Deleuze and Guattari define philosophy as “the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts” (2). The concept, according to D and G, is knowledge of a pure event, which involves the space, time, matter, and thought of each happening (33). Every concept has a unique history and entails a “becoming,” which allows the concept to connect with other, similar concepts (18). Concepts populate the plane of immanence, or “the image of thought” within each individual, and are threatened by the illusions that hinder thinking: stupidity, forgetfulness, aphasia, delirium, and madness (52). D and G explain that a concept needs either a specific problem or junction of problems in order for it to replace the concepts that have already been created. D and G further discuss what philosophy is not: contemplation, reflection, or communication. Philosophy cannot be contemplation because contemplation is seen within the creation of concept. Similarly, philosophy is not reflection because an individual does not need philosophy to reflect. Furthermore, communication merely creates “consensus” among individuals (rather than concepts), which means that philosophy cannot be communication (6). D and G believe that individuals are incapable of talking about the same topics during a discussion and the communicators are often driven by ressentiment, which involves criticism rather than creation. “Philosophy has a horror of discussions” (29).
At first glance, D and G seem to provide the tools and knowledge necessary for an individual to become a true “friend of wisdom.” After reviewing the text, however, it appears that the individual’s path to philosophy is harder than initially thought. Although D and G explain that philosophy involves creating the concept, there is an aspect of the concept not under the individual’s control; the concept appears to the philosopher. This idea implies that the philosopher must first put himself in such a situation so that a concept is able to reveal itself. A philosopher must educate himself in the ways of the world in order to understand the concepts that have already been created and to avoid stupidity and forgetfulness. He must also have the capacity to use his mind without the influence mental illnesses and substances that distort the use of reason. After an individual has placed himself in such a position, it is still unclear whether or not he will become the means for the creation of a particular concept. The development of an individual and the personal experiences available to him would greatly influence his ability to “create.” Without the specific knowledge of prior concepts, an individual can neither form nor fabricate new concepts. Furthermore, the philosopher is unable to receive proper help from his mental ability or the social arena; philosophy does not begin with contemplation, reflection or communication. What does this mean for the individual’s who aspire to become philosophers? Must they be in such a position for the concept to come to them, or are there other avenues for becoming a “lover” of wisdom?
It would be interesting to scan the text for clues that would suggest an appropriate path to the creation of concepts. However, that a single appropriate path would be suggested seems unlikely. If such an activity involves solving problems, why would one think there is but a single approach to the creation of solutions? In fact, if these solutions are to address genuinely novel problems, it seems that one would expect quite the opposite. This would require strikingly novel thought, which would seem more likely to be product of strikingly different kinds of thinkers, who themselves would seem more likely to be characterized by their distinctness rather than conformity to some kind of prescribed formation. How could someone think that which had previously never been thought if he lived the determined lifestyle of those who had come before him?
ReplyDeleteConcretely, this seems to be the strategy of most educational institutions any of us have ever come across. The U.S. school system is standardized: all children learn to think the same way. Those who fail to do so are penalized. Not only are there single correct answers, but there is only a single way to imagine the correct answer. There is only correct and incorrect; the thought that a claim from a textbook can be anything other than 'correct' is almost unimaginable to anyone under the age of 15. Surely anyone who has completed high school is aware that this limiting binary is not the most effective way of thinking about many things to which the human condition is subject. Unfortunately, this standardization is constricting; this kind of strategy seems to limit the creation of anything novel at all, let alone novel concepts.
We all assume such restrictions.
Why do you suppose that the philosopher must "educate himself in the ways of the world"? In what ways? What does this kind of education entail? We've mentioned that concepts are born out of others. Does this entail that he who produces a new thought must be entrenched in the history of thought? The opposite would seem conducive to the project at hand.
Why must one "avoid stupidity and forgetfulness"? Could not such condemned activity lead to the solution of a problem? Why do we so comfortably assume that modes X and Y could never help us better contemplate the world?
Why must one "possess the capacity to use his mind without the influence mental illnesses and substances that distort the use of reason"? Why do we assume the reason is the panacea of poor thought? Why do we so capriciously claim to exclude mental illness and 'substances' from this precious category? (In fact, we don't: think, autistic 'savants' and caffeine.
Could not mental illness, e.g. schizophrenia, help us better conceive of solutions to problems. Is this very possibility unseemly?
You are anguishing in what is probably the biggest qualm that I personally have with this text as well. The actual appearance of the concept is still so vague as to be rendered inconceivable. I have spent more time trying to figure out how the process of creation of concepts works than I have close-reading the text (seriously). I wonder exactly what restraints may impede the creation of concepts, such as a lack of knowledge about the world or a moral deficit. There is still so much which we have yet to even begin to flesh out of this text, that I honestly don't think we've come close to an answer for the concrete creation of concepts.
ReplyDeleteThe concepts abstract characteristics, the lack of language that can properly identify what D and G are referring to, and our inability to look at this representation of an idea without having the previous knowledge of our encounters with the idea of concept has made D and G's purposed idea of concept hard for me to fathom. For me, I want a visual or an example or a comparison, but as stated on another post these claims often lead us being discouraged that they do not quite match up to D and G's "concepts." I hope that with learning more through the chapters, we are able to find or more accurately identify with "concept" as presented by D and G.
ReplyDelete