1 Jeremy Dunham Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence by Levi R. Bryant Review by Jeremy Dunham1 In 2008 Deleuze was inaugurated into Daniel Dennett’s The Philosophical Lexicon – a set of often humorous satirical dictionary definitions based on philosophers’ names. His entry reads: ‘deleuzion, n. A false, persistent philosophical belief, unsubstantiated by evidence or argument. "He suffered from the deleuzion that Spinoza could be used to clarify Lacanian psychoanalysis"’ (2008). If
1 Mark Edward Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence by Levi R. Bryant Review by Mark Edward1 Introduction In a reading group two years ago a colleague stated ‘I do not know much about that Deleuze, but I do know that I do not like him!’ Their presumptive dismissal was constructed on the false premise that Gilles Deleuze was just another French postmodern philosopher. If Difference and Givenness was published at this point, Levi R. Bryant’s analysis of Deleuze would have been a more
1 Nick Srnicek Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence by Levi R. Bryant Review by Nick Srnicek1 Against the increasingly repetitive recitations of Deleuzian concepts, and the endless introductory works, Levi Bryant is bold enough to finally take Deleuze at his word - as a metaphysician through and through.2 The greatness of Bryant's Difference and Givenness is to restore Deleuze to his true habitat, to the grand tradition of philosophical questions that have been raised since Descartes
1 Levi R. Bryant Difference and Givenness: Deleuze’s Transcendental Empiricism and the Ontology of Immanence by Levi R. Bryant Author’s Reply by Levi R. Bryant1 At the outset I would like to say that I am profoundly grateful, and even overwhelmed, by the fine reviews of Difference and Givenness written by Mark Edward, Jeremy Dunham, and Nick Srnicek. In the Preface to Difference and Repetition Deleuze writes, “[h]ow else can one write but of those things which one doesn’t know, or knows badly? It is precisely there that we imagine
1 Mark Edward Marx Through Post-Structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze By Simon Choat Review by Mark Edward1 In Choat’s Marx Through Post-Structuralism one key claim is that different post- structural thinkers are engaged in the endeavour to provide a genuinely new materialist philosophy. Focusing on post-structuralist thinkers Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, Choat strives to investigate the influence of Marx and their attempts to create a materialist philosophy. In the following
1 Jason Edwards Marx Through Post-Structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze By Simon Choat Review by Jason Edwards1 Simon Choat’s Marx through Poststructuralism is an admirably clear book that convincingly puts the case for a re-evaluation of the work of some key post- structuralist thinkers (namely Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze) in light of the influence on them of Marx. More than this, he attempts to construct out of the engagement between Marx and these authors a conception of materialism that is relevant and useful
1 Simon Choat Marx Through Post-Structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze By Simon Choat Author’s Reply by Simon Choat1 I am enormously grateful to the editors of Global Discourse for this opportunity to respond to the three reviews of my book Marx Through Post-Structuralism, and equally grateful to the reviewers themselves for their careful readings, kind praise, and judicious and stimulating criticisms. My responses are offered in a spirit of intellectual generosity and I apologise in advance if reviewers or readers think I
1 Saul Newman Marx Through Post-Structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze By Simon Choat Review by Saul Newman1 Simon Choat, in exploring an encounter between Marx’s thought and that of key post- structuralist thinkers, has done something important here. He has provided an alternate way of thinking about both Marx and post-structuralism, two critical perspectives that have hitherto been seen by many as irreconcilably opposed. From the point of view of the Marxist defenders of the faith, post-structuralists like Foucault
destroy nature in the first place, both in the human mind and in material reality. I argue that the similarity in basic assumptions and practices of capitalism and fascism could easily co-opt psychoanalysis as a tool for the repression of desires not amiable to the power of these systems themselves. In the subsequent section I discuss the necessity for an ecopolitics of what Jean-Claude Polack calls ‘metapsychoanalysis’ ( Boundas, 2018 : 2) to characterise Deleuze and Guattari’s foray into schizoanalysis and its relationship to capitalism, desire and ecology. The
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s work provides a cumbersome and, at first glance, intimidating conceptual toolbox. Their approach to thought and intellectual endeavour is centred on the idea that philosophers are obliged to experiment by creating new concepts and, when inspired by others, set their ideas onto unexpected, nonetheless revealing, trajectories. How effectively we have done so in this book, our readers will determine. But this afterword sets out the rationale behind the conceptual moves we have made. The maps discussed in this book reflect what
