Was deleuze a materialist?

It's mostly so his Marx would work

Mainly that mind, consciousness, ideas, and so on are determined by material forces rather than idealism that assumes mind is prior, codependent, or the only thing that is real.
The French do take a great deal of influence from the German idealists, largely rebuking idealism. As problematic as continental as a label is, it does exist for a reason as descriptive of this work.

Are you dumb or pretending? It just means they dont believe or imply mystical or supernatural properties such as as the soul, God, or otherwise.

Actually, nvm, it's not that simple, but I'm on a phone and typing out why materialism and empiricism are important for his project when most of it would probably go over yr head seems a bit tiresome. I don't think you should really care about Deleuzean metaphysics unless you care about metaphysics in general.

mate, he was a realist.

*and that stuff is not God

I don't know Whitehead, but assuming he's like Heidegger then he and Deleuze both view consciousness as having an operational definition that includes time.

Nietzsche didn't believe in god and he wasn't a materialist.

that's very vague and a bit pointless, basically all mainstream philosophy is materialist by that standard, i think when frenchies self-define as materialist there has to be more at stake than just atheism
so when i read materialism would it be more accurate to interpret it something like "economics" or at least "power relations" rather than "rocks and sand"?

Actually, Deleuze does not deny mysticism, in fact I think one of Deleuze's greatest achievements is managing to model sorcery well in a non-retarded metaphysical model. I would describe his mysticism as a type of altered-concousness-thinking or razor-sharp intuition. Deleuze himself maybe would claim that I'm misrepresenting his views, but he was a pseud anyway.

You have never read a philosophy book, you are obese, and you smell horrid.

i love when people use the words supernatural and mystical as if these are unproblematic, quotidian terms upon which we are all in agreement. at least read decerteau's mysticism article. as for supernatural, an unredeemable term that went out in the 19th century, read some hanegraaff

I'm the deleoozposter, but can confirm that I'm obese and smell horrid. I've read like, the first five pages of A-O though

Power relations and economics are emergent properties of highly complex forms of rocks and sand. Deleuze then shows how those emergent properties largely hold at less complex forms of rocks and sand and how they evolved.

there are similarities in the concepts of the virtual and eternal objects and their 'function' re: actualization, related to the parallels between whutehead's 'god' and the body w/o organs
shaviro examines many of their analagous ideas, and where they differ
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.shaviro.com/Othertexts/DeleuzeWhitehead.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj7yNC3wM3gAhVnHzQIHRtmAwgQFjAOegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2Et2xwYTSOZyTVfBSRDkJQ
more on his blog
shaviro.com/Blog/

>so when i read materialism would it be more accurate to interpret it something like "economics" or at least "power relations" rather than "rocks and sand"?
They're just talking about materialism in the ontological sense, that the material world is prior to all other phenomenon. Mind doesn't exist without matter, and all mental phenomena are a result if physical phenomena in materialism. It's not so much "rocks and sand" as "everyrhing is ultimately dependent on atomic particles."

there is very little in common between heidegger and whitehead

how about READING a book once in a while instead of wikipedizing it you piece of reeking dumb trash

P sure Wikipedia lists Delllooooz as a materialist

he was a process theologian

That's Whitehead desu ne wa

what is the virtual? I haven't read D yet

well, ill be... look at these rattled retards

No, Deleuze is not ultimately a materialist, though he shares a form of monism that is often compatible with materialism. I'm not even sure if there's a stable, agreed upon definition of "materialism," but if you are to formulate it in the sense of, "Is the only possible realm of existence the material universe?" the answer for Deleuze is no. His terminology changes over time, but from Difference and Repetition onward, Deleuze maintains that material existence is always preceded by immaterial events that determine how physical states are actualized. Materialists might agree with some variation of this statement, but the difference for them is that they relegate it to the modality of the possible--there might be entities that don't currently exist, but they still have "possibility" of being physically instantiated someday. Deleuze doesn't deny the possible, but in positing events as the substratum on which the physical world is actualized, he includes in "existence" (he rarely uses this word), more than can ever be actualized. Events themselves never change: while actualized entities pass through myriad events in their existence, the changes that occur to the entity are determined by the interpenetration of events that is always-already there. In a way, a material entity is like a bridge between two events: first, there are the events that preceded it in existence, then there is the physical actualization in "reality," but this actualization can then cross over into new events. For instance, this is quite clear in what we consider "social" phenomena: humans are created biologically, but through their interactions with each other give rise to forms of existence (e.g. political and cultural events) that in no way resemble man's origin.

This answer is just pretty much a roundabout way of saying, "Well, it depends on how you define materialism," but since the most popular formulations of materialism would be too reductive to include the above, I'd say he's not a materialist. Deleuze himself liked to have fun with labels and would call himself seemingly contradictory things like a "transcendental empiricist" or "plularist monist," so there's something in almost every label you can slap on him with some truth.

Damn this pun is so obvious and yet it never occurred to me

He was a diffrentialist.

Deleuze did call himself a materialist though and called schizoanalysis a materialist theory of the unconscious

Nononono, the entire metaphysical system of Dellooog is so refreshing because the virtual is CONTAINED in the material. He is a monist (in that becoming can be taken as an unity, the process, Spinoza's God) but the One is a multiplicity (in that the One contains many heterogenous components). His transcendental part is a little more complex, but it can be badly summarized as a failure to take it all in without judgment or selective ignorance. I suggest reading his book on Bergson if this sounds interesting

Nice projection there. Loss some weight and talk to real people.

True, but how serious was he being? He always liked to be playful with these distinctions, so the question is whether our current conceptions of "materialism" fully encompass his philosophy. Since in the Anglosphere "materialism" is almost always a kneejerk scientism, I don't think it's helpful to label Deleuze a materialist as a way of explaining him to those unfamiliar.

Imo the most helpful label you can put on Deleuze is that he is a theorist of the immanent. Is immanence materialism? Yes and no--all the "levels" of existence are condensed into one another, so you can look at the material level and say that it includes everything that exists, but you could equally well look at the psychological or spiritual or cultural level and say that it includes everything as well.

he was a platonic idealist, the immanentization of form returns the immanentization

metaphysical readings of deleuze are maximum retarded and immediately reveal someone who reads deleuze deracinated from the philosophical tradition

deleuze is a mediocre social/constitutive phenomenologist within a french-hegelian idiom. he would respond to "are you a materialist" by superficially saying "yes, in a matter of speaking, for you see....." in five different ways but always really saying "no, i don't hypostatize anything, i don't even hypostatize the subject so how can i hypostatize matter you fucking moron" but not wanting really come out and say this openly because it would be openly admitting he's just yet another social phenomenologist + french reading of hegel

if you want some somewhat more plausible metaphysicians of "matter" in a noncartesian way try certain readings of peirce or whitehead maybe.

>in the Anglosphere "materialism" is almost always a kneejerk scientism
don't misuse terminology and blame Anglos for it, it's not nice. Deleuze loved Anglos
> you could equally well look at the psychological or spiritual or cultural level and say that it includes everything as well
no, this is precisely the type of myth-telling that bungled up psychoanalysis from the start

you know he actively rejects Hegel throughout his work right? he hated dialectics

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 48K)

How in the fuck did you arrive at this reading. You are confusing schizoanalysis and rhizomes with Deleuze's metaphysical principles. The social, cultural, spiritual ect. are an entry point to productive analysis, yes, but they are merely explorations within the rhizome, not a sort of Kantian analysis. I admit that I do not read Deleuze for the metaphysics and D&R is not a work I really love like I do with some of his other stuff, but yr kinda missing the point. Now, if you are doing it intentionally, a type of strong misreading, sure, but one ought to admit idiosyncracy in some way.

Right, I don't think anything you said contradicts my explanation. If it appears that my saying the virtual preexists the material means that the virtual is "outside" of the actual, this is the inherently metaphorical nature of language limiting clear explanation.

Chronologically, the events preexist their spatiotemporal actualizations--this doesn't mean that the virtualities are ontologically "outside" or separate from their actualizations. In the Bergson book you mention, the actualization of the virtual is determined by duration: everything projects its own time through being actualized. So yes, you have an actual object whose virtuality is contained in the becoming it projects itself into (ie duration)

Attached: dxl2ui5v2r611.jpg (900x900, 83K)

I used to think like this, but the more I read the more I'm convinced that Deleuze isn't an anti-dialectical thinker, he's just anti-negativity. Think cybernetic self-reinforcing dialectics.

I think in this sort of threads being accurate with yr terms is very important. Deleuze's use of his terms are fairly unique to him, but the best part about him is that you can put it on the people being retards and having dogmatic images of what transcendental and material ought to be. Otherwise seems like we understood him all the same

Based and Buggerypilled

He looks like Michael Gira.

Attached: 857f7f53348e396f3478dacf9f17bdf9--michael-gira-michael-okeefe.jpg (236x233, 8K)

not totally inaccurate

you are probably better off reading shaviro or someone else, i'm only lightly familiar with deleuze's work but
briefly, the virtual can be thought of as a kind of field of possibilities that presupposes the determinate actuality of any given 'thing'
it is somewhat analogous to plato's realm of forms, insofar as virtuality is 'ideal' and not actual. but it is not separate nor separable from actuality, or the 'plane of immanence'

It's not the same mistake psychoanalysis makes because psychoanalysis anthropomorphizes mental phenomena. When I'm saying that mental phenomena can provide a window into immanence, I mean this only in context of Deleuze's panpsychism. Every existent entity has a pre-individual contemplation that opens it onto the world, so, even though it might be a term of art more than anything, you can say that Deleuze can provide the "psychology" of a river or a tree or whatever since this "psychology" is immanently the same as its biology. Look at the "Geology of Morals" and "Refrain" chapters in ATP, or chapter 2 of D&R re: pre-individual contemplations.

Sounds like you're overemphasizing Capitalism and Schizophrenia and neglecting the fact that Deleuze called himself a "pure metaphysician."
>You are confusing schizoanalysis and rhizomes with Deleuze's metaphysical principles
But schizoanalysis is the rhizomatic mapping of an individual's relationship to the plane of immanence. So the three are "different" in that they refer to different strata of existence, but they're the same metaphysical principle.
If you find my readings idiosyncratic, consult Logic of Sense, What is Philosophy?, and Pure Immanence. The latter two especially make it explicit that Deleuze's entire philosophical project is an attempt to immanetize all the disparate strata of existence communicate with one another.

read Bergsonism or watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=KdpudWL5i68

i agree that peirce and whitehead give clearer explanations of similar ideas, but they were living, thinking, and writing in a different time and things are just, like, way fucking weirder now. it is nice, if occasionally (or frequentily) frustrating to have someone presenting their work in an idiom that can contend with the increasingly bizarre reality we encounter.

I think there's a difference between rhizomes (a map to get you to places, a tool) and the ontological principle of Deleuze (the One/Process[stuff+change]). I'm currently traveling so I only have my C&S books with me, it's a real shame, I wish I could brush up on my metaphysics.

bump
come on, guys, there are sixteen different threads on bukowski

what does that have to do with this deleuze thread huh? explain that

If by Deleuze you mean a materialist and if by materialist you mean French, then yes, most definitely

bump

it's all part of the same plane, man
nothing is not related

say more please