Thank you dr Sadler for this videos about Deleuze's philosophy. Deleuze on one hand intrigue me a lot, especially his book about great Leibniz "The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque" and his work on movies. On the other hand, his vocabulary puts me off, I still wonder if he says something important or just use obscure language to unnecessary complicate me reading of his works. Your two videos already help me a lot with Deleuze.
So, I think sometimes Deleuze is saying something important, and sometimes he uses what feels like obscure language to do it. And sometimes he misses. Nobody's batting 1000 in philosophy!
@@GregoryBSadler Yes, nobody get 1000 in philosophy. But, I want to check as best as I can who scores 500+ and who only looks like that, when in fact he barely get 100. And style of Deleuze doesn't help in making that judgment.
Interesting here in the particulars. This "image" and nihilistic tendency reminds me of a teleological problem in the absence of dialogical spirit. The problem of teleology in Hegel's Science of Logic.
You know who else talks about Melville? Arendt in on revolution she talks about billy budd in her discussion of virtue, don’t know how relevant that is, but I guess that’s interesting. She thinks of billy budd as a sort of angelic figure as well but discusses it a bit differently. *I might have messed something up there, might be an interesting topic for an essay though. *if I remember correctly she compares billy budd to a kind of Christ figure and talks about him in conjunction with that one Dostoyevsky novel with the grand inquisitor the name of which escapes me
This is yet another reason I wish that the Split had never happened and that MacIntyre and Deleuze had contended before the Public. It would put Rich Dad/Poor Dad to shame, as well as probably Chomsky/Foucault and Zizek/Peterson.
I honestly don't understand why someone WOULD agree to Deleuze except insofar AS he serves as a sort of paternal figure, nor why most members of my generation would even bother to attend a lecture of this kind were it not for that reason. It appears that Deleuze was mostly concerned with preaching to the initiated, and of course this cultishness was immediately obvious upon first reading his and Guattari's work. I see neither motivation nor hope for his egalitarian project, especially since most of the problems facing the currently active generations may be ascribed to this same interruption which began with Bartleby. There's just no point in living if the answer to "To Be or Not to Be?" is "I would prefer neither." *[({R.G.)}]*
Thank you dr Sadler for this videos about Deleuze's philosophy. Deleuze on one hand intrigue me a lot, especially his book about great Leibniz "The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque" and his work on movies. On the other hand, his vocabulary puts me off, I still wonder if he says something important or just use obscure language to unnecessary complicate me reading of his works. Your two videos already help me a lot with Deleuze.
So, I think sometimes Deleuze is saying something important, and sometimes he uses what feels like obscure language to do it. And sometimes he misses. Nobody's batting 1000 in philosophy!
@@GregoryBSadler Yes, nobody get 1000 in philosophy. But, I want to check as best as I can who scores 500+ and who only looks like that, when in fact he barely get 100. And style of Deleuze doesn't help in making that judgment.
@@kamilziemian995 From where I sit, Deleuze is batting about 700 across his works. Deleuze with Guitari, maybe 300
Id love to see a video where you talk about the body without organs and rhizomes
Standard response - ua-cam.com/video/vkXKtxleGA8/v-deo.html
Just look up stuff on microbes and potatoes. YUM.
Interesting here in the particulars.
This "image" and nihilistic tendency reminds me of a teleological problem in the absence of dialogical spirit. The problem of teleology in Hegel's Science of Logic.
You know who else talks about Melville? Arendt in on revolution she talks about billy budd in her discussion of virtue, don’t know how relevant that is, but I guess that’s interesting. She thinks of billy budd as a sort of angelic figure as well but discusses it a bit differently.
*I might have messed something up there, might be an interesting topic for an essay though.
*if I remember correctly she compares billy budd to a kind of Christ figure and talks about him in conjunction with that one Dostoyevsky novel with the grand inquisitor the name of which escapes me
This is yet another reason I wish that the Split had never happened and that MacIntyre and Deleuze had contended before the Public. It would put Rich Dad/Poor Dad to shame, as well as probably Chomsky/Foucault and Zizek/Peterson.
I honestly don't understand why someone WOULD agree to Deleuze except insofar AS he serves as a sort of paternal figure, nor why most members of my generation would even bother to attend a lecture of this kind were it not for that reason. It appears that Deleuze was mostly concerned with preaching to the initiated, and of course this cultishness was immediately obvious upon first reading his and Guattari's work. I see neither motivation nor hope for his egalitarian project, especially since most of the problems facing the currently active generations may be ascribed to this same interruption which began with Bartleby. There's just no point in living if the answer to "To Be or Not to Be?" is "I would prefer neither."
*[({R.G.)}]*
Where do you see Deleuze and MacIntyre even crossing paths?
"Essays Critical and Clinical" It looks like that Deleuze had a sense of humor. Even if it was somewhat dark.
I’d say the title means what it means
Don't Deleuze Out - A Multiplicity of Rhizomes On Sale NOW At Guattari Center
A whole body of instruments, many differences between them, but no organs
@@glof2553 Give those pricks at Arboreal Shack a run for their capital.