Hegel and Deleuze

File: 1015 KB, 1214x797, Hegel-Deleuze.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Hegel and Deleuze Anonymous Sun Oct 10 18:06:36 2021 No.19204909 [Reply] [Original]

What was Deleuze's deal with Hegel
Frater says that Deleuze ultimately doesn’t overcome Hegel’s overall ontology. His materialist and immanent model still ultimately relies on unfolding through difference recognizing itself by differentiation, which is ultimately the actual dialectic and not a simplistic thesis antithesis, for by pouring out into the other, the relation allows further definition of the original. Add to this that Hegel’s key formula is that the Rational=actual, and you fundamentally cuck the problem of the virtual. We can more or less locate the Virtual as far back as Parmenides even due to the interrelations of the forms. Basically any major ontological break Deleuze has came up with is more or less not enough to break Hegel overall or is ultimately just the same doctrine explained differently. I doubt Deleuze would ever admit this, but There’s never been a serious challenge to the ontology of Hegel that actually fully critiques his method in science of logic.
Another anon posits that what Deleuze meant by his self-professed anti-Hegelianism was something akin to an inversion of Hegel, so they have a similar starting point, and even end point in some cases but the way they go about it, the arguments they make, and the conclusions they draw particularly around morality, are totally different. Whereas in Hegel you conform with the way of the world in Nietzsche you basically go to war with it. Whereas the slave actualizes for Hegel, the master actualizes for Nietzsche. So they are very different in some key respects, but it's hard not to see the parallels between them, and I believe that if you look historically, Nietzsche ended up thinking Hegel was one of the good guys when he actually read him(you have to keep in mind that 90% of the time Nietzsche never actually read the philosophers he criticized).
I don't understand how out of all the philosophers Deleuze discusses with critical sympathy, he should so violently oppose and reject the one philosopher who resembles him the most, in starting point (the critique of representation), influences (critical idealism, Spinoza, Hermeticism, differency and plurality, Heraclitus, Leibniz, process ontology, differential calculus), and solutions. The general approach is to say they're incommensurable, which is even more perplexing because they both have a reputation of being able to subsume literally everything under their systems (the Hegel and/Deleuze and trend in academia)

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature