Customer Reviews

Out of This World: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Creation

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Hallward presents a very comprehensive reading of Deleuze here, but some of what he says about Deleuze is so "out there" that I wonder if he really believes it himself - or whether he's just saying it to provoke controversy. Still, you can learn a lot by reading this book, as long as you keep in mind these essential warnings:

1) Deleuze admired and drew a lot from Spinoza, who is famous for having in a sense equated God and Nature: whenever Hallward quotes from Spinoza, he uses God; but when Deleuze draws from Spinoza, he means nature, or the entire universe. (Hallward acknowledges Deleuze's atheism on p.10, but then pretty much ignores it for the rest of the book.) So substitute back "Nature" or "the universe" or even "Being" each time you see "God" in this book, and you'll be getting valuable insight into Deleuze (rather than Spinoza or Bergson - or Hallward). (Wonder how the universe itself could be considered "creative"? Deleuze draws here on complexity theory and recent advances in non-linear math and science; see Manuel DeLanda's recent books on this.)

2) Deleuze insists on the existence of one and only one world (or universe), and his thought is devoted to (among other things) restoring philosophy's belief and investment in that one world. In fact, Deleuze often invokes the creation of a "New Earth" - one in which we would fully believe - as a telos for social or political philosophy! The only "world" Deleuze wants us to get "out of" (as in the title, "Out of this World") is the stultified world of habit, conformity, power, and stratification that block the creativity of being.

3) Related to the above, Deleuze views capitalism (a persistent object of his philosophical reflection) as one of the great motors of creativity, as well as one of the most powerful obstacles to the full realization of the creativity it itself unleashes. He therefore analyzes in considerable detail the nature of these obstacles: axiomatization, reterritorialization, capture, control, and so on - which clearly belies Hallward's claim that Deleuze's philosophy "inhibits any consequential engagement with the constraints of our actual world" [p.161]. Indeed, against the grain of much French poststructuralism, Deleuze insisted on returning to Marx and remaining a Marxist ("redevenir marxiste" was the phrase he used), as part of his ongoing commitment to social change. So when Hallward claims that, unlike Marx, Deleuze is interested in contemplating the world rather than changing it [p.7], don't believe it: he's just trying way too hard to be controversial!

4) Finally, watch whom he's quoting - Hallward often seems to be quoting (or attributing an idea to) Deleuze, when a quick look at the footnote reveals he's actually quoting from someone else (whether Hegel, with whom Deleuze disagrees massively [e.g. p.10 n.3], or Spinoza or Bergson, with whom Deleuze's disagreements require finer discrimination to detect than Hallward's reading usually provides). It might make the reading process a bit slower, but you'll get a much sharper picture of Deleuze himself, and less ventriloquizing from Hallward.

With these caveats in mind, you can learn a lot - about Deleuze, even! - from this thorough if idiosyncratic recent book.

I happen to be an avid reader in both continental philosophy and what the author calls Persian Islamic theology. I'm surprised to see that in a couple of pages Deleuze's ontological trajectory has been contrasted to Ishraq school of thought and Suhrevardi's work. Even in Iran no one could have introduced Suhrevardi in two pages, let alone to put forward such broad comparisons and conclusions about his "extra-worldly" endeavors and its lack of political capacity with a complex and contemporary thinker such as Deleuze. This reminds me of Hegel's anecdotal references to Persian "oriental thought" to justify his critique of Spinoza, which in turn makes me second the previous commentator on how the author (perhaps out of self-promotion)develops such a mediocre attack on the "theological creationism" of Deleuze despite his excellent elaboration on him.