Talk:Gilles Deleuze/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

On Immanence

Immanence was a key word for Deleuze, returning time and again throughout his texts. The term refers to what he called his empiricist philosophy based on the empirical real without recourse to the transcendental. Deleuze insists that philosophy, rather than setting up transcendentals, must approach the immanent conditions of that which it is trying to think. Thought must create movement and consequences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.149.15 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous objections

When I read the article on Deleuze, I get the impression that Deleuze speaks of virtuality as "a realm of ideas". I consider this to be a grave misunderstanding of Deleuze's philosophy, an understanding that presupposes a dualistic ontology. However, Deleuze seeks to overcome dualist and dialectic philosophies and to reconnect material and ideal aspects in a philosophy that is more a monism than a dualism. Therefore, virtuality would be better referred to as a suspension of time and space intertwining the multitude of reality, rather than something like "a realm of ideas" (which would not overturn Plato).

The statement that Deleuze commits suicide after being diagnosed with terminal cancer is misleading. He suffered from the illness for quite a while before the decision to kill himself. The statement as it is right now makes him come across as much more fatalistic than he actually was. People who recounted the last years of his life all were in agreement that he "was dying" for at least a few years before that event.

It would seem that Deleuze's celebration of virtuality overturns a lot of the nihilism of authors like Baudrillard, who paint a rather menacing picture of modernity. More contemporary and even popular authors such as Douglas Rushkoff, sees those most well equipped to deal with modernity as those who are best able to surf its indeterminacy.

Jargon

This article is overloaded with jargon and needs pruning. Critical theory has a bad enough rep as an obscure field - (never mind that the reputation is usually restricted to those who rarely made an effort in the first place) - there's no need to pile it on with such vapid phrases as "an original philosophy rooted in internal difference". If you are keen to use terminology, explain the terms beforehand (try to explain or define rather than extoll, and rein in your loquacity for other venues); this article is meant to be a clear introduction to people with no exposure to philosophy. That's clearly possible when the articles on, say, higher maths are very accessible. Please don't generate another self-indulgent introduction written by an epigone, something several of the crit theory/ philosophy articles appear to be. -- Simonides 23:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The specific problem is that Deleuze, both solo and with Guattari, sought to pull apart the mechanisms of common sense. This is a fundamental problem for those who preach clarity as an ideal when philosophical thought attempts to escape the demands of clarity in its guise as common sense. By the way, 'critical theory' is a wrong way to describe Deleuze's project. His project was affirmative rather than 'critical'.

Avoiding silly edit war

Simonides: I don't have super strong feelings about the Deleuze page (and am not the source of the jargon-filled second section), so I don't think we're on the verge of a silly edit war :) I'm curious, though, about why you find the language of my edits misleading? I thought that breaking the sections about Capitalism and Schizophrenia and the sections on his other contributions into two sentences gave equal wait to both parts of his opus. I thought putting the stuff on art in the 'but...' clause made it sound like they were peripheral to the other work. Let me know what you think? Rex 17:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I am hypersensitive, but to say Gilles Deleuze ... is particularly remembered for his collaboration with Felix Guattari on Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus implies that it was Deleuze's most characteristic, or justifiably most famous work, and is inherently POV (there was a lot more diversity to his corpus, for one thing); on the other hand, saying that the two books were "the most popular" is a quantifiable and supportable fact, and avoids a subjective interpretation of the popularity of those works. Secondly, I don't know if his writings on film and art, etc are already counted as "major contributions" - again, it sounds like a hasty judgement and perhaps a little more subjective than saying they are "influential" (the degree of influence is not mentioned, but the fact of influence can be backed up.) -- Simonides 21:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Well if you feel that "best remembered" is somehow inherently POV while "most popular" is somehow not objectionable in the same way, then obviously you have very strong and particular tastes. I have no problem at all with 'most popular' -- by all means keep it. Rex 07:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said, a phrase like "most popular" is quantifiable and hence not as POV - I mean you can talk about number of sales, etc. and IIRC those two works are the most popular. But "best remembered" connotes that the work is their most characteristic, which is an injustice to the diversity of Deleuze's writing. Similarly, "influence" can be judged by numbers of articles, reviews, etc (in a very simplistic manner, of course) whereas to call a book a "major contribution" within a decade or two is a bit premature. -- Simonides

Thanks for that Simonidies. I agree with you. Let's keep that sentence as it currently appears :) Rex 17:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fashionable nonsense - proposal to discuss criticism

Deleuze is one of these weird authors who are discussed in Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont, and because I deeply believe that Sokal affair and their book is far more important than Deleuze and similar people, it seems virtually necessary to discuss criticism of Deleuze on this page, otherwise the description of Deleuze is a POV. --Lumidek 12:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with introducing the Sokal Affair is that the criticisms are not levelled in the field of philosophy per se. It would be far better to add a reference to critics who know what they are talking about - for example, Alain Badiou, or Francois Laruelle, or Slavoj Zizek. Saying that the Sokal Affair is "far more important than Deleuze" is 1) meaningless and 2) demonstrates a total lack of familiarity with Deleuze's work (and with Western Philosophy in general). Perhaps some paragraphs on the impact of Deleuze on various lines of philosophy would be helpful - for example the impact of his book "Nietzsche and Philosophy" on that area of study, or the effect of his work on Spinozan studies, or the relationship of Deleuze's work with Pragmatism / Richard Rorty etc....

Dear anonymous, thanks for your feedback. I am afraid that most of these other wonderful people probably look similar to Deleuze himself, and the problem can be with the whole field, indeed. Be sure that Sokal knows very well what he's talking about. The people you mention may have had some impact on each other, but this itself does not make their activity meaningful. --Lumidek 19:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't read Sokal/Bricmond's book, but I think it should be discussed here only if Sokal and Bricmond specifically criticise Deleuze. If Sokal and Bricmond cite Deleuze, or discuss his particular works in any way, then by all means, include that criticism in the article. On the other hand, if Sokal mentions Deleuze only in passing, simply as an example of French "postmodernists" who supposedly don't know their ass from quantum gravity, then the criticism belongs on the postmodernism page. COGDEN 19:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Simonides and Cogden. If there were a section on 'reception of Deleuze's works' then it might be appropriate to mention Sokal's book as part of a wider backlash against 'postmodernism' and the way some associate Deleuze with that term. But since we don't have such a section and, as Lumidek claims, the problem is with 'a whole field' then this discussion should be on the wiki page for that field (as Cogden suggests), and not the Gilles Deleuze entry. At the very least, Lumidek's profession that he finds Deleuze 'weird' and that he believes that 'the sokal affair is far more important than Deleuze' indicates his own contributions are overtly POV. If he is so exercised by Sokal's work, then the best way he could contribute to the wikiepdia is by editing the pages directly relevant to it. Rex 23:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed if the problem is with the "whole field" (which presumably means the entire history of Western Philosophy) then an appropriate place to raise Sokal's criticism would be on the "Sokal Affair" page, or on a page devoted to Western Philosophy in general. Such an entry might consider whether it was wise of Sokal to include Deleuze in his project in the first place. Given that Sokal is a scientist and not a philosopher (and that he has not demonstrated any significant knowledge of philosophy), and given that the "Sokal Affair" was more about the politics of science rather than philosophy, if Sokal's criticisms were to be included in this page, it would be useful to include a link to Manuel De Landa - in particular his work "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy" which explores the relation between scientific thought and Deleuze. The whole problem with the Sokal Affair is that the criticisms, whether or not justified on the limited examples selected by Sokal, are unlikely to stand as serious criticism. This is because of the limited selections of text, the lack of evidence to suggest Sokal has read any significant amount of Deleuze's work, and the ignorance of Sokal about philosophy in general. The paltry influence of Sokal on philosophy (and indeed the philosophy of science) since his intervention would appear to confirm this. There are serious criticisms of Deleuze's work, not least its reception and use in anglophone universities and the extent to which it can be considered as the "ideology of digital consumer capitalism", and these would be worth including. Another more productive addition to this page might be the extent to which Deleuze can be categorised as a "Postmodern" thinker - there appears to be a trend in parts of the academic community (eg De Landa) differentiating Deleuze from post-modernism and placing him (to the discomfort of some "Deleuzeans") in a more conventional philosophical line.

Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work and has no place in an encylcopedic article. VermillionBird 18:49, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

It most emphatically doesn't mean "the entire history of Western Philosophy", but more specifically Continental European philosophy. Sokal and Bricmont (and other critics of Continental philosophy, like Noam Chomsky and Thomas Nagel) have no bone to pick with Anglosphere philosophy. As for whether it's a scholarly work, it's the opinion of many scholars in the field that it is, and it has been reviewed favorably in a number of top-tier philosophy journals. See, for example, this glowing review from Thomas Nagel, one of the preeminent contemporary philosophers. --Delirium 07:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, Gabriel Stolzenberg has capably been poking large holes in Sokal and Bricmont for several years now. It is unfortunate that the axiomatics of continentals vs. analytics has been taken to be an index by which one can apportion credibility in this dispute, as it is clearly insufficient and, moreover, demonstrably false (the elevation of this sort of polemics into dogma becomes therefore a useful index into how high the "top-tier philosophy journals" can rise over a rise; some advocates of "Anglosphere philosophy" do from time to time fail to distinguish polemics from compelling philosophical arguments, as you have done in confusing Noam Chomsky for the credible critic of "Continental philosophy" he has never even been interested in being: look at how many condoms he puts on to say that ought not be taken seriously on this matter, even as he offers his non-scholarly opinions). Much of the debate over Fashionable Nonsense is over examples: are the examples that Sokal and Bricmont cite in fact of the sort they claim? how consequential are these examples to the larger arguments they are called to support? Stolzenberg has a fairly big beef with the treatment Derrida receives and Nagel repeats, albeit polemically deflated in its treatment (see his "Thomas Nagel's Fashionable Nonsense"), so I don't see any reason to invoke Nagel as gospel as uncritically as you have, glowing or not. Stolzenberg is also insistent that Sokal unequivocally mischaracterised Deleuze in A House Built on Sand and that Sokal since refused to acknowledge that he was corrected on this by Arkady Plotnisky, even as he quietly dropped that example.

On p.156 of Fashionable Nonsense, Sokal and Bricmont admit that the passage in question is not about chaos theory (“the word ’chaos’ is not being used here in its usual scientific sense”) but fail to reveal that this contradicts Sokal’s sneering remark about it in A House Built on Sand. Gabriel Stolzenberg 04:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

In other words: some examples raised by Sokal in his earlier work can be argued to be flagrant mischaracterisations that he has never acknowledged as such. Stolzenberg's larger argument is that Sokal and Bricmont seriously miscontextualise examples and in so doing commit the sort of basic errors in scholarship that they would protest (including feigned erudition in treatment of examples — in this case the examples in question are unquestionably essential to the larger integrity of the work). Accordingly I read Sokal and Bricmont with Stolzenberg and the source material for the example.

In short and in spite of who claims to be convinced by their book, there is no reason to treat Sokal and Bricmont's work as credible on its face; careful treatment is mandatory if the book is to be referenced. I would remark to VermillionBird that Fashionable Nonsense does not in any case have to be "a scholarly work" to be treated here, although it does have to be represented as a work of disputed authority. Buffyg 09:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I will agree that criticism of the book is certainly fine, and indeed already forms the bulk of the Wikipedia article on the book. My point was merely that large segments of academic philosophy do accept the book and its conclusions as sound and scholarly, in contrast to VermillionBird's claims. You may think these particular philosophers are incorrect in their assessment, but Wikipedia is here to report goings-on, not to engage in a debate over the merits ourselves. By the way, I cited Chomsky as critical of continental philosophy, which he undoubtedly is if the words of the English language are to have any meaning; I didn't suggest any more or less by that statement. -Delirium 15:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think VermillionBird's claims were at the level of "large sements accept..."; clearly the contributor's belief is that the book is rubbish, whomever may or may not share this view. In pointing to what would justify "serious" consideration of Sokal and Bricmont, particularly who takes them seriously (you have cited one prominent case by name), one may not find an indictment of the "whole field" of recent philosophy, but one does find that there are a lot more bones to pick and not just with "continental philosophy". There is quite a lot to report under this heading. It is in any case essential to wikipedia that one discuss but not decide merits, as I believe we would agree. My point in replying to both you and VermillionBird that few layers of the onion have been peeled.

I'll leave further discussion of Chomsky for another day and more appropriate pages, but I would offer that what I've read thus far shows Chomsky to be critical of "continental philosophy" in a way that is scholarly in neither form nor content (e.g. "I dislike making the kind of comments that follow without providing evidence, but I doubt that participants want a close analysis of de Saussure" and "I wouldn't say this if I hadn't been explicitly asked for my opinion --- and if asked to back it up, I'm going to respond that I don't think it merits the time to do so"; I've ordered the cites on the matter made in the Chomsky article, as I don't yet know whether they are the works I've already read or whether those works might yet provide arguments that "come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood"). The adequacy of this approach to meaningful philosophical criticism in any language is doubtful at best. The point I had hoped to make is that those who from "the Anglosphere" philosophical world who don't pick bones with their own tradition will find themselves choking on those they pick with others. Buffyg 11:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, my point was simply that the book is taken as decisive by large communities of people. Nagel can be fairly taken, I think, as representative of US/UK/Australian opinion on the matter. Similarly, Richard Dawkins's review of the book, entitled "Postmodernism disrobed", was published in the journal Nature (one of the most prestigious science journals), and is almost certainly representative of mainstream worldwide scientific opinion on the matter. --Delirium 03:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow you really do need to read some Deleuze. Take some time out and make the effort, you'll have a ball. Dawkins is an interesting case though - he is a lot closer to Deleuze than he would admit - particularly his use of the meme concept. Except that he is ideologically opposed to the very theory he is advancing. Hohum. Funny how emotion gets in the way of thought, isn't it? That is why S&B's book is such a disappointment - they make the very mistakes which they are supposed to be criticising - ie demonstrating a shallow and incomplete knowledge of, say, the history of mathematics. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure one of my PhD students is working on the problem of infinitesimals, precisely because, errrr, it is still a problem. Shame that S&B embarrassed themselves by including Deleuze in their little book. Still, as someone said above, it is not considered an academic work so it does not matter so much.

First of all, infinitesimals are only still a problem in non-standard calculus. Now, this is not to say that philosophical work cannot be done on this, but all Sokal and Bricmont are saying is that the author should at least have the honesty and integrity to say that his analogy, or whatever it is, is only accurate if we are talking about non-standard calculus.

Secondly, either Deleuze doesn't understand calculus, or he is so careless -- or more likely, purpusely obfuscatory -- as to give the reader the understandable suspicion that he is. As a mathematician (I think), you should have noticed his wonderful sentence in Difference and Repetition (quoted in Fashionable Nonsense, p. 163): "In consequence, calculus considers only those magnitudes where at least one is of a power superior to another." Now, maybe by "power," Deleuze doesn't mean "exponent," but rather something related to "depotensialisation" or some other hypersyllabic word. But -- and S&B make it abundantly clear in their introduction and epilogue that this is all they are claiming in their book -- it's not fair to the reader that Deleuze uses a mathematical term, in a mathematical context, with a different meaning that he neglects to elucidate.

As for your bald assertion that Fashionable Nonsense "is not considered an academic work" -- well, the elitism and narrow-mindedness apparent therein speaks for itself. Are philosophical books only to be discussed when they're too complicated to be written up in the New York Times? Or when they're published by a university press? (Oh wait, A House Built on Sand is published by Oxford UP)

Of course, even if (heh) you disagree with the above, that's no reason not to discuss S&B's remarks in this article. Whether or not it's accurate, many people's conceptions of Deleuze are colored by Fashionable Nonsense. Criticism, of course, would be welcome in the article. --zenohockey 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps Deleuze did have honesty and integrity when he wrote in D&R "“…in the old interpretations of differential calculus, called barbarian or prescientific, there is a treasure that needs to be released from its infinitesimal straitjacket”, a sentence that S&B, with considerably less honesty and integrity (or maybe, to be fair to S&B, just because they did not read it), fail to include. However one should consider further the selectiveness of S&B in quoting Deleuze - their intention appears to be to disguise the points that a) the history of calculus is considerably more subtle and ambiguous than they let on, b) that Deleuze is clearly aware of this history (more so than S&B) and c) that D&R is a philosophical work that falls in the tradition of, say, Leibniz. As for fashionable nonsense being an academic work, it is difficult to attribute much weight to a work the purpose of which seems to be little more than angry polemic (although one could easily raise the same accusation against Deleuze..). As it stands, Fashionable Nonsense falls far short of convincing the reader that its authors have even read Deleuze to any significant extent, let alone that they even understood the underlying philosophy and intent, but then to expect that of a supposed academic work may well be "elitist and narrow-minded". Furthermore, I may be mistaken, but it is not generally accepted academic practice (nor indeed generally accepted "honesty and integrity") to deliberately deceive an academic journal (even to the extent of refusing to engage with the journal's editors and their pre-publication criticisms). If Fashionable Nonsense is not considered an academic work then it is nothing to do with the editorial policy of the NYT or its avoidance of words of less than 15 syllables or whatever, and everything to do with the authors' (or Sokal's at least) own actions. (Again one could probably accuse Deleuze similarly..). Criticism would indeed be welcome in the article, but the problem is that Fashionable Nonsense is less criticism and more insult (with regard to Deleuze in any event - I know nothing of the other authors they deal with).

The points you make may well be valid, and the D&R quote you mention does cast doubt on S&B's reading on Deleuze on calculus. But even if you think that S&B are misguided, immoral, stupid, fascist, or whatever, their comments still deserve to be mentioned in the article. As an example, take the "intellectual" movement characterized, more than any other, by selective use of evidence, dishonesty, and angry tirades: Holocaust denial. These claims are discussed briefly in the Holocaust article, and more thoroughly in the Holocaust denial article. Why should the same thing not be done here with S&B? --zenohockey 16:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I grant that the book is taken as decisive, if not authoritative, by a lot of people of solid reputation. My point is that this is not illuminating unless you observe that there is also a phenomenon of "fashionable nonsense" in the reception of the book, even among sources as well-regarded as Nagel, Dawkins, or Steve Weinberg. The fact that Gabriel Stolzenberg is a mathematician who does his homework and ends up being the most prominent scientific figure (and fairly isolated at that rate) to find Sokal and Bricmont infuriatingly error-ridden seems an important index to how much matters of opinion rather than scholarship shape the reception of the book by analytic philosophers, scientists, and the press. This is exactly why Derrida says that Sokal and Bricmont are not serious (however seriously they may be taken). Buffyg 10:02, 15 September 2005 (U

Sokal book may or may not be interesting, this is quite beside the point of Deleuze. Intended as a criticism of "postmodernism" (a notion in itself problematic, and certainly not used by Deleuze), I'm sure the reference to this "Sokal affair" would be lot more relevant in the "postmodernism" page. Lapaz 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The book has a chapter devoted to Deleuze and Guattari's use, or misuse, of scientific concepts. --zenohockey 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion on Sokal should either be deleted or moved to a Sokal discussion page with at the most a single link to the Sokal page from the Deleuze page. Fashionable Nonsense was indeed the correct title for Sokal's book and it has no place in any serious discussion of Deleuze's work.

I'm sorry but that is not acceptable. What's so BAD about Sokal's book that it warrants no place in an article on Deleuze? Is it because, woe of all woes, it scares fans of Deleuze who think that Sokal and Bricmont might have actually exposed Guattari and Deleuze as sophists? Yes, I'd say that is probably the reason why Deleuzians don't like it being there. Of course, you might provide us with evidence that Sokal is talking nonsense. But I bet that is why so many people say poo-hoo to Sokal despite (from what I gather) its legitimacy as an academic work. And what's so funny and humorous about Fashionable Nonsense that means it has no place in a "serious" discussion of Deleuze? --Knucmo2 00:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions:

What is the article text under discussion? The only Sokal reference I find in the article is "pace Alan Sokal". If it's from a previous version, could someone paste it into the talk page?
How sustained is Sokal's criticism of Deleuze? If he has a whole chapter or section devoted to e.g. tearing apart Capitalism and Schizophrenia, it might be noteworthy. A couple of drive-by references, on the other hand, would not be noteworthy.
If there is indeed a worthwhile discussion in Sokal, it would be worth summarizing in a Criticisms of Deleuze subsection, along with feminist, orthodox Lacanian and Marxist criticisms that I know have been made. Bacchiad

I don't know about a previous section of the article devoted to Sokal.

Sokal and Bricmont's book has a chapter criticizing Deleuze's treatment of calculus and quantum physics. As with the rest of Fashionable Nonsense, there is no direct attempt to discuss the theories involved -- the argument is that the handling of math and science is so inept that the authors are either fools, frauds, or both.

I originally intended to complete the article with a 'criticisms' section, but found that it was unmanageably long. That it would have provoked considerable controversy and partisan editing also disinclined me to finish it.

That is unlucky. Since most major philosophers have at least some criticism pages (Hegel has criticism from Popper's "Poverty of Historicism" and Baudrillard has a small section too) I believe Deleuze definitely deserves one too. There is no disputing this, partisan or no. --Knucmo2 09:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hegel criticism section is a good example of a lousy criticism section. It gives too much space to Popper's superficial criticisms, and the other comments are barely intelligible (a problem not limited to the criticism section of that article).

Criticism sections are difficult to balance -- the writers have to exercise a lot of selectivity about which criticisms are most important, and present them in a way fair to both the critic and the target. The more criticisms, the more disputes and edits, etc. And to be fair to Sokal, Badiou, Braidotti, Derrida, Frank, Descombes, May, etc. would require a criticism section longer than any other section. I am a strong believer in brevity.

I find it utterly hilarious that you casually dismiss the criticism by one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century as being "superficial"!! Nevertheless I didn't make a qualitative comment about the criticism on Hegel page, I simply said that it is there and that most philosophers have a criticism page (seems fair enough if we're promoting NPOV with disinterest) and that Deleuze is not above this for any justifiable reason whatsoever (he is not indisputable and many have disagreed with him) --Knucmo2 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Deleuze is above criticism and have nowhere come close to implying that. I merely pointed out why it is difficult to write a good criticism entry (and most of the existing examples bear this out), and why I have set it aside (for now). Btw, as to Popper, I don't grasp your hilarity. Even if you consider Popper one of the foremost philosophers of the last century -- which is far from a widespread view among professional philosophers today -- it's perfectly possible that Popper could have made a superficial criticism. As the saying goes, "even Homer nods". 4.232.123.106 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Yr. Anon. Wrt.

No, of course philosophers make mistakes and Popper infact did - but usually this is shown through painstaking counter-argument and showing the implications of what a philosopher meant. You on the other hand just simply wave it aside, an example of an ad hominem argument - Plus I don't think you have the right here to be judging whether or not Popper's criticism is superficial, better to suspend judgment and acknowledge his criticism. You could of course, try to refute Popper but then that's original research. I don't think you're right about the opinion of professional philosophers either (although quite frankly I do not know how you can speak for them) - even if they don't quite agree with his theories, they still attest to Popper as one of the most well-known philosophers of the 20th century (not many philosophers were knighted in history either) and I can point to some who'd believe me - Lakatos, Feyeraband, G. A. Cohen, Peter Singer, - "Popper is undoubtedly an important thinker" [1] and so on. What's more even if the bunch of professionals today don't think that Popper isn't prominent, that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't nor does it have any bearing on his criticism, superficial or not. That's more of a historical thing. If you really think Popper's criticisms are superficial, then go ahead and put it in the article, but I'm not sure if that would be in line with consensus. You can take up the debate with any other professional philosophers you know, then again I didn't think you'd want to nitpick about Popper's prominence. --Knucmo2 20:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the vehemence of your replies (aside from the usual internet inclination to invective). I merely pointed out that the criticism section from the Hegel article displays some of the problems which naturally plague criticism sections. In my judgment, having read The Open Society and Hegel, Popper's criticisms of Hegel are superficial (and they are rendered more so by their formulaic recounting in the wiki article). Since it would have been tedious and irrelevant to delve into my reasoning on a Deleuze talk page, I did not elaborate. (It was not, by the by, an ad hominem argument: had I dismissed Popper's criticism because he was an ungenerous egotist, that would have been ad hominem.) As for Popper's status -- you raised the issue. Of course it doesn't have any bearing on the superficiality of his criticism -- nowhere did I claim that. He is popular and widely cited, yes, especially in the philosophy of science. But are articles and books being written extending (or even attacking) the Popperian program? Relatively few, and fewer by the year. In this regard, Popper is somewhat like Derrida (or, more distantly, Ayn Rand): influential among non-philosophers, a widely recognized "name", a lifelong promoter of a single, allegedly profound and far-reaching philosophical thesis, and someone not taken very seriously in professional circles. You can feel free to ignore my judgments, since I don't have the time or desire to back them up with publicly available evidence. But I offer it to you, and other interested parties, as food for thought, born of professional experience. Since this is in any case irrelevant to the original issue, and irrelevant to Deleuze, I'll leave this discussion at that. 4.232.123.124 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Yr. Anon. Wrt.

For one thing - I don't think I was vehement. Yes, criticism sections are difficult to write - but then so are encyclopedias like this one! I don't think you've "pointed out" anything new by saying that - unless of course this premise is supposed to buttress your argument. Your judgment (which I believe has no place in an encyclopedia) about Popper is all fine and good but putting this opinion in an encyclopedia on the basis of your own judgment or thesis constitutes a violation of WP:NOR and probably neutrality about a subject. I didn't raise the "issue" of Popper's status either, I simply baulked at your insouciant brush-off of him - you called into question Popper's status as a philosopher based on his reception by professionals (You professionals are far above all that Popperian gibberish). And I like the "not taken seriously" in professional circles bit you throw as a bit of weight to your argument about Popper. Well, you have raised the issue, so I will respond to that - Descartes was not taken seriously by the theologians employed by the church of his day, nor was Schopenhauer by the professional philosophers of his day, plus; were Socrates or Plato professionals? Or Locke? Or Leibniz? Or Marx? (If you happen to consider Marx a philosopher, some do not). No, they weren't! But they're still very popular amongst discussion of professionals. I don't see your point therefore - their insights were made no less profound or "superficial" by their status as non-professionals (Walter Kaufmann took up Popper's criticism of Hegel) so you can't argue that Popper cannot be taken less seriously by a professional if you're willing to grant that the guys I've mentioned are worthy of discussion (By the way, the philosophers I've mentioned, especially Descartes, Leibniz, Plato et. al all had "far-reaching" philosophical theses that were taken seriously both by non-professional and professionals). In addition, I do not see the problem with being influential amongst non-philosophers either - perhaps their insights can't be taken seriously by professional philosophers either? That very notion is obviously false and biased (I leave you to make the deduction) Nor do I know what exactly what you're offering here. At any rate, you've still offered no reason, nor even a bare hint for why Popper is so superficial as concerning Hegel. Anywho, I suppose this isn't the place for it. --Knucmo2 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As a Deleuze fan, I think there should be a criticism section. In it, however, Sokal should be given the secondary place that his superficial criticisms merit. Bacchiad 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A section on criticism of Deleuze would be useful, for example from within "continental philosophy" and more especially from the anglophone analytical tradition (say, rorty etc). However Sokal's book simply does not warrant the space on the page - his "criticism" simply consists of quotations carefully culled, coupled with an observation such as "look what nonsense this is". However it is difficult to take anything Sokal says at face value due to his selectiveness and intellectual disingenuity; eg see above the quote from Difference and Repitition in which Deleuze baldly states that he is interested in "barbarian and pre-scientific" concepts in calculus. Sokal's failure to include this in his criticism of Deleuze's treatment of calculus is alone quite simply inexcusable. It goes far beyond oversight and is downright misleading (something of which Sokal has had considerable practice). Passages omitted by Sokal suggest both that Deleuze is perfectly aware of the history and development of calculus and that Deleuze is not mistaken but is rather explicitly using that history (yes, "historical", not "modern" mathematical theory)to develop certain philosophical concepts. As such, it is difficult to see any substance to Sokal's criticism - does he mean Deleuze does not understand "modern" theories of calculus (he clearly does), or does not understand the history of theories of calculus (he clearly does), or is trying to mislead (he clearly is not), or is proposing a new mathematical theory (he clearly is not, this is a book of philosophy) or what? Indeed if anyone is mistaken or misleading, it is Sokal - ever heard of the branch of mathematics called non standard theory, Alan? I am surprised that there is not more critism of Sokal in this regard over on the relevant Wikipedia pages (can anyone be bothered I suppose). (As an aside, the zealotry of "les Sokaliens" has always bemused me - why are they so virulent in their attempts at policing thought?)

It does not matter where the criticism comes from. It is not the judgment of Wikipedian editors to decide whether or not Sokal's criticism is sound, otherwise this is original research, and that is not allowed. Given how well known Sokal's criticism is, I believe it merits a place. Sokal himself has been responding to those who have tried to shout him down here: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/index.html. (and there are people on Wikipedia who have tried to shout down those who reckon Sokal should have a place here in a POV fashion: "Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work and has no place in an encylcopedic article" from Vermillion Bird, "Sokal should be given the secondary place that his superficial criticisms merit" from Bacchiad, "Sokal's book and it has no place in any serious discussion of Deleuze's work.") --Knucmo2 22:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked for "evidence that Sokal is talking nonsense", now you state that "this is original research, and that is not allowed". There has been plenty of (very serious) criticism of Sokal's treatment of Deleuze - but to locate and reference it would presumably be "original research". And the only shouting I hear is from Les Sokaliens (volume makes up for substance, I suppose - noticeably, you have not even mentioned, in even the slightest detail, what Sokal's criticisms are, nor have you taken any issue with the criticisms of Sokal).

No. It is you that is not hearing well. I don't quite understand the division of the posters on here into Pro-Sokal and anti-Sokal. Perhaps this makes it easier for you to dismiss the contributions of certain posters, creating a false dilemma. I am neither, so I will not fall into your false dichotomy. What's more you misread what I say. I never expressly said it was a contravention of wikipedia policy (namely, original research) to point out why Sokal's criticism is unsound or invalid. I said it is not up to the personal judgment of Wikipedian editors to make a decision on Sokal's work. The quotations that I gave in my last post from editors that I gave were fine examples of this subjective, biased judgment. If someone in the philosophical or academic world has shown why Sokal's research may very well be biased or false, then very well, so long as it has a reference on the web or journal, put it on there. The location of materials anti or pro-Sokal is not original research, but then again, I never really said that. What's more, I will not be insulted by you for my apparent lack of knowledge about Sokal's criticisms. Where you have clutched this accusation from, I don't know, but it is another well known fallacy you commit; an argument from ignorance: I haven't mentioned Sokal's critique on this talk page, therefore I must not know it. Please check your posts for such erroneous rhetoric in the future. --Knucmo2 08:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Still nothing of any substance. You still have not proffered any evidence as to why Sokal's criticisms should be included here, nor have you responded to any of the criticms of Sokal set out above. That is not an insult, nor an accusation, that is an observation. Your vehemence has already been noted, therefore repetition of it is not necessary. Have you read any Sokal, or indeed Deleuze? (That is a question by the way). If so, please set out the substance of Sokal's criticisms and the reason why they should be included in this article. Then perhaps there can be a reasoned discussion and collaborative effort in drafting any such paragraph. Until you provide substantive evidence and arguments, regarding Sokal and Deleuze specifically, you do not contribute anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.136.239.240 (talk • contribs)

I shan't allow you to dismiss my arguments as having "nothing of substance" and of perceived vehemence, since you illogically decide to shift the intention of my posts as trying to prove Sokal right, again, a straw man fallacy that mischaracterises my view. I am critical of your own flawed argumentation for not including him on the page. At the same time, YOU have no shown any evidence as to why Sokal should not be included, simply suggestions and an attack on "les Sokaliens". Nevertheless I am not the one here committing numerous fallacies in an attempt at argumentation. As you can imagine, you're not impressing me with your case. I do not know who you are, since you do not have the courtesy requisite of other Wikipedian editors to sign your comments. That is a procedure for talk pages, so before you continue to post any more on these matters, I suggest you familiarise yourself with that. As for substantive evidence, I can show why Sokal's criticisms merit a place on this page, based of course on what others said, and not my own research. As for your question, which was not at all phrased as, or indeed a question in the original post of yours, which seems pretty trivial to me given that I am talking on a Gilles Deleuze page, I have read Deleuze and Sokal & Bricmont. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, but I usually only contribute to those philosopher's pages whom I have read. I shall get back to you on Sokal, but I am just heading out as I make this post. --Knucmo2 17:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary:Until any published evidence of Sokal's work that shows it is second-rate, superficial and therefore invalid, it should merit a place on a criticism section, since he is a high-profile academic and his book and hoax achieved renown in the press, also, it is not an exceptional claim. It is also verifiable, and sources can be cited for it. Those who have continued to dismiss Sokal as irrelevant and superficial clearly have a vested interest in keeping the article free of Sokal and Bricmont, and as such is POV. My apologies to those who perhaps I was a little overbearing to, I realise that we should be trying to reach a consensus. --Knucmo2 14:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have added a criticism section, keeping it relatively laconic to avoid controversy. It reads like a laundry list, I know, but I saw no simpler or more elegant way to write it without drifting outside of NPOV or across the original research threshold. I am still yet to be convinced about the alleged necessity of including a criticism section, but there it is. Can we move on to more productive topics now? Yr. Fmrly Anon. Wrt., 271828182 18:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what was unproductive about adding a reception section, but it's a good job, covering a lot of critics that I didn't even know Deleuze had (e. g. Zizek). Well done. --Knucmo2 12:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed that is a very useful section - you have done us all a service. The inclusion of Alain Badiou is especially welcome.

Université Paris VII in 1969?

This university was founded in 1970, as confirmed by their website (http://www.sigu7.jussieu.fr/comm/composition/p7fonc.htm), from the split of La Grande Sorbonne. So I wonder if Deleuze was really nominated there in 1969.

It was Paris VIII not Paris VII.

Pronunciation

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how to pronunciate Deleuze's name (first and last)? Thanks, --zenohockey 02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I say Jeel Duh-luhze. Deleuze 21:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The German page has a phonetic transcription: [ˈʒil dəˈløz]. Maybe this should be included in the English article as well? --Harald Kliems 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Added. Thanks to both of you! --zenohockey 23:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Guattari and Deleuze

In Deleuze's "I Have Nothing to Admit", he says

And then, there was my meeting Felix Guattari, the way we got

along and completed, depersonalized, singularized each other - in short

how we loved.

Did Deleuze have a sexual relationship with Guattari? Or is he talking of the Platonic variety? --Knucmo2 18:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC) --It was not a sexual relationship, as far as anyone knows, but, even if it was, that's not interesting. Deleuze's usage of "love", however, which is not a Platonic concept but Deleuze's own, is interesting. Look here for the paper entitled "Love" for some elucidation on the concept. [Michael Roetzel]

If it's safe to reference a quote from Fashionable Nonsense with a certain mathematician lurking on this page ;) ... it reminds me of Lacan's comparison of i to the "erectile organ." In other words: I don't think so. --zenohockey 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a nice section detailing the resonances between Deleuze and Guattari, and the differences (no pun intended). It irks me that people often talk Deleuze saying, "Deleuze says in Anti-Oedipus..." when the book is written by two people. And it is certainly not as if all the crucial contributions came from the more famous member of the duo. I know that "desiring-machines," was originally Guattari's understanding of desire, but it would not have the meaning it had in the text without Deleuze's understanding of difference being incorporated (source: Negotiations?). I think a section here, besides the mere wikilink to Guattari's page, would be especially helpful to people who want to know more about Deleuze and his place in 20th Century French thought. Unfortunately, and as you can see, I don't feel qualified to write the segment I'm envisioning. Perhaps after I write my Master's thesis next year :) I don't even know what texts are out there to start with right now. But, as one who has done a fair bit of reading trying to understand Deleuze AND Guattari, this is what I would like to see in a reference article in order to start my understanding of these two difficult characters off on the right foot. Adam Rothstein 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable idea for an academic article, but not a priority for Wikipedia. (The recent translation of Guattari's working notes for AOE might help you identify the "non-Deleuze" Guattari.) I have avoided the issue in this article by concentrating on Deleuze's solo work. The Wiki articles on Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, and A Thousand Plateaus are fairly terrible. I'd rather fix all of those first before splitting the very tangled hairs between FG and GD. 4.232.132.232 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Yr. Anon. Wrt.

"Life and work" or "Life and works"

I think the former sounds better. Does anyone disagree? (besides the anon who made this edit, as well as several extremely good ones&mdashl;would you like to defend 'works'?) A pittance of a problem, to be sure, but I don't want to give the impression that I just capriciously reverted the title. --zenohockey 03:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

What's going on with the bibliography of works on Deleuze? A few different anonymous editors have recently subtracted works from this section without any explanation. Given that Wikipedia is not paper, I see no reason why just about all scholarly work on Deleuze shouldn't be included here.

Even worse, D&G's Nomadology was removed recently, too. Anyone know why? --zenohockey 03:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The Nomadology edit was a thought I had to remove works that were not originally published as books by Deleuze. Plus, that material appears in Mille Plateaux. But I'll restore it.

Some effort reducing noise is imperative in an encyclopedia, and there is far, far too much noise in secondary sources on modern French philosophy. The originals are bad enough; I pruned the list to those which are clearer than the originals while remaining accurate. "Just about all scholarly work" is a project for bibliographies, and there are plenty available.

Why not let the readers of all these books decide for themselves whether they're clear or accurate? If you're a professor of English at Harvard, perhaps I'd trust your judgement on them, but I haven't the faintest clue who you are, or why I should trust your judgments over the fact that, say, most people in the field find Bourdieu very influential, or that university presses don't make a habit of publishing obvious nonsense. --zenohockey 20:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, if you can find an online bibliography—I'm not aware of any good, up-to-date ones—that'd be fine; we could just put a link to it under the secondary sources.

Global rewrite more or less complete

That's it for now. It's not as brief or as clear as it could be on the metaphysics, and not as detailed as some would like on the politics. But that's my best off the cuff. --MR

Deleted sentence on percept

The sentence on the use of percept is an illustration that does no illustrating. The paragraph is trying to explain Deleuze's creative misunderstanding of philosophers. But unless you explain Bergson's original use of percept, and then explain Deleuze's quite different use of percept, the example doesn't add any useful information to how Deleuze adapts others' ideas.

Don't link for the sake of linking

Unless the Wiki entry linked to contains information that clarifies what Deleuze is talking about, the link is useless. (For example, linking to "series", "God", "problematic", and many others.) (The reductio of this habit will come, I suppose, when every word is a link.)

If you don't want wikilinks, why use Wikipedia? Not talking of abuse... but the reader may be interested in reading the article on God or on substance, hardly irrelevant links... The Wiki entry linked may for the moment not contains information that clarifies it, often because it needs writing. So, if you link, maybe someone will go around it & do it...

I didn't say "don't have any links". Reread the first sentence.

The Genealogy

Can we agree that Deleuze's claim that the Genealogy is a systematic response to the First Critique is a clear example of how odd Deleuze's readings are? That N. merely mentions Kant and the Categorical Imperative in the GM is irrelevant, since the cat. imp. nowhere appears in the First Critique.

I think we can more easily agree on a version going this way... I understand your argument about the 1st Critique, however, are you sure that Nietzsche's "moral concerns" are so far away from a critique of Kant's epistemology? However, i'm inclined to think that the term "systematic response" highlights better Deleuze's "peculiar reading". I would also like to add that it would be interesting to note that Deleuze's peculiar reading of Nietzsche has mainly be related to his "Nietzsche and Philosophy" (1962). The date is of importance, as it precedes Mazzino Montinari's edition of Nietzsche's corpus - with access to all of the manuscripts -, in which he shows that the so-called compilation "The Will of Power" is an obvious historical forgery, unprobable mix of fragments, with false titles added and some overt (mostly antisemitic) modifications, etc. (See Friedrich Nietzsche, Werke, ed. de:Giorgio Colli and de:Mazzino Montinari (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967) and La Volonté de puissance n'existe pas. Concerning the "jargon", I'm not sure that naming Althusser, Foucault or Habermas is precisely jargon, neither that saying that the subject is a social construction. Philosophy has its own language, for sure, but you can't go around it... Furthermore, it may not be such a bad idea to quickly resume, at the beginning of the discussion on his philosophy, those "big & fat oppositions" between such concepts as the One & the Multiple vs multiplicities, transcendence vs immanence... I'm sure they are readers that won't understand it; i don't think Deleuze would have been really bothered by such an argument, would he?...

Yes, the Genealogy is worlds away from the KrV. Deleuze's specific comparison is outlandish: that the three essays of the GM correspond to the three parts of the Transcendental Dialectic. The Paralogisms are about immortality, and the first essay of the GM is about altruism. The Antinomies are about free will, and the second essay is about bad conscience.... The comparisons with Althusser, Foucault, and Habermas, as well as the vague pomo "introductory" comments, all flatly contradict the basic Wikipedia style standards (viz., clarity and readability) for philosophy articles.

To say that "the Genealogy is worlds away..." may be a little bit extreme... How can you so easily divide Kant's work, especially when talking about Nietzsche's reading of Kant - since "truth" is a "moral ideal" ? Nietzsche certainly doesn't divides "epistemology" and "ethics" that much. Furthermore, you've made me curious, so I did have a quick look in Deleuze's 1962 "Nietzsche": he specifically claims that Nietzsche conceived his Genealogy against Kant's critique (speaking about the concept) and that he didn't recognize Kant's divisions. Deleuze then resumes in chapter 3, 10, Nietzsche's attempt to "realize" the true critique (claiming that Kant's critique failed):

genetic principles against transcendent principles
a thought against reason, rather than a thought that thinks itself as legislator because of its accordance to reason ("Irrationalism is nothing else than thought. What we oppose to reason is thought itself; what we oppose to the reasonable being is the thinker himself")
Against the kantian legislator, the genealogist
Not the reasonable being, legislator and subject, reactive man: "Neither God nor man, because between man and God they're still aren't enough difference... The critical instance is the will of power, the critical point of view is that of the will of power. But under which form? Not the overman, which is the positive product of critique itself. But there is a "relatively overman type": the critical type, man as a man who wants to be overpassed (l'homme en tant qu'il veut être dépassé, surmonté...)
The aim of the critique: not the ends of man or of the reason, but the overman, the man overpassed. "The critique is not about justifying, but about feeling otherwise: another sensibility."

Conclusion? I just had a quick look at it, i'm not going to re-read it all just now, but it seems that if Deleuze does make this "outlandish" claim, he insists, however, on the opposition between Nietzsche's genealogy and Kant's critique. And I'll underline once again that the division into several Critiques, between "epistemology" and "moral", is specifically a division that Nietzsche refutes. Lapaz 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleuze's specific comparison is in sec. 7 of the chapter you cite: "Nietzsche, in the Genealogy of Morals, wanted to rewrite the Critique of Pure Reason. Paralogism of the soul, antinomy of the world, mystification of the ideal". If you don't see how odd that claim is, I strongly suspect you've never read the first Critique. If I'm wrong, feel free to cite and compare passages from the Genealogy and the KrV. Deleuze's basis for comparison (in the paragraphs preceding the sentence I quote above) is metaphorical at best. I know Deleuze says that Nietzsche completes the Kantian critical project by radically reversing it, but just because Deleuze says it doesn't mean it's a plausible interpretation. And maybe Nietzsche is unimpressed by the distinction between epistemology and morality -- but so what? How does that show that Deleuze's claim is plausible?

I understand this. However, if you rightly point out that sentence, and correctly underlines that "just because Deleuze says it" or that "Nietzsche is unimpressed..." doesn't means Deleuze's claim is plausible, I think (maybe wrongly) that you are overestimating the importance of this sentence, compared to the more general opposition traced by Deleuze between critique and genealogy. This opposition may also certainly be criticized - I'm not trying to say that Deleuze is correct in an academic point of view (his reading of Hegel in this book, in particular, is lot more violent than his reading of Kant...). I understand Deleuze's sentence here as a metaphorical at best, as you wrote. The question therefore is: why does Deleuze use this comparison? And it seems to me, because he wants to oppose the critique (not the First one, the critique in the general sense) to the genealogy. Lapaz

I do not disagree: Deleuze makes an extended, and at times, ingenious effort to read Nietzschean genealogy as a sort of counter-method to the Kantian notion of critique -- it is the central chapter of the 1962 book. And yes, the sentence I quoted is not representative of the entire book. But I wasn't intending to write an account of that book, or of Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche or Kant. The paragraph of the Wiki article we are discussing is only trying to inform the reader unfamiliar with Deleuze about a -- probably the -- defining feature of Deleuze's studies in the history of philosophy, namely, their perversity. As a Wiki article, the aim is to briefly explain Deleuze to non-specialists, with a minimum of jargon. Deleuze's historical studies are a large part of his body of work, and their interpretive violence is a large part of those studies. Philosophical novices might erroneously think Deleuze's interpretations intend to be fair or accurate, whereas philosophical journeymen will suspect Deleuze is crazy, dishonest, stupid, or all three. (I can attest to the latter reaction from eminent Hume and Kant scholars.) So I try to explain this feature of Deleuze's corpus immediately, and the sentence quoted from N&Ph above is, I think, a particularly overt and telling example.

Is there a reference for any of this? You may or may not be correct that this is Deleuze's purpose, but I would be more convinced if there were a citation to some source other than "some anonymous editor on Wikipedia". --Delirium 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's your reference: read the books. Read the Critique of Pure Reason. Read the Genealogy of Morality. Then read chapter 3 of Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy. You will realize that Deleuze is up to something very odd. If you can't be bothered to do the work yourself, then inevitably you will have to take somebody else's word for it, whether it be a magically authoritative "citation" or some anonymous Wikipedist. (Is Deleuze's description of his interpretations as monstrous buggery not sufficiently from the "source"?) -- Yr. Anonymous Editor and Writer.

LOL! It's been a while, just to say "hello" to Mr. Anonymous Editor, I left kind of abruptly! (I suppose you convince me enough to get back to my books, but I don't know why, I just seem to get attracted by Wikipedia again, is that serious, doctor?) No, seriously, I've seen as you surely did that indeed it is difficult trying to explain philosophy on Wikipedia, and sometimes result in very silly stuff (to keep polite), or maybe even "dangerous" stuff. However, I also suppose that, just as other articles, which seems easier to write, but which in fact see so much conflict that it also becomes very difficult, some of us - and you also seem too- feel that we have some responsibility - that's the professor's way -- I think it's more "perversion", or let's just call it fun! -- in trying to avoid that la bêtise become the universal thing. But I also would like to recall to you that not "everybody" has the "time" to read Kant, Nietzsche & Deleuze (it took me a few years only to accept opening a book about Kant, I suppose I was so disgusted by him because of my first philosophy teacher - which spend a year trying to explain what another teacher explained us in two months... what can you do??!!), and that if Wikipedia certainly does not and will not replace reading books, it helps in knowing new stuff. I suppose their is so much good & bad production today that Wikipedia may not be the worst way to organize it, toutes proportions gardées. Maybe we don't have any choice... As a side-question, as I left this article because I finally agreed with you that I would be best of looking for other stuff (although I did indulge in some "silly philosophy", again, what can you do?!:=), I'd like to ask you about another article I left in disgust: historical revisionism (negationism). Again, I felt it was really awful having so bad an article about it, so I experimented with that one also (I think we're also learning to use this stuff, at first we're a bit silly, and I've done things that aren't that great overthere either). The question is: is it true that in the US historical revisionism can have a positive sense? Or is it just something some Wikipedians want to make believe? Second question (these are a bit more political questions, so I assume your response will depend on what you think, but what the!...): do you think that the question relating to revisionism about the Rwandan genocide (mainly those who support the thesis of a "double" or "counter" genocide, thus mixing up victims and bourreaux) or/and about revisionism concerning the Srebrenica massacre have no place in the negationism article? I tried for weeks to place them in the article, but fell in an edit-war with a really stubborn editor, and finally left (I'll surely go back one day). I'm sure I did some mistakes in my edits and all, but is that really an opinion that may be generally shared on English Wikipedia? (in the French one, revisionism about both was included, but again, we may have different "cultural stances" on that...) I hope that long text doesn't bother you, but you've been so far one of the wisest person I've seen on this "place", so... Regards, Lapaz 10:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in a Deleuze discussion page, but I suppose I or someone else can delete it later. Very briefly: can "revisionist" have a positive sense? I guess so. I first heard the term used in the US (in the 1970s) to describe leftist historians who wrote histories criticizing traditional accounts that downplayed morally dubious aspects of US history, such as slavery and the destruction of the Indians. Only later did I hear it used to describe Holocaust deniers (who may have hijacked the term, much as creationists adopted "science"). As for Rwanda or Srebrenica, I don't know enough to judge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.231.168.251 (talk • contribs) .

Next to expand?

Does the article need more? If so, what?

More detail on Metaphysics?

Peer review?

Does anyone want to put this up for peer review & such? (We could use a public domain photo.) After seeing the Kierkegaard entry as a featured article, I figure this is at least as good. 271828182 22:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mime: A seeming public domain (or fair use) image may be found here. Someone may try to upload it. 23:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.