Deleuze, Nietzsche and what Modern Philosophy is about

Рет қаралды 14,671

2 жыл бұрын

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995), two titans of Modern Philosophy, share a common interest for the notion of the Eternal Return. In the Modern understanding, the Eternal Return is not about the repetition of sameness, in fact just the opposite: it's about the concept of Difference, that is, change, which is the object of the Eternal Return.
Support:
Patreon: / deleuzephilosophy
Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/deleuzephilosophy

Пікірлер: 53

@Andres-nn5it 2 жыл бұрын

I thank you for this because I feel more people should be inaugurated into Deleuze’s reading of Nietzsche as opposed to many of the other readings and discourses around Nietzsche and critical philosophy that exists on KZfaq.

@deleuzephilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you too, glad you liked it!

@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123 Жыл бұрын

Agree, most KZfaqr's contents about Nietzsche are revolved around existentialism or even depth psychology spiritualism such Jungian psychology. Meanwhile, Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche offer us insights about Nietzsche as a metaphysician and precursor of post-humanism.

@samuelenanni9247 Жыл бұрын

Good work with the Deleuze videos, might not look like much today but they are a useful resource for a lot of people

@inesayari. 2 жыл бұрын

This is the best youtube video that has ever explored one of Deleuze's complex concepts in a simple, yet very accurate way. Immensely grateful! Keep going ✊

@deleuzephilosophy 2 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much!

@joaoboechat7637 3 ай бұрын

This video is so good! Thank's a lot

@deleuzephilosophy 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for watching!

@d.guillermo2163 Жыл бұрын

One of the best KZfaqrs on Deleuze

@deleuzephilosophy Жыл бұрын

Thanks, I appreciate it

@jakemcnamee9417 Жыл бұрын

I've been thinking about cyclical and linear time. And asking how different is the reoccurrence. An eternal cycle with some change. Is the eternal some perfectly symmetrical thing, or is it odd, like the number 7. Does the wheel of fortune have 8 or 7 sides. Apparently the musical scale is broken down into 7(I'm ignorant of that), but something imperfect is always left looking for completion, and so it is continuous and eternal amd not stagnant

@EdT.-xt6yv 4 ай бұрын

Why contra/against HEGEL Dialectics?

@lucasmiguel4734 4 ай бұрын

Could you provide me some examples of Nietzsche describing the eternal return as a repetition of difference? I'm quite new to Deleuze, and coming from a nietzschean context, I've always interpreted the eternal return as a device for will to power more than anything. Something to understand how life-affirming you are. The whole metaphysics of forces Deleuze introduces is pretty new to me and I find it to be as confusing as it is fascinating

@deleuzephilosophy 4 ай бұрын

I think Deleuze provides a few decisive examples of this in "Nietzsche and philosophy" and in particular "Difference and repetition". Deleuze's understanding of Will to Power is developed mostly in "Nietzsche and Philosophy", which as a Nietzschean you will probably enjoy a lot (I certainly did, also coming from Nietzsche). Give "Nietzsche and philosophy" a read before you go into D&R would be my advice. Even though the concept of difference is developed the most in D&R, in particular ch.2 titled "Repetition for itself" (I do have a video on it in my series on that book if you want to have a look), you'll have a good basis if you read NaP first, especially as it is one of Deleuze's first and most accessible books.

@paulhaube Жыл бұрын

I think the Stoics already explained this as well as entropy. Or the concept of flux.

@deleuzephilosophy Жыл бұрын

It's true that Deleuze borrows some key elements to the Stoics. But there's a distinct novelty in Modern philosophy: it is a philosophy of power, whereas the Stoics were materialists.

@mdhossin7501 4 ай бұрын

I read many times Deleuze books however I am still incapable to understand it

@deleuzephilosophy 4 ай бұрын

I think everybody feels that way when they start reading Deleuze!

@mdhossin7501 4 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy thanks for your reply

@alvesfabi 2 ай бұрын

What drives selection of difference? it's clear that active / reactive / nihilism are reactions of each other - but what drives "selection"?

@alvesfabi 2 ай бұрын

selection implies choice / will / consciousness - please explain

@deleuzephilosophy 2 ай бұрын

@@alvesfabi I don't think it does necessarily. Deleuze speaks somewhere of the power of selection of molecules: an atom of carbon does not conflate an atom of oxygen with an atom of iron for example. This does not imply that carbon is sentient, but rather that sentience derives its own power of selection from basic elemental properties of matter (though this formulation is not rigorous, don't quote me on this). I'm sorry as I don't have the reference in mind, but I has to do with the theory of bodies developed by Deleuze in relation to Spinoza, so it may be in "Expressionism in philosophy".

@adamursenbach7992 3 ай бұрын

Hi! I find this channel interesting, but your analysis in this video seems incorrect and I am wondering if you have information I lack. In GS 341, the eternal recurrence is presented by the demon as follows: "This life, as you live it at present, and have lived it, you must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in thy life must come to you again, and all in the same series and sequence - and similarly this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of existence will ever be turned once more, and you with it, you speck of dust!" This seems to be quite explicitly recurrence of the same. Is there any passage you can point to which points in favour of difference? I'm concerned that you may be overwriting Nietzsche with Deleuze.

@deleuzephilosophy 3 ай бұрын

Hello! Yes this is a point that often comes up in discussions between Deleuzians and Nietzscheans (though Deleuze is a Nietzschean). The argument, in short, is that Nietzsche also calls the ER "his own concept", even though he certainly knew that it was an important concept in Antiquity. Why would he call it "his own" if it was the same as the Antique version? Secondly, it's not an ontological statement but a practical or ethical test, a heuristics of life: whatever you will, make it something you'd want to return forever. This is perhaps why it is a demon who's speaking. If you're interested in Deleuze's comment on it, it's part of the second aspect of eternal return, as an ethics and selection of thought (ch.2 §14 in "Nietzsche and Philosophy").

@Silvercardinal7 27 күн бұрын

Good summary on Deleuza and Neitzche, but I disagree that this is what modern philosophy is about. Modern philosophy is about many things and very little. It's an academic bureaucracy mostly, but there are still passionate thinkers who go against the grain; they are where modern philosophy is also. I think of the ones who continue to write about idealism, taking their original meaning seriously, as the ones who contributing real value these days.

@threeblindchickens 8 ай бұрын

I thought Nietzsche was pretty clear that every cycle is exactly the same. I like Deleuze's interpretation more than Nietzsche's but I don't see the evidence for Nietzsche having the same idea of eternal return that Deleuze does

@deleuzephilosophy 8 ай бұрын

That's a great question. There are lots of proofs that Nietzsche considered eternal return to be a repetition of difference, not of sameness. For one thing, he called it "his own" concept, while few better than him knew its origins and use by the Ancients as indeed a repetition of the same. Why would he have called it "his own", if it was just a reiteration of an old concept? For another thing, the two times Zarathustra feels sick, happen precisely when he considers eternal return as a repetition of the same. Finally, repetition of sameness is incompatible with a philosophy of power and affirmation, because affirmation is always affirmation of novelty (cf. for example Deleuze's comments on Whitehead), not an "identification" but a subjectivation. I'd encourage you to read or re-read "Nietzsche and philosophy", Deleuze explains these points (and others) in many details and much better than I could.

@threeblindchickens 8 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy I read Nietzsche and Philosophy almost 2 years ago so I definitely need a refresher. I think there are other explanations for why Nietzsche would call it his "own" concept. The one that makes the most sense to me is the same way he refers to Christ as being the only Christian. I also think it could be referring to the way in which it is a concept that possesses him the way Klossowski describes it in his book on Nietzsche. I think Deleuze's conclusion that the only eternal return that makes sense is one in which what is affirming returns and what is negating is destroyed is accurate but I just see it as him improving upon Nietzsche. From Nietzsche's description of stuff it really seems that he thinks of Eternal Return as being about sameness (here I am mostly going based off of Nietzsche's demon).

@deleuzephilosophy 8 ай бұрын

@@threeblindchickens If I recall, Nietzsche's reference is to Christ is to oppose spontaneity to institutions, which is why he opposes Christ to St Paul. So I'm not sure I see the comparison with Christ as the only Christian? Do you mean that Nietzsche was the only one who really understood eternal return? In a sense that's true, because his work, especially Zarathustra, remains unfinished (or was "finished" in rather strange circumstances, as if in a rush). My sense is that Deleuze's entire endeavour (along with others like Foucault) in the mid-60's was precisely to finish what Nietzsche had begun, so as to give eternal return its full meaning (they may even say so explicitly in the context of their edition of Nietzsche's full works). Of course, you're completely free to think otherwise, and if you can show that Nietzsche meant eternal return in the same sense as the pre-Socratics, that'd be quite interesting.

@threeblindchickens 8 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy I don't think he meant it in the same sense as pre-socratics since in TSZ he emphasizes the "moment" which is the part of the eternal return that the dwarf cannot grasp but that is something I am also still working on understanding so I can't really go too far with that. I think this line from the Joyous Science is the best evidence I have: "What if a demon crept after thee into thy loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to thee: "This life, as thou livest it at present, and hast lived it, thou must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it" the "nothing new in it" part is what makes me really skeptical of the view that Nietzsche had the same idea of eternal return as Deleuze did but once again I should state that I prefer Deleuze's view and I think it is more Nietzschean than Nietzsche's.

@deleuzephilosophy 8 ай бұрын

@@threeblindchickens Beautiful quote indeed. If you're interested in Deleuze's comment on it, it's part of the second aspect of eternal return, as an ethics and selection of thought (ch.2 §14 in NAP). It's not an ontological statement but a practical test of the will: whatever you choose as an object of the will, go big, don't go for the small compensations, the small pleasures... i.e., go for what you'd want to return forever.

@javierismaelmartinez2653 Жыл бұрын

I prefered the interpretation of Eternal Return as a challenge, a challenge to behave and choose the right things. The ultime form of affitmation. The more I read Nietzsch the more I understand that his ideas are attempt to understand and process his depression. Also, the idea of Power inclines more to the "capacity to do" than "to control".

@mcgee227 Жыл бұрын

All knowledge is Subjective. In the end there is no you and no freewill. You exist to survive and possibly reproduce. Like a virus. Causal Determinism is the rule. The End.

@fangednominals1785 Жыл бұрын

This Is What Materialists Actually Believe

@JosueLopez-kk9us Жыл бұрын

you write the most naive form of deterministic materialism as "the rule", as if you hadn't just said knowledge, including your naive virus-like approach to life, is subjective

@danielfranch2494 Жыл бұрын

You're stuck at a negative nihilism. This nihilistic realization can as easily be subverted as a power to affirm and to create yourself in your own image, with no objectivity imposed on you from a transcendent plane.

@s.lazarus 11 ай бұрын

"To survive and reproduce". Reads like a totalitarian slogan to keep you completely imbecilic.

@panosshady6168 10 ай бұрын

The irony of starting your paragraph with "all Knowledge is subjective" and then proceeding to make objective and absolute statements of Knowledge is too much.

@tsenotanev 6 ай бұрын

and all this is perfectly reproducible in hegel form and logic .. from where deleuze's obstinate and vain attempts to set himself apart from hegel, often by declaring hegel vain and nugatory... ...maybe he wanted, as an illustration to his philosophical invention, to become the return of hegel's difference...

@deleuzephilosophy 6 ай бұрын

I'd say that that Hegel presupposes identity (including in the form of negation), whereas Nietzsche and Deleuze try to explain it.

@tsenotanev 6 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy that's so true .. deleuze tries to explain a lot of things that don't need explaining... cause .. every kid in kindergarden spontaneously thinks in terms of difference ... every kindergarden kid knows "I'm different!" even before being able to articulate in what the difference consists .. this is not a problem neither for children nor for hegel, who can presuppose anything, and then has to face the presuppositions anyway..

@deleuzephilosophy 6 ай бұрын

@@tsenotanev Well, there's a lot of truth in that! Deleuze's point is that if you give yourself something, say identity and negation, you're placing as a cause something that is in fact an effect. It's an ontological confusion. Do you know "Difference and repetition"? There is some very good commentary about Hegel in there, have a look if you're interested.

@tsenotanev 6 ай бұрын

@@deleuzephilosophy oh oui.. i know difference and repetition... i've read large chunks of it.. but, no, the commentaries about hegel or others, that are found there are not good.. neither are they bad probably... they're pretty insipid to be anything maybe... like when deleuze writes that descartes was just repeating an old joke when he declared that common sense is the most equally distributed faculty among people... and that's one of the most meaningful affirmations found in that book.. here's one other « Hegel substitue le rapport abstrait du particulier avec le concept en général, au vrai rapport du singulier et de l'universel dans l'Idée » .. is it good or is it funny enough so later commentators can affirm he was doing the same thing as descartes was supposedly doing?...