFaustRoll 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the key relationship with Deleuze and Klossowski? It would be difficult to imagine anything after (and including) "Nietzsche&Philosophy" without "Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle"!! If you want a clarity in post-structural review, let's get real and include the marrow, not distracted by de Landa's and potty-mouth jargon! (Mabe I haven't looked hard enough).

I have added Klossowski to the influenced list, and mentioned his book in the footnote on the reception of Deleuze's Nietzsche book. 271828182 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Influenced" should read "Influences"- Klossowski's paper which was adapted into 'Vicious Circle' was delivered years before at a famous conference which 'renewed the interpretation of Nietzsche' (Deleuze)... while all these guys were part of eachothers fan club and hyperbole was part of the game (ie: 'Vicious Circle = the greatest book of philosophy with Nietsz himself' vs. 'Deleuzian century' -Foucault -see 'The Delerium of Praise')... it shouldn't be ignored that Klossowski was from a preceeding generation. Anti-Oedipus wouldn't exist without this book. Active and Passive forces, so essential to 'becoming' are developed in tune with Klossowski's radical text.

IIRC, the Klossowski paper you refer to was presented in 1964 -- still two years after Deleuze's book. I am aware that Klossowski was of an older generation, and that it is futile to single out one direction of 'influences' vs. 'influenced' -- that is why I have kept Foucault off either list, as well as other contemporaries such as Lyotard. But someone was complaining about K.'s absence, and Wikipedia's consensus wants these trite "influence" lists .... 271828182 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Could a 'Contemporaries' heading be included to list those with whom Deleuze had a working relationship? Troyc001 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I was referring to AE, not N & Philos- sorry...I was reading something contrary, but do not follow this all too closely- my error. It would be a pity to leave out such an influencial figure and chew-up space writing about "Deleuzians" though.

[edit] Life Section

In the Life section Deleuze is spoken of enjoying "non-academic" thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre. I'm not sure how Sartre can be considered "non-academic", the man earned a PhD and wrote philosophy. The reference given for that section (footnote 3) includes a line where Deleuze found Sartre as his "out" to the canonical texts. I don't think this in anyway means Sartre was non-academic compared to the canonical scholars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.35.144 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Sartre was never a university professor -- his brief teaching career was at the high school level. Thus Sartre was not an academic, and there is a meaningful contrast with Deleuze's professors, who were all establishment figures in philosophy. 271828182 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Infobox: Influences" (remove Kant | add Leibniz)

I removed Kant from influences in the info-box. I believe that is a bit misleading or a mis-characterization. I've read relatively little of Deleuze (I've only read _Bergsonism_ and some interviews and essays (Critical and Clinical, I believe) and passages from _Thousand Plateaus_)

BUT it is obvious in that short amount of time that Leibniz is crucial to Deleuze in a way Kant is not. I don't believe Kant (other than the monograph GD did on him) was anything other than a negative "influence" (ie. how not to "do" philosophy in terms of what Deleuze calls "a Life") when compared to the importance of Spinoza, Bergson, Nietzsche and Leibniz. Those have got to be the BIG FOUR in Deleuze.

I see that this has been argued above already by 271828182 & Troyc001 last week but just adding my two cents. Christian Roess 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I vigorously disagree. Deleuze's philosophy isn't possible without Kant's concept of the transcendental. If you want references, read Difference & Repetition, or Descombes's account of Deleuze in Modern French Philosophy, or Dan Smith's forthcoming book. Leibniz is important, but not nearly as much as Kant. 271828182 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well just spent all of 30 minutes scanning _Difference and Repetition_, so I can't approach your point with any rigor.The index indicates Leibniz is very much on Deleuze's mind as much as Kant; will need more time with that work. Intractable at this point. However, Leibniz comes into play here as vigorously as Kant and reading through _Essays Critical and Clinical_, Leibniz is crucial and for that matter so is Proust. But the key thinker for Deleuze in a quick scan (and one can't dismiss the concept of quickness in any attention we pay to Deleuze) demonstrates that Spinoza is the crucial thinker to Deleuze.

During Deleuze's last years, he devoted a work to Leibniz (_The Fold_) and not to Kant. Leibniz as I see it is there all along in Deleuze's life. If Kant is so important, then why not spend your final years with him?

Ok, leave Leibniz out along with Proust, too. It's an "infobox". Or better yet put it up to a vote. I'll go along with your response for now, but I suspect that "Wikipedians" cannot ignore the facts. And when I have time to do some digging, I'll report back the place where Deleuze himself discusses the importance of Leibniz to his "philosophy", and Kant as someone who must be "gotten over".Christian Roess 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote now: Kant or Leibniz? Who stays and who goes? (and what about that Proust fellow?)

One person here has decided that Kant belongs in the Infobox, to the exclusion of Leibniz. I disagree. Now I for one, wouldn't include both in there either. If you had to choose, who would it be? So do we include more "singularities" in this discussion? Who influenced Deleuze more: Kant or Leibniz? That is if you had to stake "a life" (to borrow the title of Deleuze's last work he approved for publication) on it, who belongs?Christian Roess 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just one person's whimsy here: my judgment is based on having read all of Deleuze's books. (I only bring this up since, by your own admission, you have only read a few bits of Deleuze's work.) Also, we have been discussing the issue of the infobox "influences" for a while -- the current paring of the "influences" list is the result of applying the WikiPhilosophy Project guideline above (Entries in Influences, Influenced, and Notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted.). Since Leibniz's influence (which you'll notice I agreed, is important) is not explained in the main text (whereas Kant's is), I have omitted him for the time being. At some point I will try to add a paragraph or two on Hume and Leibniz, and we can add them to the (irritatingly arbitrary and divisive) infobox highlights. 271828182 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense according to the Project guidelines and surely there needs to be some inclusion here of Leibniz (possibly Hume and Proust). I look forward to someone adding this. Possibly you are the one anonymous User 271828182 to make this application . If nothing else, besides your stubborn-ness, I see that many wikipedians commend you for your contributions which are rigorous and don't "dummy-down" to the readers. That seems evident, so I'll go along with you: qualified agreement and frustration.Christian Roess 12:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to consider this question. I'm glad to learn of the debate on these discussion pages. Fascinating to take part.


[edit] My vote is for Kant

.!! Leave him in the info-box. !!

As I see it, how could Leibniz belong there as an influence? That's preposterous. I have read Anti-Oedipus (going on 9 years now) most of the way through and reread passages over the years.

Incredible.

And some of Thousand Plateus and numerous interviews and talks (Negotiations and Dialogues?? I believe). I haven't read any Leibniz, and do recall that the concept of the "monad" is very important to Deleuze...but other than that it is obvious that Kant is way more important as an influence on Deleuze. How would Leibniz have influenced Deleuze at the beginning to be what he became? Didn't Deleuze simply appropriate a certain apparatus or framework for approaching his later thinking from Leibniz. That's hardly being influenced by him.209.209.223.98 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


This is an absurd discussion. Who influenced Deleuze more? Kant or Leibniz. How about both. Equally, but under the interpretation of Kantianism from a Leibnizian point of view provided by Maimon, but not necessarily direct from Maimon, but rather through the fantastic interpretations by Gueroult and Vuillemin, because ultimately it was their interpretations of post-kantian philosophy that Deleuze ran with. Deleuze's thought is a strange synthesis of Blanchot, Bergson, Kant, Leibniz, Schelling, Simondon, Hyppolite's Hegel (beleive it or not), and Neitzsche. The list goes on, but each one of these thinkers had a profound influence on the course of Deleuze's thought. Look at the way he merges in the second chapter of Difference and Repetition the kantain syntheses with the three Bergsonian moments--perception, affection, action--without omitting a certain interpretation of passivity in Husserl and a significant nod toward Hume and Neitzsche. If you want the opinion of someone who has actually read Deleuze (which I say because everyone deciding Deleuze's influences happily admits they've only ever read parts of a Deleuze's books here and there), I'd say the omission of any of these names would be a mistake. Apeboy 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in the discussion of influences above this sub-section, I strongly agreed that both Leibniz and Kant are key influences on Deleuze. (And also noted that I have read more than parts of Deleuze.) However (to recap the discussion above), as the current article does not explain Leibniz's influence on Deleuze, for the time being (following the WP Philosophy guidelines) Leibniz is omitted from the infobox. When I get around to adding a paragraph on Deleuze's use of Leibniz (probably after the paragraph on transcendental empiricism), I will happily insert GWL to the "influences" list. What I find irritating is that the inane infobox is generating so much more discussion than the main text of the article itself. 271828182 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of generating more chatter on this minor point, here's my tuppence on Kant... I'm not sure how legitimate it is to list Kant as an influence. If Deleuze did write quite a bit about him, he saw him primarily as a philosophical "enemy" (see Kant entry in the Abecedaire) and not among the philosophers he praised (Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza... or even Marx). If we are to list "negative" influences against which his thought was directed then Hegel would be at least as appropriate as Kant. 158.143.55.30 17:23, 05 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The photo is wonderful.

The only photos I ever saw of Mr Deleuze where in his younger years. I never saw this photograph. Its wonderful. This needs to be said. :) 58.7.0.146 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skewed Reception

It seems a little bizarre to me that while there are many books on Deleuze, the ones discussed in the "Reception" section are on the whole very critical of his thought. In particular, the most recent books listed (zizek and hallward) are downright hostile to him. I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. This gives people (especially those not familiar with Deleuze) the impression that the overall reception of his work has been fundamentally negative. Obviously these works are important (though arguably zizek's is important solely because it was written by zizek) and should be listed, but so should the works of Holland, Massumi, Delanda, Buchanan and hosts of others sympathetic to Deleuze to give a more balanced perspective. 141.154.204.233 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not give an impression that Deleuze-reception has been generally negative. However, I do not think the Reception section gives such an impression. The first two paragraphs, in particular, describe the largely positive reception, as does the opening paragraph of the article.
As for making specific references to pro-D&G works: there used to be a paragraph along these lines, discussing Delanda, Alliez, and Lecercle. I canned it, since it was arbitrary to only discuss those three (why not Massumi, Dan Smith, Boundas, Patton, Ansell-Pearson, Williams, et al.?), and a full extension of that set would make a huge, unmanageable list, most of which would add no more information to the article than "yeah, this guy likes Deleuze, too". Instead I devised the opening two paragraphs as an encyclopedic summary.
Why, then, is there a more detailed list of negative criticism? That has to do with the state of the page in 2005, when there was nothing like a reception section. At that time, the Talk section attracted some complaints that by omitting any mention of Sokal & Bricmont's book, the article was terribly unbalanced and skewed in a pro-Deleuze POV. While I agreed that some mention of critical commentary was needed, rather than enshrining Sokal & Bricmont as some sort of definitive criticism of Deleuze, I tried to give a broader and richer overview. While the chronological list format is awkward, I don't think it imbalances the article as a whole, especially as everything else is a sympathetic exposition. 271828182 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleuze and feminism

Just wondering why there is a whole list (20 lines) of "critique in the context of contemporary feminist theory" especially when this is so marginal to Deleuze's work, in terms of his themes and the context of the critique of his work. I see this as another laundry list, one of "feminist academic writers who have written something on Deleuze" (work which might includes one or two nice arguments, I agree), but I vote to get rid of it as unencyclopaedic, unless anyone objects. 158.42.10.44 17:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Eastern philosophy

Am I the only one who finds A LOT of analogies between Deleuze's ontology and the one of buddhism and tao? Was he himself aware of this? Was he in any way interested in Asian philosophy or was his field of study limited(funny word considering how broad the subject is)to Europe? Does nayone know something about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.76.2 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, he was aware of it, but didn't embrace it. I can't remember where, but he criticizes eastern religions for the same reasons he criticized western. Peter Hallward, however, is someone who emphasizes the relation between Deleuze and the East. Especially in his pre-'out of this world' works around the time of Absolutely Postcolonial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.130.197.26 (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Difference in Itself?

Does “”the same" obscures the difference presupposed by there being two things in the first place" merely mean that no two objects or moments are alike? If so, then why is it so obtusely explained by Deleuze? I’ve tried grasping “difference-in-itself” (by “in itself” I take it he’s using the Spinozist notion of substance as something conceivable in itself, i.e. independent of everything else) in “Difference and Repetition”, but the book is pretty impenetrable and the ideas elusive. Any pointers? As well as aiding me, it may be applicable to the article to make it clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.99.75 (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The obtuseness is mine, I suppose, as the author of the quoted passage. I was trying to paraphrase the preceding sentence in the article, quoted from Deleuze's early article on Bergson's concept of difference, which is an attack on Aristotelian concepts of genus and species. Thus the baroque diction of that sentence; "the same" is being used as a synonym for "genus".
I would hesitate to say that Deleuze's claim "merely" means "no two objects or moments are alike", however, since Deleuze is criticizing the very concept of an object or a moment. Unfortunately, that thesis makes his point rather hard to express simply. I, too, would welcome an edit to make the passage in question clearer.
If you are genuinely interested in trying to understand Difference and Repetition, there is a book by James Williams (in the bibliography of this article) which takes a much more thorough approach than is feasible in the scope of an overview article on Deleuze. 271828182 (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Perhaps instead of using Deleuze's terminology, at first the article can use a more familiar term (for example, begin with "genus, or what Deleuze calls the Same"). Furthermore, I am genuinely very interested in Deleuze's ideas, which is why it's been a bit vexing trying to comprehend "Difference and Repetition", but working through the book will be worth it when the fog lifts, so I'll be sure to check out James Williams' book to assist comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.64.213 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Alan Sokal

In the section, 'Deleuze's interpretations', there is the following: '(Similar considerations may apply to Deleuze's uses of mathematical and scientific terms, pace Alan Sokal.)' This looks like an expression of opinion, and should probably be deleted. Several of the sentences immediately preceding it should also probably be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that someone has re-introduced that claim about Sokal, with a source this time, but this still looks pretty dubious and arguably violates neutral point of view. The entire paragraph that section is in looks as though it needs modifying. There is something wrong with writing something like this, 'Deleuze once famously described his method of interpreting philosophers as "buggery (enculage)", as sneaking behind an author and producing an offspring which is recognizably his, yet also monstrous and different' and then giving as a source one of Deleuze's own works. Now this shows that Deleuze said this, but you can't use Deleuze to show that it's famous! Skoojal (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed that snide little aside about Sokal once again. The main reason I'm doing it is it's total inappropriateness to this article, which is about Deleuze, not Sokal. Criticism of Sokal belongs in the article on Sokal. Put it there. Skoojal (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't you just remove the words "pace Alan Sokal"? The rest of the passage makes sense without them, and is not about Sokal. DAVID ŠENEK 09:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right, and that's what I've done this time. Skoojal (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We've discussed this several times now, and the sentence has been modified and sourced to show that it reflects Deleuze's POV, but Skoojal has yet to give a reason why this claim needs to be removed. Again, the judgment that the sentence is "snide" is a subjective claim on Skoojal's part. I don't see it as snide. Skoojal's latest line of attack, that the article is about Deleuze (and so cannot discuss Sokal), is a non sequitur. This section of the article is explaining Deleuze's interpretations; a common and well-known objection to Deleuze here is Sokal's (which is aired, neutrally, in the "Criticism" section); Deleuze himself explains why such an objection is too hasty, and this article cites that fact about Deleuze. 271828182 (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, this is an article about Deleuze, not about Sokal. If you want to criticise Sokal's treatment of Deleuze, then do so - in the article about Sokal, and not here. You may be mentioning Sokal to make a point about Deleuze, but this is not the right place for it. Skoojal (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Two other points. Firstly, if this objection to Deleuze is a common one, then there is no need to mention Sokal's version of it in particular; secondly, and more importantly, it isn't the job of a neutral article to take sides for and against any objection. Skoojal (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I might add that in Negotiations Deleuze is obviously not discussing Sokal, whose criticisms were published after Deleuze's death. So to bring up Sokal here, suggesting that the quotation should be read in the context of Sokal's critique, is perhaps a little misleading. I prefer the version without the "pace A.S.". DAVID ŠENEK 09:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, saying "this is an article about Deleuze" has little to no relevance to the issue of mentioning Sokal in this sentence. I don't want to criticize Sokal -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox (a policy you have deliberately violated before). There is a very good reason to mention Sokal by name, since his is by far the most widely published, verifiable, and notable version of this objection against Deleuze's work. And your claim above that the article is "taking sides" is simply false: after our previous go-round on your hobby-horse, I edited the sentence to make it clearly an expression of Deleuze's POV.
David Šenek, of course, Deleuze is not directly discussing Sokal. But this quote from Negotiations is a verifiable explanation from a primary source addressing the same basic objection. As I have already explained above, since Wikipedia should refer to notable and verifiable criticisms, bringing up Sokal in this context is preferable to vaguely alluding to "some critics". I will make a proposed edit to elide the word "pace" in favor of a more cumbersome English equivalent. 271828182 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, don't drag totally unconnected issues into this discussion. It's foolish. Secondly, yes, the fact that this is an article about Deleuze has everything to do with what should and should not be mentioned in it. There is no reason to mention Sokal whatsoever, since you could make your point without doing so. It does not matter whether his is the most often mentioned version of this objection or the second or the third or the hundred most often mentioned version. Skoojal (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's another reason why that aside about Sokal is not right for the article: it isn't even supported by a citation. You can't plausibly claim both that there is a real need to mention Sokal and that a mention of Sokal unsupported by a citation proves something. Were it necessary to mention Sokal, a quotation from him and a source would also be necessary. The link to the article on Sokal is not an acceptable substitute for a citation, because the article doesn't even mention Deleuze. Skoojal (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fractal Ontology

This website has a lot of notes and outlines of works by Deleuze as well as some of the only English translations available of secondary sources important to understanding Deleuze. On top of that, it's free -- so I don't understand why it would be removed for either being excessive or advertising. I really reccommend following a link before you simply remove it: <http://fractalontology.wordpress.com> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.18.72 (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some other problems

There are other things wrong with the section 'Deleuze's interpretations' besides the irrelevant snipe at Sokal. For instance, there this: 'In Nietzsche and Philosophy, for example, Deleuze claims that Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality is an attempt to rewrite Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, a claim that would strike almost anyone who has read both works as curious at best.' Is this true? Probably. Should the article say so? No. It should not say this, because the claim is opinion or speculation, not a plain statement of fact. It is commentary on Deleuze that might make for an interesting essay, but is not right for an eyclopedia article, which has to state facts in as neutral and simple a way as possible. Strictly speaking, this isn't even about Deleuze - it's about how other people might hypothetically react to him. Surely it's obvious that shouldn't be here? Skoojal (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence you quote above is true. Actually, it is a plain statement of fact, as you would realize had you read both works. It is also a plain statement of fact that Deleuze's interpretations are peculiar ones, as, again, you would realize had you any knowledge about the subject. (May I suggest reading about the subject of an article before contentiously and repeatedly holding forth on it?) However, as I did before (after your earlier criticism of the "famous comment" tag, for which I subsequently provided ample evidence), I will provide non-hypothetical citations of published sources noting how curious Deleuze's readings are. This will require a bit of rewriting, and take some time on my part, but, again, thank you for making a suggestion to improve the article. The gradual increase in verifiable sourcing for every sentence in this section of the article will doubtless take further steps toward a future good or featured article nomination. Perhaps you could improve the article on Michael Jordan by attacking the speculative opinion aired in its third sentence? 271828182 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You obviously have a problem with me personally, or you wouldn't make foolish, ignorant claims about what books I have and have not read. This article is not your personal essay about Deleuze, and you should not treat it is as though it were. Claims about what 'almost anyone' would think are in the nature of things not provable and should not be made. Skoojal (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, the fact that something is true is not by itself a sufficient reason for an article to say it. There is a reason why citations are needed. Skoojal (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
One more point. Although the statement about how almost anyone who had read both the Critique of Pure Reason and On the Genealogy of Morals would find Deleuze's interpretations of them curious at best is probably true, there is a reason why it could be false, which is that some people may possibly find Deleuze convincing. So that part must also go. Skoojal (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I do have a problem with you. You edit in bad faith, using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your personal issues, as you have admitted publicly more than once. Your edit history features more axe-grinding than a lumberjack convention, from your one-man war against the word 'gay' to your announced intent to use Wikipedia to attack Frederick Crews. And you hold forth on this article when it's clear (from your ignorance on the fame of the 'enculage' comment) that you have little to no knowledge of its subject. So, yes, you are a problem editor, and I wish that you would find some more constructive, and less public, way of working out your issues.
The 'almost anyone' comment was simpler than finding citations for the oddity of Deleuze's readings, and it's a rather undeniable statement for the reasons indicated in the sentence -- which would be quite clear to, well, almost anyone (perhaps present company excluded) who has read both books. But, as I already implied above, I concede this captious point, and hope to get around to writing a new, cite-buttressed way of describing this plain statement of fact at a later date. 271828182 (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I have already requested you, politely, to stick to the subject. It shouldn't require an explanation why dragging irrelevant issues into this discussion is a bad idea. There's likely to be ongoing disagreement here, and it will be a whole lot better for all concerned if in future you show a bit more common sense in the remarks you make. To address the one substantive point you make about Deleuze, I should point out that writers are not reliable sources for the famousness of their own comments.Skoojal (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me translate Skoojal: "please don't encourage people to look at my edit history." By the way, I never gave Deleuze as a source for the fame of his own comment; I was sourcing the comment itself. However, after you questioned it, I provided multiple sources to document how oft-cited it is. 271828182 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to translate "there's likely to be ongoing disagreement here" = "I'm bringing my axes". 271828182 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested I take a look at this. And, frankly, speaking as a non-philosopher reading a general encyclopedia, these statements discussed in the above section do have to be sourced. The reader should be able to see the evidence for the relationship between different philosophical ideas without having to read the books first--that sort of summarizing is the very purpose of an encyclopedia. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is written by true experts with their names attached to their articles, refereed by a distinguished editorial board; thus, the reader can assume that they know what they're talking about and that, if they say that something is the general view, they are probably correct in it. There is so such assurance here. If they are indeed the common opinion, some suitable work that can be seen to be authoritative should say so. Section 2, 3rd paragraph at the article on him in SEP might be of some help. and incidentally, "peculiar" is usually taken as a term of opprobrium--it should not be used except as the opinion of a named source, and stated as that person's opinion. There are other words that do not have such connotation: unusual, distinctive, individualistic -- or even atypical, non-standard. They still need to be sourced. The naĩve reader has no other way of knowing if you've stated the view correctly. I don't always agree with Skoojal, but in terms of the way Wikipedia does things, he's right this time. DGG (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bacon and Velazquez

The article reads, 'A parallel in painting Deleuze points to is Francis Bacon's Study after Velázquez—it is quite beside the point to say that Bacon 'gets Velázquez wrong': Deleuze argues that Bacon has "let loose" latent "presences" that were already there' This is somewhat better than the version of this that I recently deleted, and might conceivably justify it being there, but it still looks as though it could be explained more clearly. Style-wise, I don't like the '—' connecting 'Velázquez' and 'it', and I'm not sure the 'quite' in quite beside the point is needed. Skoojal (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)