Deleuze, Bergson, Merleau-Ponty (book review) Dorothea E Olkowski

The Logic and Pragmatics of Creation, Affective Life, and Perception


220124: three of my favourite philosophers, so it is no surprise this book is excellent, engaging, exciting. books on, by, referring to m-p (75), b (56), d (28). the three are ultimately viewed through deleuze. whom i have read on much more than by, whose ideas are least familiar, most challenging, who also brings in the pragmatist philosopher pierce- of whom i have read nothing- and builds, discusses, argues against those other two, against bergsonism and phenomenology. book begins with m-p, then b, then critiques of d. i do not know where current arguments are on these ways of thought, but surprise myself by recognising some thinkers quoted...


after intro that notes 'three body problem' of how their philosophies interact, there is an interesting philosophical critique of language in the novel [book:Embassytown|9265453], that immediately gives an idea of postmodern critiques of naturalism, formalism, that the author will develop. b has his ideas, m-p and d will interrogate them. for b the universe of motion cannot be made of immobile sections, for m-p the motion is always relative to the central observer, for d images remain images and have no need of immediate motion for meaning...


chapter 2 is d and guatarri's critique of logic, which, to the extent understood, is difficult to summarise...


chapter 3 is bergson and bergsonism, which i could follow, have read enough, and explains both his disputes about time with einstein and beginning of analytic-continental schism in philosophy with arguments with bertrand russell. rather than 'wrong' the impression is mostly b is misunderstood at that time, now better appreciated...


chapter 4 is duration, motion, temporalization in b, m-p, d...


chapter 5 is phenomenology and the event- m-p's radical ideas compared to d's...


chapter 6 is philosophy of the event- a lot on d's book on the artist francis bacon, and 'the logic of sensation', for there is logic against chaos in art, in science, in philosophy...


no, i cannot claim to understand it all, but of what is understood i am very impressed... possibly need prof to more fruitfully examine text, especially to better understand how pierce fits in, how logic is critiqued in chapter 2, whether b does or does not escape analytic denunciations, if i understand the philosophy of 'the event' versus phenomenological 'doxa', maybe need to read more primary texts by d. there is also question of 'why' i read this book: philosophy takes the place of religion in my life, that is, it is its own reason. there are things i do not understand but expect to eventually by cobbling together many, many texts that rehearse similar arguments. mainly, as it is b i have read easiest and feel understand best, i am heartened by how d rescues his thought from say russell, want to better understand how 'images' are everything, somehow between thought virtual and the real. and the brain is not identical with the mind etc. as usual, there is the impression of more ideas to read, books to read, and so little time...

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

An Introduction to Henri Bergson 220701: (this is eleven years later reread) recent read (220625)[book:Bergson’s Philosophy of Self-Overcoming: Thinking without Negativity or Time as Striving|52736601

if you like this review, i now have website: www.michaelkamakana.com 220611: this is probably the most academically accurate of the translations I have read of this book, but still prefer commentary o

Victor H. Mair (Translator) 220322: have decided to read various translations i have of this text, not that the renderings are necessarily much different but to read accompanying texts, in this case n