Talk:Gilles Deleuze/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Counter-criticism

I'm tempted to pile on the paragraph about Sokal's criticism of Deleuze's mathematics with the quasi-counter-criticism of Manuel de Landa, who has clarified Deleuze's use of mathematical concepts in the first section of Virtual Science and Intensive Philosophy. I don't quite know how to make that fit, though.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How about mentioning that Anti-Oedipus is an expressly anti-Lacan polemic (see: Schneiderman "Death of an Intellectual Hero") and that Zizek is a Lacanian psychoanalyst? I think that should suffice for context besides what's written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.226.86 (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

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.

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)

"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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another editor recently had a problem with a change I made here, and undid it. If there is going to be an edit war about a minor style issue, I think the other editor should explain why he thinks his version is better. In detail, please. Skoojal (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the restoration of 'for his part' to the article, I have to ask, is there usually an assumption that if someone says something, that he isn't saying it for his part? This is not the sort of thing that needs spelling out. Skoojal (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this very gently. May I suggest, as someone who regularly grades written work, that your stylistic preferences are very often ... dubious. It might be a good idea for you to edit Wikipedia only where there are gross errors or where you have some actual knowledge to share. To clarify the issue at hand: the lede paragraph is meant to identify and illustrate Deleuze's significance. The paragraph does so, in part, by closing with a well-publicized encomium from a more famous philosopher. That is the natural end of the paragraph. Deleuze's comment is a qualifier to that claim, and as such belongs in a parenthesis. The "for his part" emphasizes that Deleuze had no 'inside knowledge' of Foucault's intent (as the footnote verifies). The parenthesis could be consigned entirely to a footnote, except that I have seen Foucault's blurb taken at face value far too many times to omit Deleuze's self-deprecating rider. 271828182 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'That is the natural end of the paragraph' is an assertion. It's a paragraph about Deleuze, so perhaps what Deleuze himself wrote is its natural end? Especially in an article about Deleuze, I would think so. The parenthesis is definitely not needed. And it seems to me perfectly obvious from the context that Deleuze was speaking for himself. Is anyone under the impression that Deleuze usually spoke for Foucault, and that whatever Deleuze said about Foucault's intentions must have been accurate? I suppose it is possible, so I have introduced what I consider a compromise wording for that section. I hope that you find it acceptable. Skoojal (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleuze's comment is a qualifier to Foucault's—that is no assertion. Your rhetorical questions above are chasing strawmen. Your dislike of parentheses, like your dislike of the word "gay", is a subjective preference on your part that does not reflect standard English usage or style. Kindly refrain from attempting to rewrite Wikipedia according to your tastes. If you like, let us invite other editors and seek consensus. 271828182 (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please have a sense of humour and don't pretend that this is more important than it actually is. I have not changed the wording of Deleuze's remark about Foucault, since that's of little importance, but I have once again changed the interpretations section. It was clearly biased, and contained an unprovable assertion about how Deleuze's readers might react to him. This is an issue of accuracy, not style. Skoojal (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say with your mind-numbingly tautological first sentence above. I think the interpretations paragraph has mostly changed for the worse since Skoojal's edits (though the references have much improved, thanks to myself), but, as editing this article is "not more important than it actually is", I have given up trying to work with career problem editor Skoojal. Perhaps once he burns through whatever odd series of resentments and animi motivate his Wikipedia career, other editors can resume adding information. 271828182 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

'This' was a reference to the style issues, not a reference to my sentence itself, which would, of course, have been pretty silly. Your latest edit removed some words which you considered unnecessary but which are, in fact, necessary for that sentence to make sense. I will restore them. Skoojal (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

POV claims

There is a serious problem with asserting that the comment by Deleuze about his way of using other thinkers is famous. The problem is that it is not famous, not in any unqualified sense of that word. Madonna is famous. Britney Spears is famous. Princess Diana, when she was alive, was famous. Deleuze's comment is not famous. There is also a serious problem with implying that Deleuze could not be guilty of misinterpretation. Of course Deleuze could be guilty of that; theoretically anyone could. Skoojal (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As for claiming that almost anyone who reads Deleuze might find his way of interpreting Nietzsche odd, this is unproven and obviously unprovable. There is no way of knowing how people might react to Deleuze. If someone reads a particular thinker, this may be because they have some sympathy with what he represents, which of course means that they might find whatever he says convincing. Skoojal (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And to Peter Damian, who keeps on undoing my edits, I will say this: you're going to have to discuss the matter. Not discussing it does not strengthen your hand. I have pointed out what is wrong with your preferred version of the article; it is up to you to respond. Skoojal (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is well-known to those who know. Much of philosophy is very obscure to people who only study Princess Diana. It is a generally established principle in the humanities that if a fact is well-known to those working in the field, then it is 'well-known' without requiring qualification. E.g. it is 'well-known' that Aristotle's father was a doctor, no? Peter Damian (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Skoojal, I have looked at your edits and they are often clumsy and inept. Sorry to say this. Could you please leave this article alone. Peter Damian (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying that something is 'well-known to those who know' is illogical. As for much of philosophy being very obscure to people who only study Princess Diana, that's true. For that matter, much of philosophy is very obscure to philosophers. Even among philosophers, Deleuze's comment is not necessarily 'famous.' Philosophers who are not post-structuralists may not have the slightest interest in Deleuze or his comment, if they have even heard of it. You request that I leave the article alone is denied. Skoojal (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, it does not make sense to describe that comment as being both 'famous' (an extremely strong term) and 'oft-cited' (a relatively weak term, and a far more believable one). Skoojal (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who goes over the history of this article will see that 271828182 added 'oft-cited' as a replacement for famous. It does not make sense to use both these terms. Skoojal (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

'Famously' does not mean the same as 'famous', as any fule kno. Peter Damian (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. The problems involved are exactly the same. Skoojal (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, as surely you can see. Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, you did not reply to my comments. In a way, that was preferrable to making comments like the one above. I see what you're saying: it's not Deleuze's comment that's famous, it's famous about Deleuze that he said it. So using the word 'famously' is simply a way of saying that it's well known to those interested in Deleuze that he said this. Undoubtedly it is well known, but then it's well known that Deleuze said or did all kinds of things, and the word 'famously' is not applied to most of them, so there are no grounds for applying it to his making of that comment. To use the word 'famously' here inevitably suggests a different kind of fame, either the kind associated with Madonna or the kind associated with 'I think, therefore I am', but that Deleuze made that comment is not famous in either of those ways, so it simply invites ridicule. Skoojal (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A question

Part of the article reads, 'Similar considerations apply, in Deleuze's view, to his own uses of mathematical and scientific terms.' Is there any good reason why this must be worded as though Deleuze were still alive? Skoojal (talk) 09:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With few exceptions, the whole article is in the present tense, as is standard English style. As far as the other issues, I generally prefer the state of the paragraph in question as it was before Skoojal's edits. (Though the verifiable references have improved.) But then, I am surely too close to the matter to be very impartial, as I wrote the paragraph in question, and generally regard Skoojal's contributions to be captious and axe-grinding. Perhaps we should invite other editors. I yield the point about the "as anyone who has read both" claim; the sentence is more concise with a simple "even though". (Though I still think the strangeness of Deleuze's readings demands some comment in an introductory piece -- someone I know once asked Paul Guyer what he thought of Deleuze's Kant book, and he replied "well, I didn't recognize the 'Kant' fellow the book kept talking about".) If I ever have time to find a reliable source encapsulating how peculiar Deleuze's interpretations are, I will happily add it and rewrite these sentences accordingly. I prefer "famously" to oft-cited; it reads better, is not false, and has multiple cites to support it. To argue that it is not "famous", as Skoojal has, is to say that nothing in philosophy is famous, which is absurd. And "famously" is not the same as "known to the lay public" -- "noticed in print" is closer, and the cites (which are surely incomplete) show it is. So I have edited accordingly. Skoojal, can you let such minor matters of phrasing rest? Surely you have other campaigns to wage. 271828182 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with people tossing the word 'famous' around. To put it bluntly, it looks like over-praise, and this is something that has to be periodically removed from articles on many different subjects. Some things that philosophers have said may be famous in some meaningful sense of the word; something that Plato or Descartes or Kant said might be famous, because philosophers from all schools of philosophy have responded to them in one way or another, whether positively or negatively. Post-structuralists like Deleuze are often simply ignored by philosophers in rival camps. If six sources are enough to show that a comment is famous, then there are a lot of famous comments in the world (I had a look at one of those sources, the book by Massumi, and while it quotes Deleuze with some enthusiasm, it doesn't say his comment was famous). Even if something is 'famous', it's not clear that any useful purpose is necessarily served by pointing this out. Like much of what you have said in response to me, the question about whether I have other campaigns to wage is totally irrelevant. The answer is yes, however. It's just that experience with Wikipedia has taught me that it's better to focus on one thing at a time. Skoojal (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted back to version by 27182. As noted above 'famously' and 'famous' are not the same thing. Peter Damian (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above on this. There is no reason to use 'famously' here; it looks ridiculous. Skoojal (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see 27182's comments above. You are clearly in a minority in this. Can you not let such minor matters of phraseology rest? Thank you. Peter Damian (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was 271828182 himself who changed 'famously' to 'oft-cited.' If 271828182 thought that this was the right thing to do, he should have stuck with it, and reversed your recent edits. If 271828182 thought that it was not the right thing to do, he should never have done it. His position does not really seem clear. As for, 'Can you not let such minor matters of phraseology rest?', I could equally well ask you that. I certainly see a problem with making something a writer said sound more important than it is. Skoojal (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read what he says above. In any case, I prefer 'famously' also. Please let it rest. Peter Damian (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have read it. You asserted that the issue was minor. If it was minor, you surely would not be making an issue of it at all. Skoojal (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I only changed famously to 'oft-cited' to preserve something of the original sentence from Skoojal's aggressive campaign of deletion. I prefer 'famously' for the reasons I gave above: it reads better, it is not false, and has numerous verified sources to support it. Your assertion that the adverb inflates Deleuze's importance is an instance of the fallacy of accent, reading "famously" as equivalent to "known to the readership of tabloid newspapers". Indeed, it's just another example of your relentless POV-pushing against "post-structuralist" types. While I'm not particularly enamored of that movement, your "contributions" to Wikipedia are just cheap shots. 271828182 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

271828182, I think I should remind you that talk pages are for discussions about the content of their associated articles, not for off topic complaints about other editors. Your comments about me are uncivil and false. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why you would have changed 'famously' to 'oft-cited' unless you honestly felt that this was the right decision. It shows a lack of resolve to let me bully you into doing something that you think is wrong. If you thought that 'famously' was the right word, you should have stuck with it through thick and thin, never mind what I might say. That you did change it suggests that you know that you are not on strong ground. Repeating things you have already said only makes the need for outside involvement more obvious. I know that I may loose any struggle with you over how the article should be worded, but that's less important than whether you are able to justify your preferred wording, and by that standard you have certainly failed. Skoojal (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've presented my reasons, and you have not gainsaid them in the least. That means the burden of proof is on you, Skoojal, and you've failed to present any objections more compelling than your subjective tastes. And if I'm guilty of "lack of resolve", why, yes, I lack resolve for lots of things that waste my time, like debating Scientologists or Creationists. Poor unresolute me. I'll try to be harder and last longer and generally be more manly in the future; thanks for the advice. 271828182 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's the old, "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. That never fails. See what I mean about the need for outside involvement? You may have noticed that I haven't edited the Deleuze article recently, but this doesn't mean you have won. I may decide to change the article again; I could do so whenever it's convenient or I feel so inclined. That, by your own apparent admission, you lack resolve in the editing of any part of this article is certainly surprising. Skoojal (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you have a tin ear for sarcasm. You do sound embarrassingly like a supervillain, though: "this doesn't mean you have won ... you haven't heard the last of me!" I'm waiting for you to threaten my little dog, too. 271828182 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed sources

I have removed two sources from the article: These are the books by Brian Massumi and Slavoj Zizek. Both of these books enthusiastically refer to Deleuze's comment about buggery, but they do not say it was famous, hence they are not relevant. In my view, to support a claim that something was famous, one needs a source that says this. Using sources that do not explicitly say something was famous to support the claim that it was is probably a violation of the policy against original research, which among other things says, 'Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.' Skoojal (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Skoojal, I'll thank you to reacquaint yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on conduct, particularly with respect to "good faith"--your message on my talk page that includes "I suggest you respond to it - you're not likely to accomplish anything simply by reverting me over and over" is inappropriate and unjustified; I am aware only of having reverted a single edit once, so less of the attitude, pal.

Secondly, the reasoning that you offer above is clearly flawed. To examine the note in question:

This passage is well-known: it is cited by, among others, Brian Massumi, A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia (MIT Press, 1992), p. 2; Ian Buchanan, A Deleuzian Century? (Duke UP, 1999), p. 8; Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Deleuze and Language (Macmillan, 2002), p. 37; Gregg Lambert, The Non-Philosophy of Gilles Deleuze (Continuum, 2002), p. x; Claire Colebrook, Understanding Deleuze (Allen & Unwin, 2003), p. 73; Slavoj Žižek, Organs without Bodies (Routledge, 2003), p. 48; and Charles Stivale, Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts (McGill-Queen's, 2005), p. 3.

It claims that the quotation is "well known". It offers, as evidence of that claim, the fact that the quotation is cited in each of the long list of works by other authors. I don't have the Zizek to hand, but I have the Massumi (the two works which you removed); my log entry reads: "Massumi does indeed cite that comment, which is what the note claims." The note does not claim that the citations declare the quotation famous. It claims that the long list is evidence of its fame. This much, I understand, we agree upon.

Your argument that this claim constitutes original research is belied by the guidelines that you quote in its support. It tells us that "material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research". It then specifies the conditions under which this may be considered to have occurred: "when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources". The author of the note, however, has not synthesised separate ideas from disparate sources, but rather made an assertion about a general state of affairs and offered a long list of similar examples as evidence; that is a completely different logical operation. If I claim that Shakespeare wrote many tragedies, and provide a list of them in support of that, this is clearly not original research; no synthesis of different elements or ideas has occurred.

The note is clearly not claiming that the Deleuze comment is famous in all possible contexts--rather, the claim is that it is famous within its relevant context. That context, the note clearly indicates, is defined by the type of discourse of which the long list provides examples; it is famous in this particular intellectual context.

The synthesis guideline is there to address a concern about claims surreptitiously masking themselves as fact. The note in question is clearly not doing that. It states itself and the nature of its evidence very clearly: "It is well known: it is cited by..." Had it claimed that "Massumi, Zizek and the others assert its fame in..." or "It is well known: this is confirmed by..." then that would be a completely different matter, but it doesn't. The fact that those two sources make no claims about the quotation's fame in no way invalidates their relevance to what the note actually says (rather than what you appear to imagine it says). DionysosProteus (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My view of the matter is this: if you have a single source stating that something is famous (in any relevant sense of the word), then you can say that it is famous. If not, then you can't. The fact that something is cited six times isn't evidence that it's famous. Famous doesn't mean cited six times, and trying to prove it that way is not remotely equivalent to providing a list of Shakespeare's tragedies. The relevant part of the policy on Original Research is, 'If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion...then the editor is engaged in original research.' Unless one of those sources does actually say that the comment is famous, that is the situation here. Skoojal (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, though, your argument distorts what the note actually says. It is a note, not a citation. That note is entirely transparent about the evidential basis for what it says, when it goes on to offer a list of citations. Your argument fails to engage with the context, which applies to any (not just this) "claim to fame". That seven (according to the note) different academics specializing in Deleuze's philosophy have picked out this single metaphor from the vast number of images and phrases that he mobilizes during the course of his entire philosophical career does indeed indicate that it is one of his more famous remarks. If the Massumi is anything to go by, it is certainly not buried deep in his text or a footnote, nor is it merely mentioned in passing; on the contrary, it's right at the beginning when we are introduced to an overview of his philosophical approach--which he describes, in relation to the history of philosophy as "a kind of ass-fuck, or, what amounts to the same thing, an immaculate conception. I imagined myself approaching an author from behind and giving him a child that would indeed be his but would nonetheless be monstrous." Buchannan discusses it in his Introduction too. And Lambert. And Stivale. Could you explain why the fact that so many experts in the field all agree that the image is important enough to introduce his entire philosophical approach doesn't make it, of the enormous number of things he said, a famous one? Six (sic) citations that mentioned it in passing and attached little weight of significance to it may indeed be suspect. Yet that is not what the note offers. Experts in the field agree that this remark made during an interview characterises his entire approach to the philosophical tradition. Not one expert. Or two. But several. DionysosProteus (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You write, 'That seven (according to the note) different academics specializing in Deleuze's philosophy have picked out this single metaphor from the vast number of images and phrases that he mobilizes during the course of his entire philosophical career does indeed indicate that it is one of his more famous remarks.' It doesn't matter whether it does or not. It is original research to use it that way. The bottom line is that you need a source saying that something is famous if you want to say that something is famous. You can't do an original research synthesis of published sources. Skoojal (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Since I see that a logical argument isn't going to persuade you, I'll have to add these three sources I just found. If you take a moment to Google Deleuze buggery, you'll find plenty more. Restored the deleted citations. DionysosProteus (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it's not nonsense to say that something needs a source, but you provided one, so that's basically the end of the matter. If you have one source that supports your point, you don't need a host of others that don't. Keep in mind that the only reason why Massumi and the other sources were ever added was because 271828182 wanted to try to prove a point against me. The one source that evidently does use the word 'famously' would do instead of all of those. Skoojal (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources were provided and clearly stated the basis for its claims. That you believe its original insertion was part of a process of personal point-scoring between you and someone else is irrelevant to questions of its validity for the rest of us; there are other, more appropriate online forums to which you should take such behaviour. A quick google search could have easily confirmed to you the fame/notoriety of the remark if you had doubts, which, in light of your indication that the edits were point-scoring, appear disingenuous. Our guiding principle ought to be the improvement of the article. The idea that those sources don't support the point is most confusing: having read most of them, they all appear quite relevant to the description the article offers of D's approach. I notice, too, that from dismissing the sources as too few, they now have become "a host"; curious. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

DionysosProteus, these weren't relevant sources if they didn't specifically say that the comment was famous. I don't have a problem with 'famously' being in the article if there is a source, but it is necessary to avoid giving the impression that the article is based on original research - and that was my only point, really. Skoojal (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Hey guys and gals, forgive me for being a noob at this, this is my first attempt to do some editing at a wiki page. Also, whenever I think for myself (like here) I can write with great confidence, while when I try to add to some official page, suddenly I lose all my ability to formulate things in good or correct english. So I would really like it if someone would help me with editing a few things. To start with I tried to add a few lines to the reception part. I thought the negative critiques were quiet abundant, but not so the positive ones. I did not delete any of the critiques as those are quite well formulated, but the positive part lacks some important info, namely that there is a very positive reception of Deleuze in many areas, not just in literary theory or postmodern thinking. This is not something I endorse, but something I have observed, so I hope it is ok to add this. Also I think the Deleuze connections is a very important series of publications because some of those texts finally helped me understand why some people are totally blown away by Deleuze and in some cases rightly so. (I would like to stress that I am not a full Deleuzian, so this is not partial)

- some point I would like to discuss is whether we should not stress the importance of ontology in his work. This is quite different from say Derrida or especially Baudrillard, who also represent strains in postmodern thought, but who are more concentrated on text or textuality. Only here and there do they work with ontological claims, whereas Deleuze's most important contribution to postmodern thinking is the turn from text to bodies. Or is this too specific?

- the notion of becoming is very essential to Deleuze, especially when read with interest in ontology. It is here only mentioned once when citing a critique and once in a note. Becoming is not simply changing in the course of time, but being connected to ones environment, ontological situatedness being almost synonymous with the very important concept of immanence. Becoming as creativity is the source of Deleuze's political work.

- I did not dare to edit the part on Deleuze and his interpretations of others. Deleuze's claim that Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals is a reworking of Kant's first critique is here almost discredited by saying that Nietzsche never mentions the first Critique of Kant. But his claim should be read like this: Kant went as far as making some observations on the limits of knowledge and hinted at some connections between knowing and morals, but never worked these out satisfactorily. Nietzsche was the first philosopher to not to see knowledge and morals as transcendentals, but having a history in culture, or rather, put more radically that knowledge is not neutral but is a co-product of a certain culture with very moralistic determinants. Hmmm, sounds weird, but this was what I made of it, if someone could help me put this better, I feel it would add to the clarity of this passage, which as it stands seems more like Deleuze claimed something very foolish, which I don't think is the case here.

- The same applies to his reworking of Spinoza's thought. It is again as if Deleuze wrote something about Spinoza totally unconnected to what Spinoza was thinking. This again is I believe not the case. The absence of the term univocity seems to disprove Deleuze's ideas, as it stands here, but it is related to Spinoza's concept of substance. Again I would like it if we could discuss this to make it more clear. Because some topics which were thought to be confused in Spinoza become quite clear when one reads it from a deleuzian perspective (like for example the possible or possibility vs. necessity).

- Also the direct reference to what Deleuze self said on enculage directly after these points is somewhat misleading as Deleuze is known for his rigor when reading other philosophers. There's a difference between being truthfull to the object of study, the importance of which he again and again stresses and a strategy of his own to get the most out of this object of study. For example, I'm not sure where I read this, it might be in one of those more accessible texts, Dialogues or something, he says at some point that his interpretation of Nietzsche was criticized by some Nietzsche scholars, but that in spite of a few debatable issues concerning interpretation he was able to make Nietzsche an important topic again. Not his critiques though.

If anyone feels inclined to discuss these topics, I'd enjoy digging a bit deeper. Hopefully I was clear enough. ```` ```` Merleus (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The added comments are rather vague and jargony. I know some lit-theory academics like to use words like "ontology" and "discourse" and "bodies" (in ways that often differ quite a bit from the clear usage in philosophy), but I have aggressively sought to keep theory-speak at an absolute minimum in this article. Thus I think it is enough to suggest that Deleuze's influence has largely been in "postmodernism". So I am leery of keeping the added sentence unless some clear sense and citations can be provided for it. As for the addition of Delanda, Massumi, and Braidotti, please see the above discussion on "Skewed Reception" from May of 2007. 271828182 (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll propose an edited version of my own later, for now I'll just comment this passage in the "Metaphysics" section:

"Like Kant and Bergson, Deleuze considers traditional notions of space and time as unifying categories imposed by the subject, that is, he considers them to be forms of identity. Therefore he concludes that pure difference is non-spatio-temporal; it is an idea, what he calls "the virtual"."

Space and time are NOT categories, as far as I know, either for Kant, Bergson or Deleuze, in the traditional or modern sense; and for Kant they are forms of intuition (to be distinguished from the pure concepts of understanding, categories). So the general idea in the passage may be correct, but the term 'category' should be omitted, as it is here a misused technical term. Moreover, categories ARE forms of identity (at least for Kant and Deleuze), but I would not be so sure about time and space. This all makes the logic of the passage slightly problematic, since there's a kind of a double implication: time&space->identity; difference->non-time&space. I would be happy if the author of the passage could elaborate the text a bit. I'll also check "Difference and Repetition" myself and try to come up with a suggestion. Telivuo (talk) 29 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

I was trying to avoid overly technical usage. I agree that we can alter the wording to make it more strictly accurate, and should do so if a clear and intelligible alternative is possible. For now, I will try a simple patch. As for whether space and time are forms of identity (to Deleuze, at least), in writing this particular passage I was trying to paraphrase Deleuze's train of thought in "The method of dramatization", where he seems to claim that the idea, as it is virtual, conditions space & time. But it has been years since I wrote that sentence or read "Method", so I could have misinterpreted the passage. 271828182 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Univocity

I created the article Univocity from the Deleuze page. It is a key aspect of Deleuze's and Scotus's philosophy, and so I feel it certainly deserves to be forked. ADM (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If that becomes a more substantial article possibly, for the moment you can't assume that readers will go there and the current text provides explanation in context. It might be summarised more, but not deleted. --Snowded (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There was already a link at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Philosophy, so I did not make it up. Most philosophers have their major concepts, which we do not hesitate to write about disctinctly, such as God is Dead. I am surprised however that Deus Sive Natura does not have an article, because it should. ADM (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in that statement justifies the level of deletion. Suggest you work on the new article then come back here to summarise (with a reference). I also formatted yor comment by the way, hope you don't mind but it makes it easier to read. --Snowded (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like deleting content myself, but I tend to dislike seeing an article within an article, something which I find to be disingenuous. ADM (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Three sentences of summary explanation is not much of "an article within an article". The doctrine of univocity is a pretty complicated topic, and when I wrote those sentences I was viciously simplifying the topic to keep it within the ambit of an article on Deleuze. In any case, there's no reason to not have both an article on univocity and a very, very brief explanation in the Deleuze article. 271828182 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)