Called by many France's foremost philosopher, Gilles Deleuze is one of the leading thinkers in the Western World. His acclaimed works and celebrated collaborations with Félix Guattari have established him as a seminal figure in the fields of literary criticism and philosophy. The long-awaited publication of What Is Philosophy? in English marks the culmination of Deleuze's career.
Deleuze and Guattari differentiate between philosophy, science, and the arts, seeing as means of confronting chaos, and challenge the common view that philosophy is an extension of logic. The authors also discuss the similarities and distinctions between creative and philosophical writing. Fresh anecdotes from the history of philosophy illuminate the book, along with engaging discussions of composers, painters, writers, and architects.
A milestone in Deleuze's collaboration with Guattari, What Is Philosophy? brings a new perspective to Deleuze's studies of cinema, painting, and music, while setting a brilliant capstone upon his work.
From other countries
Teri
5.0 out of 5 stars Deleuze and Guattari
Reviewed in Canada on 4 August 2016
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
A must read for all serious scholars....!
Report
Lars Wang
5.0 out of 5 stars Mindstretching
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 11 April 2019
Verified Purchase
If you ever want to stretch your mind in all directions, this is the book. Remarkable !
Report
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Una obra visionaria
Reviewed in Mexico on 1 October 2020
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Visión panorámica de nuestra época.
Report
Translate review to English
Brian C.
5.0 out of 5 stars Chaos first, order later...
Reviewed in the United States on 6 February 2012
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I have only read the first section of this book so far (the section on philosophy) so my review will be limited to that section. I will be reading the rest of the book soon (hopefully) and will be adding to my review after I do. Before I get into the discussion of what D&G understand by philosophy I should say a few general words that I think will help in understanding the aim of this book.
Deleuze's ontology is based on a distinction between the virtual and the actual. In the simplest terms possible the virtual is a tendency and the actual are the various actualizations of that tendency. So to take an everyday example, love is a tendency, and its various actualizations include marriage, friendship, etc.. Deleuze's philosophical method is based on tracing tendencies back to the virtual rather than trying to define them in terms of their actualizations. So rather than trying to take all the particular forms of love that exist and trying to "abstract" something common about them all and using that to define the concept of love, Deleuze attempts to get a hold of the tendency which is expressed in all the different actualizations of a tendency which will exceed those actualizations.
It is necessary to understand that general ontology if you want to understand what D&G are up to in this book. They are attempting to determine what philosophy, science, and art are. What is the tendency that they express? Which also means, what can they become? Something like philosophy is not defined purely in terms of its past and present actualizations. Philosophy is creative. But D&G's decision to divide philosophy, science, and art from each other is based on their belief that they all express different tendencies (they can overlap with each other but they are essentially distinct). Similarly, when D&G distinguish philosophy from thought based on Figures (89) they are attempting to distinguish two different tendencies. They believe that philosophy is a distinct tendency which differs in nature from the wisdom traditions of the East. This is not necessarily a value judgment (Greek philosophy is better than Eastern religion; though D&G do favor the immanence of concepts over the transcendence of figures) but is simply an attempt to distinguish two things that are different in nature.
The fact that virtual tendencies are often "covered" by their actualizations means that we often do not divide reality up correctly. We lump some things together that do not belong together. D&G would argue that anyone who lumps Eastern wisdom traditions up with philosophy as it originated in Greece is not dividing reality up properly.
PHILOSOPHY
So what is philosophy for D&G? What defines it as a tendency? Philosophy is, for D&G, the creation of concepts. Philosophers have given various interpretations of their own activity over the years and most philosophers in the history of philosophy would probably take some issue with D&G's definition, but whether they THINK it is what they are doing or not, D&G would argue creating concepts is what philosophers are ACTUALLY doing when they are doing philosophy. D&G wonder, "What would be the value of a philosopher of which one could say, 'He has created no concepts; he has not created his own concepts'?" (6)
Philosophers may think they are discovering the truth, a truth that was already there, but what they are in fact doing is creating concepts which respond to specific problems. Plato invented the concept of the concept, or the Idea, but he then turned it into a transcendent truth which it was merely the duty of philosophers after him to "contemplate". It is a good thing for the history of philosophy that philosophers did not take Plato's advice and instead continued with the process of inventing concepts. Plato's concept of the Idea was actually a response to a specific problem, how to validate specific truth claims within a democratic society, how to tell impostors from the real thing, etc. but it was elevated to a transcendent truth.
The most radical claim that D&G make is that concepts must not be evaluated in terms of their "truth" but in terms of their ability to solve problems and open up new problems and avenues for thought. A concept is evaluated in terms of whether it is interesting, important, etc. and not in terms of whether it is true. This is an extremely radical claim. This means, for example, that when evaluating Plato's concept of Ideas we do not attempt to decide whether it is a true picture of reality or not but whether it solved the problems it was meant to solve, whether it was interesting, whether it opened up new avenues of thought, etc. (and from that standpoint Plato's invention was indeed a success on a monumental scale).
It is also important to realize that the concept does not pre-exist its creation. This is what D&G mean when they say, "The first principle of philosophy is that Universals explain nothing but must themselves be explained" (7). Philosophers have a tendency to project their concepts into the past as having some kind of priority. For example, Edmund Husserl invents the concept of the Transcendental Ego (which took over elements from the cogito of Descartes, the transcendental unity of apperception of Kant, etc.) but attempted to then turn the Transcendental Ego into the foundation of all knowledge. D&G are arguing that this kind of move is an illegitimate move. The Transcendental Ego is not a foundation of experience but was created from experience and other concepts and then projected as a foundation. The Universal (the concept of the Transcendental Ego) does not explain experience but itself has to be explained (i.e. the genesis of the concept has to be explained). D&G attempt to explain the process of concept formation rather than using concepts to explain.
Basically D&G argue that there are three elements to philosophy as the creation of concepts. 1) Concepts, which are always combinations of other concepts. This view is similar, in a way, to Hegel's view since Hegel also derives concepts from the combinations of other concepts (i.e. becoming is a combination of being and nothing, etc.) except that Hegel combines concepts in higher syntheses which sublate the previous concepts so that each new concept is in some sense "higher" than the previous concepts. Each concept becomes more concrete and more real as Hegel progresses in his Logic. D&G also believe that concepts are made from other concepts but there is no process of sublation or moving to a higher level. Everything happens on the same plane.
2) The Plane of Immanence. This is something like the presuppositions that are taken for granted in any philosopher's creation of concepts (something like Heidegger's pre-ontological understanding of Being). They also compare it to what they call the image of thought. There is a certain image of thought that is taken for granted. Concepts are created from out of this plane of immanence but it is not itself a concept. It is something like a necessary presupposition for concept creation but cannot be identified with concepts.
3) Conceptual personae. I am not quite as clear on the why a conceptual persona is necessary for the creation of concepts (if anyone can help enlighten me in that regard please feel free to respond to my review) but D&G seem to think that it is necessary to have some kind of "dramatic actor" for the dramatization of concepts (think of Socrates for Plato, Zarathustra for Nietzsche, etc.).
Before I bring this section to a close (I want to leave some room to discuss art and science after I read the relevant sections) I want to just say that D&G's vision of philosophy is a radically creative one which, I think, is why I like it so much. Philosophy is a process of creation just like art but it works in concepts rather than affects. That means the highest goal for the philosopher is not a mere "reflection" of the truth but is a creation of new, interesting, exciting concepts. It is a radical vision of philosophy and there are aspects I have some questions about (I am not sure if I am entirely willing to throw out "truth" as a normative concept for philosophy, or "reference" as a possibility for philosophical concepts) but it is a very exciting read.
Report
barryb
5.0 out of 5 stars deleuze's best presentation of his full position
Reviewed in the United States on 28 April 2013
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Deluze is one of my favorite thinkers and I was already familiar with his work. This volume was supposed to be something that evolved just before his death and represented his comprehensive thought. I found it to be very comprehensive, presented in a logical order, and very accessible .
he doesn't give a vague answer; he tells us exactly what philosophy is; it has three specific steps: the pre-philosophical plane of immanence; the conceptual-persona; and finally, construction of the "constellation-event". He fills each area with substantial content and links the areas together.
one exciting aspect of the presentation is the way he enlists Hegel's concept of "counter-blow". With his theory of an extended plane; he articulates the eventual curves that evolve along this plane, and the "folding-back", that is a built-in function of the concept. These folds align borders that previously were separated. The fold creates retro-active zone-overlaps that modify structure. A great idea. Also, his idea of vertical and horizontal intersections of the plane are discussed towards the end of the book and also address the folding-back aspect (or being driven-back by moments that are outside "territory" or point-of-view. This is a very creative and powerful presentation that I felt offered significant "new" material that I'm glad I did not miss. Of course 5 stars. This presentation is superior to others who share the same motivational plane of immanence.
Report
Suzanne H.
5.0 out of 5 stars Great entry point for Deleuze & Guattari
Reviewed in the United States on 17 March 2023
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I quite like the large inside margins and typeface. It's also the most accessible point for someone interested in D&G, but I imagine you already know that if you're shopping for this book.
Report
Yining
4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 13 March 2016
Verified Purchase
Haven't read the whole book but will find more time to get along with Deleuze
Report
Robert Philbin
5.0 out of 5 stars Deleuze - Guattari on Philosophy, Excellent Read
Reviewed in the United States on 20 September 2010
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Nicely reasoned work on the role of philosophy, science, and art in the human approach to organizing meaning in the material world. Deleuze is of course a key thinker in terms of understanding the current state of how we come to terms with origins and potentialities. It can be difficult at times because of translation and the unique terminology necessary to explore certain innovative concepts; but if you're not familiar with Deleuze, and want a fresh look at the subject, this is a good start.
Report
David Dilworth
4.0 out of 5 stars Deleuze in relation to Aristotle, Kant, and Peirce
Reviewed in the United States on 6 February 2019
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Deleuze writes seriously and with stimulating French razzle-dazzle, the originality of which wears then when you rethink the great philosophers on the topics he addresses (e.g., in Aristotle and Kant). His major stress is on philosophers "creating philosophic concepts" on their own plane or plateau. He distinguishes this concept plane from the independent plane of scientific perception, and then frames a third independent plane of the qualitative affect (as in art works). He provides extensive phenomenological descriptions of all three planes. To some extent the style is of the "drive-by" variety, that is, alluding to other philosophers in quick apercus without stopping to articulating their positions in depth. His treatment of the plane of the qualitative affect, as in art, is very good, except that it is derivative from Peirce's category of Firstness, which Deleuze employs in his CINEMA 1 but with no reference to Peirce here. In effect, Deleuze has reversed Peirce's more logically elegant three categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness in his (Deleuze's) somewhat over-saturated sequential articulation of the domains of concept, perception, and affect.
Report
can b
5.0 out of 5 stars Best book ever
Reviewed in the United States on 13 July 2023
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Absolutely great, I like the printing, as well.
Report
demarcation
5.0 out of 5 stars Intense
Reviewed in the United States on 22 March 2020
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
An intense yet important overview to Guattari and Deleuze’s starting themes. I’d say a must read for anyone getting into either D, G, or their collective works.
Report
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United States on 29 October 2015
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
The quality is very good! Thanks you so much!
Report
Peter Oliphant
1.0 out of 5 stars If you liked Khalil Ghibran, you will swoon over this.
Reviewed in the United States on 11 May 2010
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Here is the big picture: thought has "three great forms -- art, science, and philosophy...."(197) This three-part framework is not explicated, but these categories clearly refer to culture, leaving out distasteful areas of culture, such as technology, which are certainly merely "material."
To explain culture, the writers move back and forth between two varieties of positivism: intellectualistic positivism and anti-intellectual positivism. Intellectualistic positivism is the position associated with Hume, Hobbes, and Locke that reduces culture to ways of thinking, especially among intellectuals. Anti-intellectual positivism is the position associated with Malthus and Darwin, and that derives culture from some underlying biological forces.
The book is divided into two parts.
Part I says that "forms" of culture arise from composing one's feelings (art), referring to instants of experience by measuring motion (science), and forming concepts (philosophy). "Concept" is some entity of "thought." "Concept" is never defined but is catalogued by words like "fragmentary whole, plural," and "incorporeal." Concepts, references, and feelings make up "planes," also never defined, which are "immanent" for concepts, "referent" for science, and "monumental" for art.
The "plane of immanence" among the academic philosophers is the highest plane, of course:
"If the three ages of the concept are the encyclopedia, pedagogy, and personal commercial training, only the second can safeguard us from falling from the heights of the first into the disaster of the third -- an absolute disaster for thought, whatever its benefits might be, of course, from the viewpoint of universal capitalism." (12)
Philosophers communicate their concepts by "personae...leaping like Kierkegaard, dancing like Nietzsche, and diving like Melville." (71) Scientists communicate their references by "observers," like Maxwell's demon (129). Artists communicate their feelings by compositions. All these are variations on the theme of intellectualistic positivism, the center of which is the philosopher's acting like an atom, swirling about, intellecting concepts.
Part I closes with a digression on sociologistic positivism shading into radical anti-intellectualistic positivism. The digression is on "geophilosophy." The writers adopt a form of radical anti-intellectualistic positivism: animals form territories, abandon them, and recreate them. So "social fields are inextricable knots in which the three fields are mixed up so that in order to disentangle them, we have to diagnose real types or personae." (68) Geopolitics means that some concepts, observations, and compositions are good ones, because they are "territorialized" by relation to the values of a particular society, as among the ancient Greeks. They are "immanent."
But others are bad ones because they are "deterritorialized" by political domination. They are "transcendent." Transcendent geophilosophy is "imperial," and "paradigmatic, projective, hierarchical, referential" (89) like Chinese, Hindu, Jewish, Islamic "pre-philosophy." Immanent "geophilosophy" is "syntagmatic, connective, linking, and "consistent" (91). Because of transcendent geophilosophy, the "two great modern revolutions, American and Soviet, have turned out so badly." (100) We are in just a terrible state today, having damaged our environment with our transcendent concepts. "The Greeks lived and thought in Nature, but left Mind in the "mysteries," whereas we live, think, and feel in the Mind, in reflection, but leave Nature in a profound alchemical mystery that we constantly profane." (102)
Part II recovers from geopolitical environmentalism, and the writers return to science, portraying science as measurements or "functives...propositions in discursive systems" (117) in a "plane of reference" (127) among states, "enunciated" by..."partial observers." (129). While science has reference, philosophy has logic, which "wants to turn the concept into a function" (135), but is just the confrontation of opinions about "virtuals." Art has "composition," by which the artist memorializes his sensations, especially the unhappy depressed ones like Van Gogh, Woolf, Dickenson, and Klee. Here a variety of cultural idealism emerges, as the concepts and the compositions take over. We are treated throughout to many precious metaphors ("The philosopher is the friend of the concept") and obscure references ("Kant's hose suspenders") which show how piquant it is to be an intellect aware that "immanence is only immanent to itself." (48)
The last chapter, "From Chaos to the Brain," returns to the intellectual and anti-intellectual themes. Thought (intellectual) must be localized in the brain (organic, anti-intellectual), because opinions are an umbrella we put up to protect us from chaos. "The brain is the "junction" of the three planes: immanence of philosophy, reference of science, composition of art...." (217) In sum, "Art struggles with chaos...to render it sensory...science is perhaps inspired by a sinuous reptilian movement. (205) Philosophy struggles in turn with the chaos as undifferentiated abyss or ocean of dissemblance." (207)
Their position that the object world is grounded in chaos is really an assumption that science is impossible, because "chaos" has no intrinsic order. The book has an extensively commented bibliography of mostly continental writers in the footnotes and an index that valiantly substitutes a heroic catalogue of page references for definitions, since, in the end, they say concepts cannot be defined.
Report
grant
4.0 out of 5 stars Not bad
Reviewed in the United States on 20 August 2014
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I'm not sure what to say about the book. I just don't seem to be interested in this one. It is well formatted, and enjoyable enough
Report
Gregory G.
3.0 out of 5 stars Disappointed, not an engaging read.
Reviewed in the United States on 16 August 2020
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
I read great reviews of this French author, but did not find this book, or maybe this translation very engaging.
Report
xp6203
2.0 out of 5 stars obviously, the size for white and black ones are of different standards.
Reviewed in the United States on 14 November 2013
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
size do not match label. size is too large. it has same size on shoulder and waist as medium, both are actual large size
Report
자본론 1 - 상
부모와 다른 아이들 1
마음챙김 기반 인지치료
스포일러 포함 
이 글의 핵심 요약
