Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

DELEUZE’S LEFT-WING APPROACH TO METAPHYSICS Felipe G. A. Moreira Presses Univer

DELEUZE’S LEFT-WING APPROACH TO METAPHYSICS Felipe G. A. Moreira Presses Universitaires de France | « Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger » 2019/4 Tome 144 | pages 455 à 472 ISSN 0035-3833 ISBN 9782130821793 Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.cairn.info/revue-philosophique-2019-4-page-455.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Presses Universitaires de France. © Presses Universitaires de France. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidade Estadual de Campinas - - 143.106.200.57 - 13/12/2019 22:36 - © Presses Universitaires de France Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidade Estadual de Campinas - - 143.106.200.57 - 13/12/2019 22:36 - © Presses Universitaires de France DELEUZE’S LEFT-WING APPROACH TO METAPHYSICS 1 In his 1973 “Letter to a Harsh Critic”, Gilles Deleuze labels his method of reading an “immaculate conception”. 2 Metaphorically speaking, this method is an action of “taking an author from behind and giving him a child”. 3 The “child” stands for the resulted reading: one that deserves to be called the author’s “own offspring” insofar as it uses the author’s writings as evidence in supporting exegetical claims. Yet, the reading that results from an immaculate conception is also “monstrous”. 4 This is because it interprets passages from the author’s texts in problematic ways: for instance, it translates the author’s termi- nology into a distinct terminology the author never adopted; it connects passages by the author that are not very obviously connected to one another; it spells out the author’s view on issues that the author never explicitly addressed; etc. 1. I would like to thank Amanda Moreira, Berit Brogaard, Irene Olivero, Mark Rowlands, Markus Gabriel, Michael Slote, Otávio Bueno, Todd May, and the two anony- mous referees of the Revue philosophique for valuable comments on previous versions of this article, and/or on the larger research in which this article is inserted: that of my PhD dissertation, Disputes: The Incommensurable Greatness of Micro-Wars, which can be downloaded at https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/2284/, and where I read in connection and promote a synthesis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s and Rudolf Carnap’s projects of overcoming metaphysics. I am also grateful to my recently deceased professor and friend, Fernando Ribeiro, for having guided my ﬁrst readings of Deleuze more than thirteen years ago. 2. Gilles Deleuze, “Letter to a Harsh Critic”, in Negotiations, 1972-1990, trans. Martin Joughin, NY, Columbia University, 1995, p. 5 [« Lettre à un critique sévère », Pourparlers, 1972-1990, Minuit, 1990]. 3. Ibid. ; in the French original, “concevoir l’histoire de la philosophie comme une sorte d’enculage ou, ce qui revient au même, d’immaculée conception. Je m’imaginais arriver dans le dos d’un auteur, et lui faire un enfant, qui serait le sien et qui serait monstrueux.” See Gilles Deleuze, “Lettre à un critique sévère”, art. cit., p. 15. 4. Gilles Deleuze, “Letter to a Harsh Critic”, p. 6. Revue philosophique, no 4/2019, p. 455 à p. 472 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidade Estadual de Campinas - - 143.106.200.57 - 13/12/2019 22:36 - © Presses Universitaires de France Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidade Estadual de Campinas - - 143.106.200.57 - 13/12/2019 22:36 - © Presses Universitaires de France Felipe G. A. Moreira 456 Deleuze claims that his book on Henri Bergson illustrates this kind of “immaculate conception”. 5 The same can be claimed about his read- ings of David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Baruch Spinoza, Michel Fou- cault and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. 6 Deleuze is not precise regarding the respective proportions of the “non-monstrous” and the “monstrous” aspects of his readings. This does not seem relevant to him. What he takes to be crucial is whether the reading that adopts the immaculate conception “relates [a text] directly to what’s Outside” 7 by spelling out what in the text is duly relevant for the interpreter’s context. Deleuze’s interpreters are, then, confronted with a dilemma. While reading his texts, they can either (a) embrace Deleuze’s immaculate conception as well, or (b) dismiss this method, while relying on more traditional methods that aim to accurately represent Deleuze’s writings. Option (a) was adopted by Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek. 8 Option (b) was adopted by Todd May, Gary Gutting and Adrian W . Moore. 9 None of these options reads Deleuze in his own terms. This is the case with those who endorse option (a) in that they take Deleuze “from behind and give him a child”. Those who embrace option (b) also do not read Deleuze in his own terms because they disregard the fact that he rejects any “lamentable faith in accuracy and truth”. 10 Note that, given the style of Deleuze’s writings, it may be impossible for an interpreter to express this “faith” when interpreting his works. 5. Ibid. See Gilles Deleuze, Bergsonism [Le Bergsonisme, Puf, 1966], trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, NY, Zone Books, 1998. 6. See Gilles Deleuze Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature [Empirisme et subjectivité. Essai sur la nature humaine selon Hume, Puf, 1953], trans. Constantin V. Boundas, New York, Columbia University Press, 1991; Nietzsche and Philosophy [Nietzsche et la philosophie, Puf, 1962], trans. Hugh Tomlinson, London, Athlone Press, 1983; Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza [Spinoza, et le problème de l’expression, Minuit, 1968], trans. Martin Joughin, NY, Zone Books, 1990; Foucault [Foucault, Minuit, 1986], trans. Sean Hand, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1998; and The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque [Le Pli. Leibniz et le baroque, Minuit, 1988], trans. Tom Conley, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1992. 7. Gilles Deleuze, “Letter to a Harsh Critic”, p. 8. 8. Alain Badiou, Deleuze: The Clamor of Being [Deleuze. La clameur de l’être, Hachette, 1997], trans. Louise Burchill, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999; and Slavoj Žižek, Organs Without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences, NY, Routledge, 2004. 9. Todd May, Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2005; Gary Gutting, Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy since 1960, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011; and Adrian W . Moore, The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012. 10. Gilles Deleuze, “Letter to a Harsh Critic”, p. 11. Revue philosophique, no 4/2019, p. 455 à p. 472 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidade Estadual de Campinas - - 143.106.200.57 - 13/12/2019 22:36 - © Presses Universitaires de France Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - Universidade Estadual de Campinas - - 143.106.200.57 - 13/12/2019 22:36 - © Presses Universitaires de France Deleuze’s left-wing approach to metaphysics 457 Consider some claims from works by Deleuze, Deleuze and Félix Guat- tari, or Deleuze and his wife, Fanny Deleuze: (1) Politics precedes being. 11 (2) [Someone who is right-wing] starts from the self, and to the extent that one is privileged, living in a rich country, one might ask, what can we do to make this situation last? One senses that dangers exist, that it might not last, it’s all so crazy, so what might be done for it to last? 12 (3) In the West, the standard that every majority presupposes is: 1) male, 2) adult, 3) heterosexual, 4) city dweller… […] A majority, at the limit, is never anyone, it’s an empty standard. 13 (4) It’s too easy to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you. 14 (5) Practice does not come after the emplacement of the terms and their relation, but actively participates in the drawing of the lines. 15 (6) To be on the left [is] a matter of perception [and] being by nature […] or never ceasing to become minoritarian. […] First, you see the horizon. And you know that it cannot last, that it’s not possible; these millions of people are starving to death, it just can’t last. […] The left is never of the majority as left, and for a very simple reason: the majority is something that presupposes […] a standard. 16 (7) How necessary caution is, the art of dosages, since overdose is a danger. 17 (8) What do my relations with gays, alcoholics, and drug-users matter, if I can obtain similar effects by different means? 18 (9) I feel like a pure metaphysician. 19 (10) In Christ’s love, there was a […] an ardor to give without taking anything. […] There was something suicidal about him. 20 11. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia [Mille Plateaux. Capitalisme et schizophrénie, Minuit, 1980], trans. Brian Massumi, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1987, p. 203. 12. This passage is part of the eight-hour long series uploads/Litterature/ deleuze-x27-s-left-wing-approach-to-metaphysics.pdf