From: "michelle phil lewis-king" <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk>
Subject: RE: dialectics: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' 
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:44:47 -0000


Nathan wrote:
 I know some not very literate
> people who have
> no problem understanding philosophy.  Most philosophers (i.e., Aristotle,
> Epicurus, the Stoics) have spent a great deal of time teaching
> those who can
> only be described as "non-philosophers" or "professional-types".

I don't think  Deleuze meant 'non-philosophers' or 'professional types'. Or
teaching philosophy to 'illiterate people'.Rather that people from 'outside'
philosophy could connect their own autonomous dialetics with the problems he
produced.

 He did mention surfers once. Wasn't 'Anti Oedipus'a bestseller in France? I
know ' What is Philosophy? is widely read. I don't personally think the
B.W.O is a concept that can be normalised as philosophy.


>  But in any event, commonality doesn't
> implicitly make
> Nietzsche a grand philosopher and I don't see why you would think it did.

It would link him to the ' common sense' of a philosophical tradition he is
isolated from.

> Why the need to cut the two off completely, as though any contamination of
> Nietzsche by Hegel would destroy the former's thought?

It would destroy his idiosyncracy, his work against 'common sense'.

  That's the sort of
> transgressiveness Derrida attacks (as Michael pointed out) and which you
> seemed to imply in your last post (when I said this was a pitiful
> conception
> of 'beyond').

You assumed.

>
> > Nietszche refuses the needs of reciprocity ( between slave and master,
> > problem and solution etc ) that define Hegel's dialectic.
> >
> 	So?  This is still a Nietzschean reversal which takes place within
> an Hegelian problematic.

A clear demonstration of why he must stay ignorant of it. Philosophers now
don't have that possibility. As you say everything philosophical  must take
place within a Hegelian problematic..
>
and as Derrida points out about the 'we' of the phenomenology: "It does not
see the nonbasis of play upon which (the) history of meaning is launched. To
this extent, philosophy, Hegelian speculation, absolute knowledge and
everything that they govern, and will govern endlessly in their closure,
remain determinations of natural, servile and vulgar consciousness."

Regards to you and Micheal.
Phil.