Convert currency. Add to Basket. Book Description Paidos, Condition: New. No aceptamos pedidos con destino a Ceuta y Melilla. Seller Inventory
|Published (Last):||25 August 2008|
|PDF File Size:||9.94 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.6 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Leibniz y el Barroco by Gilles Deleuze.
Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — El pliegue. El pliegue. Leibniz y el Barroco by Gilles Deleuze ,. Jose Vazquez Translator. Umbetina Larraceleta Translator. Get A Copy. More Details Original Title. Other Editions Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about El pliegue. Leibniz y el Barroco , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about El pliegue.
Leibniz y el Barroco. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4.
Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Start your review of El pliegue. Franz Rosenzweig, the Jewish philosopher and theologian, attended renowned Neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen's lectures for the first time in Rosenzweig wasn't expecting much -- Neo-Kantianism, for those who are blissfully, rightfully unaware, is God's cruel joke on the history of continental philosophy, a sort of unconscious Dadaist art project of trying to figure out how to make the most boring, tedious rationalist system ever.
Heidegger and Rosenzweig and many others basically wrote Franz Rosenzweig, the Jewish philosopher and theologian, attended renowned Neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen's lectures for the first time in Heidegger and Rosenzweig and many others basically wrote their philosophy as a response to their Neo-Kantian teachers. Anyway, after attending Cohen's lecture, Rosenzweig writes: I had the surprise of my life. I am used to professors of philosophy who are subtle, acute, lofty, profound, and whatever other attributes are used to praise a thinker--instead, I found something I hadn't expected, a philosopher.
Here was no trace of that desperate lack of content or indifference to content from which all contemporary philosophizing seems to suffer. Deleuze is, for me, the Hermann Cohen of the 'class of May ' group of French postmodernists.
Deleuze's thought is obviously kind of batshit insane, but in a really interesting genius-level way, rather than a tedious "let's just rehash Nietzsche and use lots of jargon" way. There are more original ideas in The Fold , or any of Deleuze's other major works, than in the collected works of most twentieth-century philosophers. Apart from Derrida's first books and a few passages in Foucault, Deleuze is really where it's at, for the '68 postmodernists.
Everything … are the folded things! There is no form, no content, no container, but only folds! Gilles Deleuze enthusiastically defends for the art of folding inspired of Baroque. This is a world of folding, in which time and space are generated by folding, expanding and refolding.
How to explain human complexity? Complexity of the world? How to understand their internal an Everything … are the folded things! How to understand their internal and external with the system? How the relationship between things, unified and divided, both confuse their different facts, however, to been seen clearly?
There is an answer and only one answer should help to answer these mysteries: a fold is a simple line, a geometry basic operations, driven by Gilles Deleuze, has been promoted to the potential height of the philosophical concepts, and to become a key graphics to be able to be close to the world.
Can we see these architecture are utilizing this folding theory? View 2 comments. As a book that takes Leibniz to an extreme that Leibniz would have never done himself, this book is excellent and drawing him out to what could be seen as his philosophical ends. This is a great piece of historical philosophy in that sense. However, if we understand this as one of Deleuze's works of unorthodox philosophical history, which it is, then we must understand there are some abuses in context relative to his goals.
Namely, what Deleuze offers is a context in which Leibniz is right in ju As a book that takes Leibniz to an extreme that Leibniz would have never done himself, this book is excellent and drawing him out to what could be seen as his philosophical ends. Namely, what Deleuze offers is a context in which Leibniz is right in just such a way that bodies and logical inquiry of God enable such a utopian system in that God can't fail, but rather succeeds, through the damnation, the sins, the "failures" of much of humanity.
In showing such a system, Deleuze creates instruments of how to think about bodies and the consistency of rational approaches. Doing this allows him to reconsider what Kant was attempting, and what much of the enlightenment philosophers were attempting. However, if one wished to problemitize this account of logical inquiry, one would only need to look to Godel's incompleteness theorems.
As the basis of Deleuze's inquiry into Leibniz is roughly an account of the metaphysics of set theoretic or algebraic inquiry, it would seem not to difficult to suggest that Deleuze's analysis of Leibniz whether or not Leibniz would have been aware of such a thing in his time is open to criticism in his utopian vision of the completeness of the infinite due to the failures of consistency or completeness in the metamathematical statements of related to functional analysis that also seems at least analogous to Deleuze's accounts of difference differences being directly related to derivatives in mathematics.
The folds themselves may find difficulty in their completeness of account through such a connection between the "rational" logic of mathematicians and the empirical of scientific.
I found myself confused throughout this text. This confusion resulted not because of the content itself which is dense, but penetrable, especially given a prior reading of Leibniz , but as a result of not knowing how this text fits into Deleuze's oeuvre. In many of Deleuze's historical studies, Deleuze uses the author he is working as he wishes to develop parts of his own thought. In Negotiations he famously said that he take the author by the rear and gives birth to a monster the other except I found myself confused throughout this text.
In Negotiations he famously said that he take the author by the rear and gives birth to a monster the other exception to this being the Kant book. In The Fold it is as Deleuze himself that is being taken by Leibniz, and giving birth to a Deleuzian monster with Leibnizian thought, rather than the other way around. It is a becoming Leibniz of Deleuze, rather than a becoming Deleuze of Leibniz.
The only sections that seem to fit with typical Deleuzian writing are the 6th chapter on Whitehead, and the final two paragraphs of the book which discuss a movement from a monadology to a nomadology. It is possible that these two paragraphs were originally meant to be extended and Deleuze ran out of steam, but I don't have anything to support this. In any case, I'm still confused, though I have a theory that this text relates to the Foucault one insofar as he is developing an understanding of Leibnizian and classical episteme, rather than putting forward a metaphysical treatise.
Dense reading but insightful on double-articulations and, obviously, the richness of folds. Interesting in that Deleuze can turn a dull philosopher into a radical with a few witty lines. Definitely something that had the pages turning when I picked it up. Someday, i will write a book entitled From Monads to Nomads on Deleuze and Leibniz until that day, keep your ear to the grindstone and hear all the silence about this book - very few scholars even pay attention to it Dimitris Angelis rated it really liked it Sep 17, Mohammad Reza rated it really liked it Sep 01, Nikita rated it really liked it Aug 05, Phillip rated it really liked it Jan 07, Donovan Symeon rated it really liked it May 24, Dan rated it really liked it Jun 22, Dan Haines rated it really liked it Feb 20, Blivorsy rated it really liked it Dec 08, Mae Benson rated it really liked it Dec 16, Sean rated it really liked it Jan 11, MaryAddison rated it really liked it Apr 18, Danielle Booth rated it really liked it Nov 18, Jorge rated it really liked it Oct 18, Jose rated it really liked it Dec 01, Kev rated it really liked it Oct 19, Jose DaVeiga rated it really liked it Apr 17,
El pliegue. Leibniz y el Barroco
El Pliegue Leibniz y el Barroco