As Anne Sauvagnargues nicely notices on page 49 of her book _Artmachines,_ Deleuze's concept of the image of thought itself changes throughout his oeuvre; it is different in _Proust,_ in _Difference and Repetition_ and in the book _What is philosophy?_ First it serves as "a critique of the representational mode of thinking", then, in _Difference and Repetition,_ "supstantialised by its capital letter", it becomes "an arena for the confrontation with Kant", "thought without images, a critique of representative Reason, deprived of all transcendent illusion", to become, in _What is Philosophy?,_ "the constitutive dimension that all philosophical thought carries with it, and which every great philosophy transforms... List of such images of thought thereby coincides with that of great figures in philosophy...". When dealing with Deleuze and Guattari one must always be aware of the movement, because even their concepts are becoming...

Really wonderful presentation. Your speech pace and enunciation are really well-incorporated and will definitely serve as inspiration in my own lectures.

Very similar to neitzche critique on philosophy in Beyond Good and Evil. Your video is very well made and easy to understand. Thank you!

I greatly appreciated Deleuze’s conception of time lost, wasted time, time regained within lost time, and absolute time. Each have their own truths but are always intertwined with the movement and structures of time. Each signification participates in several lines of time, just as each line of time mingles with severals kinds of signs.

Great video. Deleuze and Guattari's work is so inspiring.

This is a fantastic explainer. I'm sure you guys will be pulling much bigger audiences soon.

Just “discovered” Deleuze, and am in the middle of Proust and Signs. One of a number of concepts that hit me in The book is how thinking happens: there needs to be a force, often a negative force based, in Proust’s case, on jealousy. Marcel in the novel may question Albertine about some outing she’s making, to glean the truth about her intentions. The jealous lover though reads some facial expression as a sign of lying. The character Is then forced to think (interpret) this sign as the truth. This is one way that Deleuze demonstrates that language is often not a vehicle towards truth, but more often than not an apparatus for deception, deferral, and obfuscation. Is that how you read the first section of Proust and Signs?

Very good!!! But what is a field of heterogenous differences that are useful beyond cacophony??? I mean you have to sneak totality in the form of a theme in through the backdoor no?

song name???? :) Lovely video, great explanation.

This is gonna save my exam paper.

Interesting

why do I feel like a nonsensical ‚philosopher‘ any time I am surrounded by academics and people who are 1000x more intelligent then me? is that a presupposition?

Could you just say bodily passions again? Please. Thanks. For a friend etc. etc.

So Deleuze thinks something or did I miss something

So this is all cool. Everybody got a 700 or better on their SAT, they got vocabulary...but why? Anybody dogged a bullet?, or ate dirt? Be thankful for where you are. Stop asking questions. Go! Taken action. Be a loser that affects real change, and dies unknown.