Philosophy After Deleuze Quotes

“merely aesthetic. It is also a major characteristic of his account of perception. We can see this if we note that “composition” is a complex word in this context. What Deleuze and Guattari directly mean in What is Philosophy? is simply that art pertains to what they call the “plane of composition.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“From the perspective of this deduction and its Bergsonist vocabulary, it is difficult to understand what role cinema might play in all of this.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“At the core of Deleuze’s ethics was the thinker who affirms life, carries thought and life toward new possibilities, and who Deleuze calls in a Nietzschean idiom, “the artist.” Conversely, at the core of Deleuze’s aesthetics, we rediscover the problem of ethics insofar as the vocation of the artist is the positive invention of new possibilities for life.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“Composition, composition is the sole definition of art.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“end the Overman, the overcome, overtaken man. The point of critique is not justification but a different way of feeling: another sensibility.”103 As Cavell puts it in his formulation of Emersonian perfectionism, what is at issue here is the “next self.”104 This next self, I’ve argued, is conditioned on the production of an artistic will.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“he artificially separates quality and quantity, and he overemphasizes, and potentially completely invents, the role of the joyful passions. This latter charge is the most important for this discussion, and it is something I took care to emphasize above: there is no development without pleasure. It is what gives birth to the imagination, to the understanding and to reason. At every step of the genesis, joy is the operative principle. Macherey argues, however, that in Spinzoa, there is no such thing as a joyful passion. All passions are, by definition, sad. There”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“have done with anything, and so on—is based on different configurations of life: each type is discovered by inquiring into “the real forces that form thought.”92 What has changed between Spinoza and Nietzsche is not the close connection between thought and life but the definition of “thought” itself. It is no longer a ratio reinforcing reactive, sensory-motor forces, but an unbounded creativity from which active affections flow. When the subject reaches this essence or vocation and becomes active, it no longer organizes its affections rationally. It takes advantage of its excess to create new possibilities for life or new configurations of the body. The name for the type of thinker, who affirms life, carrying thought and life toward new possibilities, is “the artist.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“from the point of view of their relation to “life” (which at this point in the book characterizes the reciprocal relationship between the will to power and the forces it gathers together): Rational knowledge sets the same limits to life as reasonable life sets to thought; life is subject to knowledge and at the same time thought is subject to life. Reason sometimes dissuades and sometimes forbids us to cross certain limits: because it is useless (knowledge is there to predict), because it would be evil (life is there to be virtuous), because it is impossible (there is nothing to see or think behind the truth).84”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“runs through and gathers together the forces which affect the will, or what Deleuze refers to later in the text (and in a Freudian idiom) as “excitations.”61 The second synthesis is “the reproduction of diversity,” and it functions by automatically retaining “mnemonic traces” of excitations.62 It thus corresponds, roughly, to Kant’s synthesis of reproduction.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“Expressionism in philosophy Difference and repetition 1 Extensive Parts 1 Intensity (Sensibility) 2 Imagination 2 First Passive Synthesis (of Imagination) 3 Memory 3 Second Passive Synthesis (of Memory) 4 Understanding 4 Third Passive Synthesis (of Thought) 5 Reason 5 Virtual 6 ‘Application’ 6 Dramatization 7 Diversion of Imagination”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“forms concepts which do not have a correlate in experience, the idea of God for example: “The idea of God is in a sense opposed to common notions in that they always apply to things that can be imagined, while God cannot be imagined.”39 Put only slightly differently, the understanding forms concepts which can be applied to experience. Reason forms concepts under which all experience belongs but which can never be an object of experience or Ideas.40”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“The understanding is built on the synthesis of imagination (or apprehension) with memory (or reproduction).”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“The implication of this double question is that the body is not a static form, but a dynamic or plastic form. It is a form that is subject to affections, some of which agree with it and some of which disagree, and it internalizes these affections and is modified by them.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“parts not being organs, but the anatomical parts of those organs).”10 The words “form” and “structure” connote rigidity, but this form is neither static nor rigid. “The relation that characterizes an existing mode as a whole is endowed with a kind of elasticity,”11”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“This is because our “essence” is fundamentally creative of new possibilities for life. Deleuze’s ethics, you could say, constitute a perfectionism without a concept of the perfect.3”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“This genetic line ends in representation— in the “object supposed to be both real and the end of our actions.”92 Every object, Deleuze says, is defined by two things: “the quality or qualities which it possesses, the extension which it occupies.”93 These two characteristics—quality and extensity—are the basic “elements of representation.”94 They are the central coordinates of the “perceptual world.”95 The basic units of “propositions of consciousness.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“qualitative synthesis of diversity, the static synthesis of qualitative diversity related to an object supposed the same for all the faculties of a single subject.”88 In other words, common sense relates diversity—the manifold—to an individuated object and to an individuated subject. And like good sense, it operates by subjecting the passive self to the guidance of an Idea.89”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“Good sense fixes limits. As he says in The Logic of Sense, good sense is essentially “agricultural, inseparable from the agrarian problem, the establishment of enclosures.”83 It “territorializes” (AO). This territorialization bears on both subjects and objects. It transforms the “indeterminate object” into a “this or that,” and it “individualizes” a determinate “self.”84 Good sense is a “quantitative synthesis of difference” (DR 226), Deleuze writes. It cancels intensity, binds it, and transforms it into “extensity,” thus giving it spatial coordinates it never had in the intensive flux.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“The finite will no longer be a limitation of the infinite; rather, the infinite will be an overcoming [dépassement] of the finite. . . . The infinite is no longer separable from an act of overcoming finitude.72 The infinite is now a process of self-transcendence and nothing more.73 It becomes the constitutive “and” of things.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“When we open on to the plane of immanence our individuality fades. Objectivity and subjectivity vanish. We confront impersonality. We no longer have a name. But at the same time we can be mistaken for no other person: our life is “impersonal yet singular.” As Dickens remarks, the “spark of life is curiously separable” from Riderhood. Even so, the spark in question is indubitably Riderhood’s, and not, for example, the doctor’s. The aleatory point is simultaneously our cogito, but it does not answer to our name.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“first passive synthesis is the operation of the imagination, the second belongs to memory and the ideal synthesis is operated by “thought.”61”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“small number of discontinuous instants and is quickly exhausted and overrun by the relentless passing of instants.40 The immediate consequence of this is that the larval subject itself passes in time. A second synthesis is, therefore, necessary.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“problem (DR, LS), a “structure” (DI, LS) a “concept” (WP) or a “category of life” (C2). It is what thought thinks.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“The metaphysical surface which unfurls in the failure of recognition is called “the virtual” (DR), the “impersonal transcendental field” (LS, PI), the “plane of immanence” (WP), the time-image (C2), the diagram (FB), and so on. It,”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“In affirming the void between the physical surface and the metaphysical surface, a new power of thought, the aleatory point or the Deleuzian cogito, takes shape. “The beginning,” Deleuze says, “is truly in the void; it is suspended in the void. It is with-out”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“points out, reason enters as a kind of “consolation.” [A]t the moment that the imagination finds that it is impotent, no longer able to serve the understanding, it makes us discover in ourselves a still more beautiful faculty which is like the faculty of the infinite. So much so that at the moment we feel for our imagination and suffer with it, since it has become impotent, a new faculty is awakened in us, the faculty of the supersensible.49 This logic is clearly at work in the movement from the passive self to that power of thought Deleuze calls “the virtual.” But again, the problem with this model is that it presupposes the existence of this other faculty, reason, which lies dormant until awakened.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“will be an overcoming [dépassement] of the finite. Moreover, it is a property of the finite to surpass and go beyond itself. The notion of self-overcoming [auto-dépassement] begins to be developed in philosophy. It will traverse all of Hegel and will reach into Nietzsche. The infinite is no longer separable from an act of overcoming finitude because only finitude can overcome itself.16”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“Deleuze and Hegel both work through a similar problem: what is the movement of thought. But Hegel tried to represent the movement of thought and this led to overly broad concepts. Instead, one must become the Nietzschean philosopher-artist and try to write in such a way that the reader’s mind is directly affected by the work, not at the level of representation and its concepts but at the much more chaotic and unstable level of the text’s moving signs. Deleuze is not content to tell us about his new image of thought. He wants us to live it.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“rotations, whirlings, gravitations, dances or leaps which directly touch the mind.”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze

“The easy answer to this question would be to say that Deleuze’s perspectives are determined by problems and that problems are the signs of certain encounters. But”
― Joe Hughes, Philosophy After Deleuze