Things That Quicken The Heart

2012-05-29

‘Kant, for example, is the perfect incarnation of false critique: that’s why he fascinates me. But when you’re facing such a work of genius, there’s no point saying you disagree. First you have to know how to admire; you have to rediscover the problems he poses, his particular machinery. It is through admiration that you will come to know genuine critique. The mania of people today is not knowing how to admire anything: either they’re “against,” or they situate everything at their own level while they chit-chat and scrutinise. That’s no way to go about it. You have to work your way back to those problems which an author of genius has posed, all the way back to that which he does not say in what he says, in order to extract something that still belongs to him, though you also turn it against him. You have to be inspired, visited by the geniuses you denounce.’

- Gilles Deleuze, On Nietzsche and the Image of Thought

2012-05-26

‘Toute Pensée émet un Coup de Dés’

- Stéphane Mallarmé, Un Coupe de Dés Jamais n’Abolira le Hasard

2012-05-22

I have a bunch more quotes re Deleuze from this Pheng piece I wanna post

rhizombie:

but I’ll give you all a break. ALSO I HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND THE COLLECTION THE ESSAY IS FEATURED IN: NEW MATERIALISMS: ONTOLOGY, AGENCY, AND POLITICS

I guess I kinda have to work with Pheng now.

As a (somewhat mediocre) coincidence, I tried to get this collection out of the library today. I want to clarify somewhat the boundaries of an affective-materialist “turn” for the purposes of defining my own project. Though my concern is principally Deleuze, so I would be interested to read those particular quotes especially.

Source: rhizombie

→

‘In order to clarify the stakes and the limits of rebellion we pose the problem outside of philosophical bad habits. Philosophy is always indifferent to man or, though this isn’t very different, too quickly compassionate. Sufferings and alienations exist in the necessity of revolt and one concludes from this that there is evil, and often evils, there too. Revolts are only ‘logical’ in this way - admirable vicious circles of uncertainty and the contingency of a desired rebellion in which no one believes. We suppose an instant, or a time in history, another approach, in order to create a completely different hypothesis even if it seems at first to imitate the first one formulated here. There is revolt rather than only evil; nearly everywhere and always people do not cease to kill but they also rebel against the most violent powers as the most gentle. Starting from universal rebellion rather than from contingent reasons for rebelling (unfathomable and all too evident). What is the cause not of this revolt, but of this continuous power of revolt?’

- François Laruelle, Future Christ: A Lesson in Heresy