Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, in their
essay “What Is Philosophy?” attempt to use the notions of friendship, concepts,
and artistic creation as a foundation for the essence of true philosophy. The
result is a definition of philosophy that places the burden on the philosopher
to not merely examine ideas and concepts, but to instead be the creator of
them. The focus of this paper will be to re-illustrate the notions put forth by
Deleuze and Guattari, and to further examine the relationship between the
public and the philosopher. This relationship presents an unfortunate dialectic
that undermines everything philosophy has to offer the world.
The idea of the concept is
first brought up in the paper to examine what may be thought of as the product,
and/or medium, of the philosophical process. The philosopher is the artist of
thought, the creator of original concept, and may also be the evaluator of
those concepts that have been created. The relationship with the other is
important in the philosophical process because without a friend, concepts do
not evolve or improve. It is through persistent rivalry that the philosophical
process can move forth, molding and creating ideas that change and improve over
time. While friendship and rivalry allow for the advancement of concepts, the
burden still lies on the shoulders of the philosopher to create the concepts
that are to be analyzed. This creation of concepts is the underlying task of
the philosopher, according to Deleuze and Guattari.
While creating concepts may
allow an individual to will an idea into existence, the molding of that idea is
both the responsibility of the philosopher, who must present it in the most
convincing manner, and of the friends and rivals who must distrust the validity
of the created concept in order to avoid complacency in the face of the idea’s
imperfection. This betterment of the created concept is not a philosophical
task however, for it requires contemplation, reflection, and communication, all
of which are tasks to be done by anyone interested in a specific concept or
subject. When one evaluates a particular concept, instead of creating one, they
run the risk of overlooking the very assumptions that they should question, and
end up becoming wholly engulfed by the particular subject at hand. Those who
study specific fields or sciences run the risk of not being able to look at the
particular field from an outside view, in order to adequately question the
assumptions they regularly make.
The role that language and
communication play in the philosophical process is examined next, and it is
established that it serves the purpose of universalizing the singular concept
that is created by the philosopher. While the philosopher is concerned with
creating concepts, he need not be concerned with establishing a consensus
regarding that concept, for a consensus is merely a representation of opinions,
not the evaluation of philosophical importance. Instead of representation
through consensus, the population at large should serve as challengers to
claims and concepts made by various philosophers. Deleuze and Guattari mention
the ancient Greek conception of tragedy and comedy as the source of regulation
amongst civilians, where discourse and argument emerge as the mediating factors
for what ideas are considered to be important.
All of the previously
mentioned premises come together at the end of the essay when our current zeitgeist
is brought into speculation, that being the movement towards marketing and
commercialization. Philosophers are faced with the task of challenging the
shallow and universal understanding of our time and through this challenge we
are reunited with our original task. It is the philosopher’s job to challenge
the strongest of assumptions and universalities by creating concepts that
oppose and undermine them. In a world consumed by the present zeitgeist,
philosophers may stand alone with the ability to speculate and create, both
being the only hope for change. Summing up, Deleuze and Guattari state, “So,
the question of philosophy is the singular point where concept and creation are
related to each other.” (pg. 11) Philosophy then seems to be the art of
concepts, to such an extent that the general conception of art may be deepened.
While art is merely mentioned
in relation to philosophy in this paper, I think that the analogy should be
examined further, for it seems to greatly clarify the underlying thesis of
Deleuze’s paper. If we take philosophy to be the first art of humanity, I do
not think it is much of a stretch. The mind is a medium possessed by everyone,
but used to the fullest extent by few. Where a canvas allows the artist to
manifest her ideas or concepts into a form presentable to the outside world,
the same is done by the philosopher. Rarely does an artist ever feel the need
to alter a created work. Instead she simply presents the work to the world for
it to be evaluated and discussed. The artist is responsible for creation, while
the other is responsible for response. The same can be said about the
philosophical process. The philosopher presents to the world originality, and
from this originality arises meaning, value, and effect. The task of any
artist, either philosopher or painter, is to leave a footprint on the world
around them via the representation of the self through the invention of an
original work. The signature, placed on the work by the creator, allows the
creator to live forever through the originality put forth. Anyone who merely
evaluates other’s originalities may never accomplish such immortality.
Philosophers face a challenge
however, for they possess the ability to create ideas that are so powerful that
they offer the general public a choice, although often a subconscious choice,
to be engulfed by the very creation itself. While art may never, or rarely,
manifest itself into a zeitgeist to be shared and assumed by entire
generations, philosophy may do just that. Philosophy has given birth to
science, religion, politics, universalities, and ethics. The general population
rarely possesses the ability or strength to face a potentially life-changing
idea with the necessary skepticism required to put that concept in its true
place. If the concept satisfies direct, shallow, or even psychological desires
or needs then the average person will readily engulf their lives within the
particularities of that idea. It is generally seen that those who do not
practice philosophy will be more than willing to suspend, and even forget the
importance of skepticism and realism for the sake of direct perceived
satisfaction. What I mean, is that the general public is never humble enough to
face the imperfection of humanity, and translate that imperfection to ideological
skepticism. Instead of understanding the concepts created by humanity as
imperfect and necessarily replaceable, we suspend skepticism for the sake of a
perceived complacency, a complacency that most would rather face than the
unknown.
Historically, for every
concept created and presented to the world by philosophers, those who benefit
from these creations loose desire for further discoveries. Philosophers are the
shunned parents, exploited by their children for the sake of ignorance. Those
who were born from the mind of philosophy almost necessarily oversee the wisdom
of those who created them, assuming that they are born a more perfect
manifestation of thought, when in fact they are merely an imperfect stepping
stone on the philosophical path. While the theme of Deleuze’s and Guattari’s
paper is written as a call for hope, I am not so optimistic. While those who
study it may readily accept the notion of philosophy as being the necessary
creation of original concepts, those outside of the field will only fall
further victims to their inadequate skepticism as more concepts are brought
into the public’s eye. The infinite amount of possibilities that may be birthed
by philosophy render the non-philosopher lost, only able to grasp what is
closest to them, and that which satisfies their most immediate desires. It is
the philosopher who can create the concept that addresses this problem who will
truly change the face of philosophy for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment