This is Deleuze being dismissive of Wittgenstein in his ABC of Philosophy. I wonder what got on his goat so much? Harsh, but funny!
Couldn't find any subtitles, translation requires vigilance.
Int: Okay, moving on to W. And, W?
Deleuze: There is nothing in W.
Int: If there is Wittgenstein, I know it’s nothing for you, but just one word?
Deleuze: Ah no, I do not want to speak of it...For me, this is a philosophical catastrophe, it is a type of ‘school’, which is a regression of all of philosophy, a massive regression of philosophy. The Wittgenstein affair is very sad. They have forced, where under the pretext of doing something new, a system of terror (chuckle), but it is, poverty dressed as grandeur. In French, there is no word for expressing this danger here; it is a danger that returns, this is not the first time, it is recurring. This is grave, they are nasty the Wittgenstenians, and since they destroy all, in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy; these are the assassins of philosophy.
Int: That serious?!
Deleuze: Yes, Yes... It is necessary for great vigilance. [Laughs]
Patrick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Deleuze is right in a way.
ReplyDeleteWittgenstein's thought represents a profound threat to all things ‘Deleuzian’.
Not only is he radically anti-Bergsonian, he is also fundamentally opposed to those highly academicist forms of philosophy that have come to dominate the French intellectual scene of late: philosophies that he believed to be little more that examples of 'terroristic charlatanry!'
Although he is probably overstating his case, I think that Ludwig has a point.
I often wonder when reading recent French philosophy whether the arguments offered could have been made more clearly and directly. In a way, a lot of French philosophical writing is 'guru writing' and I wonder whether there is any need for this kind of thing at the beginning of the 21st century!
I think Wittgenstein’s point is that for philosophy to be meaningful it should be readily understandable.
Remember that Deleuze is the philosopher who handed out copies of Anti-Oedipus - not an easy text, even for devout Deleuzians- to workers at the factory gate. I wonder what they made of it?
Neil Turnbull
but... do you not think that this 'guru writing' has a purpose. often, french philosophy is a riddle but perhaps the process of attempting to solve this riddle is part of the philosophy itself. in the sense that, the journey is more important than the destination. with a lot of analytical philosophy (whilst method is important) it is the conclusion that is emphasised. derrida, for example, admits no set answer (or indeed a set route) but the attempt to access derrida is philosophical development in itself. im not really sure how to make the point im trying to make and im in rather a hurry, but hopefully 'ya get me'
ReplyDeletethis is fred by the way. i have no idea why im registered as leon mcfarlane
ReplyDeleteFred, you seem to be peculiarly susceptible to these log in names purporting to be you! Hopefully you aren't having some kind of identity crisis? Who will "you" be next time, I wonder??!
ReplyDeleteI agree that the philosophical unravelling process may be more significant than answers and destinations in enabling us to clarify our own thinking...For my part, I get a great deal of enjoyment out of trying to understand-and then teach/explain-Deleuze's theory of cinema. In the process, one refines ones own thoughts on such matters...
Ruth
I don't think that this is about 'analytic philosophy' - the later Wittgenstein isn't really an analytic philosopher at all.
ReplyDeleteIt is more to do with that most Cartesian of virtues 'clarity'.
Without clarity it is easily to be bamboozled by metaphysical jargon etc etc. This is a point about meaning and significance, not about method and conclusions.
Personally, I find some contemporary French philosophy a conceptual thicket of impenetrable obscurity. Then someone explains the idea to me and I think 'Oh I see, but why couldn't they have said that in the first place; would have saved us all a lot of time'.
Also, we live in an age when there seems to be as many philosophical persepctives as there are individual philosophers (gurus). I don't think that this can continue.
Neil Turnbull
I think it is not at all helpful to think of this in terms of an analytic/european divide. Deleuze didn't like Wittgenstein because of W's views on Whitehead and Russell. But there has to be a sensible and happy medium here? Of course communication is important but so is specialisation. I will do a post on this later. I would be anxious to avoid the give me clarity or give me death brigade, I certainly don't think we should not read books because they are not clear. (Metaphysics, Critique of Pure Reason, Phenomenology of Spirit, Ullysses etc.). But this requires more thought.
ReplyDeletePatrick
Guruism. Philosophy requires abstraction, reflection, distance and thus some secret knowledge. As Jedgar Hoover said, there is something addictive about secrecy and people want to find that out. This is pervasive throughout the history of philosophy and not something isolatable to our contemporary situation. All the Greeks had schools and indivual perspectives, and followers, as had the Stoics, the Christians (as lampooned in The Life of Brian),the Germans-young and old hegelians, Heidegger's followers, and Wittgenstein was perhaps one of the biggest gurus of them all. The point is, that philosophy seems to gravitate towards the charismatic, the kaballahesque, and the secretive.I wonder if this goes with the terrain? Is there something about philosophy that makes it prone to guruism?
ReplyDeleteAh, Philosophy as the 'great Orphic' mystery that can only be understood by the master and his initiates. I would prefer clarity to this any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteDoes this gnosticism really have a place in our society today? Personally, I would like to see a Philosophy without cultic dimensions. I think that philosophy needs to be out in the open of demoractic debate; it is not and cannot be a priveledged activity!
Wittgenstein a guru? Well, a kind of counter-guru perhaps. Remember that Wittgenstein advised his students to give up philosophy and get jobs in woolworths!
Neil Turnbull
Just to comment on Fred's idea that Philosophy needs 'riddles'.
ReplyDeleteIn the Tractatus, Wittgenstein claims, and I think that he is right in this respect, that 'the riddle does not exist'. And remember that in Harry Potter 'Tom Riddle' is one of the alias' of 'the dark lord'!
Cheers
Neil
Now that's got to be a class thing Neil! Ha ha! He must have cast some kind of aristocratic spell! Only an aristo would think someone should work in Woolworths.
ReplyDeleteWell Patrick, actually its a good Maoist principle!
ReplyDeleteGet the kids of 'the bourgeois' to work in the factories!
Cheers
Neil