GILLES DELEUZE BY PHILP GOODCHILD

[abulkhairyerlan]

It should be a crime to not mention Difference and Repetition when discussing Deleuze's major works.

[OscarWrightZenTANGO]

Outstanding commentary....well put...excellent

[feartheway]

incredible, especially the wave bit... fantastic thank you

[petermorris]

Or the two books on Cinema which remain the greatest of all works on cinema..

[qme]

To Matthew D: respectfully, I don't think that Philp Godchild has bungled immanence at all. Widcatrj is right in his explanation of immanence. For Deleuze, yes, immanence is what Wildcatrj says. But it is more than that and it is this 'more' that Philp Goodchild manages to point out. I think his notion of surfing, which he uses at the end of his talk, is very eloquent here. It means that, no, we cannot create concepts that allow us to view the world as though from some kind of a high tower. If one is high up in a tower, you may be the feeling that what you see below (the world) can now finally be pictured, i.e. you can have a representation or image of the world that allows you to see it as a whole and thus to dominate intellectually: you see all its parts and how one part fits in with all the others, etc.

But Deleuze would probably say that the view from a high tower is impossible or rather that it is an illusion. Since we are always IMMERSED in the world, then all you can do is to surf on the forces that buffet this world. That is what the notion of immanent plane (without the possible of a transcendant stance) forces us to do: surf.

[xya-jv]

THANKs to p.GOODchild, TECHNIQUE, pragmatic
Gilles DEREUZE. affected

[lugus]

12:30 is that similar to how Wittgensteins Tractatus is self destructive? And collapses in on itself?

[wildcatrj]

Immanence can be explained in a much easier way. Immanence is opposed to transcendency. If you believe in God, than your world is transcendent. God is outside the world, since he is not subjected to the laws of the physical world (he can perform miracles, for example). If you agree to Spinoza's philosophy, then your god is immanent.  God is Substance, and subjected to the physical laws of the universe. That's immanence.

[gabrieltoledano]

2:29 I fear you are forgetting one: Salamon Maimon.

[SN-xkrl]

Nice video on Kant, what was Delueze up to philosophically?

[waxkevorkian]

It seems to me all the best philosophers had some sort of sickness.

[kilgoretrout]

Deleuze was an unlikely hero of English soccer hooligans in the 1980s and concrete terraces all over the country often reverberated to chants and songs summarising some of his more obtuse theories

[newyork]

Wonderful video. One correction, emphysema is not necessarily cancer, it is pulmonary and can coincide but not codependent. Great presentation, Deleuze is hard to get at but this is part of his importance and attraction to those selectively meant to get closer - imho

[vsavage]

“To read any section of it you have to understand the concepts that have been introduced and developed in any other section of it, so it doesn’t have a linear structure .. “ uhm maybe mean to say it is, philosophy ??😐

[murat]

Thank you! Deleuze was one of those weird dudes I've been scared for so long and I always felt the need of him (and don't get me even started with how cool is to name your book [book series?] "Capitalism & Schizophrenia") due to their relationship to Semiotics.

Anyway, Mr. Goodchild is a tremendous lecturer. He gave me a couple of mini heart attacks.

[vidividivicious]

Concepts? Is this like the lacanian signifier?

[vsavage]

(one way of understanding immanence) “Thought is a kind of environment that we enter into and already are in ..” ermm say what again ? 🧐 😶🔫

(another) “Thought is part of reality .” Well that should settle it 👨‍⚖️ .

[maximskyway]

Talking for 20 minutes saying nothing about the philosophy of Deleuze

[danielfineman]

The first half of this presentation is a very nice if brief and selective biographic summary. So far, this is fine. The second part that attempts to summarize his philosophy is, to me, not so successful. Goodchild -- again and again -- falls into representation -- little narratives of ideation -- and this was, as much as anything - Deleuze'a antagonist. The immanent for D is not circumscribed by thought, but is that concurrent differencing of the milieuthat forces thought not upon us but into the extant and then not as a representable relation between subject and object (man and wave) but as the problematic intensity of transcendental empiricism, as the output which is non-resembling -- closer to the seismograph to the earthquake than the wave and rider but even that analogy is faulty if it is taken as two things related rather than a dynamic and differential relation without object or subject.

[TheLeksilijum]

Adults that lean out too far while grasping air kind of know what they are doing. Maybe they lean out as much as they can wanting to become air itself. Because that's what they are lacking. And it's by falling through it that they end up not lacking it anymore.