Deleuze’s Concept of the Virtual and the Critique of the Possible

Daniel W. Smith
{"title":"Deleuze’s Concept of the Virtual and the Critique of the Possible","authors":"Daniel W. Smith","doi":"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL20094913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I would simply like to sketch out what I take to be the component elements of Deleuze's concept of the virtual. (1) My thesis is this: Deleuze's philosophy can accurately be described as a transcendental philosophy--a transcendental empiricism, as he himself puts it--although Deleuze defines the transcendental field in a completely different manner than does Kant, who invented the term. Kant's genius, according to Deleuze, was to have conceived of a purely immanent critique of reason, a critique that did not seek, within reason, \"errors\" produced by external causes, but rather \"illusions\" that arise internally and inevitably from within reason itself by the illegitimate (that is, transcendent) uses of the syntheses. (2) Insofar as Deleuze conceives of philosophy as the construction of a plane of immanence, he aligns himself squarely with Kant's critical philosophy. (3) But he also criticizes Kant for having failed to fulfill the immanent ambitions of his critique, for reasons that we shall see in a moment. The difference does not lie simply in the fact that Deleuze purges the transcendental of any reference to consciousness or to a transcendental subject. The more important difference lies precisely in the distinction he makes between the possible and the virtual. For Deleuze, the transcendental does not serve to define the \"conditions of possible experience\" for a subject; on the contrary, it is a virtual field that serves as the genetic or productive condition of real experience, and that exists prior to the constitution of the subject. In what follows, I would like to draw out this difference between the possible and the virtual (as two conceptions of the transcendental) from the point of view of the history of philosophy: first, by examining two figures who seem to have influenced Deleuze most in this regard--Henri Bergson and Salomon Maimon; second, by examining the reading of Kant that Deleuze provides in Difference and Repetition; and finally, by briefly examining, as examples, Deleuze's analysis of three virtual structures, namely those of language, society, and the body. 1. Bergson's Problematization of the Possible. I turn first to Bergson. Deleuze derives the concept of the virtual directly from Bergson, and in a number of early articles (1956) he argues that Bergson forged the concept of the virtual by problematizing the notion of the possible. More precisely, the virtual is by nature problematizing; it expresses a problematic. What does he mean by this? The activity of thought is frequently conceived of as the search for solutions to problems, a prejudice whose roots, Deleuze suggests, are both social and pedagogical. In the classroom, it is the school teacher who poses ready-made problems, the pupil's task being to discover the correct solution, and what the notions of \"true\" and \"false\" serve to qualify are precisely these responses or solutions. Yet everyone recognizes that problems are never given ready-made but must themselves be constructed or constituted--hence the scandal when a \"false\" or badly-formulated problem is set in an examination. This is not to imply that solutions are unimportant; on the contrary, it is the solution that counts, but, as Deleuze says at several points through his work, a problem always has the solution it merits in terms of the way in which it is stated, and the means and terms we have at our disposal for stating it, i.e., in terms of the conditions under which it is determined as a problem. To \"problematize\" a concept thus does not only mean that one places it in question; it means that one seeks to determine the nature of the problem to which it serves as a solution. This is why the process of problematization is so complex. \"While it is relatively easy to define the true and the false in relation to solutions whose problems are already stated,\" writes Deleuze, \"it is much more difficult to say what the true and false consist of when they are applied directly to problems themselves. …","PeriodicalId":288505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL20094913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In this paper, I would simply like to sketch out what I take to be the component elements of Deleuze's concept of the virtual. (1) My thesis is this: Deleuze's philosophy can accurately be described as a transcendental philosophy--a transcendental empiricism, as he himself puts it--although Deleuze defines the transcendental field in a completely different manner than does Kant, who invented the term. Kant's genius, according to Deleuze, was to have conceived of a purely immanent critique of reason, a critique that did not seek, within reason, "errors" produced by external causes, but rather "illusions" that arise internally and inevitably from within reason itself by the illegitimate (that is, transcendent) uses of the syntheses. (2) Insofar as Deleuze conceives of philosophy as the construction of a plane of immanence, he aligns himself squarely with Kant's critical philosophy. (3) But he also criticizes Kant for having failed to fulfill the immanent ambitions of his critique, for reasons that we shall see in a moment. The difference does not lie simply in the fact that Deleuze purges the transcendental of any reference to consciousness or to a transcendental subject. The more important difference lies precisely in the distinction he makes between the possible and the virtual. For Deleuze, the transcendental does not serve to define the "conditions of possible experience" for a subject; on the contrary, it is a virtual field that serves as the genetic or productive condition of real experience, and that exists prior to the constitution of the subject. In what follows, I would like to draw out this difference between the possible and the virtual (as two conceptions of the transcendental) from the point of view of the history of philosophy: first, by examining two figures who seem to have influenced Deleuze most in this regard--Henri Bergson and Salomon Maimon; second, by examining the reading of Kant that Deleuze provides in Difference and Repetition; and finally, by briefly examining, as examples, Deleuze's analysis of three virtual structures, namely those of language, society, and the body. 1. Bergson's Problematization of the Possible. I turn first to Bergson. Deleuze derives the concept of the virtual directly from Bergson, and in a number of early articles (1956) he argues that Bergson forged the concept of the virtual by problematizing the notion of the possible. More precisely, the virtual is by nature problematizing; it expresses a problematic. What does he mean by this? The activity of thought is frequently conceived of as the search for solutions to problems, a prejudice whose roots, Deleuze suggests, are both social and pedagogical. In the classroom, it is the school teacher who poses ready-made problems, the pupil's task being to discover the correct solution, and what the notions of "true" and "false" serve to qualify are precisely these responses or solutions. Yet everyone recognizes that problems are never given ready-made but must themselves be constructed or constituted--hence the scandal when a "false" or badly-formulated problem is set in an examination. This is not to imply that solutions are unimportant; on the contrary, it is the solution that counts, but, as Deleuze says at several points through his work, a problem always has the solution it merits in terms of the way in which it is stated, and the means and terms we have at our disposal for stating it, i.e., in terms of the conditions under which it is determined as a problem. To "problematize" a concept thus does not only mean that one places it in question; it means that one seeks to determine the nature of the problem to which it serves as a solution. This is why the process of problematization is so complex. "While it is relatively easy to define the true and the false in relation to solutions whose problems are already stated," writes Deleuze, "it is much more difficult to say what the true and false consist of when they are applied directly to problems themselves. …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德勒兹的虚的概念与可能的批判
在本文中,我想简单地勾勒出德勒兹虚拟概念的组成要素。(1)我的论点是这样的:德勒兹的哲学可以被准确地描述为一种先验哲学——一种先验的经验主义,正如他自己所说的那样——尽管德勒兹对先验领域的定义与发明了这个术语的康德完全不同。根据德勒兹的说法,康德的天才在于他构想了一种纯粹内在的理性批判,这种批判并不在理性内部寻找由外因产生的“错误”,而是在理性内部不可避免地通过非法(即超越)的综合使用而产生的“幻觉”。(2)就德勒兹认为哲学是一种内在层面的建构而言,他与康德的批判哲学是完全一致的。(3)但他也批评康德未能实现其批判的内在目标,其原因我们稍后将会看到。二者的区别并不仅仅在于德勒兹清除了对意识或先验主体的任何涉及。更重要的区别恰恰在于他对可能与虚拟的区分。对于德勒兹来说,先验并不用于定义主体的“可能经验条件”;相反,它是一个虚拟的领域,作为真实经验的遗传或生产条件,它先于主体的构成而存在。接下来,我想从哲学史的角度,画出可能与虚拟(作为先验的两个概念)之间的区别:首先,考察两个似乎在这方面对德勒兹影响最大的人物——亨利·柏格森和所罗门·迈蒙;第二,考察德勒兹在《差异与重复》中对康德的解读;最后,以德勒兹对语言、社会和身体三种虚拟结构的分析为例,进行简要的考察。1. 柏格森的《可能性的问题化》我首先转向柏格森。德勒兹直接从柏格森那里衍生出虚拟的概念,在1956年的一些早期文章中,他认为柏格森通过将可能的概念问题化来锻造虚拟的概念。更准确地说,虚拟本质上是有问题的;它表达了一个问题。他这话是什么意思?思想活动经常被认为是寻找问题的解决方案,德勒兹认为,这种偏见的根源是社会的和教育的。在课堂上,是学校老师提出现成的问题,学生的任务是找出正确的解决办法,而“真”和“假”的概念所限定的正是这些回答或解决办法。然而,每个人都认识到,问题从来不是现成的,而是必须自己构造或构成——因此,当考试中出现“错误”或表述不佳的问题时,就会出现丑闻。这并不是说解决方案不重要;反之,问题的解决才是最重要的,但正如德勒兹在他的著作中好几处所说的那样,一个问题的解决总是取决于它的表述方式,取决于我们用来表述它的手段和条件,也就是说,取决于它被确定为问题的条件。因此,“问题化”一个概念不仅意味着人们将其置于问题之中;它的意思是,一个人试图确定问题的本质,并以此作为解决方案。这就是问题化的过程如此复杂的原因。德勒兹写道:“对于问题已经陈述的解决方案,定义真假相对容易,但当它们直接应用于问题本身时,就很难说真假是由什么组成的了。”...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emily Dickinson: What Is Called Thinking at the Edge of Chaos? Relational Selves: Gender and Cultural Differences in Moral Reasoning Late Pound: The Case of Canto CVII The Reproduction of Subjectivity and the Turnover-time of Ideology: Speculating with German Idealism, Marx, and Adorno Toward an Ethics of Speculative Design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1