Summary

The web content discusses the alignment of Gilles Deleuze's philosophy with pragmatism, emphasizing the practical, fallible, and evolving nature of thinking and models in addressing problems within the immanent field of life.

Abstract

The article "Deleuze and Pragmatism 2" explores the convergence of Deleuze's philosophical approach with pragmatism, highlighting the dynamic and practical aspects of thought. It posits that truth is not fixed but is determined by what works in specific contexts. Theories and models are presented as tools for problem-solving rather than static solutions, and they are inherently fallible and subject to change. The text underscores the importance of creating models that stimulate thought without claiming objective truth, suggesting that they should be grounded in a variety of human perspectives and experiences. The pragmatic view of truth as contingent is reinforced, with an emphasis on the instrumental role of theories in addressing empirical problems. The article also touches on the distinction between private and public thought, suggesting that Deleuze's work with Félix Guattari extends his philosophy of difference to social and political realms. Ultimately, the piece concludes with the idea that thought is an unfinished process, advocating for an immanent, life-affirming approach to ethics and decision-making based on pure difference and repetition.

Opinions

Pragmatists view truth as what works in practice, rather than as a universal, objective entity.
Theories are seen as instruments for problem-solving, not final answers, and are acknowledged to be fallible and replaceable.
Models are useful for stimulating thought but should not be considered as having transcendent truth; they are based on various human perspectives, including feelings and relationships.
Thought is a contingent process, influenced by its context and the problems it aims to address.
Deleuze's philosophy, particularly when collaborating with Guattari, applies an immanent approach to social and political issues, emphasizing the affirmation of life.
Ethical and moral considerations are also seen as contingent and evolving, rejecting transcendent morality in favor of an immanent, life-affirming decision-making process.

Deleuze and Pragmatism 2

Perspectives on Deleuze: A Practical Dialectic

By Jean-David; Anne-Laure — Flickr: Le Penseur, CC BY-SA 2.0, Public Domain from Wikimedia Commons

Theories

Gilles Deleuze’s vision for the process of thinking has much in common with a number of modern philosophical visions, including Pragmatism.

For the pragmatists, truth is not universal and objective.

Truth is what works.

Further, we do thinking: theories are tools and instruments that are addressed to certain problems, problem-solving, and never static solutions.

Theories are always fallible, always capable of being wrong, capable of being replaced with new theories that are more illuminating in relation to problems that evolve over time.

Models

The point is to create models to stimulate more thought.

Models can be useful and some have consistency and coherence over others, but none can ever claim transcendent truth, whether this is in the fields of science or ethics.

Models cannot be foundational in the sense of having some sort of ground in an objective beyond scrutiny.

They can be based on a form of reasoning, but not exclusively and not one that would aspire to universal objectivity.

Models can be based on other things, all of the perspectives a human being might bring to any problem: feelings, relationships, commitments, desires. And models are couched in language that itself has no concrete stability, but is also always in a state of becoming.

Thought does not mirror reality, for reality continues to shift.

Fallibility

Pragmatists believe that theories can be justified based on their consistency and coherence internally, and amongst other theories, that form a body of thought.

Truth is always contingent. And there is always more than one way to create concepts that attempt to explain reality.

Theories are instrumental, subject to ongoing verification and fallibility in relation to their potency or forcefulness in addressing problems we encounter within the empirical world, ie., the immanent field.

And this applies beyond the sphere of science into ethics:

Good values are useful values, values we create and uphold because they address problems.

Thinking as Process

We can see the similarities with a constructivist approach to reality, thought, and ethics:

Concepts and values are created in a process of becoming, at moments in time useful, at other times outliving their usefulness.

Thinking is a doing process, at all times contingent on setting and the problems that need to be addressed.

And on closer examination, we find a distinction surfacing in this approach to thought:

Sometimes we think in a private setting, and sometimes in a public setting.

That is, real thought always affirms life and nature, but sometimes our thought evolves in a personal manner, on other occasions it necessarily must evolve socially, and politically.

Enter Deleuze and Guattari

Implicitly, Deleuze recognizes this distinction. His later work with Félix Guattari applies his immanent philosophy of difference to the social and political, as well as to a number of natural registers beyond.

Deleuze’s overriding view of thought is never that it is a question of “what is,” but instead, “how, when, where, under what circumstances.”

Thought that personally and privately affirms may not always be thought that is remarkable in a social and public sense, and vice versa. Affirmation of life in the private sphere may not always coincide with the affirmation of life in the public sphere.

Concepts are constructed to address specific problems in particular situations and settings. In some situations our thought serves to affirm a personal vision of life; sometimes we must take those same affirmations into the social sphere and find ways to address problems that inherently are social or political.

Thought Always Unfinished

This is not an attempt to slip into Deleuze’s ethical vision a transcendent morality, objective rules of what one can and cannot do; negativity based in abstraction, all of which he rejects.

Instead, it is a recognition that Deleuze would have defended a social decision-making process that is immanent, life-affirming, based in pure difference and repetition, and always in a process of becoming.

I hope you enjoyed this article. Thanks for reading!

Tomas

Please join my email list here or email me at [email protected].