The Philosopher as a Reader: A. Sverdiolas Reads G. Deleuze

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Nijolė Keršytė
{"title":"The Philosopher as a Reader: A. Sverdiolas Reads G. Deleuze","authors":"Nijolė Keršytė","doi":"10.15388/problemos.priedas.20.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Arūnas Sverdiolas’s way of reading Deleuze raises questions about the compatibility of two traditions: how and to what extent can a philosopher of Culture understand a philosopher of Nature and Life? Deleuze, formed in the rationalist tradition, resists the philosophy of Consciousness and Meaning, in which universality is held higher than empirical particularity. Abstract thinking – a cause of allergy for a Frenchman – is on the contrary an aspiration for a Lithuanian. Sverdiolas’s formation has its roots in resistance against Marxist-materialist thinking, with the help of philosophy of culture. He considers the whole philosophy of the 20th century as an anthropological philosophy of Culture. This does not facilitate understanding Deleuze’s thought. His vitalist philosophy is deemed paramaterialist and considered to be reductionist. Hence a contradiction: Deleuze is recognized as a gifted historian of philosophy, but his own thinking is viewed with scepticism, without seeing its roots in the history of philosophy. The reason why Deleuze’s philosophy rejects the anthropocentric perspective – that of the ego and of consciousness – is not considered.","PeriodicalId":41448,"journal":{"name":"Problemos","volume":"1 1","pages":"69-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Problemos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/problemos.priedas.20.7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Arūnas Sverdiolas’s way of reading Deleuze raises questions about the compatibility of two traditions: how and to what extent can a philosopher of Culture understand a philosopher of Nature and Life? Deleuze, formed in the rationalist tradition, resists the philosophy of Consciousness and Meaning, in which universality is held higher than empirical particularity. Abstract thinking – a cause of allergy for a Frenchman – is on the contrary an aspiration for a Lithuanian. Sverdiolas’s formation has its roots in resistance against Marxist-materialist thinking, with the help of philosophy of culture. He considers the whole philosophy of the 20th century as an anthropological philosophy of Culture. This does not facilitate understanding Deleuze’s thought. His vitalist philosophy is deemed paramaterialist and considered to be reductionist. Hence a contradiction: Deleuze is recognized as a gifted historian of philosophy, but his own thinking is viewed with scepticism, without seeing its roots in the history of philosophy. The reason why Deleuze’s philosophy rejects the anthropocentric perspective – that of the ego and of consciousness – is not considered.
作为读者的哲学家:a.Sverdiolas阅读G.Deleuze
Arúnas Sverdiolas解读德勒兹的方式引发了关于两种传统兼容性的问题:一位文化哲学家如何以及在多大程度上理解一位自然与生命哲学家?德勒兹是在理性主义传统中形成的,他反对普遍性高于经验特殊性的意识与意义哲学。抽象思维是法国人过敏的原因,而立陶宛人则相反。Sverdiolas的形成源于在文化哲学的帮助下对马克思主义唯物主义思想的反抗。他认为整个20世纪的哲学是一种人类学的文化哲学。这不利于理解德勒兹的思想。他的生命论哲学被认为是超物质主义的,被认为是还原论的。因此产生了一个矛盾:德勒兹被公认为一位天才的哲学历史学家,但他自己的思想却被怀疑,而没有看到其在哲学史上的根源。德勒兹哲学拒绝以人类为中心的观点——自我和意识的观点——的原因没有被考虑在内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Problemos
Problemos PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信