Talk:Gilles Deleuze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal Gilles Deleuze is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

As regards, "Influenced": I just removed Juliana Eimer, who seems to be either a graduate student or junior philosophy professor with no books or known articles in English. This category should be reserved for figures of note if not repute, no? DocFaustRoll 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

She has a listing on RateMyProfessors.com; she's apparently taught intro-level philosophy classes at Penn State. Definitely nonnotable. --zenohockey 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Archive 1

Contents 1 Influences 2 citation needed 3 reception commentary 4 Metaphysics => Ontology 5 Zizek 6 Reception and page length 7 Life Section 8 "Infobox: Influences" (remove Kant | add Leibniz) 9 Vote now: Kant or Leibniz? Who stays and who goes? (and what about that Proust fellow?) 10 My vote is for Kant 11 The photo is wonderful.

[edit] Influences

I included DJ Spooky among those influenced by Deleuze[1], but the reference was removed. I think it is important to include those within popular culture who've been influenced. DJ Spooky is certainly big enough himself to be a notable follower of Deleuze's work. I understand if people want to keep it to practicing philosophers, but that would seem to contradict Deleuze's entire philosophy.Troyc001 03:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to DJ Spooky from the info box, and although since there is a good citation for his inclusion putting him back would be fine. I think it may be preferable to limit the names in the infobox to philosophers or academics alone, but I don't know if there is precedent or consensus on that issue. In any case, feel free to replace his name in the box, or create an additional section in the article for pop-culture influences - but include the reference you provided so that it isn't removed again. Thanks for your contributions! - Sam 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Any preferences? Do people know of any other popular artists explicitly citing Deleuze's influence? If so, then a popular culture section could be useful and interesting. As well, it would allow for cross disciplinarity of the links, something that seems to accord with Deleuze's project.Troyc001 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never cared for these vague "influence/d" lists, since they are so arbitrary and can easily lead to unwieldy lists. For example, I deleted Heraclitus, as Deleuze really only discusses him approvingly briefly in N&Ph. If you include Heraclitus, then you should include dozens of others. From the WikiProject Philosophy pages, I found the following [[2]]: "Entries in Influences, Influenced, and Notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted." By this standard, the Influenced list would be severely trimmed. 271828182 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was Leibniz deleted? He wrote a book about him.Troyc001 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Following the quoted guideline, since Leibniz's influence is not mentioned in the main text, I deleted it. Likewise with Hume. 271828182 05:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of deleting the names, which are presumably relavent as Troyc001 points out, we could simply add a paragraph to the article. Doing so would satisfy the guideline, and be more helpful than applying the guidline negatively. In any case, guidelines are not policies. User:Troyc001, can you write up three sentences about the book he wrote on Leibniz? - Sam 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your presumption may not be true. The unstated premise "if you write a book about someone, that someone is an influence on you" is false. If we "simply" add a paragraph on Leibniz (and Hume -- I deleted him as well), the following difficulties arise: (1) there is no independently verifiable way of deciding who merits being called an influence, and (2) adding new paragraphs reduces the coherence of the current article. The long-term effect of difficulty (2) is a gradual decay from encyclopedia article to a laundry list of disorganized information. (This is not a hypothetical -- a glance at many heavily-visited philosophy pages, such as Nietzsche's, shows how the "influence/d" lists already have decayed into such laundry lists of dubious accuracy and even less usefulness.) The underlying problem here, as I have been saying all along, is the vagueness of the term "influence", which forces choices that are ultimately original research. 271828182 17:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

While I know less of Leibniz' influence, the influence of Hume on Deleuze is undeniable. His empiricism is based upon his reading of Hume. I think an entire section outlining the meaning of his monographs would be useful and appropriate. This would accomplish the task of describing those philosophers whom he was directly influenced by, as evidenced by his engagement with them in his texts. While it is debatable the relationship between writing a book about someone and their influence upon you, I think all of Deleuze's monographs indicate important assemblages for him. Others whom he did not write books about would also have influenced him - for example, the negative influence of Hegel, whom he despised, and this could be further debated, but I think it should go without much debate that each of the thinkers about whom he wrote a monograph should be included.Troyc001 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding sections on all of Deleuze's works would at least double the length of this article, which I think is at an optimal length right now. It would also contribute to the entropic effect I described above, whereas the current article takes a synoptic approach. Fortunately, there is an easy compromise: separate articles for each book, which can easily be linked to from here. (There are already articles for Anti-Oedipus, A Thousand Plateaus, and Difference and Repetition, though the latter two are stubs.)

As for the matter of the Influence/d lists: your post indicates how unmanageably vague the notions are. Is Francis Bacon or Kafka really as important an influence on Deleuze as Bergson or Kant? And, as you say, shall we include negative influences? (Though I think Deleuze's relationship to Hegel was far more ambivalent than the conventional wisdom holds -- my friend Nathan Widder has written an essay on this topic called "Thought after Dialectics".) And if we make the Influences list identical to the list of Deleuze's monographs, isn't that a touch redundant? Can't an interested reader just look at the list of Deleuze's works and make their own judgment? 271828182 04:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very important to include Hume. He should also be mentioned in the body of the article as well. Deleuze's empiricism is explicitly inspired by Hume. If I know his work on Leibniz better, I may go to bat more for his inclusion as well, but I don't. Hume, however, I stand quite firmly by as an important influence. Also, although it is only a brief mention, it is noted that Empiricism and Subjectivity was about Hume.Troyc001 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you (about Hume), but am not sure. The current article doesn't make Deleuze's debts to Hume clear (which may be my fault). I'll think about how to incorporate something about Hume in the main Philosophy section. In the meantime, anyone who has a good idea should feel free to add something. 271828182 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Badiou is listed as "influenced" by Deleuze. But his book about Deleuze, which is cited, is from beginning to end an account of his disagreements with Deleuze and rejection of Deleuze's philosophy. I can't think of any positive position Badiou has taken which is Deleuzian. KD

Good point. Badiou's been in that list since before I came to this page, so I never gave it much thought. You're quite right that Badiou universally disagrees with Deleuze. On the other hand, Badiou talks about Deleuze and contrasts his positions with Deleuze's so often, it could be argued that he is an important influence on Badiou, as an mirror. (Cf. Marx, who is definitely influenced by Hegel despite insisting that Hegel had everything upside down.) I could go either way. (Which, again, is a sign of how vague these "Influence/d" lists are.) 271828182 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but isn't it a slippery slope? I agree Marx was influenced by Hegel, but was he influenced by Stirner? I think not - he adopts much of Hegel's method, but attacks Stirner. I don't see Badiou taking on any of Deleuze's concepts or methods. Was Kierkegaard influenced by Hegel? Was Nietzsche influenced by Christianity? Their lives' work was attacking those things. Maybe that's a kind of influence, but I don't think it's what is usually meant by the term.KD

Where there is no agreed-upon definition, what is meant by the term can vary widely. That is the ongoing problem. I am inclined to use a narrow definition of "influence" as something like a necessary condition. Otherwise, these lists may as well be a page long in both directions. That's another reason I've limited Deleuze's influences to Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Kant. Under such a narrow definition, Badiou would probably be excluded from "influenced" (Althusser and Lacan are his key influences). But then, DJ Spooky would be off the list too. 271828182 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

Can we get a citation for the following (preferably the Proust, though the place where Deleuze argues this most clearly in his own work would also be appropriate):

Deleuze considers traditional notions of space and time as categories imposed by the subject. Therefore he concludes that pure difference is non-spatio-temporal; it is an ideal, what he calls "the virtual". (The coinage refers not to the "virtual reality" of the computer age, but to Proust's definition of the past: "real without being actual, ideal without being abstract.")

--Erik.w.davis 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reception commentary

AntiOedipus IS potty-mouthed and jargon-laden. That's not subjective or POV, it's page 1 of the book onward.

I don't think "post-structuralist" is a useful term (since it's an English-American invention after the fact), and in 1972, many of the sources D&G refer to were and are structuralists (Lacan, Levi-Strauss, Saussure), not p-s'ers such as Derrida or Lyotard. But if you insist on including it as a description of how North American lit critters received AOE & ATP..... (though it encumbers the sentence with ugly, poorly understood jargon) .... sigh. 271828182 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if we can come to some concord here.... potty-mouthed comes off as more South Park than their brutal, direct honesty. Show me other pages that are "potty-mouthed". it makes them seem like 8 year old boys. and jargon-laden isn't quite it, how about "technical". Jargon is derisive POV. not that I would mind if it captured the nuance. And yes this is about litty critters so post-structuralism is what they were historically, writing, not pomo. And they were not treated so much as manifestos but as a new hermeneutic machinery, an entirely appropriate term of art for interpretation. Hell, it is an entire discipline with a venerable tradition and should be a part of every literate persons vocabulary. There is a chance here for someone to learn something about the history of how these ideas were recieved. Unless you can cite source s otherwise, I think you should surrender here. I have, in front of me, dated 1981, Jameson's Political Unconscious which mentions at the outset D & G using exactly the frame I am using to place them historically. I think you need to surrender a little ground here. I'm bringing greater accuracy to a very small part of a page that you seem to want to micro-manage. I terribly sorry if the terms of an art seem too technical or jargon laden. The introduction of a page can be gentle, but the nuances of the history of a subject should be accurately represented as well. In this I take as my model, pages such as the General Theory of Relativity page, which employ any number of terms of art but do so in the longer, for those who want to do their homework part. DocFaustRoll 05:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Scatological works better, and "jargon" is a pejorative term used mostly by people like Sokol. Probably not best to use it on this page, at any rate. Deleuze 05:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to try a new version. Try letting the substance of it stand 271? DocFaustRoll 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pomo is definitely not the right word for the D&G show something that was essentially a flash in the pan during the height of Theory in the 70's and early 80's. In fact pomo was a rueful designation given by Jameson in the later 80's, et al. to describe an historical shift; it's only gleeful proponent was one long forgotten Ihab Hassan. This is all ancient history now. DocFaustRoll 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've thought a little more about some of the issues cropping up on this page. There is a balance between accessibility which should be paramount in the introduction and succint accuracy which should be paramount in the extended treatment sections, including reception. My tastes generally run to more Classical writers and even the Analytic tradition and just plain Science, but I have no problem with the use of technical terms of art, in any discipline. Those terms can be and often are their own pages. Peruse some of the pages in Biology such as Protist or something in Astronomy such as White dwarf and you will encounter to use the pejorative, "jargon", or non-pov "technical" language even in the intros. Literacy and accuracy as well as succint clarity are of the order in all of these disciplines DocFaustRoll 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a huge difference: scientific jargon is generally well-defined. The jargon of recent literary criticism, culture studies, "theory", etc. is generally poorly defined. If I want to know what anisotropy is, I can look it up and get a clear definition, with many examples, and (if I do a little work) an exact quantitative technique to measure it. If I want to figure out what a disjunctive synthesis is -- even Deleuze scholars don't have a clear, agreed-upon definiton. It's still worse with, say, Guattari's Chaosmosis.

Anyway, I've given up on "jargon". Will "esoteric" serve as a more neutral description of a style that regularly produces sentences such as "These figures do not derive from a signifier nor are they even signs as minimal elements of the signifier; they are nonsigns, or rather nonsignifying signs, points-signs having several dimensions, flows-breaks or schizzes that form images through their coming together in a whole, but that do not maintain any identity when they pass from one whole to another" (AOE 241)? 271828182 20:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Esoteric is more neutral, certainly, although you keep insisting inaccurately that D&G were taken as pomo manifesto, which is not true, historically. Perhaps they were in the 90's which was a full ten years after their initial reception, but how could they be so before the term pomo was even brought into popular use? Something of the history is now missing but it is somewhat minor. You've done an exemplary job on this page. Perhaps Brian Massumi should receive mention?

Also, post-structuralism is no narrow lit-crit coinage and has currency in anthro and is in fact more historically accurate. As it stands, nonetheless, the Deleuze page is exemplary and these little quibbles are minor. I defer to your zeal for this page and will not attempt a re-edit at this moment. By the way chaosmosis is just a play on chiasmus and mere punnery. None of the terms of the art are too much. Perhaps the punnery is? DocFaustRoll 16:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to rewrite the Reception section to address your concerns. In the course of doing so, however, I decided to cut the paragraph on Alliez, Lecercle, and Delanda, since (1) the choice of only those three is unjustifiable, and (2) an expansion of that subsection to include all those who have extended Deleuze's project would make an already too long article much larger. "Chaosmosis", btw, is a reference to Joyce, who coined the term "chaosmos" in Finnegans Wake. 271828182 04:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See below where I bow to you. I wonder though at your insistence that the article is too long. A more summary introduction if possible might balance out the existence of longer discussion further down the page. There are so many other pages that need more work than this one, however, that I again bow to you. Cheers and good work. DocFaustRoll 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphysics => Ontology

I wonder if metaphysics is the best word for Deleuze also, why not ontology? what is left of metaphysics for a materialist but ontology? DocFaustRoll 05:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy of time is not usually considered part of ontology, but is always classed under metaphysics. And time is one of Deleuze's central concerns. 271828182 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Time as discussed by Deleuze has nothing to do with metaphysics and you should probably bow to the consensus. Witness the generally respected De Landa book on D. Not a single use of the word metaphysics and extensive use of Ontology. DocFaustRoll 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to bow to. This is an article on Deleuze, not Delanda. And Deleuze is not enamored of the word "ontology", especially in his later works. See, e.g., A Thousand Plateaus, p. 25: the AND "overthrows ontology". See also ATP, p. 98, and Dialogues, pp. 56f.: "philosophy is encumbered with the problem of being." By contrast, Deleuze uses "metaphysics" cheerfully and neutrally: e.g., in the afterword to the English edition of Bergonism, or at the beginning of What Is Philosophy: "the death of metaphysics isn't a question for us" (quoting from memory). Or Negotiations (p. 136): "I've never been worried about going beyond metaphysics." And "metaphysics", as I already pointed out, is a more general (and ancient) term than "ontology", including not only the theory of being, but also questions relating to time, truth, causation, necessity and possibility, etc., all of which are topics of interest to Deleuze. 271828182 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I like your rewrite of the influence section by the way. Nice job. You now have some of the history of the reception in order. Maybe some disambiguation from more traditional understanding of metaphysics is called for? There are plenty of loose uses of the the word ontology from my memory, where ontology is not just the problem of being, but no matter, why quibble over words that he bends the meaning of to his own purposes anyway. Chaosmos as combination of chaos and cosmos and as play on chiasmus are not mutually exclusive by the way, in Joyce, Deleuze or Guatarri. In fact all those senses play off of each other. DocFaustRoll 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zizek

I have revisited the section on Zizek's Organs without Bodies, restoring and expanding on my initial comments. Since some users felt that this previous summary was not even close to accurate, I have provided specific page references and quotations. 271828182 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you kept the thrust of the criticism, which is accurate as far as ziz goes, that D&G failed to anticipate the digi-dolce and gabbana-capitalism. It is currently not clear at the end, however, because it references something called zizek's ideas but does not mention them. Briefly recap what you think those ideas are.DocFaustRoll 04:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Zizek. Readers can feel free to click on the link if they want that information. 271828182 06:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reception and page length

It may be time to expand some aspects of the page, which I think is too short. The history of D&G's reception, for example, is not complete without mention of the 90's and internet culture. Lovink's "Dark Fiber", the Rhizome list, and nettime, etc. DocFaustRoll 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian Massumi deserves a mention and his own page and de Landa, et al. ought to be brought back DocFaustRoll 04:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Massumi has been added to the "influenced" list. Adding a full discussion of even just the names on that list, however, will double the Reception section. Including the internet culture material will open the gates on what qualifies and make it thoroughly unmanageable. As it stands, the article is 35K and just a bit too long. And I'd rather not take the step toward spinning the Reception section into a separate page -- as I recall, not too long ago there was discontent that this page did not have a reception & criticism section. 271828182 07:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like a good idea. Based on your excellent work on this page, and by the way, you just made that zizek section that much better, stylistically, I'd love to see what you do with some other pages in philosophy and criticism. You are also the current memory holder on this page as I have no history here to have memory of. You have my vote for creating a separate reception page. 0.02 DocFaustRoll 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the key relationship with Deleuze and Klossowski? It would be difficult to imagine anything after (and including) "Nietzsche&Philosophy" without "Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle"!! If you want a clarity in post-structural review, let's get real and include the marrow, not distracted by de Landa's and potty-mouth jargon! (Mabe I haven't looked hard enough).

I have added Klossowski to the influenced list, and mentioned his book in the footnote on the reception of Deleuze's Nietzsche book. 271828182 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Influenced" should read "Influences"- Klossowski's paper which was adapted into 'Vicious Circle' was delivered years before at a famous conference which 'renewed the interpretation of Nietzsche' (Deleuze)... while all these guys were part of eachothers fan club and hyperbole was part of the game (ie: 'Vicious Circle = the greatest book of philosophy with Nietsz himself' vs. 'Deleuzian century' -Foucault -see 'The Delerium of Praise')... it shouldn't be ignored that Klossowski was from a preceeding generation. Anti-Oedipus wouldn't exist without this book. Active and Passive forces, so essential to 'becoming' are developed in tune with Klossowski's radical text.

IIRC, the Klossowski paper you refer to was presented in 1964 -- still two years after Deleuze's book. I am aware that Klossowski was of an older generation, and that it is futile to single out one direction of 'influences' vs. 'influenced' -- that is why I have kept Foucault off either list, as well as other contemporaries such as Lyotard. But someone was complaining about K.'s absence, and Wikipedia's consensus wants these trite "influence" lists .... 271828182 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Could a 'Contemporaries' heading be included to list those with whom Deleuze had a working relationship? Troyc001 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I was referring to AE, not N & Philos- sorry...I was reading something contrary, but do not follow this all too closely- my error. It would be a pity to leave out such an influencial figure and chew-up space writing about "Deleuzians" though.

[edit] Life Section

In the Life section Deleuze is spoken of enjoying "non-academic" thinkers such as Jean-Paul Sartre. I'm not sure how Sartre can be considered "non-academic", the man earned a PhD and wrote philosophy. The reference given for that section (footnote 3) includes a line where Deleuze found Sartre as his "out" to the canonical texts. I don't think this in anyway means Sartre was non-academic compared to the canonical scholars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.96.35.144 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Sartre was never a university professor -- his brief teaching career was at the high school level. Thus Sartre was not an academic, and there is a meaningful contrast with Deleuze's professors, who were all establishment figures in philosophy. 271828182 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Infobox: Influences" (remove Kant | add Leibniz)

I removed Kant from influences in the info-box. I believe that is a bit misleading or a mis-characterization. I've read relatively little of Deleuze (I've only read _Bergsonism_ and some interviews and essays (Critical and Clinical, I believe) and passages from _Thousand Plateaus_)

BUT it is obvious in that short amount of time that Leibniz is crucial to Deleuze in a way Kant is not. I don't believe Kant (other than the monograph GD did on him) was anything other than a negative "influence" (ie. how not to "do" philosophy in terms of what Deleuze calls "a Life") when compared to the importance of Spinoza, Bergson, Nietzsche and Leibniz. Those have got to be the BIG FOUR in Deleuze.

I see that this has been argued above already by 271828182 & Troyc001 last week but just adding my two cents. Christian Roess 23:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I vigorously disagree. Deleuze's philosophy isn't possible without Kant's concept of the transcendental. If you want references, read Difference & Repetition, or Descombes's account of Deleuze in Modern French Philosophy, or Dan Smith's forthcoming book. Leibniz is important, but not nearly as much as Kant. 271828182 01:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well just spent all of 30 minutes scanning _Difference and Repetition_, so I can't approach your point with any rigor.The index indicates Leibniz is very much on Deleuze's mind as much as Kant; will need more time with that work. Intractable at this point. However, Leibniz comes into play here as vigorously as Kant and reading through _Essays Critical and Clinical_, Leibniz is crucial and for that matter so is Proust. But the key thinker for Deleuze in a quick scan (and one can't dismiss the concept of quickness in any attention we pay to Deleuze) demonstrates that Spinoza is the crucial thinker to Deleuze.

During Deleuze's last years, he devoted a work to Leibniz (_The Fold_) and not to Kant. Leibniz as I see it is there all along in Deleuze's life. If Kant is so important, then why not spend your final years with him?

Ok, leave Leibniz out along with Proust, too. It's an "infobox". Or better yet put it up to a vote. I'll go along with your response for now, but I suspect that "Wikipedians" cannot ignore the facts. And when I have time to do some digging, I'll report back the place where Deleuze himself discusses the importance of Leibniz to his "philosophy", and Kant as someone who must be "gotten over".Christian Roess 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote now: Kant or Leibniz? Who stays and who goes? (and what about that Proust fellow?)

One person here has decided that Kant belongs in the Infobox, to the exclusion of Leibniz. I disagree. Now I for one, wouldn't include both in there either. If you had to choose, who would it be? So do we include more "singularities" in this discussion? Who influenced Deleuze more: Kant or Leibniz? That is if you had to stake "a life" (to borrow the title of Deleuze's last work he approved for publication) on it, who belongs?Christian Roess 06:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just one person's whimsy here: my judgment is based on having read all of Deleuze's books. (I only bring this up since, by your own admission, you have only read a few bits of Deleuze's work.) Also, we have been discussing the issue of the infobox "influences" for a while -- the current paring of the "influences" list is the result of applying the WikiPhilosophy Project guideline above (Entries in Influences, Influenced, and Notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted.). Since Leibniz's influence (which you'll notice I agreed, is important) is not explained in the main text (whereas Kant's is), I have omitted him for the time being. At some point I will try to add a paragraph or two on Hume and Leibniz, and we can add them to the (irritatingly arbitrary and divisive) infobox highlights. 271828182 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense according to the Project guidelines and surely there needs to be some inclusion here of Leibniz (possibly Hume and Proust). I look forward to someone adding this. Possibly you are the one anonymous User 271828182 to make this application . If nothing else, besides your stubborn-ness, I see that many wikipedians commend you for your contributions which are rigorous and don't "dummy-down" to the readers. That seems evident, so I'll go along with you: qualified agreement and frustration.Christian Roess 12:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to consider this question. I'm glad to learn of the debate on these discussion pages. Fascinating to take part.

[edit] My vote is for Kant

.!! Leave him in the info-box. !!

As I see it, how could Leibniz belong there as an influence? That's preposterous. I have read Anti-Oedipus (going on 9 years now) most of the way through and reread passages over the years.

Incredible.

And some of Thousand Plateus and numerous interviews and talks (Negotiations and Dialogues?? I believe). I haven't read any Leibniz, and do recall that the concept of the "monad" is very important to Deleuze...but other than that it is obvious that Kant is way more important as an influence on Deleuze. How would Leibniz have influenced Deleuze at the beginning to be what he became? Didn't Deleuze simply appropriate a certain apparatus or framework for approaching his later thinking from Leibniz. That's hardly being influenced by him.209.209.223.98 21:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an absurd discussion. Who influenced Deleuze more? Kant or Leibniz. How about both. Equally, but under the interpretation of Kantianism from a Leibnizian point of view provided by Maimon, but not necessarily direct from Maimon, but rather through the fantastic interpretations by Gueroult and Vuillemin, because ultimately it was their interpretations of post-kantian philosophy that Deleuze ran with. Deleuze's thought is a strange synthesis of Blanchot, Bergson, Kant, Leibniz, Schelling, Simondon, Hyppolite's Hegel (beleive it or not), and Neitzsche. The list goes on, but each one of these thinkers had a profound influence on the course of Deleuze's thought. Look at the way he merges in the second chapter of Difference and Repetition the kantain syntheses with the three Bergsonian moments--perception, affection, action--without omitting a certain interpretation of passivity in Husserl and a significant nod toward Hume and Neitzsche. If you want the opinion of someone who has actually read Deleuze (which I say because everyone deciding Deleuze's influences happily admits they've only ever read parts of a Deleuze's books here and there), I'd say the omission of any of these names would be a mistake. Apeboy 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in the discussion of influences above this sub-section, I strongly agreed that both Leibniz and Kant are key influences on Deleuze. (And also noted that I have read more than parts of Deleuze.) However (to recap the discussion above), as the current article does not explain Leibniz's influence on Deleuze, for the time being (following the WP Philosophy guidelines) Leibniz is omitted from the infobox. When I get around to adding a paragraph on Deleuze's use of Leibniz (probably after the paragraph on transcendental empiricism), I will happily insert GWL to the "influences" list. What I find irritating is that the inane infobox is generating so much more discussion than the main text of the article itself. 271828182 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of generating more chatter on this minor point, here's my tuppence on Kant... I'm not sure how legitimate it is to list Kant as an influence. If Deleuze did write quite a bit about him, he saw him primarily as a philosophical "enemy" (see Kant entry in the Abecedaire) and not among the philosophers he praised (Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza... or even Marx). If we are to list "negative" influences against which his thought was directed then Hegel would be at least as appropriate as Kant. 158.143.55.30 17:23, 05 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The photo is wonderful.

The only photos I ever saw of Mr Deleuze where in his younger years. I never saw this photograph. Its wonderful. This needs to be said. :) 58.7.0.146 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)