What I find interesting how these rather associative, vague concepts end up inspiring the quite sharp and interesting analysis in nomadology, which seems to have been pioneering at the time.
Hey man, good stuff. Would love to see a collision between Deleuzian ontology of difference and multiplicity, and Adorno's negative dialectics. I know Deleuze was critical of the dialectic as a metaphysics, and refuses teleogy in that way, but couldn't Adorno's negative dialectics be a different case? I know way more about Deleuze than Adorno, and I've only glanced at summaries of Adorno's negative dialectics, but they seem instinctively compatible in my mind for some reason. Isn't finding what is non-identical in a thing the same as affirming its difference in itself? anyway, happy I found this channel and cheers for making these kinds of vids!
I personally never found Deleuze's ideas incompatible with that of any other philosopher's per se, but rather their claims. For example, Hegel's dialectics are not incompatible with Deleuze's conception of pure difference, but rather its claim as a complete construction of a problem is, as Deleuze shows how pure difference produces the opposition within Hegel's dialectics, while Hegel just sort of presents them as-is without further justification.
This was so helpful! Please help me understand one thing though... you talk about the way rhizomes can connect to other rhizomes and/ or other root systems (even different plants (different types of plants too?) I've been doing my own botany research and I can't find anything about this. Is it that they literally get tangled up together creating a knot of roots, or do they fully merge? Or is it meant purely as a theoretical extension? Maybe I'm missing something. It seems more likely to me that a rhizome is one system that can grow in many different which ways, and can tangle in with others. Maybe that is what was meant all along???? Anyone? Botany links please if anyone can find one!
reminds of object orientated programing, with it's four principles of abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance. Whereas functional programming is more tree like.
From what you have heard people that know about Deleuze and Guattari and are against them- do you feel like they made an honest attempt to understand and disprove or just dismiss it without even being able to articulate anything that pertains to what they discussed?
Great explanation ! But I have a confusion about the postmodernist writings link to the rhizome kindly explain more about it how and where we may use the term ? Thank you
creators can no longer add their own subtitle tracks. they are procedurally generated by youtube. creators also dont have any control on getting their video's subtitled. since it would take too much computing power to add subtitles to every single video that was uploaded, the "algorithm" decides what videos to prioritize. My guess is that this video is too recent with not enough views for subtitles
Is this have something to do with post-structuralism? I mean also post-structuralist philosophers, like Derrida, argued for such a vision of human knowledge.
speaking from my own experience, they are THE seminal post-structuralist philosophers. sure, there’s a lot more nuance to such general categories, but they are certainly who i think of when i imagine the most stereotypical thinkers of post-structuralism. i don’t say that in a bad way either, to be clear
This is all kind of correct but supergay and dangerous, the nuclear family is wrong because it needs to be embedded in an extended local family and neighbours but actually not through some fucked up polyamoruous bs
Wtf are you talking about? All he is saying is that deluxe and Guattari (a psychoanalyst by trade and training) oppose the restrictive aspects of psychoanalysis as psychoanalysis doesn’t take into account the breadth of human culture and the variety of structure of human organization. He only mentions polyamory because is a counterpoint to monogamy. Just like he only mentions that it takes a village as a counterpoint to the nuclear family. Deluxe and Guattari wanted new possibilities of human life to open up. New ways of living to be created. Novelty was their only goal. I don’t think they opposed people having the nuclear family. They opposed stagnation of evolution. And so they proposed a new way of looking at the world that would open up those possibilities. And I dont get it? What’s wrong with polyamory? Just because it’s not for you (most likely due to the cultural biases you were born with, the need to feel ownership over your partner and not PARTNERship, your insecurity that you’re not good enough, etc.) doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad. For someone interested I Deleuze you have some very weird cultural predispositions you might want to shed yourself of before venturing further. It’s those cultural restrictions that they wanted you to shed yourself of so that you can constantly evolve and change and create new ways of living. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing unless you value tradition over novelty.
@@jayt7178 I value novelty quite a bit but an overabundance of novelty is purely chaos or worse Nick Land slam poetry, what I have against polyamory is I grew up in a family that did not take it's relationships seriously and my parents separated at a young age and I was abused by step parent and with my mother engaged with someone else discarded, treated more as a nusance. My two adjacent siblings are now depressed and think they are LGBT even though they started early puberty with clear orientation towards the opposite sex, because they have looked for victim ideology to fill the void in their souls. The difference between their dysfunctionality and my being able to stitch my life together somewhat is the fact that I have sought after tradition and found in it frameworks such as Stoicism and more recently traditional catholicism with all the theological bells and whistles. My problem with polyamory is that it appears to me a very childish rebellion against the vast majority of civilisational history which has instituted monogamy in almost every context. What bothers me about deleuze and guattari is that they should revere and hold tradition higher, power laws which are the perennial fact of evolutionary systems tell you the longer something exists, the longer it will exist, The Lindy Effect. The true revolution here was done by Mandelbrot and other people in complex systems theory, all of this I'm sad to say is just a bunch of philosophers making up fancy excuses for the debauchery, everything valuable in every postmodernist is in Mandelbrot, his successor Nassim Taleb and if not in the work of someone at Sante Fe Institute
Left alone, tweezer free, I imagine your eyebrows could be rather rhizomatic. They're wondrous.
I keep them tame because their rhizomatic possibility frightens me.
@@TheoryPhilosophy the state always seems to obsess over migration despite needing it... just don’t employ a war machine against those brows ;P
The razor is a body without organs, or so.
Thanks I was actually wondering what a Rhizome is.
Still not sure whether I should plant bamboo or not.
Little holes
why did this get an audible laugh from me
EXPLAIN RHIZOMES TO M- oh, okay. Thank you!
Gearing up to read Anti Oedipus! These videos help a lot.
Hey!!!! I would like yo gear up too!
What I find interesting how these rather associative, vague concepts end up inspiring the quite sharp and interesting analysis in nomadology, which seems to have been pioneering at the time.
Nomadology still has brilliant potential - I am particularly fond of Rosi Braidotti's work.
Hey man, good stuff. Would love to see a collision between Deleuzian ontology of difference and multiplicity, and Adorno's negative dialectics. I know Deleuze was critical of the dialectic as a metaphysics, and refuses teleogy in that way, but couldn't Adorno's negative dialectics be a different case? I know way more about Deleuze than Adorno, and I've only glanced at summaries of Adorno's negative dialectics, but they seem instinctively compatible in my mind for some reason. Isn't finding what is non-identical in a thing the same as affirming its difference in itself? anyway, happy I found this channel and cheers for making these kinds of vids!
I personally never found Deleuze's ideas incompatible with that of any other philosopher's per se, but rather their claims. For example, Hegel's dialectics are not incompatible with Deleuze's conception of pure difference, but rather its claim as a complete construction of a problem is, as Deleuze shows how pure difference produces the opposition within Hegel's dialectics, while Hegel just sort of presents them as-is without further justification.
Loved your explanation, David! A fascinating keyword with layers of meaning.
I am studying about diagram in Japanese art university. Your talk is comprehensive and useful. thank you
This was so helpful! Please help me understand one thing though... you talk about the way rhizomes can connect to other rhizomes and/ or other root systems (even different plants (different types of plants too?) I've been doing my own botany research and I can't find anything about this. Is it that they literally get tangled up together creating a knot of roots, or do they fully merge? Or is it meant purely as a theoretical extension? Maybe I'm missing something.
It seems more likely to me that a rhizome is one system that can grow in many different which ways, and can tangle in with others. Maybe that is what was meant all along???? Anyone? Botany links please if anyone can find one!
I find this concept similar to Wittgenstein's family resemblance and anti essence approach
He didn't dumb it down into some vague 💩
Thank you very very much for your incredible videos!
Thank you so much for the very well-organized explanation of this concept.
Please, activate the subtitle option
How do I leave a comment?
reminds of object orientated programing, with it's four principles of abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance. Whereas functional programming is more tree like.
Why do I need to learn about rhizomes? I dont nor did I understand it the slightest bit but im here now
nice neck
From what you have heard people that know about Deleuze and Guattari and are against them- do you feel like they made an honest attempt to understand and disprove or just dismiss it without even being able to articulate anything that pertains to what they discussed?
Great explanation ! But I have a confusion about the postmodernist writings link to the rhizome kindly explain more about it how and where we may use the term ?
Thank you
Love the channel dude! I’m always lookin for UA-cam educators! I do something similar to ya 🥰
bamboo really does go wherever the fuck it wants
Great explanation, thank you for this helpful video :)
What you are doing is extremely important. Keep up the good work.
You made it a lot simpler to understand man thanks a lot
good video
actually helped shed alot of light on this idea which im using for an undergraduate paper
And I am wondering if you are going to upload a video about homi k bhabha Nation and narration
confront your fears! cover what is philosophy :D
I really love your explanation on the subject of philosophy. But, it would be beautiful if you could add some subtitles on it
creators can no longer add their own subtitle tracks. they are procedurally generated by youtube. creators also dont have any control on getting their video's subtitled. since it would take too much computing power to add subtitles to every single video that was uploaded, the "algorithm" decides what videos to prioritize. My guess is that this video is too recent with not enough views for subtitles
Very well done and pedagogical, thanks.
This was really good.
Great presentation!
Ooohoho
Is this have something to do with post-structuralism? I mean also post-structuralist philosophers, like Derrida, argued for such a vision of human knowledge.
pretty sure deleuze and guattari are the prime examples of what we'd call poststructuralism
speaking from my own experience, they are THE seminal post-structuralist philosophers. sure, there’s a lot more nuance to such general categories, but they are certainly who i think of when i imagine the most stereotypical thinkers of post-structuralism. i don’t say that in a bad way either, to be clear
I love this concept. Yet it is difficult to find precise examples of how to apply it
What a coincidence! My professor just went over this concept last week :D
I was waiting for this video for a long time now. May I ask why you didn't make it earlier?
Can you look at the camera, and not at yourself! Leave the ego behind:) !
Thanks for the video
Hahahahahahaha I need to look at myself or I'm too scared to be on camera
This is all kind of correct but supergay and dangerous, the nuclear family is wrong because it needs to be embedded in an extended local family and neighbours but actually not through some fucked up polyamoruous bs
Found one of those Schizos that Deleuze and Guattari talk about, lmao
Wtf are you talking about? All he is saying is that deluxe and Guattari (a psychoanalyst by trade and training) oppose the restrictive aspects of psychoanalysis as psychoanalysis doesn’t take into account the breadth of human culture and the variety of structure of human organization. He only mentions polyamory because is a counterpoint to monogamy. Just like he only mentions that it takes a village as a counterpoint to the nuclear family. Deluxe and Guattari wanted new possibilities of human life to open up. New ways of living to be created. Novelty was their only goal. I don’t think they opposed people having the nuclear family. They opposed stagnation of evolution. And so they proposed a new way of looking at the world that would open up those possibilities. And I dont get it? What’s wrong with polyamory? Just because it’s not for you (most likely due to the cultural biases you were born with, the need to feel ownership over your partner and not PARTNERship, your insecurity that you’re not good enough, etc.) doesn’t mean it’s wrong or bad. For someone interested I Deleuze you have some very weird cultural predispositions you might want to shed yourself of before venturing further. It’s those cultural restrictions that they wanted you to shed yourself of so that you can constantly evolve and change and create new ways of living. I don’t see how that’s a bad thing unless you value tradition over novelty.
And if you do value tradition over novelty, deluxe and Guattari are not for you.
@@jayt7178 I value novelty quite a bit but an overabundance of novelty is purely chaos or worse Nick Land slam poetry, what I have against polyamory is I grew up in a family that did not take it's relationships seriously and my parents separated at a young age and I was abused by step parent and with my mother engaged with someone else discarded, treated more as a nusance. My two adjacent siblings are now depressed and think they are LGBT even though they started early puberty with clear orientation towards the opposite sex, because they have looked for victim ideology to fill the void in their souls. The difference between their dysfunctionality and my being able to stitch my life together somewhat is the fact that I have sought after tradition and found in it frameworks such as Stoicism and more recently traditional catholicism with all the theological bells and whistles.
My problem with polyamory is that it appears to me a very childish rebellion against the vast majority of civilisational history which has instituted monogamy in almost every context. What bothers me about deleuze and guattari is that they should revere and hold tradition higher, power laws which are the perennial fact of evolutionary systems tell you the longer something exists, the longer it will exist, The Lindy Effect.
The true revolution here was done by Mandelbrot and other people in complex systems theory, all of this I'm sad to say is just a bunch of philosophers making up fancy excuses for the debauchery, everything valuable in every postmodernist is in Mandelbrot, his successor Nassim Taleb and if not in the work of someone at Sante Fe Institute
@@jayt7178 The idea of a rhizome is just a shitty reduction of graph theory of networks into non-mathematical language