Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 00:19 EST From: 044724240-AT-ucis.vill.edu Subject: RE: sub-substance Greg, one correction. Your are certianly right to denote relations as external to terms, in both Hume and Deleuze, but I distinctly remember that passions in Hume's sense of the term are very much impressions of reflection, and depend on complex relationalities between ideas/impressions which preceed them (of course, Hume's use of the term Idea is also much much more equivocal than the use you attribute to D, who, according to you, would distinguish it from impression. This distinction lives in Hume, but not terminologically...one of the reasons that H is truly maddening to write about). The reason I bring this up is that passions and impressions of sensation are two distinct modes of affectivity, the one having to do with the appearance of singular "terms"; the second having to do with associations between terms--and it is only on this second level, the level on which the subject appears, do we get passions, which are in fact the glue that holds the subject together. It is precisely Hume's point that reason cannot perform that function, since its only power is that of analysis/dissolution. For confirmation that impressions of reflections include the passions, see selby-bigge's index under 'passions' and impressions of reflexion' which will lead you to the Hume texts themselves. I wouldn't pick this nit, except that I think it's an important one, and that if it doesn't get picked, Deleuze gets to be guilty of Kantianizing Hume...which is, by the way, exactly what Partricia De Mantalaere accuses him of doing in her article Gilles Deleuze: interprete de Hume. Ed Kazarian, Villanova University (where's millersville in relation to Philly, close?) ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005