In reading this piece I couldn’t help but think about Heidegger’s call to return the first beginning. Would it be correct to say that both the existentialists and post-structuralists both had the same goal of going against traditional philosophy? Or, is it just coincidental that Deleuze is emphasizing the reversal of Platonism here?
Deleuze’s talk of the simulacrum reminds me, in a sense, of Sartre’s discussion on nothingness. The way I understand it, Sartre sees nothingness as something that divides up being and gives it meaning. This seems to be similar in tone to how Deleuze talks about the simulacrum. It is the antithesis of Plato’s Ideal and definies it in a way (at least as far as I can tell). In that sense I can understand its necessity and importance and something that shouldn’t be kept “completely submerged.”
While I'm not exactly sure about the concepts being discussed, Deleuze makes it clear in this essay that chaos and the breakdown/subversion of traditional concepts are to be glorified.
When Deleuze says "the conditions of real experience and the structures of the work of art are reunited: divergence of series, decentering of circles, constitution of the chaos which envelops them, internal resonance and movement of amplitude, aggression of the simulacra" is he saying that this sort of chaos and pervasive change is what constitutes an average person's experiences? If so, I can see how the post-structuralists and existentialists would differ in that existentialists see this as a force to be tamed while the post-structuralists would embrace it.
I am confused to what Deleuze means by eternal return.
In find the ideas in "A thousand Plateaus and Many Politics to be exceptionally confusing. There are several instances in the reading where they discuss the Motive of the theory of ideas and the method of division but they do not explain what these concepts mean. I feel somewhat as if the reader must already know these concepts and the others discussed to fully understand the reading.
The instant I had read "reversing Platonism" I got a case of goose bumps. The deconstruction of Platonism in this essay was so beautiful it truly demonstrates philosophy as art.
"it is intended rather in the sense of a "sign" issued from a processes of signalization; it is in the sense of a "costume", or rather a mask, expressing a process of disguising, where, behind each mask there is yet another."
I may be wrong in this interpenetration, but to me it seems like he is thinking something along the lines of "signs just point to other signs which just point to other signs.. etc" If this is true it makes no sense to make truth claims about metaphysical pieces of knowledge. How could I ever hope to argue for or against the existence of God if the signs I am using can never grasp what it is I am talking about.
It's interesting to see how Plato's theory of forms can be shifted in direction towards the nature of creativity (or at least how i see it). On page 257, it is mentioned that people were made as a copy of God. However, through sin, people lost the essence of God and became only a shallow image. The way I see this, is the original purity of an idea can be tainted and become just an empty copy, a simulacrum of its former self. This also sounds like a metaphor for how inauthenticity can taint an authentic self.
I've never been a particular fan of anything Plato has presented, but I feel this interpretation puts his ideas in a little more practical light
In reading this piece I couldn’t help but think about Heidegger’s call to return the first beginning. Would it be correct to say that both the existentialists and post-structuralists both had the same goal of going against traditional philosophy? Or, is it just coincidental that Deleuze is emphasizing the reversal of Platonism here?
ReplyDeleteDeleuze’s talk of the simulacrum reminds me, in a sense, of Sartre’s discussion on nothingness. The way I understand it, Sartre sees nothingness as something that divides up being and gives it meaning. This seems to be similar in tone to how Deleuze talks about the simulacrum. It is the antithesis of Plato’s Ideal and definies it in a way (at least as far as I can tell). In that sense I can understand its necessity and importance and something that shouldn’t be kept “completely submerged.”
While I'm not exactly sure about the concepts being discussed, Deleuze makes it clear in this essay that chaos and the breakdown/subversion of traditional concepts are to be glorified.
ReplyDeleteWhen Deleuze says "the conditions of real experience and the structures of the work of art are reunited: divergence of series, decentering of circles, constitution of the chaos which envelops them, internal resonance and movement of amplitude, aggression of the simulacra" is he saying that this sort of chaos and pervasive change is what constitutes an average person's experiences? If so, I can see how the post-structuralists and existentialists would differ in that existentialists see this as a force to be tamed while the post-structuralists would embrace it.
1. I can only say this reading confused me a lot.
ReplyDeleteI am confused to what Deleuze means by eternal return.
ReplyDeleteIn find the ideas in "A thousand Plateaus and Many Politics to be exceptionally confusing. There are several instances in the reading where they discuss the Motive of the theory of ideas and the method of division but they do not explain what these concepts mean. I feel somewhat as if the reader must already know these concepts and the others discussed to fully understand the reading.
The instant I had read "reversing Platonism" I got a case of goose bumps. The deconstruction of Platonism in this essay was so beautiful it truly demonstrates philosophy as art.
ReplyDelete"it is intended rather in the sense of a "sign" issued from a processes of signalization; it is in the sense of a "costume", or rather a mask, expressing a process of disguising, where, behind each mask there is yet another."
I may be wrong in this interpenetration, but to me it seems like he is thinking something along the lines of "signs just point to other signs which just point to other signs.. etc" If this is true it makes no sense to make truth claims about metaphysical pieces of knowledge. How could I ever hope to argue for or against the existence of God if the signs I am using can never grasp what it is I am talking about.
It's interesting to see how Plato's theory of forms can be shifted in direction towards the nature of creativity (or at least how i see it). On page 257, it is mentioned that people were made as a copy of God. However, through sin, people lost the essence of God and became only a shallow image. The way I see this, is the original purity of an idea can be tainted and become just an empty copy, a simulacrum of its former self. This also sounds like a metaphor for how inauthenticity can taint an authentic self.
ReplyDeleteI've never been a particular fan of anything Plato has presented, but I feel this interpretation puts his ideas in a little more practical light