Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

by Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Brian Massumi (Translator), Felix Guattari (Contributor)

4.28 of 5 stars 4.28 · rating details · 2,130 ratings · 118 reviews

Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII. He is a key figure in poststructuralism, and one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Felix Guattari (1930-1992) was a psychoanalyst at the la Borde Clinic, as well as being a major social theorist and radical activist.

A Thousand Plateaus is part of Deleuze an...more

Paperback, 632 pages

Published December 21st 1987 by Univ Of Minnesota Press (first published January 1st 1987)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick by Philip K. Dick

Metamagical Themas by Douglas R. Hofstadter

The Pillar and Ground of the Truth by Pavel Florensky

My post-graduation reading list

3rd out of 30 books — 7 voters

Where the Sidewalk Ends by Shel Silverstein

White as the Driven Snow

495th out of 552 books — 126 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Sep 01, 2011 James rated it 5 of 5 stars

Plateaus is required reading for Assange fans and enemies, as well as those who don't give a fig but carry a Master or Visa card or just have a particular bent for Continental theory.

According to Deleuze and Guattari Western thought is dominated by a structure of knowledge they call aboresence. This way of knowing is tree-like, vertical, and centralized. For instance, in biology, we have Linnean taxonomies. In chemistry, we have Porphyrian trees. In linguistics we have Chomskyan sentence trees....more

like 18 likes · see review

Mar 19, 2011 El rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: cultural-studies-and-other, permanent-collection, pretentious-book-club, cuckoos

August 9, 2010
We will be reading this for our next bookclub selection (because it follows Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals so well?). Once my boyfriend finds his second copy of this I'll get started. Yes, my boyfriend is the kind of person who owns two copies of this book. Intentionally.

I would also like to mention that I will be reading this at the mercy of the one who decided we should read this (who is not my boyfriend, believe it or not - apparently there are other p...more

like 8 likes · see review

Jul 20, 2008 Charlie rated it 5 of 5 stars Recommends it for: Anyone who likes a challenge

Finally, finally, I have finished this book, I was very definitely punching above my weight trying to read this, but overall I have enjoyed it thoroughly, well perhaps not enjoyed the actual reading of it, but this book has provided such a vast resource of ideas for me, I don't regret a single one of the many months that it has taken me to read through this, this is a huge personal achievement for me, now that I have read this I feel like I could read anything.

For the most of this book the subje...more Finally, finally, I have finished this book, I was very definitely punching above my weight trying to read this, but overall I have enjoyed it thoroughly, well perhaps not enjoyed the actual reading of it, but this book has provided such a vast resource of ideas for me, I don't regret a single one of the many months that it has taken me to read through this, this is a huge personal achievement for me, now that I have read this I feel like I could read anything.

For the most of this book the subject matter is suitably sprawling, but there is a fair chunk devoted to the pairs earlier musings on capitalism dissected in anti-Oedipus, having not read that book I feel it would have been useful for what comprises one of the main propositions of the book.

I had felt for a long time reading this book that it is better taken chapter by chapter and seen more as a collection of essays, but the duo manage to very skilfully marry all of the various ideas in the book together in the last chapter, a great deal of the ideas slot in together at this point, and you begin to see the bigger picture of what Deleuze & Guttari are getting at, and it really is quite an awe inspiring vision. That being said I still couldn't really profess to know what an abstract machine was, let alone differentiate between the different types of abstract machine. But I think that it is o.k. to not get this because they seem to be saying that this is the thing that links everything together and is the gel that holds together everything we understand, so ultimately the boys are setting their sights pretty high in terms of what they are trying to achieve.

Overall the main merit of this book is its skill in not treating things that are collectively subjective as being much closer to being objective. If enough people are aware of a phenomena then it is there whether it is objective or otherwise, and should be treated in this manner, adopting this stance Deleuze and Guttari delve into subjects many others feed to tread, and making some surprisingly logical and poignant observations.
(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Feb 26, 2008 Scott Gates rated it 1 of 5 stars

This is basically a nonreview: like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I’d move to the next one. Same for the next chapter and the next.

Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it. Here’re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write:

“Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To ma...more This is basically a nonreview: like a restless nomad I would read several pages of one section and then find myself completely unable to go on, and then I’d move to the next one. Same for the next chapter and the next.

Right from the beginning I knew I had already read too much of this type of writing to have much patience for it. Here’re the authors justifying the fact that they affixed their names to the books they write:

“Why have we kept our own names? Out of habit, purely out of habit. To make ourselves unrecognizable in turn. To render imperceptible, not ourselves, but what makes us act, feel, and think. To reach, not the point where one no longer says I, but the point where it is no longer of any importance whether one says I. We are no longer ourselves. We have been aided, inspired, multiplied.”

Sigh. How easy it is to date and place such writing: it could only be sixties-spawned poststructuralist theory. The way the book seeks to undermine “structured” or “phallocentric” (of course) thinking is humorlessly rigorous.

There’s one chapter comparing States to “chieftans,” and there is not one mention of any country and hardly any reference to a single specific example (references to “the Orient” don’t count). Such breezy abstractions are the antithesis of Foucault’s fine-grained analyses of actual social structures.

The main philosopher they rail against (and neatly simplify) is Plato, who was writing philosophy 2,400 years ago. Plato is like Satan to these theorists: Everything is his fault.

Like many theorists, the authors are at their worst when they turn their maniacal gaze onto fiction. But they can’t resist, they must say something. Here is a representative sentence concerning literature (they’re talking about Moby Dick and Kafka’s “Josephine the Singer”):

“It is always with the Anomalous that one enters into alliance to become-animal.” [SIC!]

This will sound brisk and simplistic (like most of this review, perhaps), but I really do think that theorists in general just don’t *get* fiction. They have no taste. (See, for a chilling example, anything Frederic Jameson has said about literature.)

I exclude Foucault, an insanely original thinker, from the above critical statements about theorists.
(less)

like 3 likes · see review

view all 12 comments

Cuddlewumpus So I'm unhappy with myself for doing this, but I felt a stupid compulsion to point out that Foucault was a pretty big fan of Deleuze's work. I don't k...more
Nov 24, 2012 07:58am

Scott Gates Mr. Wumpus,

Don’t be unhappy!

I was aware that Foucault liked these guys, and I don’t doubt he got things out of reading them that I didn’t.

And my revi...more Mr. Wumpus,

Don’t be unhappy!

I was aware that Foucault liked these guys, and I don’t doubt he got things out of reading them that I didn’t.

And my review was certainly far from rigorous. The negativity of my "nonreview" was due, to a good extent, to the fact that I had read a fair amount of "poststructuralist" theory stuff in the recent past and was really beginning to tire of some of the common ways such writers expressed themselves. The longer quote I plucked from the book (“Why have we kept our own names....”) exemplified a type of writing I found icky.

So it’s true that because I did not like the style, I did not like the book. Nor did I read it all that well. I only read a fraction of it, for one. And for the parts that I did read, it was difficult for me to get over the (what I perceived to be) self-congratulatory polemical tone.

But style is difficult to separate from content. Somebody said something like “Style is soul,” didn’t they? The book itself seemed (and strived really hard to be) pluralistic and diverse, and yet it came off static and sterile. D&G absolutely level everything that comes in their path. I guess this is fine as far as the world goes, but it really bothered me when they’d do their thing to literature.

In general, I’m probably oversensitive when it comes to theorists discussing literature. In general, I do not like it. True, D&G did not express any value judgment as outlandish as some of their colleagues’, such as Zizek’s assertion that Agatha Christie or whoever was a better writer than Virginia Woolf; or Frederic Jameson’s saying that Pynchon’s V. was a failure because it did not adequately promote some kind of Marxist revolution (LOL). Such absurd opinions do nothing in terms of investigating literature, but obviously these guys have their own agenda, different from that of someone who actually gives a damn about literature in and of itself.

But nonetheless, I did not think any of D&G’s statements about literature enlivened the given literary work. It seemed to me that these big-time works were dredged up only so they could get the D&G rhizomatic-jargon treatment. Like in the rest of the book, they’ll talk about any wacky subject in a constant fit of seeming variety, but it’s all ultimately one. The big authors just seemed like a prop for them.

And why is it always, always poor Kafka who’s targeted the most by such theorists?(less)
Dec 04, 2012 10:34am

Aug 05, 2011 Phil rated it 4 of 5 stars

I'm not even going to pretend that I understood half of what D & G were trying to get at here, nor am I going to weigh in on whether or not their ideas are rigorous enough to be regarded as good philosophy. There certainly seems to be a system here, of sorts, but it's a system that seems based on an assessment of the conditions that allow for the production of that which cannot be systematized. The authors posit a tension between the conventional and the known (molar strata), and the unconve...more

like · see review

Apr 24, 2011 The Awdude rated it 5 of 5 stars

The most difficult book ever written. EVER. But it’s also liberating as hell. Just sit back and enjoy how strange it makes you feel. And then how ecstatic, confused, angry, etc., all at once. But if you're ever climbing and all of a sudden you realize that you're getting it, like, really getting it, then hang on and stay with it because it will probably change your life when you get to the top. And that feels pretty groovy. Especially when you really have to work for the plateau. It ain’t easy b...more

like 3 likes · see review

Oct 05, 2010 Mike rated it 4 of 5 stars

Any book of philosophy that features a chapter in which a geologist (named Challenger no less) undergoes a metamorphosis while delivering a lecture is pretty good. What takes it to the next level is what Challenger the geologist turns into: a lobster! This book has it all from Deleuze and Guattari: wolf packs, war machines, nomadologies, becomings-animal, rhizomes, the differences between the games of Go and Chess, and plenty of rips on Freud and psychoanalysis. My favorite chapters were the int...more

like · see review

Mar 30, 2010 FiveBooks rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: fivebooks-on-radical-political-thou

Lawyer Chibli Mallat has chosen to discuss Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari's A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia , on FiveBooks as one of the top five on his subject - Maverick Political Thought, saying that:

"...Sadr was executed, aged 45, by Saddam Hussein in April 1980. He is in my view the greatest Islamic thinker of the 20th century, and he reshaped the whole field of Islamic law away from the monstrous idea of it, held by Eastern and Western ignoramuses alike. Iqtisaduna is th...more

like · see review

Mar 24, 2008 Sachin rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philsophy

The second part of Deleuze and Guattari's two volume mind boggling and yet a playful critique of capitalism is full of insights and useful ideas. They do manage to take the language of critical theory forward from Lacan, Derrida and Foucault. One of the most intersting and useful metaphor is the metaphor of rhizome used instead of hierarchic logic of the metaphor of `tree'. One of the most important philosophical treatise of this `post modern' era.

like 2 likes · see review

Apr 03, 2013 Jimmy marked it as to-read-other

Great article that made me want to attempt this author: http://htmlgiant.com/random/the-begin...

like 1 like · see review

Jun 04, 2007 courtney rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: people smarter than i am

i loved reading this -- it was exciting and confrontational and challenged the primacy of psychoanalysis and all sorts of other 20th century "givens." to say that i READ the book is a lie. i read about 50-100 pages of it (the section dealing with the Body without Organs, a plane of being that we all strive towards) and plan of reading further into it.

like 1 like · see review

May 10, 2013 David added it

Shelves: creativephilosophy

This is mind blowing. I don't think I totally understand everything but reading it and imagining what it means is a revelation. It seems to promote a consciousness of the world that is devoid of hierarchy and shatters fundamental categories. I decided to read this intermittently so far I finished chapter 5.

like 1 like · see review

Jun 25, 2012 Ben rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: theory

I like Deleuze. A lot. I think, insofar as this is meaningful to say, he is right. But I don't know that he is a good writer. He tends to get off task, run off on these giant tangents that are sometimes charming, but, as this VERY LONG book progresses, get increasingly more tedious and less productive. The becoming-woman discussion is a case in point for me. Deleuze spends more time trying to convince us that he has no intention of insulting transvestites and their accomplishments than he does a...more

like · see review

Oct 16, 2012 Jennifer rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy-lit-theory

This book was tremendously helpful, but tremendously more so once a critical article pointed out the autological feature of this tome. Frustrating at times, I ordered the companion, written by the same translator. It goes very well with much of Cary Wolfe & Jacques Derrida (The Animal..., & The Beast and the Sovereign), reinforcing and extending - sometimes over-extending - their concepts. My best recommendation is to read a bit at a time, then sleep on it! It's amazing how that helped....more

like · see review

Nov 21, 2008 Avinash rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I actually have read this book. I have a vague idea of what its about, but I cannot claim to understand all of it. That in no way detracted from sheer reading pleasure.

Some of their ideas such as rhizomatic thinking and the body without organs are so beautiful you can stand and stare at them for hours. As for some of the other ideas, i have no clue what they're talking about.

They suggest that you read their book like listening to a concert. They also suggest that the book's chapters are plateaus...more

like · see review

Aug 31, 2011 Jonfaith rated it 3 of 5 stars

I felt off balance with this one, especially in stark relief to Anti-Oedipus. I'm not suggesting I deftly maneuvered through that one, but the posture remained intact. I largely flailed and screeched during my readinging and kept it such until I read that Alec Empire loves this as well as some squatters in St. Petersburg: I read that second detail Wired magazine. Yeah, I bought a pair of copies of that back in the early months of Clinton's second term. It is strange, I recall so much of that art...more

like · see review

May 21, 2007 Peter Anderson rated it 5 of 5 stars

wrote my MA thesis on these fuckers

like 2 likes · see review

Sep 09, 2012 Seventeenseventy6 rated it 1 of 5 stars

Intellectually dishonest and almost total garbage. Don't bother with this for any other reason except to say that you've read it. The book is filled with pointless coinages and non-sense elliptical arguments. Prose seems indecipherable on purpose to conceal the vapidity of arguments.

Sadly, I think it's very easy for college-age readers to become blinded by the artifice of this style of writing and end up believing that this represents some kind of pinnacle of thought. It's not a pinnacle of any...more

like · see review

Sep 11, 2011 Kathleen rated it 3 of 5 stars

Recommended to Kathleen by: Elizabeth T.

Shelves: academic

Someone who enjoyed this book a great deal highly recommended also reading "A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History" by Manuel De Landa, saying that this book was a more easily digested view of what Deleuze & Guattari are talking about. I never read it, but kept the book in mind.

This is probably the most difficult book I ever attempted to read. I read it for a class in grad school, for a degree in Digital Art & New Media. The approach the professor used for this, was that teams of 2 people...more

like · see review

Jan 15, 2012 Chris marked it as to-read · review of another edition

So, I have been reading this book for over ten years. I open it to a random section, read a few pages, put it down, come back in a few months. It's a strange and difficult book.

During the weekend I read this.

"The multiple must be made, not by always adding a higher dimension, but rather in the simplest of ways, by dint of sobriety, with the number of dimensions one already has available—always n - 1 (the only way the one belongs to the multiple: always subtracted). Subtract the unique from the m

...more

like · see review

Aug 10, 2009 Ryan rated it 3 of 5 stars

It was fun, it just wasn't that rigorous in the end. What I enjoy about the post-structuralists is that their writing is supposed to display implicitly how our language influences what we think, what conclusions or connections we can draw. To this end, the two authors have adopted a very unique, idiosyncratic framework which they then apply to psychology, society, human beings, etc., arriving at fresh outlooks on a variety of topics. Again, it was enjoyable precisely because of the sense of play...more

like · see review

Oct 06, 2010 Christoph rated it 3 of 5 stars

I am torn on this review and rating. On the one-hand I recognize this as one of the quintessential post-modern tomes up there with Lyotard's Postmodern Condition or Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge but on the other hand, the quixotic hubris in this text is almost overbearing. It really depends on how I am looking at the purpose of the writing. If i try to look at it like a true philosophical text with intended insight and description, it falls completely flat. It truly is the inane charti...more I am torn on this review and rating. On the one-hand I recognize this as one of the quintessential post-modern tomes up there with Lyotard's Postmodern Condition or Foucault's The Archaeology of Knowledge but on the other hand, the quixotic hubris in this text is almost overbearing. It really depends on how I am looking at the purpose of the writing. If i try to look at it like a true philosophical text with intended insight and description, it falls completely flat. It truly is the inane charting of ontology (even if not hierarchical ontology) like Husserl's Phenomenology for a significant portion of the text. But whereas Husserl was truly tilting at windmills, Deleuze and Guttari seem to be bullfighting them. On the other hand, if I view this as surrealist prose with as much meaning as a non-sequitur then I can appreciate this book as the most beautifully coherent yet abstract expressionist writing I have ever seen.
The subtitle of the book points to the two main objects of the critical theory developed here: hegemonic economics (capitalism) and hegemonic psychology (psychoanalysis). But neither ever seem to be directly addressed. The book seems to be nothing but a series of tangents vacillating between descriptions of how to use the method, actual methodological analysis associated generally with topics relating to the two objects mentioned above, and then there are the non-sequiturs.
Since one never truly understands the intention of the writing other than to get lost in the hubris of deterritorializing reterritorialized lines of flight back to some strata in some assemblage comprising an abstract machine (I am sorry that statement is the most meaningless concept ever devised), I cannot accept this as an actual method of critical thought. That said, there are conceptions in here that when not trying to be so diagrammatical are ingenious and necessary for conceptualizing our time. The idea of the rhizome and how it could describe contemporary social networks or the stratification of elements within a concept. Also, the discourse on Chomsky's linguistic theory (why is Chomsky such a common punching bag for the post-modernists?) is probably the most compelling. Meanwhile the embedded text aka Nomadology is literally the most farcical foray into meaningless abstract pretension I have endured although the distinction of royal versus normal science is a tangential concept in that section worth investigating (although already done to some degree by TS Kuhn about twenty years before).
That this book can both me overwhelmingly insightful in one breath and crushingly bombastic the next without ever truly revealing whether this is completely meant to be serious, a joke, neither or both, tells me there is something much more to this. But frankly, I do not have the patience to sit through it again to find out. Perhaps, at the least, as reference. (less)

like · see review

Jan 05, 2009 Johnjbrantley rated it 5 of 5 stars

Anyone who has touched this book will probably attest to its strangeness and difficulty. I went through this phase when I was really excited to figure out exactly what the authors had to say. I am not sure I ever got there, but I understood a good bit and then let go of it for a while.

Sometimes, with intellectual issues, it seems that the question shouldn't have been asked in the first place, or should have been asked differently. What's cool about this book is that the authors take full control...more

like · see review

Sep 29, 2011 Tonia rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a tough, tough read and crazy. This book just defies explanation. This will be one to revisit many, many times. If you're interested in Glissant, I would recommend reading parts of this book because Glissant uses Deleuze's rhizomatic thought as a founding notion in his Poetics of Relation for his nomadic thinking. Still struggling to get my mind around this books. There is something in here for everyone. Basically each plateau is a variation on one concept.

like · see review

Jun 08, 2010 Ashleymatney rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

If you can make head-or-tails of this crap then this rating doesn't apply to you. It would probably be best if you read this outside a course with any expectations because if you're trying to figure out how you'll apply this to a paper as you read you'll never get anywhere. It's just strange and nonsensical. Even the most learned literary critic or psychoanalyst would have trouble following this text.

like 1 like · see review

Sep 06, 2010 Mara marked it as to-read

Shelves: read-part-way-and-abandoned-for-now

This falls in the the category of "extremely dense books that I'm utterly fascinated by and promise I'll read properly someday".

Instead, I went to see a documentary about people (artists, architects, etc... including DJ Spooky) who have been inspired by Deleuze's thinking. It's called Milles Gilles, directed by Ijsbrand van Veelen. It turned out to be pretty dull.

like · see review

Sep 08, 2008 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars

Tired of seeing everything from the point of view of the individual? Bored of anthropomorphism? This might be the book for you. This book changed the way I think about thinking. Swirls in your pot of boiling water will seem as complex and contingent as hurricanes. The migration of humans will look like the crawling of ants. Most importantly, though, Deleuze and Guattari show everything as a process of strategic movement through territory, whether it be the formation of layers of sediment or noma...more

like 4 likes · see review

Feb 11, 2010 DoctorM rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: critical-theory, favourites

I could begin by saying that every lovely, black-clad Bookish Reclusive Dangerously Younger Train-Wrecky (BRDYTW) co-ed with whom I've been involved over the past twenty years or so has had a copy of "A Thousand Plateaus" on a bedside bookshelf, but this book is far more than a marker for lit-crit girls who prefer Older Lovers. I discovered this book back in the mid-80s, in the first flush of my exposure to critical theory and postmodernist thought, and it is one of the books that I've been enam...more

like · see review

Jan 10, 2013 Jilanne rated it 4 of 5 stars

I read this while taking a class in my MFA program called The Poetics of Indeterminacy. Rhizome-filled dreams. Ideas surfacing throughout the night, every night, for a semester. The book fosters creativity---if you give yourself over to it. Go ahead, you know you want to.

like · see review

Feb 02, 2013 Hortense rated it 4 of 5 stars

"Stateless woman-people whose justice, religion, and loves are organized uniquely in a war mode. Descendants of the Scythians, the Amazons spring forth like lightning, "between" the two States, the Greek and the Trojan. They sweep away everything in their path."

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (12)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

150 users

Philosophy > Theory

45 users

Non Fiction

19 users

Cultural > France

13 users

Academic

12 users

Psychology

8 users

Writing > Essays

5 users

History

5 users

Reference > Research

4 users

Politics

4 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Gilles Deleuze

Deleuze is a key figure in postmodern French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, crea...more Deleuze is a key figure in postmodern French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.

Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, isa study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
(less)

More about Gilles Deleuze...

Books by Gilles Deleuze

Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Nietzsche and Philosophy (European Perspectives)

Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty & Venus in Furs

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Thousand Plateaus...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Thousand Plateaus: Cap...

“A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.” — 65 people liked it

“Bring something incomprehensible into the world!” — 44 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
avg rating	preview: Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia Goodreads rating: 4.28 (2130 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://gr-assets.com/book/show/118316.Thousand_Plateaus?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1334679652l/118316.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://gr-assets.com/book/show/118316.Thousand_Plateaus?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Gilles Deleuze[/url]

Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website