4:00pm - 4:30pm
Thinking with the Friend against the Friend
University of Vienna, Austria
Ever since Proust and Signs there is a critique of the notion of the friend in Deleuze that is carried forward in Difference and Repetition, where philía as the good-willed affinity or filitation – “or perhaps it should be called a philiation” (142) – of thought with truth is opposed with a sort of anti-philía characterised by a bad-willed discord that would be the condition of genuine thought. Thought presupposes a violent encounter with an outside rather than friendship and benevolence. In What is Philosophy? on the other hand, there is the acknowledgement of a socio-political notion of the friend as the condition for philosophy itself which is specified in Deleuze’s correspondence with Dionys Mascolo as an internal condition of thought or as one with whom one is “going through trials […] necessary for any thinking” (329).
In my paper I want to address this tension of thinking with the friend against the friend with recourse to the actual form of (philosophical) friendship Deleuze cultivated with Michel Foucault. The ambivalence of this relationship seems not only to express the precarious processuality of “going-through-trials”, it also allows for an understanding of the anti-philía in Difference and Repetition as a reconceptualisation of the notion of the friend if we understand the friend as a possible encounter (rather than a good-willed familiar). The friend would be a self-expressing insistence, an incarnated problem, so to speak, and thus a figure that accounts for the social dimension of thinking and the necessity of migrating concepts.
4:30pm - 5:00pm
The Ideas of Deleuze, Guattari in education: from rhizome to rhizomatic learning
Vytautas Magnus university, Lithuania
The postmodernism manifested itself in the second half of the 20th century. The branch of postmodernism is poststructuralism - in fact, it was called French poststructuralism, with the dominant philosophy being '68 philosophy '(Marshall, 2004). In that period, alongside influential works such as Derrida "On Grammatology" (1968), M. Foulcalt "The Madness and Civilization" (1967), J. Kristeva "Semiotics" (1969) the personalities Deleuze and Guattari emerge. It should be noted that Gilles Deleuze was an original philosopher studying various sources of famous philosophers such as Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Bergson, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx. His work, “Nietzsche and Philosophy” (1962), becomes the author's source of inspiration for nomadic thinking. Deleuze (1962) considered Nietzsche. The ,,Will to power" is endless, as is the nomadic journey, one that fosters a nomadic life that transcends established order and boundaries, seeking another force to compete with and compete with. Thus, nomadic thinking is analogous to rhizomatic thinking, where there is no established hierarchy and structure. Poststructuralist thinking makes a significant contribution to learning by encouraging a constant rethink of the current state. According to the Eurydice study, 9 out of 10 students in the European Union study English. Students can learn English not only in formal but also in non-formal and informal forms. This enables the development of rhizomatic learning, which origins lie in Deleuze, Guattari (2004) philosophy. Thus, the problem – related question arises: what are the ideas of Deleuze, Guattari in education?
The aim of the study is to review theoretical considerations in order to reveal the ideas of Deleuze, Guattari in education?
The research method – a scientific literature review. The literature review examines relevant, current, and recent literature, where literature sequence is usually chronological (Grant & Booth, 2009). The literature review is based on philosophical and educational insights. The following sources have been selected for the analysis of ideas of Deleuze, Guattari 1) philosophical and educational books that help to reveal the essence of rhizome and other concepts; 2) publications and dissertations on the issue of rhizomatic learning, which helped analyse the ideas of Deleuze, Guattari in education. It should be noted , that the ideas of Deleuze, Guattari in education manifest in rhizomatic learning, which is based on Deleuze Guattari's (2004) term of rhizome, which has neither beginning nor end (Cormier, 2008), providing a dynamic, open, personalized learning network created by learners themselves that meets their perceived and real needs ( Lian, Pineda, 2014). The concept of rhizomatic learning has its own meaning, but is closely related to the concepts of Deleuze, Guattari (2004), such as rhizome, assemblage, becoming, nomad and so on. It should be noted that the rhizomatic learning from poststructuralism perspective develops and manifests itself through various 'moving' Deleuze, Guattari’s (2004)concepts. The literature analysis showed that rhizomatic learning could be applied successfully in educational science as learning foreign languages in various learning forms. The scientific analysis revealed that the ideas of Deleuze, Guattari manifest especially through becoming learner and occur in lifelong learning of English.
5:00pm - 5:30pm
Productive Body and Desire
Middle East Technical University, Turkey
It can be said that Foucault and Deleuze & Guattari are representatives of a new understanding getting against classic cogito in the terms of body and desire. Deleuze and Guattari think that sexuality, body and desire are deliberately pushed out, oppressed and dominated by the modern philosophy, and that the suppressed body and desire must be raised again as a positive, creative force to eliminate the fundamental problems of not only political philosophy but also of philosophy in general. Thus, taking power and sexuality -as an extension of body and desire- as intertwined issues, Deleuze & Guattari reformulate desire as a productive, creative, social and revolutionary power, instead of need or lack. These two thinkers, also, take power, like body and desire, as positive and productive, following Foucault. They agree that power is not simply a group of institution of state, but that it is basically a relation or an assemblage of power relations being every institution of the State, such as hospital, school, prison, church, human science, like psychiatry. In this respect, according to Deleuze & Guattari, power is not a static, but a transforming and flowing thing. Similarly, body is not merely human body; it includes society, culture and structure. It is just like Foucault’s power dispositives/apparatus penetrating all parts of the society and manipulating everything. Because of this similarity, Deleuze & Guattari appreciate Foucault’s view of power as something productive and not oppressive. However, they disagree with Foucault about his use/prefer of pleasure instead of desire. In this essay I will focus on Deleuze and Guattari’s differences of opinion with Foucault in particular in Deleuze's letter titled “Desire and Pleasure” written after Foucault passed away about his book of Discipline and Punish later included in Two Regimes of Madness: Texts and Interpretations 1975-1995 and in an interview Deleuze & Guattari did with Raymond Ballour, collected in Deleuze, Lettres et autres textes.