Gilles Deleuze, Simone Weil and the Stoic Apprenticeship: Education as a Violent Training

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 101-121
Author(s):  
Simone Kotva
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-138
Author(s):  
Alain Beaulieu ◽  
Douglas Ord

There was a wide range of in memoriam and homages published in the years following Deleuze's suicide. However, none of them succeeded in grasping ‘the evential’ aspect of his death. This paper identifies a series of errors in the literature on Deleuze's death. It also suggests a way to overcome them by considering a singular encounter between Alice's passage through the looking glass and Deleuze's defenestration, which both took place on 4 November. We will show how a new conception of death as event comes out of this unseen connection.


Author(s):  
Vanessa Lemm

Readers of Giorgio Agamben would agree that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) is not one of his primary interlocutors. As such, Agamben’s engagement with Nietzsche is different from the French reception of Nietzsche’s philosophy in Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Georges Bataille, as well as in his contemporary Italian colleague Roberto Esposito, for whom Nietzsche’s philosophy is a key point of reference in their thinking of politics beyond sovereignty. Agamben’s stance towards the thought of Nietzsche may seem ambiguous to some readers, in particular with regard to his shifting position on Nietzsche’s much-debated vision of the eternal recurrence of the same.


Author(s):  
Laura Hengehold

Most studies of Simone de Beauvoir situate her with respect to Hegel and the tradition of 20th-century phenomenology begun by Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. This book analyzes The Second Sex in light of the concepts of becoming, problematization, and the Other found in Gilles Deleuze. Reading Beauvoir through a Deleuzian lens allows more emphasis to be placed on Beauvoir's early interest in Bergson and Leibniz, and on the individuation of consciousness, a puzzle of continuing interest to both phenomenologists and Deleuzians. By engaging with the philosophical issues in her novels and student diaries, this book rethinks Beauvoir’s focus on recognition in The Second Sex in terms of women’s struggle to individuate themselves despite sexist forms of representation. It shows how specific forms of women’s “lived experience” can be understood as the result of habits conforming to and resisting this sexist “sense.” Later feminists put forward important criticisms regarding Beauvoir’s claims not to be a philosopher, as well as the value of sexual difference and the supposedly Eurocentric universalism of her thought. Deleuzians, on the other hand, might well object to her ideas about recognition. This book attempts to address those criticisms, while challenging the historicist assumptions behind many efforts to establish Beauvoir’s significance as a philosopher and feminist thinker. As a result, readers can establish a productive relationship between Beauvoir’s “problems” and those of women around the world who read her work under very different circumstances.


Author(s):  
Beatrice Marovich

Few of Giorgio Agamben’s works are as mysterious as his unpublished dissertation, reportedly on the political thought of the French philosopher Simone Weil. If Weil was an early subject of Agamben’s intellectual curiosity, it would appear – judging from his published works – that her influence upon him has been neither central nor lasting.1 Leland de la Durantaye argues that Weil’s work has left a mark on Agamben’s philosophy of potentiality, largely in his discussion of the concept of decreation; but de la Durantaye does not make much of Weil’s influence here, determining that her theory of decreation is ‘essentially dialectical’ and still too bound up with creation theology. 2 Alessia Ricciardi, however, argues that de la Durantaye’s dismissal of Weil’s influence is hasty.3 Ricciardi analyses deeper resonances between Weil’s and Agamben’s philosophies, ultimately claiming that Agamben ‘seems to extend many of the implications and claims of Weil’s idea of force’,4 arguably spreading Weil’s influence into Agamben’s reflections on sovereign power and bare life.


Author(s):  
Charles J. Stivale

In L’Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, a 1988-9 video interview, Deleuze discusses with Claire Parnet the crucial link between creativity, the very possibility of thinking, and animality, through the practice of “être aux aguets” (being on the lookout) for rencontres. This chapter considers how this constitutes the essential practice of the character of Hannibal Lecter, created by Thomas Harris in several novels (Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Hannibal Rising) and, more recently, portrayed in the commercial television series “Hannibal” by Mads Mikkelsen. Hannibal is portrayed as a highly refined individual who not only can sense physically the presence of any threat through extraordinary olfactory powers, but can also categorize, store and then recall any such scents/essences through a Memory Museum. In the television series, Hannibal as highly skilled culinary artist combines the results of his being “on the lookout” with an efficient and often gruesome taste for fine dining, with strategically selected guests usually uninformed about the courses on the menu. The chapter thus considers the concepts of the animal, “être aux aguets” and “refrains” in the light of fictional production, both in print and televisual form, in order to open the Deleuzian concepts to an alternate, creative reading.


Paragraph ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Williams

This article charts differences between Gilles Deleuze's and Gaston Bachelard's philosophies of science in order to reflect on different readings of the role of science in Deleuze's philosophy, in particular in relation to Manuel DeLanda's interpretation of Deleuze's work. The questions considered are: Why do Gilles Deleuze and Gaston Bachelard develop radically different philosophical dialectics in relation to science? What is the significance of this difference for current approaches to Deleuze and science, most notably as developed by Manuel DeLanda? It is argued that, despite its great explanatory power, DeLanda's association of Deleuze with a particular set of contemporary scientific theories does not allow for the ontological openness and for the metaphysical sources of Deleuze's work. The argument turns on whether terms such as ‘intensity’ can be given predominantly scientific definitions or whether metaphysical definitions are more consistent with a sceptical relation of philosophy to contemporary science.


1984 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Dana Polan
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document