Deleuze in the Age of the Theological Turn

Myoung Ah Shin(신명아) 한국비평이론학회 2017 비평과이론 Vol.22 No.3

헨트 드 브리스는 데리다의 ‘믿음과 지식’이라는 논문을 예로 들면서, 현대 철학에서 ‘종교로의 회귀’를 지적한다. 종교적 전회 혹은 신학적 전회는 도미니크 쟈니코가 이 전회가 레비나스, 미쉘 앙리, 장-뤽 마리옹 등과 같은 프랑스 철학자들이 예증한다고 불평할 때도 드러난다. 슬라보예 지젝과 알렝 바디우도 그들의 철학 담론에서 사도 바울을 특별히 취급하고 있다. 이 신학적 전회의 시대에서 들뢰즈의 위치는 어떠한가를 연구하는 것이 이 논문의 목표이다. 잘 알려진 바와 같이 들뢰즈는 신학, 예술 그리고 과학과 대조적 위치에 있는 것으로서의 종교에 대한 그의 공격에서 무신론자적 위치를 표방하였다. 이런 메시지들 때문에, 신학의 측면에서 들뢰즈를 접근하는 학자들은 자신들의 접근이 모순어법적이라는 변명을 표현한다. 린제이 파월-존스가 레온 슐츠와 함께 편집한 저서, 들뢰즈와 종교의 분열분석 에 서 다음과 같은 말의 경고로 책을 시작한다: “메리 브라이든이 들뢰즈와 종교를 쓸 때, 이 토픽은 도착적인 것처럼 보일 수 있다.” 이 논문은 들뢰즈의 철학이 종교와 긍정적인 관계를 가질 수 있음을 보여주고자 한다: 이런 긍정적 관계는 이미 들뢰즈의 스피노자 설명에서도 드러난다 : “예수는 불가능의 가능성을 보여 주시기 위해 한번 육화하셨다. 스피노자는 철학자들 중의 예수이며, 위대한 철학자들은 이 신비와 거리를 두거나 가까이 하려는 사도들과 다름 아니다.” 특히 이번 논문은 어떻게 들뢰즈의 철학이 신학과 밀접한 관계인지를 그의 되기 개념과 연결하여 신적으로 되기, 신이 되기의 과정이 인간의 차원을 넘어 모든 흐름 속에 있는 요소들에 어떠한 매개적 초월의 가치 없이 열려 있는 들뢰즈적 생성과 직결됨을 밝히고자 한다. 이 논문은 들뢰즈의 내재성의 철학이 하느님, 아들, 성령이라는 신적 차원의 세 요소들의 역동적 관계 (페리코레시스)와 밀접한 것으로 해석할 수 있음을 스피노자의 입장과 연결하여 보여줄 것이다. 결론적으로 이 논문은 신학은 앞으로 초월성과 추상성을 극복하고 만물의 요소를 다 아우르는 진정한 신학으로 탈바꿈하기 위해 들뢰즈의 철학을 유념하여야 함을 설득하고자 한다. Hent de Vries points out the ‘Turn to Religion’ in contemporary philosophy, selecting a typical case of Derrida’s essay, “Faith and Knowledge”. The religious turn or the theological turn is also revealed in Dominique Janicaud’s complaint against this turn exemplified by French philosophers such as Levinas, Michel Henry, Jean-Luc Marion, etc. Where does Gilles Deleuze stand in this age of the theological turn? As is well known, Deleuze manifests his atheist position in his attacks on religion in contrast with philosophy, art and science. Because of these messages, those who approach Deleuze in terms of theology express their apologies that this kind of approach may sound oxymoronic. Lindsay Powell-Jones starts the book she edited with F. LeRon Shults, Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Religion, with the remark that “As Mary Bryden writes in Deleuze and Religion, the topic might even appear to be a perverse one.” In this paper, Deleuze’s theoretical views will be revealed to be helpful to construct a positive relation between Deleuze and theology as is reflected in Deleuze’s remark on Spinoza: “Christ was incarnated once, in order to show, that one time, the possibility of the impossible. Thus Spinoza is the Christ of philosophers, and the greatest philosophers are hardly more than apostles who distance themselves from or draw near to this mystery.” Specifically this paper will deal with Deleuze’s notions of the plane of immanence, the concept of the body without organs, etc. to show how Deleuze’s philosophy reveals to be theological and his concept of becoming can be interpreted as becoming-divine, becoming-God, both of which mean to go beyond the human so that this becoming-divine comprises all the elements of the world in flux. This paper will also show how Deleuzian philosophy of immanence inspired by Spinoza reflects perichoresis of the dynamic relation among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in immanence being ever being open to the eternal return of difference.

문학의 정치성

이택광(Taek-Gwang Lee) 한국비평이론학회 2010 비평과이론 Vol.15 No.2

The purpose of my essay is to explore the similarity and the difference between Deleuze and Ranicére in their discussions of literature in relation to politics. In a short interview with Le Magazine Litteraire's 2002 issue, specially dedicated to Deleuze, Ranicére suggests an interesting explanation of Deleuze's aesthetics; Ranciére argues that Deleuze is a philosopher who identifies the end of representative aesthetic regime, "a regime that desires to break with the representative tradition." In this way Ranciére continues to say that Deleuze completes the destiny of aesthetics in the name of philosophy. Ranciére's opinion on Deleuze seems to provide an idea for understanding Deleuze's aesthetics in particular and analyzing the relationship between aesthetics and 'the political' in general. What is at stake here is that Ranciére points out the aspect of Deleuze's aesthetics in terms of 'figuration.' Deleuze, one of the most sophisticated Spinozist aesthetes, yet, always presupposes a pre-figurative dimension, even if he clearly adapts 'figures' for the way of thinking. Similar to Heidegger's notion of sousrature (undererasure), Deleuze's concept of figures implies a preliminary mode of life before and after thinking –what Deleuze argues isnot to postulate any separation between life and thinking such as the biological theory of human beings, but rather 'a life' as pure immanence. For Deleuze, immanence is "not immanence to life, but immanence that is in nothing is itself a life." For Ranicére, an aesthetic dimension is to cancel the social discrimination and status differentiation and serves as another distribution of aesthetical senses which de-construct and re-construct the habitual knowledge. My presentation focuses on the likeness between Deleuze and Ranciére for reformulating the concept of an aesthetic dimension that Ranciére puts importantly the condition of the political. Furthermore, I argue that Ranciére's conceptualization of an aesthetic dimension is theoretically original, but seems not to answer a question as to what makes the dimension to be the political suggested by Deleuze.

Deleuze in the Age of the Theological Turn

신명아 한국비평이론학회 2017 비평과이론 Vol.22 No.3

Hent de Vries points out the ‘Turn to Religion’ in contemporary philosophy, selecting a typical case of Derrida’s essay, “Faith and Knowledge”. The religious turn or the theological turn is also revealed in Dominique Janicaud’s complaint against this turn exemplified by French philosophers such as Levinas, Michel Henry, Jean-Luc Marion, etc. Where does Gilles Deleuze stand in this age of the theological turn? As is well known, Deleuze manifests his atheist position in his attacks on religion in contrast with philosophy, art and science. Because of these messages, those who approach Deleuze in terms of theology express their apologies that this kind of approach may sound oxymoronic. Lindsay Powell-Jones starts the book she edited with F. LeRon Shults, Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Religion, with the remark that “As Mary Bryden writes in Deleuze and Religion, the topic might even appear to be a perverse one.” In this paper, Deleuze’s theoretical views will be revealed to be helpful to construct a positive relation between Deleuze and theology as is reflected in Deleuze’s remark on Spinoza: “Christ was incarnated once, in order to show, that one time, the possibility of the impossible. Thus Spinoza is the Christ of philosophers, and the greatest philosophers are hardly more than apostles who distance themselves from or draw near to this mystery.” Specifically this paper will deal with Deleuze’s notions of the plane of immanence, the concept of the body without organs, etc. to show how Deleuze’s philosophy reveals to be theological and his concept of becoming can be interpreted as becoming-divine, becoming-God, both of which mean to go beyond the human so that this becoming-divine comprises all the elements of the world in flux. This paper will also show how Deleuzian philosophy of immanence inspired by Spinoza reflects perichoresis of the dynamic relation among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in immanence being ever being open to the eternal return of difference.

무용미학의 논의를 위한 들뢰즈(G. Deleuze)사상의 수용 가능성 - Pina Bausch 작품에 나타난 ‘기관 없는 신체’를 중심으로 -

김말복,나일화 한국무용예술학회 2008 무용예술학연구 Vol.25 No.-

This study aims to propose grounds for identifying the meaning of a temporality and momentary movement as well as the subversion of a negative bodily trait through the ideology of Gilles Deleuze, and to discover the probability of accepting them in the discussion of dance aesthetics. The acceptance of the ideology of Deleuze in the discussion of dance aesthetics implies that art, philosophy, and science are poised in equivalent positions within his ideology. Also, the subversion of Platonism, Spinoza’s immanence, and Nietzsche’s univocity all of which form a main axis of the philosophy of Deleuze, may be an important topic also in the aesthetic discussion of dance. The study pursued a discussion focusing on the concept of ‘Body without Organs’ by Deleuze, shown in the work of Pina Bausch. Deleuze’s ‘Body without Organs’ stemmed from Artaud, a famous playwright of the theater of cruelty. Pina Bausch also expressed the theater of cruelty of Artaud in his works; thus, they are mutually related. Moreover, both Deleuze and Pina Bausch share the same background of times, namely, post-modernism, and they have in common compositions and choreographic characteristics. Preceding studies that have discussed dancing art by applying the ideology of Deleuze haven’t been actively pursued relative to other art areas. Furthermore, the dance area also has merely introduced the theory of Deleuze, or has made a superficial initial application of the theory. However, this study is meaningful as it revealed the correlation between the ideology of Deleuze and dance art, selectively introduced his concept acceptable to dancing aesthetics, and advanced discussions in terms of the choreographic process and composition of dancing works, and expression of movements based on the research results.

Beckett’s Becoming-Body without Organs and Irish

정문영 한국영어영문학회 2008 영어 영문학 Vol.54 No.6

This paper is a politicized reading of Beckett’s Irishness which deals with his Irishness by coupling Irish Beckett and poststructural Beckett, especially focusing on Deleuze’s reading of Beckett. It argues that Beckett’s politics and his Irishness go beyond the binary distinction of universal and historical contexts and aim at constructing a new, fully real, virtual Irish instead of a possible, or an ideal Irish. In this light, it discusses on Beckett’s Irishness in terms of the “body without organs,” terminology borrowed from Artaud by Deleuze and Guattari. And it argues that Beckett’s own, i.e., “Beckettian” way in constructing his Irishness is exactly the same method as Deleuze and Guattari’s in making body without organs. This paper reads Waiting for Godot as his first project of constituting a body without organs and examines how Beckett begins to make theatre, himself and Ireland a body without organs. It appropriates Z ˘ iz˘ek’s reading of Deleuze as well as Deleuze’s reading of Beckett and his terminologies for the purpose of revealing Beckett’s politics in making himself, Ireland, theatre bodies without organs. It is time perhaps that Ireland overwhelmed by the shock of sudden changes through the so-called Celtic Tiger sidesteps the actual context in order to find its body without organs suffocated beneath multi-layered baffling strata in social formation. Thus, this paper shows that timely Beckett’s theatre can provide the virtual space of the multiple singular potentialities where we can find a virtual and singular Irishness. This paper is a politicized reading of Beckett’s Irishness which deals with his Irishness by coupling Irish Beckett and poststructural Beckett, especially focusing on Deleuze’s reading of Beckett. It argues that Beckett’s politics and his Irishness go beyond the binary distinction of universal and historical contexts and aim at constructing a new, fully real, virtual Irish instead of a possible, or an ideal Irish. In this light, it discusses on Beckett’s Irishness in terms of the “body without organs,” terminology borrowed from Artaud by Deleuze and Guattari. And it argues that Beckett’s own, i.e., “Beckettian” way in constructing his Irishness is exactly the same method as Deleuze and Guattari’s in making body without organs. This paper reads Waiting for Godot as his first project of constituting a body without organs and examines how Beckett begins to make theatre, himself and Ireland a body without organs. It appropriates Z ˘ iz˘ek’s reading of Deleuze as well as Deleuze’s reading of Beckett and his terminologies for the purpose of revealing Beckett’s politics in making himself, Ireland, theatre bodies without organs. It is time perhaps that Ireland overwhelmed by the shock of sudden changes through the so-called Celtic Tiger sidesteps the actual context in order to find its body without organs suffocated beneath multi-layered baffling strata in social formation. Thus, this paper shows that timely Beckett’s theatre can provide the virtual space of the multiple singular potentialities where we can find a virtual and singular Irishness.

포스트휴머니즘 시대 영유아교육 분야에 적용된 들뢰즈(Deleuze)의 신체(body) 개념에 대한 이해

김 현주,윤은주 숙명여자대학교 창의융합연구소 2023 창의융합연구 Vol.3 No.2

본 연구의 목적은 포스트휴먼의 패러다임이 삶의 관점으로 다가온 상황에서 영유아교육 분야에서 꾸준히 관심이 증가하고 있는 들뢰즈의 관점 중 신체 개념을 이해하기 위함이다. 연구자는 들뢰즈의 저서와 선행연구를 기반으로 신체 개념, 신체의 역량, 신체와 사유를 탐구하였고 이를 통해 영유아교육 분야에 제시하고자하는 시사점은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 신체가 고정된 것이 아니라 무수히 많은 사물들의 운동과 정지의 질서에 의해 유지되는 것이라면, 영유아는 지금보다 더 미지의 영역으로 인식된다. 그러므로 영유아의 신체에 일어나는 일을 적합하게 알려면 그들의 행위에 귀 기울이고 신체의 각각이 내뱉는 고유한 언어를 이해하려 노력할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 신체가 역량이라는 들뢰즈의 관점에서 본다면 영유아는 그 순간의 바로 그 되기를 통해 자신과 관계 맺은 특정 신체에 대한 이해를 쌓아간다. 그러므로 영유아교육 현장에서 영유아가 경험하는 순간에 집중할 필요가 있다. 셋째, 신체적 경험에 대한 인식의 전환이 필요하다. 들뢰즈에 의하면 인간의 정신은 외부 사물에 반응하는 신체의 변용에 대한 관념이다. 그러므로 세상의 물질들과 신체적으로 만나면서 겪는 경험으로 세상과 소통하는 영유아의 감각적 행위, 실험, 놀이는 이미 사유 그 자체로 바라볼 필요가 있다. 들뢰즈의 관점은 포스트휴먼 시대에 영유아를 어떻게 바라보고 어떤 지향점의 교육을 고민할 것인가에 대한 영감을 주어 오고 영유아교육 분야에서 이를 바탕으로 창조적이고 기발하게 현장의 적용과 해석이 이루어지고 있는 상황이다. 본 연구자는 다가오는 시대에 대응할 수 있는 교육의 구성에 관한 심도 깊은 논의를 이루어가기 위해 들뢰즈 관점의 이해해 맞춘 논의 역시 이루어져 나가길 기대한다. This study aims to understand the concept of the body from Deleuze's perspective. Interest regarding Deleuze’s perspective is steadily increasing in early childhood education, where the posthuman paradigm has become a perspective on life. Deleuze's writings and previous research explored the concept of the body and its capabilities and thoughts. The implications for the field of early childhood education that he sought to present are as follows. First, if the body is not fixed, but maintained by the order of movement and stillness of countless objects, young children can be regarded as an even more obscure subject than they are now. Therefore, to accurately learn what is happening to the bodies of young children, it is necessary to “listen” to their actions and try to understand the unique language that each body speaks. Second, based on Deleuze's perspective that the body is a capacity, young children build up their understanding of the body through their experiences, that is, their moments of “becoming”. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the experiences of young children in early childhood education. Third, a change in the perception of physical experiences is necessary. According to Deleuze, the human mind is the idea of the body’s affection in response to external things. Therefore, the sensory actions, experiments, and play of young children, who communicate with the world through physical encounters with its materials, need to be viewed as thinking itself. Deleuze's perspective has provided inspiration regarding how to view young children and what direction to consider for education in the posthuman era. Based on his work, creative and ingenious applications and interpretations have been made in early childhood education. This researcher hopes to have a detailed discussion on Deleuze's perspective as well as a structure of education that can respond to the coming era.

들뢰즈의 되기론과 생태교육의 준칙

최승현 ( Choi Seung-hyun ) 한국교육철학학회(구 교육철학회) 2017 교육철학연구 Vol.39 No.3

들뢰즈의 `되기`론은 생태주의의 문제의식과 준칙을 정당화하는 철학적 논리를 제공한다. 그의 `되기`는 시간의 견지에서 문제를 설정하여 본성상의 차이를 발견하는 `방법으로서의 직관`을 통해 파악된다. `되기`는 진화론에 입각한 여러 생태론의 허무주의를 비판하면서 그 본연의 가치를 사유할 수 있게 해준다. 우리는 `되기`론을 통해 철학이 자연과 사회에 대해 비판적이고 임상적인 관계를 맺을 수 있음을 볼 수 있으며, 나아가 `되기`와 교육의 접속에서 문제의 창조, 질적인 차이들의 복원, 복수성으로서의 시간을 이해하기라는 생태교육의 준칙들을 얻을 수 있다. 이 준칙들은 각각 생태교육의 이념, 생태교육내용의 선정, 생태 문해력의 신장을 위한 교육에 기여할 수 있다. 이는 논의의 톤과 맥락, 동원하는 개념은 다양하지만 근본 생태주의에 입각한 최근의 논의들과 공명한다. 들뢰즈의 `되기`론은 생태의 함의와 생태교육의 새로운 준칙을 사유할 자원으로 삼을 만하다. The purpose of this study is to examine the implications of Deleuze`s conception of becoming for ecological education. Deleuze`s becoming suggests the philosophical basis that justifies the critical mind and the regulation of radical ecology. We are able to understand Deleuze`s becoming through `the intuition as a methodological approach` that establishes the core problem and finds the difference of itself in time. Deleuze`s becoming helps to see the essential value of ecology that criticizes various nihilism that lies at the base of the doctrine of evolution. Furthermore, in Deleuze`s reading for Bergson, we can identify the philosophy that has a critical and clinical relationship to nature and the societies. On the other hand, Deleuze`s becoming connects with education as a minimal approach. This connection has an effect that moves the argument of life from the abstract level to the humanistic level. In these contexts, we get three principles about ecology: There are the creation of the problem, the recovery of qualitative differences and the understanding of time as multiplicity. We paraphrase these principles into ecological education following as: finding the issues of ecological education, the teaching for the essential differences, and the instruction for the multiple historical viewpoints in ecological education. A lot of arguments of ecological education resonates with Deleuze`s becoming despite they have a wild range. Deleuze`s becoming makes us consider the implication of the ecology and the direction of ecological education in post-modern era.

들뢰즈 철학에서 ‘배움’과 ‘가르침’의 의미와 관계 탐색

김재춘,배지현 한국교육학회 2012 敎育學硏究 Vol.50 No.3

This study aims to explore the meaning of learning and teaching expressed in G. Deleuze's philosophy. Deleuze uses the word of learning in his works「Proust and Signs」 and「Difference and Repetition」 and uses the word of teaching in his works 「Difference and Repetition」and「Cinema 2: Time-image」. First, Deleuze defines learning not only as an activity triggered by an encounter with signs but also as an activity of exploring into the world of ideas where every being is in a constant genesis. Deleuze’s learning, which is described as both an encounter with signs and exploration into ideas, includes a cycle of the following two stages: ① collapse of the existing understanding through an encounter with signs; ② genesis of a new understanding through an exploration into ideas. Deleuze’s learning implies the creation of a newness in the learner’s body and mind through an infinite repetition of difference. Second, Deleuze defines teaching as an activity of learning on the part of teacher with students. An activity of teaching can be well exemplified in his phrases such as "Do with me" rather than "Do as I show". In 「Cinema2: Time -image」, Deleuze also regards teaching as an activity of showing strangeness so that people can come out of their preexisting ways of feeling and thinking. After exploring a new meaning of learning and teaching in Deleuze's philosophy, the researcher drew three implications for education First, learning should be understood as an activity triggered inadvertently, not as an activity introduced intentionally or consciously by the teacher. Second, learning activities of the teacher with the student are to be emphasized in the context of teaching. Third, learning as an activity of creating a newness presupposes a special type of ‘learning-teaching relationship', where learning plays a key role, in even defining the meaning of teaching itself. 이 연구는 들뢰즈의 철학적 논의에 나타난 배움과 가르침의 의미를 탐색하기 위한 것이다. 들뢰즈는 「프루스트와 기호들」과「차이와 반복」에서 ‘배움’에 대해 종종 언급하고 있으며,「차이와 반복」과「시네마 2: 시간 이미지」에서는 ‘가르침’에 대해서도 언급하고 있다. 들뢰즈의 배움과 가르침에 대한 논의는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 들뢰즈는 배움을 한편으로는 ‘기호와의 우연한 마주침’에 의해 촉발되는 활동으로 정의하면서 다른 한편으로는 존재가 끊임없이 새롭게 발생되는 ‘이념의 세계에로 탐험’하는 행위로 정의한다. 들뢰즈의 배움은 기호와의 마주침과 이념에의 탐험이라는 두 요소/단계로 구성된 하나의 사이클의 성격을 지닌다고 볼 수도 있다. ① 기호와의 만남을 통해 기존에 현실화되었던 인식틀이 파괴되는 ‘와해’의 단계, ② 이념에의 탐험을 통해 새로운 인식틀이 발생되는 ‘생성’의 단계가 배움의 구조를 형성한다. 이 구조를 바탕으로 한 들뢰즈의 배움은 무한한 차이의 반복을 통해 학습자의 신체와 정신에 새로움이 계속해서 창조되는 것을 의미한다. 둘째, 들뢰즈는 가르침을 학생과 ‘함께’ 하는 교사 자신의 ‘배움’의 행위로 정의한다. 들뢰즈에게 있어 가르침의 행위는 “나처럼 해봐” 보다는 “나와 함께 해보자”로 표현될 수 있다.「시네마 2: 시간 이미지」에서 들뢰즈는 가르침을 기존의 감각·사유 방식으로부터 빠져나와 강도 높은 차이를 창조하도록 하는 활동으로 규정한다. 들뢰즈 철학에서 추출한 배움과 가르침의 의미로부터 우리는 다음과 같은 세 가지 교육적 함의를 끌어낼 수 있다. 첫째, 배움은 교사에 의해 이끌어지는 계획적·의도적 행위의 결과라기보다 우연한 계기에 의해 학습자에게 촉발되는 행위이다. 둘째, 가르침은 학습자와 함께하는 ‘교사의 배움의 활동’이기 때문에 학습자의 교육에 있어서 교사 자신의 배움 활동이 중요하다. 셋째, 새로움의 창조 행위인 배움은 특정한 형태의 배움과 가르침의 관계를 전제하는데, 이 관계에서는 배움이 가르침의 의미를 규정한다는 점에서 배움의 가치와 역할이 가르침의 그것보다 더 우선하고 중요하다고 볼 수 있다.

지각에 대한 발생론적 이해와 그 미학적 귀결들 - 질 들뢰즈의 초월론적 감성론을 중심으로

성기현 ( Seong Gihyeon ) 한국미학회 2016 美學 Vol.82 No.4

들뢰즈는 자신의 초월론적 감성론과 더불어 지각에 대한 새로운 이해를 제시한다. 이러한 이해는 지각의 발생적 요소인 미세 지각, 지각의 발생조건인 강도, 이 양자를 경유하는 발생과정의 결과물인 의식적 지각, 이렇게 세 가지 구성요소를 갖는다. 첫째, 들뢰즈는 살로몬 마이몬의 라이프니츠적 칸트 해석을 활용해서 미분적인 것 혹은 이념을 지각의 발생적 요소로 삼는다. 둘째, 들뢰즈는 칸트에게서 실재적 감각에 상응하는 요소인 강도를 찾아내어 그것을 질과 양 모두를 산출하는 포텐셜 에너지의 담지자로 변형시킨다. 셋째, 들뢰즈는 앞의 두 개념을 잠재성-현실성의 논리 속에 배치함으로써 지각을 잠재적 미세 지각의 현실화로 제시한다. 지각에 대한 이러한 이해는 두 가지 학문적 귀결을 갖는데, 그중 하나는 아이스테시스의 재정립이고 다른 하나는 감성론과 예술론의 통일이다. 전자와 관련해서, 근대 미학이 감각을 지각 표상으로 환원했던 것에 반해 들뢰즈는 표상 이하의 발생적 요소들에서 출발하여 지각 표상의 발생을 설명한다. 일찍이 바움가르텐이 아이스테시스의 대상으로 표방했던 `감성적인 것 전체`를 보다 근본적인 차원에서 이해한다는 점에서, 이는 아이스테시스를 재정립하려는 시도로 간주될 수 있다. 후자와 관련해서, 칸트가 객관적 감각과 주관적 감각의 구별에 근거하여 감성론과 예술론을 분리시켰던 것에 반해 들뢰즈는 양자의 동시적 발생을 설명한다. 이런 관점에서 그는 단 하나의 논리, 즉 발생의 논리 속에서 감성론과 예술론을 통일시키기에 이른다. Deleuze presents a new understanding of perception with his transcendental aesthetics. This understanding has three components: minute perceptions as the genetic elements of perception, intensity as the genetic condition of perception, and conscious perception as the result of the genetic process of perception. First, Deleuze suggests differentials or Ideas as the ultimate composing elements of things and as the genetic elements of perception by using Salomon Maimon`s Leibnizian interpretation of Kant. Borrowing Leibniz`s minute perceptions to designate these genetic elements, Deleuze excludes his metaphysical premise of pre-established harmony of God. Second, Deleuze finds out another component corresponding to real sensation in Kant`s text, which is intensity. Kant considered it as the a priori element behind empirical quality in general, but Deleuze makes it the potential energy which yields not only quality but also quantity. Arranging these two concepts in his logic of virtuality-actuality, lastly, Deleuze presents conscious perception as the result of this process of actualization. Deleuze`s genetic investigation of perception has two aesthetic consequences: the renewal of Aisthesis, which was founded by Baumgarten but has never been achieved, and the union of two divided realms of aesthetics since Kant. Baumgarten planned Aisthesis as the study of all the sensible, but what he actually studied was just represented perception. But Deleuze`s genetic investigation starts with the genetic elements under the level of representation and explains the formation of representation. In the same manner, it also starts with the genetic elements under the level of emotion and explains the formation of emotion. Hence, for Deleuzian Aisthesis, `all the sensible` comes to designate the genetic process of representation and emotion. On the other hand, Kant divided aesthetics into the theory of sensibility and that of art. For him, the former is the study of a priori conditions of objective sensation, the latter the study of purposefulness without purpose guaranteed by subjective sensation. But with genetic investigation, Deleuze explains the simultaneous formation of the two sensation. In this point of view, the theory of sensibility and that of art are united in one single logic: the logic of genesis.

화이트헤드와 들뢰즈: 대화가능성의 모색

김재현 한국화이트헤드학회 2010 화이트헤드 연구 Vol.0 No.21

This paper studies philosophies of Whitehead and Deleuze from a perspective of possibility/potentiality and actualization. Whitehead introduces creativity as the ultimate, but there is not the ultimate in Deleuze's thought. Nevertheless, the ultimate of Whitehead is similar to Deleuze's potentiality. Eternal object, extensive continuum, super-ject which is possibility of Whitehead are more static than Deleuze's body without organ, plane of consistency, abstract machine. 'Ingression' represents actualization of Whitehead. It has a passive character, for it is prehended by subject. Therefore, in Whitehead's actualization the role of subject is important. In comparison, the actualization which Deleuze speaks is represented by a articulation. In this case subject is made by articulation. we can see that Whitehead is a radical empiricist and Deleuze has a radical anti-subjectivism. Both Whitehead and Deleuze supposed the mediator between possibility/potentiality and actuality. It is God and abstract machine. Whitehead divided primodial nature and consequent nature of God, and mapped them onto possibility and actuality. Whereas in Deleuze, abstract machine on plane of consistency mediated between potentiality and actuality. This study groped for the possibility of dialogue between Whitehead and Deleuze. They are similar but heterogenous. These similarity and difference will serve as foundation for the future process thought. 가능태/잠재성으로부터 현실태로의 현실화의 과정이라는 관점에서 화이트헤드와 들뢰즈라는 두 과정적 철학자 사이의 창조적인 대화의 가능성을 모색해 보았다. 세계를 과정의 관점에서 그린다는 면에 있어서는 두 철학자가 유사하지만 과정에 대한 세부적인 이해에 있어서는 차이점도 없지 않았다. 상당히 유사한 과정적 사상을 전개한 두 철학자는 화이트헤드의 철저한 경험주의와 들뢰즈의 철저한 반-주체주의에서 가장 큰 차이를 보였다. 이외에도 여러 가지 유사성과 차이점이 있다. 이러한 유사성과 차이점에 관한 미래의 대화는 앞으로의 과정적 사상을 풍요롭게 하는 밑거름이 될 것이라고 기대하게 한다.