Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
PortElliot2.jpg
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Weblog Links
Library
Fields
Philosophers
Writers
Connections
Magazines
E-Resources
Academics
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'

Deleuze & Hegel « Previous | |Next »
July 19, 2006

Deleuze was well-known for his antipathy towards dialogue. Philosophy, as Deleuze and Guattari observe, is never about dialogue, even less about communication; far from being a harmonious discussion aiming at rational consensus, philosophy is more akin to a violent encounter between heterogenous forces that might open up the possibility of thinking the new. From this Deleuzian perspective, the history of philosophy is less a story of the striving for truth or realisation of reason than a history of productive misreadings, of errant couplings, perverse conceptual encounters producing monstrous offspring. Witness Deleuze's remarks about conceiving the history of philosophy as a kind of "buggery."

In a review of Slavoj Zizek's recent book, Organs without Bodies, in Parrhesia Robert Sinnerbrink says that there are two discernible approaches to the Hegel-Deleuze relationship.

These are:

...the 'recidivist' or 'assimilationist' reading, which maintains that despite his avowed anti-Hegelianism, Deleuze inadvertently relapses into dialectics at crucial points in his philosophical project, which can therefore be reconciled with Hegelianism (here one could include Judith Butler, Catherine Malabou, and Zizek himself). And the 'incommensurabilist' or 'radical separatist' reading, which holds that there is no possible compromise between Hegel and Deleuze; Deleuze's thought marks a radical break with Hegelianism tout court (Deleuze's own position, Hardt, Massumi, and most Deleuzian commentators).

From the Deleuze I have read I would agree with Sinnerbrink 's judgement that both interpretations apply. Sinnerbrink says:
...the 'young' Deleuze’s critique of Hegel does revert to, or at least remains compromised by, a residual dialectical aspect (particularly in Nietzsche and Philosophy), whereas the 'mature' Deleuze’s entire project
(from Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition onwards) is an attempt to break free---via Nietzsche and Spinoza but also a multiplicity of other perspectives from structuralism to avant-garde art and literature---of the totalising character of Hegelian dialectics, above all its failure to think the advent of the New.

Deleuze's Hegel is reductive and monological and, I would add, it is designed to forecloses any possibility of a productive encounter between dialectics and difference.
between Hegelian dialectic and Deleuzian difference.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:31 PM | | Comments (0)
Comments