No description available.

Mgr. Martin Charvát Deleuze's asignifying semiotics Disertační práce Abstract: In the thesis I am trying to prove that Gilles Deleuze's philosophy must be considered in respect of his analysis of sign. Deleuze's philosophy is thus inseparable from his semiotics which I would like to show on the figure of philosophy as symptomatology. If we understand sign as a symptom we are also standing on the semiotic level. Signs are expressions of ways of life, of our understanding of the world around us. The problem of Deleuze's semiotics (which is connected with the problem of expression) leads us to the problem of genesis. In this respect the genesis is united with the concept of pure difference. Key words: Deleuze, Gilles - signs - semiotics - genesis - difference

El objeto de la presente investigación es indagar sobre el concepto de signo en la filosofía de Gilles Deleuze desde la perspectiva de una reflexión sobre el acontecimiento y la expresión. Asumiendo las distintas perspectivas en la obra del filósofo, nos ocupamos no solo de su unificación, sino de la singularidad del concepto de signo en tanto franquea su tratamiento en la tradición filosófica y, sobre todo, en las ciencias sociales. Para ello, y desde la perspectiva del acontecimiento y la expresión introducimos un aspecto genético y ontológico novedoso sobre el concepto de signo así como la incitación a una disquisición sobre sus relaciones en lo político-social. Estas dos perspectivas permiten revelar al concepto de signo deleuziano con una doble orientación: por un lado vital, abierta a la expresión y acontecimiento, y, por el otro, despótica, cuando la vitalidad se opaca en el fenómeno.

Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales de l’Université Laval comme exigence partielle du programme de doctorat en philosophie offert à l'Université de Sherbrooke en vertu d'un protocole d'entente avec l'Université Laval pour l’obtention du grade de Philosophiæ Doctor (Ph. D.) / Pour Gilles Deleuze, la philosophie consiste à créer des concepts. Prenant le contrepied de cette définition, la plupart de ses commentateurs se contentent soit de répéter les propos du philosophe en les généralisant et en leur donnant de ce fait une portée universelle, soit d'appliquer les concepts qu'il a inventés à n'importe quel phénomène qui leur tombe sous la main, ce qui condamne irrémédiablement la philosophie à n'être qu'une entreprise abstraite alors que Deleuze la voulait on ne peut plus concrète. La source de ce contresens est bien simple : ils ne tiennent pas compte de la place primordiale qu'occupe l'empirisme dans son oeuvre. Ainsi, en ne portant pas une attention toute particulière à cette attitude philosophique qui privilégie l'expérience, ils minimisent le rôle de celle-ci dans sa pratique et, conséquemment, ils détachent les créations de concepts des situations d'où elles tirent leur nécessité. Contrairement à l'esprit qui anime les principales études sur la philosophie deleuzienne, cette thèse a donc pour objectif de démontrer que c’est seulement en prenant en compte les expériences singulières qui les ont suscitées que les concepts forgés par ce penseur gardent un sens, tout comme c'est uniquement dans ce cadre que se comprennent les critiques qu'il a formulées à l'égard de différentes prises de position philosophiques. Au terme de ce parcours, ces dernières apparaîtront alors toujours partielles et redevables d'une expérience de pensée qui a forcé cette remise en question de telle sorte que ce qui était au départ incompréhensible d'après une certaine perspective devient soudainement accessible quand un nouveau concept est créé. Pour parvenir à cette fin, cette thèse a été divisée en deux parties. La première porte sur la conception deleuzienne de l’expérience. Par une étude de deux tentatives de renouvellement de l'empirisme au XXe siècle, soit le bergsonisme et la phénoménologie, la position deleuzienne sur cette question se révèle comme un prolongement de la voie ouverte par Bergson en opposition à celle dégagée par Husserl et, à sa suite, Sartre. Séparé des préoccupations ontologiques bergsoniennes, l'empirisme transcendantal deleuzien apparaît alors comme une recherche de la potentielle singularité d’un phénomène au détriment de la quête d’une forme commune à toute expérience. La seconde partie quant à elle se concentre sur quatre expériences de pensée et montre à chaque fois le lien indissoluble qui unit la création de concept et la remise en question qui lui est concomitante. Que ce soit avec la critique d’une philosophie de la représentation qui découle du concept de sensation forgé au contact des oeuvres du peintre Francis Bacon, que ce soit avec la double remise en cause de la phénoménologie comme effet de la création des concepts d’image-affection et d’image-temps à partir de Persona d'Ingmar Bergman et Hiroshima mon amour d'Alain Resnais, que ce soit encore avec la critique des postulats de linguistique qui dérive du concept de littérature mineure inventé pour rendre compte du Procès de Kafka, dans tous ces cas, ce qui est mis en lumière, c’est le rôle essentiel de l’expérience dans la pratique philosophique de Gilles Deleuze.

Nossa pesquisa objetiva apurar interseções, ressonâncias e diferenças entre aspectos do pensamento de Wilhelm Reich e dos fundadores da esquizoanálise, Gilles Deleuze e Félix Guattari. Seguimos, assim, a inclinação de estudiosos brasileiros da obra de Reich à interlocução com outros autores e ao enlace entre formulações reichianas e esquizoanalíticas presente em outros artigos, dissertações e teses. Nosso interesse específico recai sobre a questão do pensamento crítico dos autores escolhidos tema que pode trazer contribuições para a investigação acadêmica, visto que vislumbramos um terreno a ser habitado e, até onde temos conhecimento, ainda inexplorado. Em termos metodológicos, realizamos um levantamento de publicações que mencionam proposições de Reich, Deleuze e Guattari. Além de constatar que ultrapassam as fronteiras nacionais, verificamos que se trata de diálogo instaurado há mais de trinta anos e retomado depois de 1994. O material totaliza 24 textos, nos quais observamos dois grupos com características distintas. No primeiro deles, verifica-se uma breve referência a Reich e à esquizoanálise, sem uma acurada comunicação entre suas idéias; e, no outro conjunto, ao contrário, busca-se o debate conceitual. Localizamos nossa dissertação junto ao segundo grupo em razão de constituir-se como um trabalho teórico, que se concentra na discussão de idéias de Reich, Deleuze e Guattari e de pesquisadores de seus enfoques. Em conclusão, no que diz respeito à visão crítica, observamos o explícito combate cultural de Reich e destacamos igualmente a proposta da esquizoanálise em favor do inconformismo e da produção de transformação social. Todavia, se notamos essa peculiar convergência, o estudo de Deleuze acerca da diferença vem influenciar nossa dissertação no sentido de deixar de lado a exaltação das semelhanças, uma vez que o reconhecimento das distinções estabelece a possibilidade de vibração intensiva. Pretendemos, então, assinalar divergências inegáveis entre a abordagem reichiana e a de Deleuze e Guattari, e a militar por múltiplas interferências. Assim, ao longo da depuração dos tópicos deste trabalho, procuramos dar lugar à formação inusitada de heterocomposições entre formulações de Reich e de Deleuze e Guattari. Mostramos como tal exercício de comunicação estabelece um rico campo de correspondências e afetações e, percebendo o potencial dessa interlocução, sugerimos temas para novos estudos. / This research aims at examining intersections, resonances and differences among certain aspects of the thought of Wilhelm Reich and that of the founders of schizoanalysis, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. We have thus followed a trend in Brazilian researchs of establishing a dialogue between Reichs work and that of other authors, as well as between Reichian and schizoanalytic formulations present in other articles, dissertations and theses. Our focus dwells specifically upon the critical reasoning of the chosen authors a theme that may bring in contributions to academic investigations, since a whole field can be explored in that subject, and, as far as we can tell, it has not been explored yet. In methodological terms, we have listed up publications that mention the propositions of Reich, Deleuze and Guattari. Besides noticing that they go beyond national boundaries, we have also seen that this dialogue started more than 30 years ago, and was taken up after 1994. This material sums up to 24 texts, in which we can note two groups with distinct characteristics. In the first one, a short reference to Reich and to schizoanalysis is made, without a focused communication between them; in the second group of texts, on the contrary, a conceptual debate is sought for. We place this dissertation among the second group, since it constitutes a theoretical work, focusing on the discussion of ideas brought up by Reich, Deleuze and Guattari and also by researchers of their work. Summing up, insofar as a critical approach is concerned, we have observed the explicit cultural battle of Reich, equally highlighting the proposal of schizoanalysis in favor of dissent and the production of social transformation. However, if, on the one hand, we see this peculiar convergence, on the other hand, the study of Deleuze on difference comes as an influence in our dissertation in the sense of putting aside the craving for similarities, since recognizing distinctions establishes the possibility of intensive vibration. We aim, then, at pointing out undeniable divergences between the Reichian approach and that of Deleuze and Guattari, and to set forth multiple interferences. Thus, throughout the depuration of the topics in our work, we intend to give a place for the unusual formation of heterocompositions among the formulations of Reich and of Deleuze and Guattari. We show how such an exercise of communication establishes a rich field of correspondences and affectations, and, realizing the potential of this dialogue, we suggest themes for upcoming further studies.

Nossa pesquisa objetiva apurar interseções, ressonâncias e diferenças entre aspectos do pensamento de Wilhelm Reich e dos fundadores da esquizoanálise, Gilles Deleuze e Félix Guattari. Seguimos, assim, a inclinação de estudiosos brasileiros da obra de Reich à interlocução com outros autores e ao enlace entre formulações reichianas e esquizoanalíticas presente em outros artigos, dissertações e teses. Nosso interesse específico recai sobre a questão do pensamento crítico dos autores escolhidos tema que pode trazer contribuições para a investigação acadêmica, visto que vislumbramos um terreno a ser habitado e, até onde temos conhecimento, ainda inexplorado. Em termos metodológicos, realizamos um levantamento de publicações que mencionam proposições de Reich, Deleuze e Guattari. Além de constatar que ultrapassam as fronteiras nacionais, verificamos que se trata de diálogo instaurado há mais de trinta anos e retomado depois de 1994. O material totaliza 24 textos, nos quais observamos dois grupos com características distintas. No primeiro deles, verifica-se uma breve referência a Reich e à esquizoanálise, sem uma acurada comunicação entre suas idéias; e, no outro conjunto, ao contrário, busca-se o debate conceitual. Localizamos nossa dissertação junto ao segundo grupo em razão de constituir-se como um trabalho teórico, que se concentra na discussão de idéias de Reich, Deleuze e Guattari e de pesquisadores de seus enfoques. Em conclusão, no que diz respeito à visão crítica, observamos o explícito combate cultural de Reich e destacamos igualmente a proposta da esquizoanálise em favor do inconformismo e da produção de transformação social. Todavia, se notamos essa peculiar convergência, o estudo de Deleuze acerca da diferença vem influenciar nossa dissertação no sentido de deixar de lado a exaltação das semelhanças, uma vez que o reconhecimento das distinções estabelece a possibilidade de vibração intensiva. Pretendemos, então, assinalar divergências inegáveis entre a abordagem reichiana e a de Deleuze e Guattari, e a militar por múltiplas interferências. Assim, ao longo da depuração dos tópicos deste trabalho, procuramos dar lugar à formação inusitada de heterocomposições entre formulações de Reich e de Deleuze e Guattari. Mostramos como tal exercício de comunicação estabelece um rico campo de correspondências e afetações e, percebendo o potencial dessa interlocução, sugerimos temas para novos estudos. / This research aims at examining intersections, resonances and differences among certain aspects of the thought of Wilhelm Reich and that of the founders of schizoanalysis, Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. We have thus followed a trend in Brazilian researchs of establishing a dialogue between Reichs work and that of other authors, as well as between Reichian and schizoanalytic formulations present in other articles, dissertations and theses. Our focus dwells specifically upon the critical reasoning of the chosen authors a theme that may bring in contributions to academic investigations, since a whole field can be explored in that subject, and, as far as we can tell, it has not been explored yet. In methodological terms, we have listed up publications that mention the propositions of Reich, Deleuze and Guattari. Besides noticing that they go beyond national boundaries, we have also seen that this dialogue started more than 30 years ago, and was taken up after 1994. This material sums up to 24 texts, in which we can note two groups with distinct characteristics. In the first one, a short reference to Reich and to schizoanalysis is made, without a focused communication between them; in the second group of texts, on the contrary, a conceptual debate is sought for. We place this dissertation among the second group, since it constitutes a theoretical work, focusing on the discussion of ideas brought up by Reich, Deleuze and Guattari and also by researchers of their work. Summing up, insofar as a critical approach is concerned, we have observed the explicit cultural battle of Reich, equally highlighting the proposal of schizoanalysis in favor of dissent and the production of social transformation. However, if, on the one hand, we see this peculiar convergence, on the other hand, the study of Deleuze on difference comes as an influence in our dissertation in the sense of putting aside the craving for similarities, since recognizing distinctions establishes the possibility of intensive vibration. We aim, then, at pointing out undeniable divergences between the Reichian approach and that of Deleuze and Guattari, and to set forth multiple interferences. Thus, throughout the depuration of the topics in our work, we intend to give a place for the unusual formation of heterocompositions among the formulations of Reich and of Deleuze and Guattari. We show how such an exercise of communication establishes a rich field of correspondences and affectations, and, realizing the potential of this dialogue, we suggest themes for upcoming further studies.

Anachronistische Lektüren ziehen das Verstehen aus der Gegenwart in die Vergangenheit zurück und orientieren es neu: Was uns in Anbetracht des Interpretierten gewaltsam erscheint, ist es zugleich für die Interpretation, weil sich ihr Horizont nachhaltig verändert. Es ist das Paradox philosophiehistorischer Arbeit, daß die Gegenwart der Philosophie neu definiert wird, sobald man ihre Vergangenheit uminterpretiert. Es gibt keinen Zwang, beispielsweise Leibniz auszulegen, weder für Heidegger, noch für Deleuze oder sonst einen Philosophen. Er ist bereits interpretiert, in Monographien, Aufsätzen und Philosophiegeschichten. Eine neue und starke Interpretation verändert in jedem Fall diese Voraussetzungen und zugleich damit die Modelle der Geschichte der Philosophie. Es ist ein anderer Anachronismus, der Heideggers Leibniz-Evokationen auszeichnet, als der Rückgang Deleuzes auf den 'Denker des Barock'. Es ist auch ein jeweils anderes Modell der philosophischen Zeit und der Bestimmung des Verhältnisses von Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der Philosophie.

Eine heftig geführte und lang dauernde philosophische Debatte wurde im 20. Jahrhundert um die Aufklärung geführt, um das wissenschaftliche Denken, um die Rationalität überhaupt. Das 20. Jahrhundert war das Jahrhundert der 'Kritik der wissenschaftlichen Vernunft', sowohl im Sinne einer Prüfung methodischer Rationalität wie auch als Absetzbewegung davon. In der zweiten Hälfte des Jahrhunderts hat dieser Streit oft die Form eines deutsch-französischen Zwists angenommen, mit Anklägern und Verteidigern beiderseits des Rheins. Descartes und die Philosophie der Subjektivität bildete oft den Einsatz in diesem Streit, Leibniz spielte dagegen kaum eine Rolle, obwohl er nicht minder als Vertreter des klassischen Rationalismus galt. Bemerkenswert ist auf französischer Seite zuletzt ein durchaus emphatisches Bekenntnis zum Leibnizianismus von Gilles Deleuze, der 1988 Leibniz als barocken Denker der Falte apostrophierte. Leibniz als postmoderner oder poststrukturalistischer Philosoph? Wo steht Leibniz im 20. Jahrhundert und in der Debatte um Rationalität? Diesen Fragen soll der folgende Text nachgehen. In diesem Zusammenhang ist mitzudenken, daß Martin Heidegger in langjähriger Auseinandersetzung mit Leibniz dessen Rationalismus ähnlich emphatisch wie Deleuze rezipierte, allerdings mit negativem Vorzeichen und als Teil seiner geschichtsphilosophischen Abwertung traditioneller Metaphysik. Heidegger überführt die klassische Vernunft mittels einer Kritik an Leibnizens 'Satz vom Grund' der philosophischen Unzulänglichkeit. So ist offenbar im Rationalismusproblem des 20. Jahrhunderts eine Leibniz-Rezeption versteckt, deren Streitwert noch gehoben werden muß.

It’s Always Better With A Good DM is about our relationship with objects and maps as a vector for fantasy. Beginning from the premise that humans understand the world via narrative, I am concerned with the loss of imagination in adulthood in lieu of ideology, which is no more real than stories of future and fantastic places.

by Wai-Shun Sodium Hung. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1991. / Bibliography: leaves 74-75. / Introduction --- p.1 / Notes --- p.19 / Chapter Part I: --- Nietzsche and Philosophy ´ؤNietzsche's Critical Philosophy --- p.22 / Chapter 1. --- Introduction --- p.22 / Chapter 2. --- Affirmation and Negation --- p.25 / Chapter 3. --- Active and Reactive --- p.27 / Chapter 4. --- The Eternal Return --- p.31 / Chapter 5. --- "Eternal Return: The ""Scientific Proof"" of the Doctrine" --- p.34 / Chapter 6. --- The Doctrine of Return as Selective Thought --- p.37 / Chapter 7. --- Recapitulation --- p.43 / Notes --- p.47 / Chapter Part II： --- Thinking After Nietzsche --Afterthoughts --- p.50 / Chapter 1. --- "Masters and Slaves, Again" --- p.50 / Chapter 2. --- "Dualisms and ""Dualisms""" --- p.56 / Chapter 3. --- Nomad Thought --- p.59 / Chapter 4. --- To Conclude --- p.65 / Notes --- p.70 / List of Abbreviations --- p.73 / Bibliography --- p.74