The Logic of Gilles Deleuze

logical movement of ‘mediation’. They want to put metaphysics in motion, in action. They want to make it act, and make it carry out immediate acts. It is not enough, therefore, for them to propose a new representation of movement; representation is already mediation’ (Deleuze 1994, 8). Here, I think, Deleuze would say that Priest attempts to put the discrete multiplicity of classical logic in motion, rather than recognise the need for a non-propositional account of problems, such as Deleuze develops. As such, my suspicion is that Shores in the end collapses the difference in kind between the two multiplicities that is at the heart of Deleuze’s logic of multiplicities. Shores notes in the conclusion of the work that this is the opening of a broader project on Deleuze and logic, so perhaps these issues will be resolved as the project develops. I suspect Shores would see much of his work here as a provocation to further thought, and he notes that while Priest’s logic offers the best mapping of Deleuze’s logic, this mapping does not cover the whole range of Deleuze’s thought. In providing such a provocation, the book is a success, and despite the reservations above, I would recommend it to those interested in this intersection of Deleuze and logic. Ultimately the engagement with formal logic here is well worked out, with the clearest analyses of Deleuze’s engagements with the philosophy of logic so far available to us.