A distinction between philosophy and science is found through their approach to chaos. There are three parts that need to be more thoroughly looked at to fully understand this major difference. First, we must identify a clear definition of chaos. Second, we must look at philosophy’s approach to chaos, and finally move to a description of the scientific approach to disorder. The plane of immanence and the plane of reference help to clarify these approaches to chaos, but this post is going to focus specifically on chaos and the plane of immanence. To create a more clear depiction of their differences, consistency must be considered, and I am having trouble conceiving what this means in relationship to philosophical thought. It is critical to fully understand this first distinction of science and philosophy, because it is foundational for the dissimilarities that follow, and allow for D and G to build a more solid argument.
The recognition of chaos and the management of disarray are critical to understanding why this first difference is foundational to move forward. Immanuel Kant communicates and reiterates D and G’s perspective by stating “God has put a secret into the Forces of Nature so as to enable it to fashion itself out of chaos into a perfect world system.” The primary concern with this statement to D and G are the “forces” that are involved within the reconstruction of chaotic mess. D and G define chaos as “not so much by its disorder [but] by the infinite speed with which every form taking shape in it vanishes” (118). So to further this description, chaos is the state of forms appearing and disappearing at immeasurable speeds. It is through the thought that helps to organize these chaotic states, and in this depiction it is in particular to philosophy and science, two of the three modes of thinking for D and G.
Philosophy utilizes the plane of immanence to create forms or consistency. We have discussed the plane of immanence before in class, but to clarify the plane of immanence “cuts through the chaos, selects infinites movements of thought and is filled with concepts formed like consistent particles going as fast as thought”(118). Philosophy strives to create consistency, “by giving the virtual a consistency specific to it” (118). This is where I was still a little confused in class. What does he mean by consistency? I think this is critical to understanding the plane, yet I am having trouble conceptualizing it and comparing it to the Science.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConsistency is what upholds the structure of the plane of immanence.
ReplyDeleteThis plane is made up of concepts. Any given concept (e.g., concept A) possesses endoconsistency (i.e., internal consistency; its components, themselves concepts, cohere with one another such the the whole concept A emerges from the plane as a singularity, as one). Importantly, concepts also contain exoconsistency (i.e., external consistency; components which do not belong to the concept A (e.g., concepts X, Y, Z...) are distinguished as not comprising concept A.
This consistency is what sustains the plane of immanence to the extent that it allows thought at infinite speed (without e.g., appointing any concept as fixed, distinguishing it from the plane of reference). Consistency allows the carving out of territory: endoconsistent terms occupy shared territories, pushing exoconsistent counterparts into their own distinct territories. Without this territorialization, we would be without means to philosophical thought. Indeed, this is how we think about concepts. Territory allows us to make sense of the virtual, without slowing it down by creating fixed points of reference or immobile blocs of perfects/affects.
Consistency, it would seem, is necessary to binding a concept to the world. In the fourth chapter, D & G highlight this importance and I think it is important to consider 'consistency' as fundamental component of any concept rendered in the plane of immanence.
ReplyDeleteFurther, there is also a consistency in Science that is similar to Philosophy (endoconsistency and exoconsistency) insofar as Science too has a direct like to the states of affairs in the world.This is where a parallel between concepts and functives becomes apparent and where we may link this back to the diagrammatic and intensive features of a concept.
I am a bit confused about this as well. As I understand it chaos is an infinite movement and consistency does not make concepts concrete in the chaos but maybe links them to one another and finds relations between them. In carving out territory concepts are linked without being extracted from or separated in the plane of immanence.
ReplyDelete