Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:05:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: dialectics: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' 


Phil-

Could you clarify a little what you think Deleuze's work against
common sense consists in?  I'm sure the critique could be levelled
masterfully against the philosophical tradition of common sense, but I
have a feeling that he means something very different by this term.

Paul



---michelle phil lewis-king <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free -AT-yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com