Saturday, February 12, 2011
Trying to Speak on D&G
I think Deleuze & Guattari’s idea of Conceptual Persona is the easiest of their ideas to grasp so far. While Concepts and the Plane of Immanence seem highly theoretical and intangible, Conceptual Personae are roles we take part in whenever we participate in class and appeal to ideas and theories not our own. It’s not so much that we’re wearing a “Kant costume” or whatever, but that we speak on ideas by way of Kant’s theories. Instead of pretending to be the philosopher, we describe things in a way we would not be able to without their writings. It’s at this point in talking about Conceptual Personae that I realize how simple of an idea it might be and how little I have to say about it. I can’t say much beyond their being roles we play when philosophizing other than ourselves. D & G’s ideas seem so basic and foundation that once you finally understand them you cannot say much more than “that’s how it is”. I don’t really have much to compare it to, either. It seems their philosophy precedes any human actions, ethics or logic. These are universals that are present before the individual enters the picture, and as such there is not much to argue with. If I knew some other pre-philosophical ideas I might be able to compare them to D & G’s ideas, but as it stands I can only say “yeah, that seems right”. It’s funny how much time and effort it takes to understand these cats’ ideas and then once the pieces fit together I have so little to speak on. Sometimes I feel like I’m trying to philosophize about Algebraic formulas: yes they work, yes I know how to use them, but no, I don’t have anything stimulating to say about them. I don’t hate “What is Philosophy”, in fact I like it and think it’s more truthful and universal than a lot of texts we have read in philosophy classes. However it is so basic and cut-and-dry that I cannot find any room for interpretation or question. All I know is that D& G’s ideas of Concepts, the Plane of Immanence and Conceptual Personae are what they are and are true to life and experience. These are ideas that I have never even considered before and as such I’m just going to agree with the first set of theories (D & G’s) until I am presented with something different, at which point I will figure out which one is more “truthful” or “correct”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your image of D&G's work in "What is Philosophy?" as more of an algebraic formula than a philosophical argument seems right on. For me, this demonstrates the major problem with the book -- how do you interrogate its claims? Like algebra, "What is Philosophy?" holds together nicely as a system. The problem with both is that we are not well-versed enough in their respective fields to have any comparable system to weigh each of them against.
ReplyDeleteYes, as Dr. J points out, D&G have "used" Descartes, Plato, et. al., but those men are not around to enter the dialogue or produce counterarguments. So far, D&G have not produced any counterarguments, or their answers to them. From what we've read so far, there is no evidence that any other thinker is working with material remotely similar to theirs. There is no evidence that they are working within a tradition of thinkers who have proposed differing ideas using the same or similar vocabulary. So far, "What is Philosophy?" reads like a Fox News report, presenting one side eloquently and exclusively, whilst ignoring alternative views. For those of us who are not well read in this tradition, all we can do is smile and agree.
So, to go back to the Algebra comparison, it seems as though our only options are to agree wholeheartedly with D&G or to go back and question their basic assumptions. It's true that their system holds up well, but the base assumptions that tie it down are often tenuous. Just as the philosopher of mathematics must go back and question the fundamentals of mathematics (what is one? what is addition?), so we must go back and question the fundamentals of "What is Philosophy?" I think two strong starting points are the definition of a concept and the theory of immanence.
I think we need to be careful about the ways in which we see Deleuze and Guattari "ignore alternate views." The value of What is Philosophy is found in its tightly woven and consistent nature. Furthermore, I think we have to read more of the book before we jump into objections. What is Philosophy is not addressing the same kinds of problems that it references from the history of thought in it’s examples but rather attempts to describe the way in which thought comes into being. The more I read, the more I respect the language of this book and begin to admire the way in which it reconstitutes philosophy as a discipline independent from science and art.
ReplyDeleteThis is an intricate text and so problems that will arise from it's content are buried. On page 75 Deleuze and Guattari write "conceptual personae with its personalized features intervenes between chaos and the diagrammatic features of the plane of immanence and also between the plane and the intensive features of the concepts that happen to populate it." In other words, the identity of a concept is conveyed through something referential (knight of faith, underground man, the idiot, etc), the conceptual personae, which itself is able to embody not only the intensive features of a concept (the intentional and defined components of a concept which constitute it as an internally and externally consistent thing) but also the diagrammatic features of the concept (the outlying, non-intentional, peripheral marks of the concept that are consequences of the creation of the concept itself) such that the concept may be understood, reasoned and questioned.
As philosophy majors, I think we are trained in a way to combat, provoke, question, dismantle and take on the role of devil’s advocate. This instinct is not a bad one, but I think it would be worth our time to do more explication of the text and work to understand their language on their terms in order to discover possible discrepancies in Deleuze and Guattari’s account. That isn’t to say that my reading of the text is correct. This is probably the most difficult academic hurdle I have encountered but it is not insurmountable for any one of us.
While I don’t want to view the study of philosophy as something formulaic, I do, however, find it important to apply a framework for understanding philosophy. In my opinion, this is what D&G are trying to do for the reader. Concepts, the plane of immanence, and the conceptual persona are what D&G would defend as the framework of philosophy, not a formula for philosophy. They want the reader to realize how delicate philosophy is, and if approach incorrectly, how it can be conflated with other subjects like science and art. If you think about it in Aristotelian terms, D&G are making one big “division” between philosophy and essentially everything else. This is why its frustrating to read to the text because we view their approach to philosophy as something scientific, while at the same time showing how philosophy is not scientific. The three features of philosophy, or the “philosophical trinity” are not designed to reduce philosophy to an exact formula, but rather, to provide an apparatus that assists in our making sense of philosophy as a study.
ReplyDelete