Bergson, tell me more.

[Anonymous No.11517073]

Should I read bergson before reading delueze? (Particularly cinema) if so what should I read? I'm already a Peirceian btw if that helps.
Should I read Bergson for it's own sake, what does he have to offer me? I consider myself something of a metaphysical animist, but I'm also obviously a pragmatist and perfer to have my ideas (especially about life) grounded in empiricism. Is Bergson worth it just for the interesting comparison to daddy Peirce?
To reiterate is Peirce enough to understand deleuze? Maybe only reading Peirce as a preliminary could be beneficial in some way?

[Anonymous No.11517110]

Deleuze is a far, far, far bigger Bergsonian more than he is a Peircian, because of process philosophy. You sound like you would like Bergson.

[Anonymous No.11517113]

This board is 16-year-olds. They can't answer those questions.

[Anonymous No.11517118]

Deleuze is a far, far, far bigger Bergsonian than he is a Peircian, because of process philosophy. You sound like you would like Bergson.

[Anonymous No.11517185]

>>11517118
What should I read for a fairly concise big picture of bergsons philsophy?

[Anonymous No.11517198]

>>11517118
You mentioned process philsophy, are there any analogous or homologous ideas connecting Whitehead to Delueze or Bergson?

[Anonymous No.11517200]

>>11517073
Matter and Memory is the most essential Bergson towards Deleuze's Cinema

[Anonymous No.11517214]

>>11517200
How serendipitous, in absence of this consideration I happened to order both the first volume of cinema and matter and memory when I was all fucked up last night. That's why I made this thread.

[Anonymous No.11517215]

>>11517185
>>11517198
They're all process philosophers. Read:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/processp/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/filmcont/

Then Henri Bergson: Key Writings, and Deleuze's book on Bergsonism.

If you want a short book to connect process philosophy to Ancient Philosophy, American Pragmatism and Analytic Philosophy, branches of philosophy that are not metaphysics, read Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy by Rescher, which is the easiest introduction I know of process philosophy (it doesn't talk about Deleuze, though).

[Anonymous No.11517310]

>>11517215
Appreciated. I've been wanting to get deeper into process philsophy for a while. From my interest in Peirce I was interested in the process relational philsophy of Whitehead and the recent project of a synthesis between the two. To reach my goal, which is being able to clearly delimit and articulate my own ideas I am left with the task of reviewing process philsophy, object oreinted ontology, aswell as the metaphysics of Plato Aristotle and neoplatonism. With OOO in particular I recently became interested because I realized it is very similar to my ideas but radically different as I deal with the relational object of Peirces triad.
I would be similarly appreciative of any similar help you or someone else could give with that mess or suggestions based on the afformentioned. I put myself in a painful position by going rather deep into devolping my own philsophy before bothering to do any real scholarship. Now I'm left with the task of enfranchising myself in the tradition so I don't make myself out as a fool.
No need to remind me to use SEP or IEP again.

[Anonymous No.11517418]

>>11517215
You seems know well. I want to ask some retarded question.

should I give up on the whitehead book process and reality and just leave about it, although I want to go deep about process philosophy?
reason is simple: the book is too hard to comprehend.
right now when I tried that book my brain signals the body to vomit.
thanks to all of Introduction books, I'm quite well-known about what he wanted to describe, near finished bergson... but the "the book" is just full of entirely new words, analogy after the analogy, even of some theology...
to make matters worse the translation sucks. (not english-based country)

is it right to stop climbing at whitehead? what is your point of view on this at all?
Which seems to know better about this philosophy concept? do you think still nobody seems to perceived this concept like whitehead perceived?

[Anonymous No.11517452]

>>11517310
>>11517310
There's Wolfendale's The Noumenon's New Clothes, his book on OOO, but don't go there until you've read your Deleuze and Difference and Repetition. I cannot think of a valid reason for giving a damn about Whitehead, the man who thinks all Western philosophy is a footnote to Plato, without having read Plato first.
>the task of enfranchising myself in the tradition so I don't make myself out as a fool
You were told to start with the Greeks for a reason

[Anonymous No.11517514]

>>11517418
So you just found out metaphysics is a difficult branch of philosophy which uses lots of technical jargon, poetic expressions, metaphors, and that the author has to come up with neologisms every time to communicate his thoughts on the fundamental structure of reality. The difficulty you encounter is what happens when you think yourself too smart to read Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and jump straight into 20th century philosophers that write under the assuption that you already read those guys. Reading earlier metaphysics trains your brain and enlarges your technical philosophical vocabulary to make what are indeed difficult books from a later time, less difficult. If the scholars of Whitehead or whoever tell you his book is difficult (and they do) it's going to be all the more difficult if you did not make the study of Whitehead or whoever your day job.

As far as I'm concerned process philosophy is the least incorrect metaphysics, and Whitehead's take on the subject has too many eternal objects for my liking. Process philosophy is a challenging subject and I've already told you which book to read, which is Rescher's, who covers Whitehead a bit, I most definitely did not tell anyone to start with Process and Reality.

[Anonymous No.11517628]

>>11517514
YOU PICKED THE WRONG HOUSE FOOL
ok, to clearify, I know what metaphysics is, and what you just listed "Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant" is... pretty much the list I read that too.
I just cannot get it you guessed this way. although I still can be applicable to it like skipping spinoza, fichte-schelling, something hit me hard like reading Locke solely because of whitehead. but It looks full logical leap to function enough that way.

What I want to say is whitehead is STILL hard as fuck, even in the times when you compare things like Critique of Pure Reason, or Sein und Zeit. something like "eternal objects" "pure potentials for the specific determination of fact" (can be listed because this is something wrote with english too) cannot be found in other philosophers, all philosophers are incoherent to put all information in another philosophers. problem is whitehead has so many of this.

so what you want is not gonna read process and reality at all?
then I want to list something like rescher then...
our country doesn't have rescher's translation at all.
list some philosophers talking about this philosophy in general.
... where's deep connection between deleuze with process... again? can you recommend the book about it?

[Anonymous No.11517731]

>>11517628
>YOU PICKED THE WRONG HOUSE FOOL
>skipping spinoza
sigh
>reading Locke solely because of whitehead
Other reasons for reading Locke include: almost all Enlightenment thinkers after him, political philosophy and every Anglo ever
>our country doesn't have rescher's translation at all.
Can't you read it in English? I'm an ESL too. It's a fairly simple book.
>list some philosophers talking about this philosophy
Rescher mentioned:
Heraclitus, Leibniz, Hegel, Peirce, James, Dewey, Bergson, Whitehead, Wilmon Henry Sheldon (Rescher covers Plato and Aristotle too but they are not process philosophers and he acknowledges it).
I'd add: Marx, most neo-Hegelians, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Charles Hartshorne, Deleuze, Derrida, Rescher (duh), Arran Gare, 20th and 21st century philosophy of physics, probably some of the Object-Oriented Ontology guys but I don't know them very well, most of Eastern philosophy because process philosophy was the mainstream in Daoism and Buddhism and whoever believes in impermanence, unlike in Western philosophy which was dominated by Platonism, Aristotelians and Christianity
>... where's deep connection between deleuze with process... again? can you recommend the book about it?
His most difficult book: Difference and Repetition, where he exposes his metaphysics in a systematic way. But why ask about Deleuze if you skipped Spinoza? Deleuze called him the Prince of Philosophers.

[Anonymous No.11517809]

>>11517731
Rorty too. Most pragmatists and neo-pragmatists really.

[OP No.11517931]

>>1151745
>You were told to start with the Greeks for a reason
No I wasn't, I started philsophy reading contemporary life sciences and thus contemporary philsophy. Also I think your orthodoxy is silly. I prefer my fields unplowed, and have no desire for my virgin intellect to be violated and unnecessarily constrained by ideas I can come to myself, that could prevent me from thinking something important and orginal. Of course there is a balance to be had, but I have had no problem at all working that out. If you are to do things this way, a I mentioned you MUST go back and reveiw the literature to put your thoughts in theid proper place, as I am doing now.
What I have been describing is as I see it, an experimentalist apporach to scholarship. It is a defensible apporach that is in many ways superior to orthodoxy if you have the knack for it. It is also in my experience it is highly productive, I am constantly rediscovering philsophical taxon, only to later learn that I am not the first, many times I come across new observations that I surely would not have come across had I done things you're way. For example, just in the past couple hours this has happened with Bergsons concept of multiplicity and my own pets theory I've been thinking about for a long time. There is more capacity for novelty in this apporach, and as I am to be able to demonstrate one day, quantifiable potential, which is very related to me wanting to read the greeks and why I called myself a metaphysical animist earlier. Thats a trail I simply never would have traveled down if I started with the Greeks. I agree with emmersons(I think it was emmerson?) Sentiment that, " education turns a meandering stream into a straight ditch"
>TLDR: wew lad
>>11517514
You didn't think you were replying to me did you? I didn't have any real trouble with Whitehead. Peirce was more difficult. I'd rather work my way back through the footnotes and citations thank you, that's the same way I treat the natural sciences. In my opinion metaphysics is a cakewalk compared to ethics.
>>11517418
That process-relational book.

[Anonymous No.11517986]

>>11517731
... I don't get it. what am I gonna do now? read every philosopher's every original book in chronological order until I died during Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.11518048]

>>11517986
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

[OP No.11518070]

>>11517931
And here is a protip every scholar should know, the method of "working backwards" through citations footnotes and terminology allows one to become literate in and even master new subject really quickly, for the same reason it also lets you shit out quality literature reviews like nothing, and gives your mind plenty of open space to roam and ask questions. Maybe everyone can't handle anarchy, I know it works for me and I'm sure it will work for all the gifted kids that couldn't sit still in class, people who would waste away in traditional education.

[Anonymous No.11518075]

>>11517113
You'd be surprised. I'm a PhD student and I know a professor who uses /lit/. However, he said he only ever posts about Husserl.

[Anonymous No.11518094]

>>11517931
>No I wasn't
Start with the Greeks.
>my own pets theory I've been thinking about for a long time.
We have millennia of philosophy already written for us in order that each of us doesn't have to work for millennia by himself to achieve the same results.
>>11518070
Spare your protips, Dunning-Kruger effect. You have nothing. You are nothing.

[Anonymous No.11518103]

>>11518075
Did he ever reveal how many pyramids he built?

[OP No.11518105]

>>11518094
>Spare your protips, Dunning-Kruger effect. You have nothing. You are nothing.
Link your acedemia and I'll link mine and we will see about that faggot.

[Anonymous No.11518125]

>>11518048
although you pick up books like me pick up beers, you, truly, has a serious reading problem.

[Anonymous No.11518149]

Here OP, have the Deleuze Internet pasta. OOO is mainly starting from Deleuze and reacting against him so he's worth a read. Whitehead ia similar to Deleuze who he explicitly influenced. From ATP onwards Deleuze and Guattari are also influenced heavily by pragmatism, especially Peirce. If you want some Bergson light reading try On Humor, it's pretty funny at times.


A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

As for the books, start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts. As for the books, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro as well). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/


A decent bibliography:
https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

[Anonymous No.11518995]

>>11518105