Talk:Gilles Deleuze

Working-class family?

The Life section starts with “Deleuze was born into a working-class family in Paris and lived there for most his life.” In L'abécédaire entry “E comme Enfance”, Deleuze describes his own family as “right-wing bourgeois” and his father as a factory owner engineer. So, maybe there’s some left-wing wishful thinking involved in this mistake ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.184.119 (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

sources? —Zujine|talk 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"Deleuze, a heavy smoker, suffered from a debilitating pulmonary..." The insinuation that tobacco caused the disease is based in what evidences? I erased the "heavy smoker" thought I'm sure tomorrow it will be back. Big Pharma everywhere...

His suicide was like Koestler's: euthanasia. But he didn't leave any note. --Justana (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Metaphysical doctrines / Plane of Immanence

The concept of a plane of immanence is not put forward as a metaphysical model of reality as such but rather as a model of how the particular intellectual modality Deleuze defines as philosophy grounds itself, is able to reflect, to contemplate, and to communicate its ideas. Contrast with the plane of reference (associated with the intellectual modality of science) and the plane of sense (most closely associated with the third component of his trinity of intellectual modalities: art). To the best of my reckoning, in WIPh, D&G don't profer a metaphysical doctrine so much as postulate that all such intellectual systems are constructivisms which are deployed, with varying degrees of success, and with varying unintended consequences, against the inscrutable chaos of reality, the chaosmos. As constructivisms, these modes are all creative activities ("science is no less creative than the arts or philosophy") and the created systems carry the signiatures of their creators, much as our vocal utterances carry signiatures of the bearers physiological constitutions and individualities. As such, there is never any complete final metaphysics, nor in all likelihood will there ever be a complete final science, but rather creative and multifaceted evolutions contingent upon situational necessity as perceived by the desires and sensory cognitive configurations of future generations of artists, scientists, philosophers, and here we might add religious/occult constructions, the atmosphere of which envelops WIPh like completion and death. Which is well fitting and may have been an intentional implication (a joke of sorts), suggestion may be found in the way D&G differentiated philosophy from religion in WIPh. Trancendence vs immanence. And Deleuze's own fraught relationship with transcendence. Trancendent hieranchies freeze creation, effectively killing the free creative play on the plane of immanence. That's about the edge of what I'm remotely confident that I understand about it. ...some other stuff: Figures (found in Hegel, as constituent elements in the creation of Concepts: is this what Deleuze meant by Figures in relation to Religion?) vs Concepts. --joshua.cullick (talk) , 1 January 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC).

De Landa

My (non-logged in) edit to "Reception" qualifying the current "it's just not influential in english" language with references to the school associated with Manuel de Landa were quickly reverted with no justification, even though it was cross-reference to Manuel de Landa and Intensive science and virtual philosophy, both of whom substantiate the claims I had made. I actually got into De Landa because of those wikipedia pages.

It's absolutely inadmissible that an encyclopedia article about Deleuze fails to mention De Landa, but I don't want to get into a revert war. Can we agree on some language for this?--Dnavarro (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to read de Landa described as an analytic philosopher and the edit history says so too. I assume the reversal was motivated by concerns about accuracy. The justification is that the additions were unsourced. If there are citations at the pages you mention, then you can add the material and provide them here. Others may be concerned with a neutral point of view, then, but the first concern is that any claims are verifiable. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

See the archive, under "Skewed Reception". The claim that Delanda is an analytic philosopher, or that there is a band of analytic philosophers producing noticeable scholarship on Deleuze, had no supporting citations, and I strongly doubt there are any to be had. Delanda is an example of the "North American humanities" reception already noted in the article. 271828182 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Most-browsed Deleuze and Guattari articles

I wanted to find out which of the D&G articles garners the most traffic on this site. I thought this might be of interest to other editors interested in the D&G articles. All stats for June 2010:

• Gilles Deleuze 11,862
• Rhizome (philosophy) 2,887
• Félix Guattari 2,623
• A Thousand Plateaus 2,341
• Anti-Oedipus 2,191
• Deterritorialization 1,326
• Capitalism and Schizophrenia 1,208
• Haecceity 1,173
• Body without organs 1,130
• Plane of immanence 1,057
• Affect (philosophy) 647
• Arborescent 545
• Multiplicity (philosophy) 823
• Desiring-production 402
• Minority (philosophy) 388
• Schizoanalysis 369 (though article had been deleted to a redirect)
• Immanent evaluation 344
• Subjectivation 330
• Reterritorialization 319
• Line of flight 317
• Difference (philosophy) 300
• La Borde clinic 282
• L'Abécédaire_de_Gilles_Deleuze 224
• A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity 184

Also related are:

• Noosphere 5,896
• Individuation 3,658

But neither article has any substantial treatment of D&G

DionysosProteus (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

somthing abut networks and network age/internet ?

somthing abute verilo or that guy that wrote piosophy based on time and speed ? maybe sombody sohuold write somthing abut what some foks belive his network way of thinking belongs to internt sosiology and cyberspace ontologi ? was he not used as a big thinker abut this in the 1990 ? or just a link to those foks that build on his ideas what sombody called secondaery intelectuels(hard and negri ?) or is it too much postmodernsim too menntion? (like manuel castells and sassen maybe even bauman think his writeing are just postmodern nonsens ) murakaim 82.147.33.187 (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

too negative

This article is overwhelmingly negative - detailing numerous critiques without giving equal time to the positive influence on scholars such as Braidotti, DeLanda, Massumi, Patton, and many more. 198.72.191.223 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sokal

I propose that the words "pace critics such as Alan Sokal" should be removed from the sentence reading, in part:

Similar considerations apply, in Deleuze's view, to his own uses of mathematical and scientific terms, pace critics such as Alan Sokal

There are three main reasons. First, the argument against Sokal makes the sentence read like part of an essay. This is meant to be an encyclopedia. Second, it is irrelevant to this article. This is the Gilles Deleuze article, not the Alan Sokal article. It is appropriate to mention criticisms that have been made of Deleuze, but responding to such criticisms by arguing against those making them is out of place here. If you have a criticism of Sokal, put it in his article (I don't believe at all that an argument against Sokal is useful context for understanding Deleuze). Third, and perhaps most decisively, the argument against Sokal has no source. It is simply the opinion of the editor who added it. Original research, in other words. Note that if no response to this comment is made, I shall assume that there are no further objections and will remove the Sokal reference. Barnabas2000 (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)