I am not a native english speaker and I have not any major on Philosophy, even I didn't attend to university. But your way of explaining hard topics is so clear and it is super! This channel is like a shiny gold mine in UA-cam forest. Thank you for your all sharings. Greeting from Türkiye.
I'm so glad I found this channel. This segment reminds me of a DMT trip I had in which my thoughts were represented by moving shapes and sounds. When I realized I could control the signal. I turned my thoughts off just briefly, but that moment extended into infinity, and I was left with an image of myself thinking about my experience in a cacophony of light and music. The perspective shift changed my perspective on thought and life. It's all a coping mechanism for the true nature of the infinite. We use our thoughts to fraction off pieces we believe that we understand, and we use those building blocks to construct our world. We're blubbering madmen, screaming in terror. Most of us never experience it directly until our moment of death. The brain cannot receive an accurate transmission while it is projecting its own signal. Meditation is an attempt to experience this infinite moment. Of course, I know I'm not speaking academically. Just sharing my personal experience.
So glad you mentioned the subject of bêtise/false problems/stupidity. I'm writing about stupidity in relation to democracy and the "END" of the Enlightenment. Strangely, or not, stupidity plays a mayor role in this proces of undermining reason, knowledge and truth. I appreciate your video's very much.
Deleuze's Difference and Repetition was one of the first proper works of philosophy I read on my own (aside from the curated snippets you are assigned in intro classes), and the Image of Thought chapter has indelibly affected the way I think about every text I've engaged with since. Even a year and a half later, I still find myself going back to that chapter and thinking it over again. Thank you for making a video going over it.
Listening to this I thought (ha) of Emily Dickinson's poetry and how she problematises and explores thought, what it is to know and the limits of that. 'Tell all the truth, but tell it slant.' She foregrounds creative thinking when encountering the world. I was reading Volcanoes be in Sicily today and your video immediately resonated with me. Thanks.
This is one of the best guide/summary videos of the key ideas in Deleuze--specifically, Difference and Repetition--that I have ever seen. All I can say is: I wish I had your clarity and concision. Thank you so much. This will be helpful for a current research project I am working on. Your students are very lucky to have you.
I´m a Hispanic Literature professor, I cover a lot of philosophy in my classes, and you hit the nail with that explanation; it´s perfect for my undergrad students, clear, to the point, and moderately complex. Great work.
I’m reminded of something from Joseph Campbell, describing a Buddhist concept; “Identify not with the thought, but with the Knower of the Thought. Not with the Body, but with the Knower of the Body” or along those lines. 😊
I am definitely a dimwit lol, recently I've been trying to teach myself woodworking using UA-cam, and I can confirm that most of my misadventures are simply nonsense. I don't even have the frameworks or motor skills to classify them as genuine errors. As with all the videos on this channel I will need to watch it about a dozen more times, but this really is some of the best content on this platform. Thank you
So.... when you brought up reading the last page first to get the listed form of the 8 postulates, I didn't do that on my first read... I, as strange as it may sound kept referencing the table of contents and found that really helpful for figuring out the spacing of the transitions of the postulates within the chapter.
Would you ever be up to do a tour of your bookshelf, and general thoughts on each book? Sort of like a mad-dash review through each book (it’d be especially helpful too, it lets us know what kind of book quality we’re getting. Online orders often don’t show real photos)
Thanks Ellie for this and many other of your videos - your sincerity, acute insights, comprehension and animated delivery are all a pleasure, and bring philosophy close (ie serve as an introduction or recap). You are a refreshing change from the style of many academics - some of whom are defensive and over specialised. I wish you were around for my doctorate (on Charles Peirce - is he someone you might cover?) May you continue well in 2023. (from Australia)
Yes! I can't binge your videos because well - it's F'ing philosophy! - but I'm working my way through your catalog so I don't know if you've covered Deleuze before but yes! At last! Deleuze is strange because I think the way he highlights his work makes it seem more cryptic than it actually is, but I always find something unique and insightful whenever I read (slowly) his work. Case in point: his notion of 'arrangements' rather than human rights. Anyway, your work is phenomenal and this channel is essential. Keep up the inspired work Dr. Anderson!
Spent a ton of time pushing through Difference and Repetition and this helped me piece together a lot of what I missed. Its tough to imagine any true thinking happening at all without the dogmatic image of thought. Seems impossible to describe. I think that Schopenhaur's groundless will being opposed to all representation is the key pivot point for me but you can't seem to proceed forward at all without blindness and how would you describe what you find there if you don't allow yourself to open your eyes? Can't wait to find the necessary next piece of the puzzle Thanks for the video
Could you discuss Blanchot’s thoughts on philosophy and literature, exteriority and the outside. Thank you 😊 💓 your discussions are truly marvelous ✨️ ❤️ 💖 ♥️ 💕 thank you
Most of my life seems to evolve around the desire to think up or, as Deleuze puts it, encounter something truly original. This bit on Deleuze, which you explained so aptly, really gives me a new way to think about finding originality and seems to confirm that mostly (adult) life is about recognition (and thus no thought or novelty at all).
I believe that the assumption that everyone is naturally able to find knowledge and that philosophy is about the pursuit of knowledge or Truth is a valid one. If we observe the models we create to understand the future state of things, we can see that they often provide accurate and specific results. However, I believe it is important to keep in mind the scale of the results we expect, as specific areas of the whole might not look like the average we're trying to improve. With this in mind, I am of the opinion that our natural faculty for thinking can help us achieve this goal. I hope that makes sense.
Really liked this video all along, but when I realized you have 'Ugly Feelings' lying behind you on the shelf, you really won me over! I come from cultural theory and want to learn more about philosophy, seems like I have found another helpfull channel!
11:18 Watching up to this point, I had to pause to write out some thoughts that came up for me (great topic and summary btw, thanks for uploading): Why is “this image” of mind so central in the first place - where does its origin, for us specifically, reside in time? Perhaps because “the image” is what we, by - ideally - consensual and mutual choice, impose on ourselves to stabilize order in a society: by resisting it (this internal resistance in us being a natural part within our nature that resembles and reflects our surrounding nature without) we are resisting our given, from those who passed through before us, self-precreated condition to obey our collective mind’s image - though disobedience, without half measure of retention for obedience (that is, true obedience, to first [self-]god and then others through [self-]god), becomes a new oppression of obedience to the new master, a less considerate one, of disobedience: however we rely on this unifying, universal image to establish harmony amongst ourselves, to pledge our obedience to, for it to serve us as we serve to preserve it - it exists and has existed as and for a practical function and purpose from the beginning, thus for us to not suffer under it, we must recreate it, with doubt as an express function for progression, for it to work for and with us(?);
a book that helped me to start trying to understand Deleuze is "Spinoza et le probleme de l'expression" (1969) (I think there is no edition in english(?), I got one in spanish). It is closely linked to the ideas exposed in Difference and Repetition, with that - at least - you can begin to grasp the general context from which the frenchman exposes his ideas (and I could even say that it is an "easier" book to read, at least is not as cryptic as other of his main works xD)
Isn't a lot of what he claims precisely taken from Kant's Critique? Why would he deride Kant when Kant himself makes a similar move, namely to claim that Reason is limited in certain ways?
I just read Empiricism and Subjectivity, which is a study on Hume by Deleuze, but I haven't really engaged with much of his famous radical work such as Difference and Repetition. What is staggering though is just how much you can identify these threads of thought in this early essay of his on Hume. Even his conception of philosophy as being about problems is in the latter end of the book when speaking upon the definition, or criticisms, of Hume. Interesting stuff. I would recommend people get their hands on Empiricism and Subjectivity, either if studying Hume or Deleuze: it's short and weirdly readable and seemingly a great primer for his later development!
Can I say this “image thought” critic has some parallels with Wittgenstein’s ideas ? Thank you for your videos ❤ i am also a non English speaking native, so having videos like this helps a lot to clarify concepts and analyses that sometimes are made in English articles.
Very nice. Thank you. A comment on Deleuze' 'intensity' as a circumvention of a division of faculties suggestive of a substantiating centre; a substantive self. The question surely arises: from such intensity, or intensities. Is it possible to imagine an ex nihilo generation of such intensities without also implying a substantiating self presence, however spectral (or shadowlike), or unknown (unconscious?) that substantive (displaced, perhaps) centre might be?
If I am understanding him right I disagree with him. I think that love is more foundational than questions, ideas, or power. Seeking power over others can sometimes be a loving response to oneself due to trauma and lack of wisdom. To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt from The Reasons of Love, love is necessary for action and subsequently survival, wellbeing, and meaning in life-- so love appears foundational to consciousness itself, but it doesn't necessarily feel that way to human beings all the time, or ever; and I think the reason for this is because, while feeling loved in some way can be a greatly and generally desired feeling, there is an insufficient ethical pursuit of the study of love to reveal how it might be foundational to consciousness, especially in ways in which this can be felt more.
"la bêtise" is also mischief as in when you reprimand kids in French, you ask them not to do so much "bêtise". So it could mean stupidity, but also mischief (sometimes in a foolishness kinda sense even). In fact Deleuze does sounds quite like asking Thought being like when we fool around creatively with the notes in an jazz improv, that sense of foolishness or mischief.
The ‘image of thought distorts thinking.’ Hmmmmmm. Ya gotta start somewhere though. I mean… thought occurs. If you’re thinking about thinking…then you’ve gotta have some kind of concept of what that means (there has to be something to interrogate)…and that concept HAS to come from somewhere. Call it an ‘image’, call it a turtle, or call it a flpledox…if you’re gonna think about something… that ‘something’ has to occur in some manner of manifestation. That is the prerequisite for every one of the philosophers you mentioned at the beginning (and probably every philosopher who has wasted their time attempting to disentangle the gordian knot of meaning). They HAVE to locate the ‘terms’ under which their examination is going to occur…and proceed accordingly. I’m sure every one of them would have categorically insisted that they were, in fact, allowing thought to occur ‘under its own terms’. I mean…what would be the point of any other approach!?!?!!? They would no doubt have insisted that their ‘image’ was, in fact, as close to an accurate representation of the-thing-in-itself as could possibly be exhumed under the circumstances. To be fair though…Deleuze does present some very compelling …and disruptive…perspectives on the whole enterprise.
I find Deleuze such a challenge rejecting the concept of recognition as shallow. Saying there are other more thinking ways to think creatively. If one is face-blind such as Oliver Sacks, then connectivity issues of thinking plague a person who can’t recognize an old friend. What that shows is thinking performs connectivity in a real sense. The connectivity of nouns to the objects they name is a fundamental property of human cognitive realism. Thinking loses realism by not connecting words to things. That to me is a very heavy criticism of Deleuze who claims connectivity is shallow when it is obviously fundamental to thinking. One cannot create without naming things, because creating connects.
Deleuze is a subtle joke: his name De-lose means winning, i.e. it is a bundle of methods and concepts made to approach realities from the 'ontology of wealth' position (positivity or inexhaustibility of the ground).
how about the human metamorphosis, there's entities that manipulate elements for our coercion ( thoughts) let said one when reborn validate cognitive psychology outburst.
Surely error is as much an outcome of thought as truth, and it is to do with knowledge? You can think all you want about something but if you lack knowledge of it you can still be in error despite how cleverly you have reasoned something
Generaly speaking to those people interested in philosophy - JUST READ PLATO/ARISTOTLE! - you don't need any modern or other texts. This is what I learned by practice. These two managed to compile ideas which has been entertained by other thinkers.
My study of philosophy at Uni was minoring in the philosophy of Science and philosophy of Art. Do you think they relate to the human condition, or rather help us understand the human condition in a significant way? I suppose they drive eachother. The missinterpritation of quantum "philosophy" probably should not be a boon for the unhinged, even though i see the point of a trending bias missinterpritation of knowledge to get away from a base idea. The "clockwork" universe was something that probably most of humanity felt very uneasy with given most had hard lives in the 1800s. Breaking from that opressive social structure possibly was nessesary, but as a scientist i see the clockwork universe as truely mindblowing and, from a humans prospective, filled with infinite curiosities. The interesting thing is conversations are much like a teacher grading work. As I'm getting older i find it hard to interact/relate with anyone on a meaningful level. We are just too far apart, and neither of us are "right". So what is the point of interacting/teaching with/a group/person that has base understanding and limited fluidity of thought. As Nietzsche posed God is Dead, does postmodernism pose the Philosopher is Dead?
Taking an a-historical approach to the critique of presuppositions is itself quite a presupposition, don’t you think? Because what is Deluze’s stand point in all of this made of? What is that “blank round” starting point about but the image of a “subject” that is just worried (unconsciously) about its immanence? Isn’t immanence or rather the inexorability of life’s own literality what we should accept in its own terms just as a subject has its own terms in capitalist exploitation? Isn’t precisely this knowing that we don’t know what those terms are the safest way in which capitalist intersubjective interpellation can remain attached to the imaginary idea of our freedom in the face of surplus extraction? Too Marxist? Well, yes.
According to Deleuze, at least, not very. Incidentally, he associates depth with sense in much of his work. He just thinks that sense is very different from how it is usually conceived.
As a scientist, my opinion regarding the evolution of human understanding is: Religion-->Philosophy -->Science. Religion is absolute bs, philosophy is half bs and science is evidence-based certainty
The first thing you learn in many physics classes is that so called "certainty" in measurment is impossible and whatever result we get doesn't match one-to-one with reality...
I am not a native english speaker and I have not any major on Philosophy, even I didn't attend to university. But your way of explaining hard topics is so clear and it is super! This channel is like a shiny gold mine in UA-cam forest. Thank you for your all sharings. Greeting from Türkiye.
Ahh .. a fellow Turk.
@@3choblast3r4,w
I'm so glad I found this channel. This segment reminds me of a DMT trip I had in which my thoughts were represented by moving shapes and sounds. When I realized I could control the signal. I turned my thoughts off just briefly, but that moment extended into infinity, and I was left with an image of myself thinking about my experience in a cacophony of light and music. The perspective shift changed my perspective on thought and life. It's all a coping mechanism for the true nature of the infinite. We use our thoughts to fraction off pieces we believe that we understand, and we use those building blocks to construct our world. We're blubbering madmen, screaming in terror. Most of us never experience it directly until our moment of death. The brain cannot receive an accurate transmission while it is projecting its own signal. Meditation is an attempt to experience this infinite moment. Of course, I know I'm not speaking academically. Just sharing my personal experience.
So glad you mentioned the subject of bêtise/false problems/stupidity. I'm writing about stupidity in relation to democracy and the "END" of the Enlightenment. Strangely, or not, stupidity plays a mayor role in this proces of undermining reason, knowledge and truth. I appreciate your video's very much.
Deleuze's Difference and Repetition was one of the first proper works of philosophy I read on my own (aside from the curated snippets you are assigned in intro classes), and the Image of Thought chapter has indelibly affected the way I think about every text I've engaged with since. Even a year and a half later, I still find myself going back to that chapter and thinking it over again. Thank you for making a video going over it.
Listening to this I thought (ha) of Emily Dickinson's poetry and how she problematises and explores thought, what it is to know and the limits of that. 'Tell all the truth, but tell it slant.' She foregrounds creative thinking when encountering the world. I was reading Volcanoes be in Sicily today and your video immediately resonated with me. Thanks.
This is one of the best guide/summary videos of the key ideas in Deleuze--specifically, Difference and Repetition--that I have ever seen. All I can say is: I wish I had your clarity and concision. Thank you so much. This will be helpful for a current research project I am working on. Your students are very lucky to have you.
I´m a Hispanic Literature professor, I cover a lot of philosophy in my classes, and you hit the nail with that explanation; it´s perfect for my undergrad students, clear, to the point, and moderately complex. Great work.
Thank you so much! These are geared for undergrad-level, so this is great to hear :)
I saw that look godk drawing that
Thank you for what is quite possibly the most lucid and helpful explanation of Chapter 3 of DR!
Thanks for an animated attempt to define such a complex work. Your vocabulary and usage of words are always a joy to the ears.
I agree 😊
I’m reminded of something from Joseph Campbell, describing a Buddhist concept; “Identify not with the thought, but with the Knower of the Thought. Not with the Body, but with the Knower of the Body” or along those lines. 😊
here we go, a case of recognition by resemblance
@@Go2daFuturelol
Please can you explain
these are the best intro to philosopher videos on youtube
Excellent. Thanks kindly for your well exposed lectures. Love'em!
M. Deleuze sure is an interesting chap. Please continue the good work.
I am definitely a dimwit lol, recently I've been trying to teach myself woodworking using UA-cam, and I can confirm that most of my misadventures are simply nonsense. I don't even have the frameworks or motor skills to classify them as genuine errors. As with all the videos on this channel I will need to watch it about a dozen more times, but this really is some of the best content on this platform. Thank you
So.... when you brought up reading the last page first to get the listed form of the 8 postulates, I didn't do that on my first read... I, as strange as it may sound kept referencing the table of contents and found that really helpful for figuring out the spacing of the transitions of the postulates within the chapter.
I'm a student of English literature who learnt a little bit about philosophy and found this useful and interesting
Would you ever be up to do a tour of your bookshelf, and general thoughts on each book? Sort of like a mad-dash review through each book
(it’d be especially helpful too, it lets us know what kind of book quality we’re getting. Online orders often don’t show real photos)
Thanks Ellie for this and many other of your videos - your sincerity, acute insights, comprehension and animated delivery are all a pleasure, and bring philosophy close (ie serve as an introduction or recap). You are a refreshing change from the style of many academics - some of whom are defensive and over specialised. I wish you were around for my doctorate (on Charles Peirce - is he someone you might cover?)
May you continue well in 2023. (from Australia)
Yes! I can't binge your videos because well - it's F'ing philosophy! - but I'm working my way through your catalog so I don't know if you've covered Deleuze before but yes! At last! Deleuze is strange because I think the way he highlights his work makes it seem more cryptic than it actually is, but I always find something unique and insightful whenever I read (slowly) his work. Case in point: his notion of 'arrangements' rather than human rights. Anyway, your work is phenomenal and this channel is essential. Keep up the inspired work Dr. Anderson!
Thanks! We also have a video on Deleuze's "Societies of Control" :)
The Deleuzian Koan: perception is conception. Conception is perception.
Fantastic video! Thank you for creating it!
Spent a ton of time pushing through Difference and Repetition and this helped me piece together a lot of what I missed. Its tough to imagine any true thinking happening at all without the dogmatic image of thought. Seems impossible to describe. I think that Schopenhaur's groundless will being opposed to all representation is the key pivot point for me but you can't seem to proceed forward at all without blindness and how would you describe what you find there if you don't allow yourself to open your eyes? Can't wait to find the necessary next piece of the puzzle
Thanks for the video
Could you discuss Blanchot’s thoughts on philosophy and literature, exteriority and the outside. Thank you 😊 💓 your discussions are truly marvelous ✨️ ❤️ 💖 ♥️ 💕 thank you
Most of my life seems to evolve around the desire to think up or, as Deleuze puts it, encounter something truly original. This bit on Deleuze, which you explained so aptly, really gives me a new way to think about finding originality and seems to confirm that mostly (adult) life is about recognition (and thus no thought or novelty at all).
I believe that the assumption that everyone is naturally able to find knowledge and that philosophy is about the pursuit of knowledge or Truth is a valid one. If we observe the models we create to understand the future state of things, we can see that they often provide accurate and specific results. However, I believe it is important to keep in mind the scale of the results we expect, as specific areas of the whole might not look like the average we're trying to improve. With this in mind, I am of the opinion that our natural faculty for thinking can help us achieve this goal. I hope that makes sense.
Really liked this video all along, but when I realized you have 'Ugly Feelings' lying behind you on the shelf, you really won me over! I come from cultural theory and want to learn more about philosophy, seems like I have found another helpfull channel!
I can use this video in my class. Thank you indeed.
Could you also post a video on Slavoj zizek philosophy?
I would love to hear your thoughts💬 & insights on his philosophy
As long as she doesn't have to do any sympathetic sniffing.
I love your lectures, l learn a lot from it.
Thank you so much, keep up the good work 🌷😇🌷
Excellent! Thank you so much for the video ❤
Прекрасная подача материала, спасибо!
11:18
Watching up to this point, I had to pause to write out some thoughts that came up for me (great topic and summary btw, thanks for uploading):
Why is “this image” of mind so central in the first place - where does its origin, for us specifically, reside in time? Perhaps because “the image” is what we, by - ideally - consensual and mutual choice, impose on ourselves to stabilize order in a society: by resisting it (this internal resistance in us being a natural part within our nature that resembles and reflects our surrounding nature without) we are resisting our given, from those who passed through before us, self-precreated condition to obey our collective mind’s image - though disobedience, without half measure of retention for obedience (that is, true obedience, to first [self-]god and then others through [self-]god), becomes a new oppression of obedience to the new master, a less considerate one, of disobedience: however we rely on this unifying, universal image to establish harmony amongst ourselves, to pledge our obedience to, for it to serve us as we serve to preserve it - it exists and has existed as and for a practical function and purpose from the beginning, thus for us to not suffer under it, we must recreate it, with doubt as an express function for progression, for it to work for and with us(?);
Different method, but the project doesn't seem to far removed from Derrida's if I'm not mistaken?
Thank you for sharing this.
The number of hours and years the finest minds for generations have waisted on reading Deleuze!
Could you do a video about the 5th chapter of Difference and Repetition?
Thanks for your great videos. Would you please make a video about 'Affect'? Maybe from Massumi or Sara Ahmed's view?
This was very helpful. Could you speak about Deleuze‘s thoughts on non-sense too?
This video is GREAT. Thank you.
Nietzsche said: Psychology one day will absorb Philosophy, but he couldnt see Neuroscience coming to absorb Psychology...
i think you're great - thank you for these....
a book that helped me to start trying to understand Deleuze is "Spinoza et le probleme de l'expression" (1969) (I think there is no edition in english(?), I got one in spanish). It is closely linked to the ideas exposed in Difference and Repetition, with that - at least - you can begin to grasp the general context from which the frenchman exposes his ideas (and I could even say that it is an "easier" book to read, at least is not as cryptic as other of his main works xD)
The English title is Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza (the French title is much better).
Sounds like a fourfold root methinks. Does he credit schopenhauer or modify the branches?
This was amazing! Will there be a part 2?
Can you let me know when you will get to Nelson Goodman "Ways of Worldmaking" and irrealist was of thinking of the world.
What comes first the chicken or the egg? Idea or Thought? Is it philosophy question? слишком много слов, я устал.
Isn't a lot of what he claims precisely taken from Kant's Critique? Why would he deride Kant when Kant himself makes a similar move, namely to claim that Reason is limited in certain ways?
I just read Empiricism and Subjectivity, which is a study on Hume by Deleuze, but I haven't really engaged with much of his famous radical work such as Difference and Repetition. What is staggering though is just how much you can identify these threads of thought in this early essay of his on Hume. Even his conception of philosophy as being about problems is in the latter end of the book when speaking upon the definition, or criticisms, of Hume. Interesting stuff. I would recommend people get their hands on Empiricism and Subjectivity, either if studying Hume or Deleuze: it's short and weirdly readable and seemingly a great primer for his later development!
Can I say this “image thought” critic has some parallels with Wittgenstein’s ideas ? Thank you for your videos ❤ i am also a non English speaking native, so having videos like this helps a lot to clarify concepts and analyses that sometimes are made in English articles.
I don't remember If I say you Happy New Year already, so Happy New Year!
Thank you miss I started to learn about this strange guy but as mathematician and couldn't get the idea of his representation but now I am good)
You recommend study philosophy nowadays in terms of jobs ..?
thank you so much for this.
Very nice. Thank you. A comment on Deleuze' 'intensity' as a circumvention of a division of faculties suggestive of a substantiating centre; a substantive self. The question surely arises: from such intensity, or intensities. Is it possible to imagine an ex nihilo generation of such intensities without also implying a substantiating self presence, however spectral (or shadowlike), or unknown (unconscious?) that substantive (displaced, perhaps) centre might be?
I meant: 'from whence do such intensities arise?'
It's hard to undestand Deleuze to me! think you do an excellent work teaching philosophy on you Tube! Thank you !
Ah...sorry! I'm from Brazil. Congratulations!
Thanks. I'll check it out.
what a nice edition of Decameron you have there
didnt krishnamurti used to say something similar? " watch the tree without the word"? something like that
If I am understanding him right I disagree with him. I think that love is more foundational than questions, ideas, or power. Seeking power over others can sometimes be a loving response to oneself due to trauma and lack of wisdom. To paraphrase Harry Frankfurt from The Reasons of Love, love is necessary for action and subsequently survival, wellbeing, and meaning in life-- so love appears foundational to consciousness itself, but it doesn't necessarily feel that way to human beings all the time, or ever; and I think the reason for this is because, while feeling loved in some way can be a greatly and generally desired feeling, there is an insufficient ethical pursuit of the study of love to reveal how it might be foundational to consciousness, especially in ways in which this can be felt more.
"la bêtise" is also mischief as in when you reprimand kids in French, you ask them not to do so much "bêtise". So it could mean stupidity, but also mischief (sometimes in a foolishness kinda sense even). In fact Deleuze does sounds quite like asking Thought being like when we fool around creatively with the notes in an jazz improv, that sense of foolishness or mischief.
Great video 🙏🏻
The ‘image of thought distorts thinking.’ Hmmmmmm. Ya gotta start somewhere though. I mean… thought occurs. If you’re thinking about thinking…then you’ve gotta have some kind of concept of what that means (there has to be something to interrogate)…and that concept HAS to come from somewhere. Call it an ‘image’, call it a turtle, or call it a flpledox…if you’re gonna think about something… that ‘something’ has to occur in some manner of manifestation. That is the prerequisite for every one of the philosophers you mentioned at the beginning (and probably every philosopher who has wasted their time attempting to disentangle the gordian knot of meaning). They HAVE to locate the ‘terms’ under which their examination is going to occur…and proceed accordingly. I’m sure every one of them would have categorically insisted that they were, in fact, allowing thought to occur ‘under its own terms’. I mean…what would be the point of any other approach!?!?!!? They would no doubt have insisted that their ‘image’ was, in fact, as close to an accurate representation of the-thing-in-itself as could possibly be exhumed under the circumstances. To be fair though…Deleuze does present some very compelling …and disruptive…perspectives on the whole enterprise.
Hey, I am from India 🇮🇳, I love your philosophy videos
I find Deleuze such a challenge rejecting the concept of recognition as shallow. Saying there are other more thinking ways to think creatively. If one is face-blind such as Oliver Sacks, then connectivity issues of thinking plague a person who can’t recognize an old friend. What that shows is thinking performs connectivity in a real sense. The connectivity of nouns to the objects they name is a fundamental property of human cognitive realism. Thinking loses realism by not connecting words to things. That to me is a very heavy criticism of Deleuze who claims connectivity is shallow when it is obviously fundamental to thinking. One cannot create without naming things, because creating connects.
I love this one !
''Problems as a basis for truth'', sounds quite Hegelian one may say?
Suffering is the condition to say the truth ( Adorno)
What is the point of using this language and making these distinctions? Where does he go with it
Deleuze is a subtle joke: his name De-lose means winning, i.e. it is a bundle of methods and concepts made to approach realities from the 'ontology of wealth' position (positivity or inexhaustibility of the ground).
how about the human metamorphosis, there's entities that manipulate elements for our coercion ( thoughts) let said one when reborn validate cognitive psychology outburst.
I own this book and must say it is a much more difficult text than Anti-Oedipus, and no I have not managed to read it cover to cover
Phantasms
some days i think i'm deleuzing my mind
Surely error is as much an outcome of thought as truth, and it is to do with knowledge? You can think all you want about something but if you lack knowledge of it you can still be in error despite how cleverly you have reasoned something
Found you again
Generaly speaking to those people interested in philosophy - JUST READ PLATO/ARISTOTLE! - you don't need any modern or other texts. This is what I learned by practice. These two managed to compile ideas which has been entertained by other thinkers.
😂😂😂 go back to Ancient Greece then if that's the only text you think is important
Extroverts and introverts are night and day subspecies. The philosopher and artist, are a “type.”
My study of philosophy at Uni was minoring in the philosophy of Science and philosophy of Art. Do you think they relate to the human condition, or rather help us understand the human condition in a significant way? I suppose they drive eachother. The missinterpritation of quantum "philosophy" probably should not be a boon for the unhinged, even though i see the point of a trending bias missinterpritation of knowledge to get away from a base idea. The "clockwork" universe was something that probably most of humanity felt very uneasy with given most had hard lives in the 1800s. Breaking from that opressive social structure possibly was nessesary, but as a scientist i see the clockwork universe as truely mindblowing and, from a humans prospective, filled with infinite curiosities. The interesting thing is conversations are much like a teacher grading work. As I'm getting older i find it hard to interact/relate with anyone on a meaningful level. We are just too far apart, and neither of us are "right". So what is the point of interacting/teaching with/a group/person that has base understanding and limited fluidity of thought. As Nietzsche posed God is Dead, does postmodernism pose the Philosopher is Dead?
Deleuze great thinker.
Betise also comes from beast which is animal but extremely charged..."bestiality"
Polanyi-double movement/podcast
"...that he does not buy." Telling
❤
This is so #philosophic
애청하고 있습니다
Taking an a-historical approach to the critique of presuppositions is itself quite a presupposition, don’t you think? Because what is Deluze’s stand point in all of this made of? What is that “blank round” starting point about but the image of a “subject” that is just worried (unconsciously) about its immanence? Isn’t immanence or rather the inexorability of life’s own literality what we should accept in its own terms just as a subject has its own terms in capitalist exploitation? Isn’t precisely this knowing that we don’t know what those terms are the safest way in which capitalist intersubjective interpellation can remain attached to the imaginary idea of our freedom in the face of surplus extraction? Too Marxist? Well, yes.
Oh dear, how deep we can go without making sense. Not so much about the Professor as Deleuze.
According to Deleuze, at least, not very.
Incidentally, he associates depth with sense in much of his work. He just thinks that sense is very different from how it is usually conceived.
(it's fine not to buy it, just sharing that this would be his hypothetical response)
Presupuesto subjetivo del pensamiento
Imagen dogmatica
“Todo el mundo sabe” es sintomática de esta imagen del pensamiento
La image dogmatica somete al pensamiento a la representación
Entender el pensamiento en sus propios terminos
La imagen del pensamiento distorciona el pensamiento
This channel is sick.
i love your work david ❤️
🤎🧡
Uhm… Hi.
☆Coral Reefs☆
the guy died in 1995, sheesh.
hmu
Problems arise from utility. Utility can not exist outside of the Cogito.
That went nowhere
As a scientist, my opinion regarding the evolution of human understanding is: Religion-->Philosophy -->Science. Religion is absolute bs, philosophy is half bs and science is evidence-based certainty
Sure mr. scientist 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And of course all that is evidence-based is the only legitimate form of knowledge because... Oh, never mind. I was just about to do a "half bs".
Science makes inferences (different from deductive logic) which necessitate a philosophy of science
The first thing you learn in many physics classes is that so called "certainty" in measurment is impossible and whatever result we get doesn't match one-to-one with reality...
@@scriabinismydog2439 True, but that is evidence-based understanding, not philosophical speculation
This is so interesting, i gotta start reading deleuze