Para construir seu próprio edifício filosófico em _Diferença e Repetição_, Deleuze dedicou-se no início de sua trajetória à pesquisa sistemática daquilo que chamou de “linhagem menor” em história da filosofia. Neste artigo buscamos explorar especificamente o embate deleuziano com o pensamento de Leibniz, situado no limiar dessa linhagem. Embora uma monografia mais extensiva tenha sido publicada por Deleuze apenas décadas mais tarde, seguimos a hipótese de que seus primeiros esboços críticos sobre o pensamento leibniziano aparecem já no seminário _O que (...) é fundar?_, endereçado ao problema do fundamento. À luz desse texto, abre-se uma perspectiva produtiva para a compreensão da relação entre as filosofias dos dois pensadores. (shrink)

First published in 2005. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Deleuze and jurisdiction : expressionism in jurisprudence -- Personal jurisdiction : the "method of dramatization" in the law of persons -- Minority and personal jurisdiction : judging sex in re alex -- Persons of animal law -- Deleuze, the law of things and subject-matter jurisdiction -- To put to flight : the right of possession -- The activity of judgment : law of actions and the procedural genre of jurisprudence -- Jurisdiction of control : judgment and procedural forms in Thomas (...) v Mowbray -- The locality of law : jurisdiction in Deleuze. (shrink)

Jacques Derrida’s and Gilles Deleuze’s philosophies of justice share many similar features. For both, justice involves an overturning of law by extralegal means, made possible by an “undecidability” in the judgment-making process. To distinguish their conceptions of justice, we examine their implicit modes of non-classical reasoning with regard to “otherness,” building from Routley and Routley and Daniel Smith, to conclude that Derrida’s thinking on justice is at least paracomplete (or analetheic) while Deleuze’s is just paraconsistent (or dialetheic).

_Hegel and Deleuze_ cannily examines the various resonances and dissonances between these two major philosophers. The collection represents the best in contemporary international scholarship on G. W. F. Hegel and Gilles Deleuze, and the contributing authors inhabit the as-yet uncharted space between the two thinkers, collectively addressing most of the major tensions and resonances between their ideas and laying a solid ground for future scholarship. The essays are organized thematically into two groups: those that maintain a firm but nuanced disjunction (...) or opposition between Hegel and Deleuze, and those that chart possible connections, syntheses, or both. As is clear from this range of texts, the challenges involved in grasping, appraising, appropriating, and developing the systems of Deleuze and Hegel are varied and immense. While neither Hegel nor Deleuze gets the last word, the contributors ably demonstrate that partisans of either can no longer ignore the voice of the other. (shrink)

Na filosofia de Gilles Deleuze, há uma ontologia, que é apresentada por meio da tese da univocidade do ser. Na história da filosofia ocidental, Deleuze destaca três momentos da univocidade do ser: com Duns Scot, o ser é pensado como unívoco ; com Espinosa, o ser é afirmado como unívoco ; com Nietzsche, o ser é realizado como unívoco. Em todo caso, a univocidade é uma alternativa à analogia, e a principal discordância entre essas duas teses é que a analogia (...) insere uma hierarquia e uma negatividade no cerne do ser, ao passo que a univocidade põe o ser como igual e isento de negatividade.Neste artigo, não se trata de apresentar a teoria da univocidade do ser em Deleuze, mas de explorar a leitura que ele faz da univocidade do ser em Espinosa, e sobretudo a variação a ela imposta entre o primeiro e o segundo livros dedicados ao filósofo holandês, Espinosa e o problema da expressão e Espinosa: filosofia prática. Constata-se que, no primeiro estudo, Espinosa é tido principalmente como herdeiro de Duns Scot, e no segundo, ademais, como aliado de Nietzsche. Tem-se como hipótese que Espinosa é arrastado, nesse ínterim, do segundo para o terceiro momento da univocidade do ser, na vassoura de bruxa de Deleuze. A consequência é que a imanência e a afirmação se conciliam com a diferença. A afirmação do ser passa a ser afirmação da própria diferença. Ou, dito de outro modo, o ser deixa de serapenas afirmado para ser realizado como diferença. Chega-se, assim, a uma ontologia construtivista, que tem a ética como sua condição prática. (shrink)

Deleuze reworks Marxist concepts in order to identify those that represent discontinuity and produce a theory of revolution. Marx is important because, along with Spinoza and Nietzsche, he is a part of a project to leave behind concepts such as transcendence and univocity which underlie the totalitarianism of traditional philosophy. Deleuze is looking for concepts that might form a different theory, within which the structures of production are not organised vertically by the domination of universal concepts, such as ‘being’ or (...) ‘essence’, but flow horizontally through a multiplicity of relations of conceptual singularity. The production of a different series of concepts is a strategic and tactical operation that, in confronting prior notions of transcendental philosophy, turns philosophy itself into a battlefield. Marx provides the general methodology for this tactical approach through two fundamental categories: production and conflict. Deleuze practises Marx's theoretical method and by using Marx's own central concepts challenges traditional Marxism, to arrive at a totally different and revolutionary philosophical structure based on concepts such as those of force, variation, difference, singularity, production and the war machine. (shrink)

much of the mainstream of ecological/ecocritical approaches." --Book Jacket.

The essays in this collection, written by prominent scholars, offer a new approach to their work.

Formation of the concept of embodiment in the contemporary philosophy and neuroscience, and elaborating and developing of it in recent century, open a lot of approaches up in different fields; one of them is educational sciences. As the theory is revolutionary, its employment in other fields would be revolutionary necessarily. Yet theories related to embodiment and knowledge take many different forms and have many different theorists and schools. In this paper, having Gilles Deleuze’s doctrines in mind, especially the concept of (...) rhizome, we try to elicit his doctrines about embodiment. Thus, doctrines of one of important contemporary philosophers would be related to one of most important contemporary theories. Then, we will apply the results to education. This paper, in fact, has two main parts: first, Deleuze and embodiment, and second, applying it to education. In the latter, a few elements of education, i.e., the role of student, the class and school, would be seen in the light of what is come from the former. (shrink)

Gilles Deleuze and Jacques Derrida have each made significant contributions to philosophies of difference and yet few have tackled the difficult task of studying the connection between the two. In their forthcoming book, Between Deleuze and Derrida, editors Paul Patton and John Protevi do exactly this. What emerges is a fascinating study of the similarities and differences between the two philosophers and in particular the ethical and political threads underlying their connection.

on 'Gilles Deleuze, Philosopher of Cinema', special issue of the journal Iris.

_Apres Deleuze: Philosophie et esthetique du cinema_ Edited by Dominique Chateau and Jacinto Lageira Paris: Dis Voir, 1996 ISBN: 2-912-308-003 152 pp.

(2013). BOBBY BETWEEN DELEUZE AND LEVINAS, OR ETHICS BECOMING-ANIMAL. Angelaki: Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 105-126.

Barbara M. Kennedy _Deleuze and Cinema: The Aesthetics of Sensation_ Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-7486-1134-7 224 pp.

Nietzsche : by way of an introduction -- Winnicott : the psychoanalytic family -- Anti-Oedipus : reading, listening, analysing -- Process notes : productions and syntheses -- Sophocles : under the sign of nemesis -- Cixous : the unseen seen -- Dôsirand : the transitional subject.

La relation de Deleuze à Gueroult est paradoxale. Car sur un plan strictement philosophique, Gueroult professait un rationalisme qui n’avait pas grand-chose à envier à celui d’Alquié ou d’Hyppolite que Deleuze ne manquera pas de critiquer sévèrement. Simplement, non seulement Deleuze n’a pas critiqué les positions de Gueroult, mais il les a même constamment reprises à son compte. Comment l’expliquer? La raison nous semble la suivante : c’est que Gueroult n’a cessé d’accompagner et de porter l’exigence d’un « ordre synthétique (...) » ou d’un « dynamisme génétique » en philosophie ; or, avant d’être une méthode pour l’historien de la philosophie, cette exigence exprime une certaine conception de la philosophie, dont découlent et la pratique et la philosophie de l’histoire de la philosophie ; et si Deleuze a repris à son compte les positions de Gueroult, c’est qu’il n’a cessé d’alimenter son propre travail philosophique à l’exigence portée par Gueroult, et à la conception de la philosophie qu’elle exprimait. Dans l’œuvre de Deleuze, cette exigence a même rendu possible un geste décisif, au-delà de l’ambition de Gueroult : la critique du rationalisme au nom d’un empirisme transcendantal. Avec Gueroult, au-delà de Gueroult. Le disciple s’est fait créateur. C’est peut-être en ce sens qu’il faut entendre la remarque d’Olivier Revault d’Allonnes : « J’ai toujours trouvé que Gilles [Deleuze] a été un grand élève de Gueroult ». (shrink)