Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:42:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Bryant <levi_bryant-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: dialectics: 'Can Philosophers read Deleuze?' 


Phil-

Thanks for the reply.  The reason I was interested is because I think
Deleuze develops a strong critique of good and common sense in
_Difference and Repetition_, and reconceptualizes the meaning of these
terms.  As I understand it, "common sense", for Deleuze, refers to
identity in the subject and the object, while "good sense" refers to a
linear ordering of time based on cause and effect.  Given this, I
think Deleuze is under the burden of providing a generative or
developmental account of how good and common sense develop from the
virtual to the actual; and I think he provides such an account in the
fifth chapter of D&R with his structure-Other, and again in an essay
called "Tournier and a World Without Others".  It bears noting that
Deleuze is remarkably Lacanian at these moments.  At any rate,
supposing good and common sense mean these things in Deleuze's
philosophy, what would it mean to call Hegel a thinker of common
sense, and how might that change our perspective on the dialectic?  I
take it that we'd have to answer this question in terms of the
structure-Other and see a structuration of others taking place in
Hegel's thought.

Regards,

Paul




---michelle phil lewis-king <king.lewis-AT-easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> When I mentioned  the ' common sense' of a philosophical tradition
Nietzsche
> is isolated from I wasn't thinking of  work by Deleuze against
common sense.
> One good quote is this though :
> 
> "The form of recognition has never sanctioned anything but the
recognisable
> and the recognised; form will never inspire anything but conformities.
> Morever, while philosophy refers to a common sense as its implicit
> presupposition, what need has common sense of philosophy? Common
sense shows
> every day - unfortunately- that it is capable of producing
philosophy in its
> own way." D+R pp134
> 
> Two sorts of normalisation I guess.
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> 
> 

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