What do you think?
Rate this book
سبينوزا ومشكلة التعبير
Expressionism in Philosophy is both a pivotal reading of Spinoza's work and also a crucial text within the development of Deleuze's own thought. It was the culmination of a series of monographic studies by Deleuze (on Hume, Bergson, Nietzsche, Proust, Kant, and Sacher-Masoch), and it prepared the transition from these abstract treatments of historical schemes of experience to the nomadology of Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
In this extraordinary work, Deleuze reflects on one of the thinkers of the past who most influenced his own sweeping reconfiguration of the tasks of philosophy. For Deleuze, Spinoza, along with Nietzsche and Lucretius, conceived of philosophy as an enterprise of liberation and radical demystification.
Gilles Deleuze is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Paris VIII, Vincennes/Saint Denis.
In this extraordinary work, Deleuze reflects on one of the thinkers of the past who most influenced his own sweeping reconfiguration of the tasks of philosophy. For Deleuze, Spinoza, along with Nietzsche and Lucretius, conceived of philosophy as an enterprise of liberation and radical demystification.
Gilles Deleuze is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Paris VIII, Vincennes/Saint Denis.
234 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
48 people are currently reading
1,036 people want to read
About the author
Gilles Deleuze
243books2,428followersDeleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.
Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about� art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters� that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.
Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about� art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters� that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.
He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
June 9, 2010
What a book!
First � the Ethics, written in 1677 is considered Spinoza’s magnum opus. Spinoza attempts to create a fully comprehensive, cohesive philosophical system that strives to provide a coherent picture of reality and comprehend the meaning of an ethical life. It attempts to define the nature of God, the mind, human bondage to emotions, and the power of understanding � he says, ‘nothing is objectively good or bad but only appears so to those who do not understand the necessity of all events.�
Spinoza conceptualizes that God is completely indifferent to humans, and because of this there is not absolute conception of good or evil, hence there can be no objective ethics.
Spinoza does not conceive of God in some transcendent metaphysical realm beyond what constitutes the physical aspects of reality. His conception of God states that God is an immanent being, that is within the natural physical world. In fact, he writes the phrase ‘God or Nature� to describe this phenomenon twice in the Ethics. God and the Natural World are one.
He takes this belief to the ultimate conclusion � God is Nature. Nature is made up of one substance, this substance is expressed in infinite variable attributes, and these attributes take on an infinity of modes. Spinoza says God is a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, each of which is infinite. God is expressed in nature, human beings are merely one variation of this one-substance.
In the sixth definition from the Ethics Spinoza says, “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal infinite essence.� Each attribute expresses an infinite and eternal essence, an essence corresponding to a particular kind of attribute. Each attribute expresses the essence of substance, its being which grounds reality. Since the one substance is infinite, it is infinitely variable. This means this substance can be expressed in a multitude of ways, through an infinity of modes of expression. There is no end to the ways the infinite one substance (God/Nature) can be expressed.
What causes God? According to Spinoza � God is a ‘causa sui�, which means God is a ‘cause that causes itself�, nothing causes God to exist, it wills itself into existence, and since God is infinite it is not a ‘being� at all, but an expression of an essence that constitutes the basis of all of existence. A human ‘thought� is actually nothing more than an appropriation, or a making proper, a set of properties, that gel or focus into a subjective position, an ‘ego� or the Cartesian Subject � “I think, therefore I am�.
In Spinoza’s philosophy, God does not care about ‘human beings� and our wishes. People praying to have a favorable outcome for themselves is egotistical, and Spinoza would say this type of belief in God is quite childish. Instead, God is immanent within the natural world. God is expression, and life is infinite in its modes of expression. There are literally innumerable variations on how God’s power could conceive of itself, and find expression. God becomes viewed, not as an eternal judge, or lord hovering over us watching us, making us guilty for our sins, but as a ‘power� an energy-force that exists within all life. In this sense, Power does not mean dominion, or domination, but force. Potenza (power over, power from ‘above� as transcendent, or power as dominion) becomes rearticulated as potestas (the power to be, forceful living, living as creative expression that is empowered, power as immanence, that is, from within).
In Descartes one passes from the superiority of the cause (God creates us, we are subservient to the destiny laid out by God) to the superiority of certain forms of being over others � In Descartes, there is definitely authority � God or the Evil Demon has complete control over all aspects of reality, we are submissive to God in Descartes. In Spinoza, God plays a different role because Spinoza posits an equality of all forms of being. Spinoza posits an ‘immanence� of being that is constituted by a unitary substance that connects all beings to one another. Spinoza is actually the world’s first communist � we are all equal because we are all created out of the same substance and we are all connected to each other through God � God is the source of this infinitely variable substance that connects all of existence. Spinoza is like Karl Marx and subsequent communist philosophers, like 20th century thinkers Gilles Deleuze and Antonio Negri, and to a lesser extent even Friedrich Nietzsche who was not a communist but who shared this belief - because Spinoza like them begins from a metaphysics comprised of equality and infinite difference. We are equal because the human essence can be expressed an infinity of different ways. Thus difference constitutes the basis of our equality, and the metaphysical ground of all of reality is constituted as a unifying-difference � we are all different, but the essence of nature links us all together because reality derives from one single substance � God. Reality is all just little pieces of God, mirroring back to us, reflected back to us, and human subjectivity is simply an awareness of this substance or a concealment of the substance, an extrication of our essence in knowledge or a retrieval of this essence through knowledge and self-mastery.
In Descartes, the dualism proposed by Descartes insinuates that the mind can become alien from the soul which inhabits the body. In Spinoza, this process cannot happen. For Spinoza there is no distinction between the mind and body � where Descartes worshipped two Gods the mind and the body, Spinoza only talks about one God � Spinoza was a monist. Where Descartes states � God exists because his idea is in us; and also because we ourselves, with our idea of God exist, therefore God must exist. Spinoza begins with an always already existing God. God is indifferent to us. Our ‘thoughts� are not even brought into the equation. God consists of an equality of powers emanating from an always already existing force, from an infinite power of thinking to an infinite power of existing, which emanates directly from within existence, via the power of existing. Since God is immanent, within all of existence, this means God has only certain attributes. Spinoza claims that God does not have the attribute � movement, because that would imply there is somewhere God is not, yet he does claim that God can show the attribute � extension, since God’s modes of expression can forever diversify, grow, and multiply through infinite variations of differential ontology (being of beings).
Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible � there is no such thing as an ‘infinite number�, numbering involves separation of each thing, whereas infinity is innumerable because by definition infinity is everything, everywhere, it is by definition all things, hence it is not a thing at all, but a force, hence Spinoza describes God as infinite and indivisible.
Existence in Spinoza is extension, a plurality of parts. The nature of existence is plurality and Spinoza says it is defined by a certain relationship between motion and rest. The nature of reality is that ontology (being) is dynamic, differential, and constantly changing. Thus, the differential dynamic constitutes the basis of what philosophers call a ‘physics of power� � actions are always defined by their correlative reactions. The world is a modality, seen in the indefinite movement of various causalities, causes and effects, and the movement of the mind (subjectivity) is an internal and simultaneous determination of an infinite power (God).
Spinoza explains this process by saying � “An affect that is called a passion of the mind is a confused idea, by which the mind affirms of its Body or some part of it, a greater or lesser force of existing than before, which when it is given, determines the Mind to think of this rather than that.� This constitutes the end of Part 3 of the Ethics, which poses Subjectivity as a constitutive element of being. What appears to be ‘spontaneous� thinking, is actually a result of a complex set of power relations that underlie the nature of reality...
First � the Ethics, written in 1677 is considered Spinoza’s magnum opus. Spinoza attempts to create a fully comprehensive, cohesive philosophical system that strives to provide a coherent picture of reality and comprehend the meaning of an ethical life. It attempts to define the nature of God, the mind, human bondage to emotions, and the power of understanding � he says, ‘nothing is objectively good or bad but only appears so to those who do not understand the necessity of all events.�
Spinoza conceptualizes that God is completely indifferent to humans, and because of this there is not absolute conception of good or evil, hence there can be no objective ethics.
Spinoza does not conceive of God in some transcendent metaphysical realm beyond what constitutes the physical aspects of reality. His conception of God states that God is an immanent being, that is within the natural physical world. In fact, he writes the phrase ‘God or Nature� to describe this phenomenon twice in the Ethics. God and the Natural World are one.
He takes this belief to the ultimate conclusion � God is Nature. Nature is made up of one substance, this substance is expressed in infinite variable attributes, and these attributes take on an infinity of modes. Spinoza says God is a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, each of which is infinite. God is expressed in nature, human beings are merely one variation of this one-substance.
In the sixth definition from the Ethics Spinoza says, “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal infinite essence.� Each attribute expresses an infinite and eternal essence, an essence corresponding to a particular kind of attribute. Each attribute expresses the essence of substance, its being which grounds reality. Since the one substance is infinite, it is infinitely variable. This means this substance can be expressed in a multitude of ways, through an infinity of modes of expression. There is no end to the ways the infinite one substance (God/Nature) can be expressed.
What causes God? According to Spinoza � God is a ‘causa sui�, which means God is a ‘cause that causes itself�, nothing causes God to exist, it wills itself into existence, and since God is infinite it is not a ‘being� at all, but an expression of an essence that constitutes the basis of all of existence. A human ‘thought� is actually nothing more than an appropriation, or a making proper, a set of properties, that gel or focus into a subjective position, an ‘ego� or the Cartesian Subject � “I think, therefore I am�.
In Spinoza’s philosophy, God does not care about ‘human beings� and our wishes. People praying to have a favorable outcome for themselves is egotistical, and Spinoza would say this type of belief in God is quite childish. Instead, God is immanent within the natural world. God is expression, and life is infinite in its modes of expression. There are literally innumerable variations on how God’s power could conceive of itself, and find expression. God becomes viewed, not as an eternal judge, or lord hovering over us watching us, making us guilty for our sins, but as a ‘power� an energy-force that exists within all life. In this sense, Power does not mean dominion, or domination, but force. Potenza (power over, power from ‘above� as transcendent, or power as dominion) becomes rearticulated as potestas (the power to be, forceful living, living as creative expression that is empowered, power as immanence, that is, from within).
In Descartes one passes from the superiority of the cause (God creates us, we are subservient to the destiny laid out by God) to the superiority of certain forms of being over others � In Descartes, there is definitely authority � God or the Evil Demon has complete control over all aspects of reality, we are submissive to God in Descartes. In Spinoza, God plays a different role because Spinoza posits an equality of all forms of being. Spinoza posits an ‘immanence� of being that is constituted by a unitary substance that connects all beings to one another. Spinoza is actually the world’s first communist � we are all equal because we are all created out of the same substance and we are all connected to each other through God � God is the source of this infinitely variable substance that connects all of existence. Spinoza is like Karl Marx and subsequent communist philosophers, like 20th century thinkers Gilles Deleuze and Antonio Negri, and to a lesser extent even Friedrich Nietzsche who was not a communist but who shared this belief - because Spinoza like them begins from a metaphysics comprised of equality and infinite difference. We are equal because the human essence can be expressed an infinity of different ways. Thus difference constitutes the basis of our equality, and the metaphysical ground of all of reality is constituted as a unifying-difference � we are all different, but the essence of nature links us all together because reality derives from one single substance � God. Reality is all just little pieces of God, mirroring back to us, reflected back to us, and human subjectivity is simply an awareness of this substance or a concealment of the substance, an extrication of our essence in knowledge or a retrieval of this essence through knowledge and self-mastery.
In Descartes, the dualism proposed by Descartes insinuates that the mind can become alien from the soul which inhabits the body. In Spinoza, this process cannot happen. For Spinoza there is no distinction between the mind and body � where Descartes worshipped two Gods the mind and the body, Spinoza only talks about one God � Spinoza was a monist. Where Descartes states � God exists because his idea is in us; and also because we ourselves, with our idea of God exist, therefore God must exist. Spinoza begins with an always already existing God. God is indifferent to us. Our ‘thoughts� are not even brought into the equation. God consists of an equality of powers emanating from an always already existing force, from an infinite power of thinking to an infinite power of existing, which emanates directly from within existence, via the power of existing. Since God is immanent, within all of existence, this means God has only certain attributes. Spinoza claims that God does not have the attribute � movement, because that would imply there is somewhere God is not, yet he does claim that God can show the attribute � extension, since God’s modes of expression can forever diversify, grow, and multiply through infinite variations of differential ontology (being of beings).
Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible � there is no such thing as an ‘infinite number�, numbering involves separation of each thing, whereas infinity is innumerable because by definition infinity is everything, everywhere, it is by definition all things, hence it is not a thing at all, but a force, hence Spinoza describes God as infinite and indivisible.
Existence in Spinoza is extension, a plurality of parts. The nature of existence is plurality and Spinoza says it is defined by a certain relationship between motion and rest. The nature of reality is that ontology (being) is dynamic, differential, and constantly changing. Thus, the differential dynamic constitutes the basis of what philosophers call a ‘physics of power� � actions are always defined by their correlative reactions. The world is a modality, seen in the indefinite movement of various causalities, causes and effects, and the movement of the mind (subjectivity) is an internal and simultaneous determination of an infinite power (God).
Spinoza explains this process by saying � “An affect that is called a passion of the mind is a confused idea, by which the mind affirms of its Body or some part of it, a greater or lesser force of existing than before, which when it is given, determines the Mind to think of this rather than that.� This constitutes the end of Part 3 of the Ethics, which poses Subjectivity as a constitutive element of being. What appears to be ‘spontaneous� thinking, is actually a result of a complex set of power relations that underlie the nature of reality...
January 10, 2018
คิดว่า Deleuze เป็นนักปรัชญาคนหนึ่งที่อ่านตัวบทได้ดี เช่นเดียวกับเล่มที่เขียนเกี่ยวกับค้านท์ เล่มนี้เดอเลอสเขียนเกี่ยวกับสปิโนซ่าด้วยท่าทีที่เคร่งครัดต่อแนวคิดของสปิโนซ่าเอง
April 2, 2021
This is the second time I've read this book. The first time this book really influenced my thinking, but I was a little less clear about some of the nuances. This time around I see how deeply mathematical Deleuze can get, even though he isn't explaining his concepts in the framework.
All the same, Deleuze is a pretty dry read -- I used to be so bedazzled by his concepts. The way in which he expresses himself is fairly straightforward, but like his other book on Spinoza (practical philosophy) this book is both deeply philosophical AND talks about lived life experience, something that many philosophers/philosophies often cannot achieve as they sacrifice one for the other. Deleuze is able to navigate both. In the cannon of Deleuze books this one is often over looked -- but here he gets into how to consider the relationship of actual/virtual in terms of active/passive -- and how the organization of forms in our everyday life experience/awareness is in fact given in these relationships as they occur to us, and necessarily influence us.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone but if you are in the midst of studying Deleuze, I would say this is the way to go -- a must read.
All the same, Deleuze is a pretty dry read -- I used to be so bedazzled by his concepts. The way in which he expresses himself is fairly straightforward, but like his other book on Spinoza (practical philosophy) this book is both deeply philosophical AND talks about lived life experience, something that many philosophers/philosophies often cannot achieve as they sacrifice one for the other. Deleuze is able to navigate both. In the cannon of Deleuze books this one is often over looked -- but here he gets into how to consider the relationship of actual/virtual in terms of active/passive -- and how the organization of forms in our everyday life experience/awareness is in fact given in these relationships as they occur to us, and necessarily influence us.
I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone but if you are in the midst of studying Deleuze, I would say this is the way to go -- a must read.
June 14, 2019
A brilliant book. Fascinating exposition of Spinoza's philosophy as well as one of the keys to understanding Deleuze's later works.
March 6, 2023
spinoza dijo en las próximas páginas me basaré
Read
January 2, 2023I finally fuckin' finished it. Goddamn, that took a long-ass time. Good book.
July 11, 2022
Dudo que alguien haya escrito o escriba jamás una obra sobre Spinoza de estas características. A veces resulta indigesta y produce jaquecas pero es magistral
Read
December 26, 2008I think this is the first book of strict philosophy I have ever read. I was really impressed by the structure of logic constructed to create a whole framework of perception. There were hardly any analogies at all, just pure explanation of Spinoza's ideas. A seemingly full proof of the immanence but not emanence of G-d and the purpose of creation as an expression of His mysterious and emotionless Will. Also, a proof for the purpose of existence as making connections to the unity of Being and the joy that creates.
What could be more important than having a proof for finding expressive joy?
Maybe just laughing....
I AM READING IT AGAIN it is a tough and fascinating book.
I finished it again, I think I have a better handle on the relationships between Substance, attributes, and modes. Attempting to apply this philosophy to life is fun but I am unclear if I really "get it". I am still figuring out what exactly for myself would be passive and active affections.
What could be more important than having a proof for finding expressive joy?
Maybe just laughing....
I AM READING IT AGAIN it is a tough and fascinating book.
I finished it again, I think I have a better handle on the relationships between Substance, attributes, and modes. Attempting to apply this philosophy to life is fun but I am unclear if I really "get it". I am still figuring out what exactly for myself would be passive and active affections.
October 30, 2023
This Spanish language edition, produced in Buenos Aires, is the faithful translation of two of Deleuze's seminars: the complete 1980 5 session on Leibniz, from mid April to mid May, and part of the last Deleuze seminar, on Leibniz and the Baroque, with 10 of the total 20 sessions included in that seminar (see deleuze.cla.purdue.edu for the complete listing.
For the 1980 sessions, the translations of the 5 sessions are fairly complete. As for the 10 sessions included here from 86-87, the editors truncate the 27 Jan 1987 session significantly, first by dropping Deleuze’s description of Leblanc’s novel, and then completely eliminating the intervention on singularities by Marek, Deleuze’s colleague in the math dept.; all the others are fairly well translated except for occasional closing comments. However, the final two sessions deserve attention: the 17 May 1987 session omits the opening minute with Richard Pinhas’s brief intervention, and then just as occurs in the transcript from WebDeleuze, this translation ends just shy of minute 92, thus omitting 42 minutes from the end of the session. As for the 24 May session, only brief exchanges are omitted, but it would seem that this is the seminar's final session, which is not the case since Deleuze has a working session on 2 June with presentations by musicologists on the theme of harmony
For the 1980 sessions, the translations of the 5 sessions are fairly complete. As for the 10 sessions included here from 86-87, the editors truncate the 27 Jan 1987 session significantly, first by dropping Deleuze’s description of Leblanc’s novel, and then completely eliminating the intervention on singularities by Marek, Deleuze’s colleague in the math dept.; all the others are fairly well translated except for occasional closing comments. However, the final two sessions deserve attention: the 17 May 1987 session omits the opening minute with Richard Pinhas’s brief intervention, and then just as occurs in the transcript from WebDeleuze, this translation ends just shy of minute 92, thus omitting 42 minutes from the end of the session. As for the 24 May session, only brief exchanges are omitted, but it would seem that this is the seminar's final session, which is not the case since Deleuze has a working session on 2 June with presentations by musicologists on the theme of harmony
July 3, 2021
This is such a brilliant book that shares a lot with Deleuze's book on Nietzsche, although this seems to stand up more as an objective piece of historical philosophical scholarship.
August 5, 2021
Disclaimer: didn't fully finish this, got just over 70% through.
I read this book specifically in preparation for Anti-Oedipus, as I want to have some background with Deleuze's writings. Unlike Nietzsche and Philosophy, I probably wouldn't have chosen to read this book otherwise, which probably contributes to why it was tougher for me to stay engaged in. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza builds slowly and systematically, and is easy to follow. While I do feel that Deleuze's writing would benefit from some more practical application examples (seeing as when he did include them, I realized I was understanding all the abstract theory incorrectly in some way), I would definitely recommend this book to Spinoza fans.
I read this book specifically in preparation for Anti-Oedipus, as I want to have some background with Deleuze's writings. Unlike Nietzsche and Philosophy, I probably wouldn't have chosen to read this book otherwise, which probably contributes to why it was tougher for me to stay engaged in. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza builds slowly and systematically, and is easy to follow. While I do feel that Deleuze's writing would benefit from some more practical application examples (seeing as when he did include them, I realized I was understanding all the abstract theory incorrectly in some way), I would definitely recommend this book to Spinoza fans.
September 23, 2008
This is Delueze's interpretation of Spinoza's major work Ethics. Of interest to Deleuze are the questions what does the body do and how do actions determine emotions.
July 24, 2010
How many times can I see God referred to in first person singular - as "He" ... otherwise Deleuze is great, as usual.
February 27, 2019
“no one has yet determined what the body can do� (Spinoza 1959:87).
The capacity of a body is never defined by a body alone but is always aided by a field or context of force relations. Secondly, this is not yet knowing of the body, is still prevalent 330 years after Spinoza composed ethics. Affect, the potential to 'affect' others' potential: lives in the body’s capacity to affect and be affected. Affect is understood as a form of thinking, but often is indirect and non-reflective (Thrift 2008). The intensive capacities of a body to affect (through an affection) and be affected (as a result of modifications). There are at least five different attempts to engage with affect as diffuse intensities, however this work will focus on Gilles Deleuze’s reworkings of Spinoza understanding engagement with nonrepresentational theory spotlighted the term ‘affectus� in Spinoza’s work, showcased through the quote “The ethical question falls then, in Spinoza, into two parts: How can we come to produce active affections? But first of all: How can we come to experience a maximum of joyful passions?� (Deleuze 1990).
During the time of Spinoza’s writing, affect was considered an alternative to emotion or feeling. This was the key principle that phenomenology was based on, however this presupposes a shared model of experience, it is thus intentional and subject based. It misses the inhuman or nonhuman experience such as the experience of animals, nonorganic life, and even future experiences for which in this model there is no appropriate image. Spinoza describes the affectus as both body and thought, as the modifications of the body by which power and action of the body increases or diminishes, and the idea of these modifications (ethics III). Therefore, affect increases the capacity for the body and the mind to act, and therefore detaches the emotions from responses and inserts them into actions as the “affections of substance� (Thrift 2008: 178). The production of ‘affections� has enabled social sciences to distinguish between affects and emotion and feeling, and through this fracture can be described as impersonal or pre-personal, as they do not necessarily belong to subjects inhabiting but can be between spaces and interpreted subjects and interpreted objects (Gregory et al. 2009). Deleuze (1990) argues through his reading of Spinoza, that no one can know the affects one is fully capable of, and therefore he argues that you do not know beforehand what you are good and capable of, and what the body and mind can do, and therefore affects are “the non-human becomings of man�.
The capacity of a body is never defined by a body alone but is always aided by a field or context of force relations. Secondly, this is not yet knowing of the body, is still prevalent 330 years after Spinoza composed ethics. Affect, the potential to 'affect' others' potential: lives in the body’s capacity to affect and be affected. Affect is understood as a form of thinking, but often is indirect and non-reflective (Thrift 2008). The intensive capacities of a body to affect (through an affection) and be affected (as a result of modifications). There are at least five different attempts to engage with affect as diffuse intensities, however this work will focus on Gilles Deleuze’s reworkings of Spinoza understanding engagement with nonrepresentational theory spotlighted the term ‘affectus� in Spinoza’s work, showcased through the quote “The ethical question falls then, in Spinoza, into two parts: How can we come to produce active affections? But first of all: How can we come to experience a maximum of joyful passions?� (Deleuze 1990).
During the time of Spinoza’s writing, affect was considered an alternative to emotion or feeling. This was the key principle that phenomenology was based on, however this presupposes a shared model of experience, it is thus intentional and subject based. It misses the inhuman or nonhuman experience such as the experience of animals, nonorganic life, and even future experiences for which in this model there is no appropriate image. Spinoza describes the affectus as both body and thought, as the modifications of the body by which power and action of the body increases or diminishes, and the idea of these modifications (ethics III). Therefore, affect increases the capacity for the body and the mind to act, and therefore detaches the emotions from responses and inserts them into actions as the “affections of substance� (Thrift 2008: 178). The production of ‘affections� has enabled social sciences to distinguish between affects and emotion and feeling, and through this fracture can be described as impersonal or pre-personal, as they do not necessarily belong to subjects inhabiting but can be between spaces and interpreted subjects and interpreted objects (Gregory et al. 2009). Deleuze (1990) argues through his reading of Spinoza, that no one can know the affects one is fully capable of, and therefore he argues that you do not know beforehand what you are good and capable of, and what the body and mind can do, and therefore affects are “the non-human becomings of man�.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.