I am reading deleuze’s what is philosophy at the moment and the part about the creation of concepts, the analysis of their components and the resulting impossibility of discourse in philosophy is blowing my mind. The discourse becomes impossible or at least fruitless because the terms and concepts discussed, although homophones, aren’t comparable because they’re on different planes of thought and have different components. So we think we are speaking about the same things, while only confusing ourselves and wasting our time. I mean the idea is almost trivial, while the execution and explanation is outstanding.
hes a fag
>>24946062Doesn’t matter, don’t care.
>>24946039sounds interesting. haven't read WiP, but i've found his (maybe related?) concept of the plane of consistency to be really useful for thinking about artworks and the miniature model worlds they represent.
>>24946235It’s applicable to most things, I guess. But in philosophy it explains why there’s is no common ground like in the sciences, a set of basic principles everyone can agree on.
>>24946235It's an interesting take, it frequently appears to pull from GS, Twighlight of the Idols, and maybe a few other odd parts where you try to move as quickly as possible, think as slow as possible, and sift even slower. The results appear just as varied. You could have 2 guys who tie their left hands together and play stickpin refutation, a sumo match, or just one guy trying to navigate a minefield. The key part for some of this for Nietzsche at least is that the concept is already there so instead of finding a potentiality you basically look for how actual but there isn't really a limit on this. Nietzsche claimed it could isolate specific instincts, you get a theoretical edge for the successive attempts.
how the frick do your formulate any concepts in ur mind.then
>>24947693It says that philosophy is basically just creating concepts, but once they’re established the discussion between philosophical school becomes impossible. Take e.g. a platonist and a Kantian: these two won’t be able to meaningfully discuss the concept of time, because the ancient understanding of time and the transcendental understanding of time are so different, that they can’t possibly talk about the same concept with the same components (which would make a discussion possible).
>>24946039I am familiar with it. I think it's wrong because all concepts are born from contact with the same world, which includes real forms and essences. Of course, Deleuze is extremely committed to the nominalism/individualism of his era, and above all the voluntarist conception of freedom as power (the ghost of the Reformation on almost all modern thought), so we won't agree here. But suffice to say, if there are really such things as cats, dogs, trees, etc. as organic wholes (being, plural) and "whatever is in the intellect is first in the senses" then it seems obvious to me concepts can find common ground.Actually, what undermines communication is a lack of faith in the transcendent and ecstatic powers of reason and the misology that comes from saying "reason doesn't apply here, or there, etc., and thus I will use reason only instrumentally, as a path to power." That is how reason is ruined. Everything is reduced to power relations. But the ontologies of violence whereby truth, form, and telos are themselves always violence because freedom is just potency (freedom from reality you might say) make this slide into instrumental misology inevitable because they render reason sterile. This isn't some awful discovery of modernity thought. The ancients say the same thing about what instrumental rationality driven by the passions (or when the will becomes its own object, the voluntaristic notion of freedom as power) is all over the ancients. It's a major theme right up to Dante, or even in Milton's Satan (although there God has already begun to drift in this direction).My ultimate conclusion then is not that there is no common ground but that Deleuze is just part of a much older pathology stretching back to the Sophists. But his particular brand is really a Reformation pathology that "post" modernism has never left behind because it very much never transcended modernity, but keeps its core assumptions. One can disrupt one's understanding of the Great Chain of Being, the great Ladder of Ascent by becoming infatuated with a mere rung on the Ladder and absolutizing it. But this is simply a misordering of the soul.
