In this video I give a detailed analysis of and commentary on the first paragraph of Gilles Deleuze’s LOGIC OF SENSE in relation to the question: in what sense can we be said to be Deleuzian today?
Subjects discussed: Foucault’s review « Theatrum Philosophicum », Badiou’s LOGICS OF WORLDS, the Alice books, Zizek’s THE PARALLAX VIEW, mainstream culture and counter-culture in the reading of Lewis Carroll, enjoyment and surplus enjoyment.
AGENT SWARM 
always appreciate your close readings, you might be interested in this bit of Sean Kelly on secular « salvation »:
https://newbooksnetwork.com/secular-salvations
J’aimeJ’aime
Seems to me like we could go back to Spinoza to cut short most of these considerations : faith and salvation can be considered « socially useful » ; « atheists » will need their new faith as a new kind of social function ; however, this function is only useful in so far – as Spinoza maintained – that men do not think « rationally », so to speak. I’ll put it brutally then : faith is socially necessary for people who are not able to think rationally ; the question then is, what is necessary to be « able to think rationally »? And what does it mean to think rationally? These are different kind of questions than asking how much atheists need faith today in order to keep going. For Spinoza faith was not necessary at all in any form, in the private or public sphere ; we can maintain that position which would perhaps be the most « radical » or, well, simply philosophical.
I’m just saying ; I think Terrance’s energies have been wasted on these crypto-religious conservative thinkers, even though it was fun reading him deconstructing their works.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
do you know Sean D Kelly’s work?
J’aimeJ’aime