Eeuapoon Persons Lavtene . Kitna, aioe Buropoan Perspectives presents Enh ‘With both classic and outstading contensorary thinkers 1 books by eating Er Works he sere mst shape the major inte ‘val controversies of our day and ta fcitte the tasks of historical understanding Jain Krigern Neti Witt Nation Pre Houien def Call Pr Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari What Is Philosophy? ‘Translated by Hugh TTrnlinson and Graham Burchell Columbia University Press New Yorkhe tater gt pi Introduction: The Question Then Part One Philosophy 1s What fsa Contept? The Pa of Ime 5% Concept! Personae 4 Geopllsopy Part Two Philosophy, Science, Logic, 5+ Functivesand Concepts 1: Prnpets and Concepts 1 Pevcep, Met, nd Cone CConclason: From Chaos to the sin Index oror nearly twenty years heim signed works of Gilles Dele and Fax Gta! have made sn extsoinary input This book, which was published in France in 1901, was at dhe tp of the est eller ist fr several weeks, But despite its popular succes, What pila snot 8 primer ora testbook, Kt more claely resembles ‘manifesto produced under the slogan “Philos per ofthe word, crete!” Tis hook tha speaks bout pilosophy, and abu philosophies and philsopers, but itis even mare a bok dat {akes up arms for pilosophy. Most all, pee haps iis book of philosophy as apace af the creation of concepts? éic Gusta did on Aust 29,1992, 98 {he age of sity, The production of his bok ‘Coed Une thew Pm gy se ie re rey nar Pas i em ee bs ina * Sie pesosstherne the bot ieee a ba shi ht Ts fee pret i pep. Dee a9 hee way working mbar of ante “We i rk uyethe, we work between the to. We dat wk, We ae, We were never inthe sime thythm, we Were always oto step The ioteacton with Gusta the nonplilosopher bgt the philosopher Deleuze to a new stage: fom thinking the wale to doing the multiple "This process of" pall evolution” is exemple in the Yon cepa vali” ofthis bok. Dele and Gtr ate the thinkers of “lines of fight” of the openings that allow thought to scape from the comsrint thit srk to define and enclose eesti, Tie conception and practice of philsophy as conceptual eration poses some special dificult forthe translator as some concepts mst be indeted by am exrandinry and sometimes nen lrbrts or shocking word, whereas cers ke do with a oedinay, every word tha i ld wih armonic o dist the ks Being ngercepibe empilsphical ear Some concepts cal fo chai, a cher or nog, throng with ln ry eye Toga xecis.* In translating sch words our fst mas been consistency We lave sought to use the same English word on each cccasion Fuydiermore, we have ted to void departure fom ether recent translations of Deleuze and Guta works. The tration ofthese ey terms is marked with translit? note. We have tried to kee sng aa mona ie Mint, a eed ot atin map Uae ef Minera Pop st te te ining ley ane ied yan evs so ey the tin the pg A unter of ensued thrgat the ook present partie lca. "There ae various English transains of oi, fr ex ample ‘These inelade figure,” Snumeral” sum toa" nial” oF “monoqran,” “sere code” or “eiphes None of these cape the plilosphiel use of the word inthe present work. In most instances, wwe Ive ender chic a6 “combination” to india an Weaving ‘numeral in the sense of the combination ofasafe or an opus mumber, sin mie) of lips, bat which eat, however, a number the sense ofa mesure ‘The word sisinage her bas the reneal sense of neighborhood” ‘nue ao its mathematical sense a im “ncighborhond of « pint.” which in‘ Hear se for example, the points ofa straight Fine) is an pen segment containing this pint. Onn can bave the sever sense of “ordered.” Deleuze ard Gusti also we dhe word in the ‘nore technical sense of ordinte” (a nthe vet, oF ycvotinate ‘of Cartesian geometry) in contrast with *abacva (the hort oe sevorinate) is dificult to find single English equivalent forthe word sure "The word derives from surly, “to Hy over” or “to ski oe rapidly ran ons eyes over samathing” Hosrever, dhe present we erives rom the pilospher Raymond Rayer! Rayer es he tion ‘ofa absolite or noadensoal “rv” ta deseribe the relationship of the “Eunity” to the subjective sensation ofa val eld. his ‘sensation, he sys, tempts us to imagine dhe I" as indivisible ‘cater onside, and situated ina supplementary dimension psd ‘et, the whole of the vial eld hat it sve fn stance However this an errr. The immediate survey ofthe nity f the ‘nl fel mice up of msn eileent dais takes pir iin the dimension ofthe vial sensation ise 8 ina ind of ljAhern sro wary ‘We wonl tke to thank all the we have veo sent a ssintaner, including in particular Martin Joga aid Mie Le Dieu. Finally, we woul Hke to thnk our editors at C ‘Univers Pres for their asstance and persistnce in the fice fo continual atempsto detertoraize thee sels. Phi raion ‘sda to Georgia and Felix and o Bebb Hugh Tomlinson Graham Burchell Sea Gils Da, Te Lge of See ets Ma Let New a What Is Philosophy?‘he question slat play? can pers be sed cal ate in ie, with eae of old age and the time or pein coneretely. fact, the bibliography on the nature of phitonopy is ery limited. es question posed ina momento it restlessness, a midnight, when there sno longer anything oa, H was asked befor it sm ahr being asked, bt too Ertl or lliquely the question was to artifici, o0 abs strc. Instead of being seized by hose who tsked the question sett outa controled tin posing They were not saber enough, There 11a ow much dese to do philsophy to wonder ‘wha ic was except yet eerie. Tha point of monsige where one ca Bally sy, “las it have boen doing all my He? had not been reached There are mes when og proceso teal youth but sovereign fe om, pre necessity in which me enjoys sent of grace Betoee ie death in Which ll he parts othe machine come tee to send int the fata fxr that cusIntroduction: The Question Thos al age Titan, ‘Tamer, Mone! dg ‘Fanne eta 96 ‘he right to take painting doven a deserted path 9 eta ha ‘nninguisable frm Fil question. Vie de Rancilio mark beth Chateaubriand’ old age and the star of moder itt tue Cine too sets flrs i gis of the thi ge, 8 wwe ves, fr example, blends hs laughter it the witch's gh ter inthe howling wind. Likewise in pilsopiy, Kents Cte of dementia uaretrined work of ella, wie his creo have sill ot eaight up wit; ll the ind faculties overcome thet Timi the very its eat Kant had so caeflly id down in the works of his prime. We cannot claim such a satus. Simply, the te has come for ws to ak what plop is. We had never stopped asking this question previously, and we slady had the answer, which hss not change philosophy i the a of forming, inventing, and beating comet Bat the answer ot only alt take nae ofthe question, i had to Aetermine its moment, is ocasion and circumstances, i landscapes sx! personae, ts conditions and unknowns. I ad to be possible to ‘ak the question “between fend” as «secret ora confidence, oe 2 challenge when confronting the enems, and tthe sme tine to ‘reach hu wight hour when ae distrust eve the rend Is hen ‘tha yo ay, Thats chat it ws, bt I dom kaow iT ely si ‘orf wus convincing enough” And yo elo that having sid i ot ‘ben convincing hardly matters Besse, in any case, titi what ‘We will ace that concepts need conceptual persone [pertenmagen compte") that ply apart in thee definition. Frond sone such Peron that i vem salto revel the ek crgin of pil-ophy: cma ym Meno at SNehae pe ren an pr ru el cers noc The Que Seen” wl ane et jist re mes sen ‘he Grecks might rt have confit the death ofthe sage andl to have replaced in with philosapers—the rend of wil, those who seek wie som but de ot frmly pres But the deren between the ‘ge andthe pilosopher woul no be merely one of agree, a 0 3 scale: the ol oriental sage thinks, perhaps, in Figures, wheres the plilospher vents and thinks the Concepe, Wis bus changed & feat den. is even snore dificult to know wat friend sigs, ‘ven and especially among the Greeks. Does it designate a type af ‘ompeten intimacy, a sort of nti ast ad potentiality, ke tt ofthe joiner with wood-—is the potenti of wood Intent in the god Jpiner, is he the fend of the wood? The question is important because the rend who appears in philesopy no longer stands for an ‘xvii person, an expe or enprcal reumstanc, but rather for presence that is ince to thought, condition of posit of| thought isl living category, « transcendental Hive reality [ou ‘cu transcend. With the cretion of phikwophy, the Gresks olestly force the rend into relationship that no longer 2 rel tionship with an other but one with an Entity, an Object [Ob Jette], an Essence Plato's fiend, but even’ more the fend of| wisdors, of truth or the concept, like Philethes sod Theophilus. "The pilospher is expert in cones and in dhe lack of thers. He knows which f ther are not viable, eich ar sitay o icons ‘ent, which ones donot hol up fran instant, Othe ather hand he slko koovs which ae well formed and atest to 9 creation, however Aitrbing dangerous it may be What does rend man whe it reomes «conceptual persona, of intr tamiin f Sate Bg and Nags (New Yak Pa Lise. 985 Hid Bares esis ew seo them ot ‘ar be (Sh op eo ec, eetuetion: The Question The ' colin for the exercise of thot? Or rate, wt ofthe lover? Des nt the fend weiner tng ital relationship withthe Other that was supose to ave bn exci From pure thought? Or agai, is it nota matter of saneone oer th the fend or lover? For I the philsapher i the frend ot ver of wisdom, i ot Because he bys claim to wisdom, striving for potently rather than actually possessing it I dhe end sn the ‘himant then, and i that of which clans to be the fiend the "Thing to which lays can tit not the thi pty wh, onthe contrary, becomes ital? Friendship would thea involve competitive stu ofthe val x nch a morons tiv toward the abject of esr. The basie point about friendship is thatthe to fiends are like clan and eva (ht who eld tl them apt?) Ke in his fst aspect that philosophy seem tobe smth Grek sen cies with the contribution of tes: the formation of societies of fren or equals but also the promotion of eelatinships of iaey teticen and within them, the contest between climants in every sphere, in ove, dhe gates, Buna, the jolie, politics, std ven in thought, which Bos ts condom not ony the friend ‘but in dhe claimant and the rival (he dilectic Pst defied se mphishets) es the vay office men a eerie athletics the ago Friendship mst reconcile the integrity ofthe een md the rivalry of aint, Hthis tt get tsk? send, lover imant ands are transcendental terminations ‘hat do aut or dat reason lose thee intense ned aninated existence, Sn one persona of in several. When again tay Matrice Bianca, cone ofthe rte thiskers to conser the meaning ofthe word friend in pilus, takes up this question internal to the conditions of thought an wich, dis he ot once more intraduce new concep personae into the heat ofthe purest ‘Thought? But in this ease the 1 Introduction: The Q esa ae aly Gok, avin fn ehewhere asthe had he hat das them toward new ving eb ris rae to the level of «prin ehrcerses—a turing ay, a certain tds, a cevtin distress between (ends that converts Hiendship sel to thought of dhe concept as dss ane infinite patence?* The lis of concept personae is never ned ane for hat reson plays an important role inthe evoton or tran ‘ions of philosophy The diversity of concept! personae ust be understood without being reduced tothe aleeady complex unity of ‘the Grek pilosophee, Te pilosopher isthe concept rend eb potentiity of the concept. That, philosophy is ot a simple et forming, inventing, Kabra ences, beans concepts are not neces fs Ascoveries of products. Moe rigors, philosophy ithe diphine that involves eating concepts Does this mean that the fiends Scien of his oem creations? Or she acy of the once dt ‘he potential othe end, nthe unity of erestor and his double? The yest of philosophy iso create concept that are always new, Be ‘atne the concept net be ees refers back t the pilsopher ‘the ove who has i potently or who has its power and eampe- tence. In objeto oy that eration i he preogtive ofthe sensory and the as, ine ar brings spiritual entities ito existence while philosophical concepts ste aso “sensi” In ft, sence, ts and philosophies ae al eq creative, akong aly pine py eas concepts in the strc sense. Concepts ae ot wating for us ready.mae lke heavenly biden, Ter io heaven fr concep "They must be iavented, fabricated, or rather created dol be nothing without thee eeator’ signature. Niet i down the tack of philosophy when he wrote, “LPhilosphers] mist wo longer cept concep ava git, or merely purify and polish ther, but fst ‘nate anderen them, present thm snd make then convincing Hither one has generally trusted one's canepts a if they were 8 wonder dowry fom some sat of wore” bt trast mi beepee by csr tl popes st dst sm he {eps they di not rete themselves (Mt was ily sa fea thong he taught the oppose. Plt sid tht Kes wns be Contented, but fist of all he had to create the concer of hes What would be the value of pilospher of whom one cowl “He has rated no concept; he has not erated his ow concept ‘We ama east se what piles s nti no contemplation, reflection, oF communication. This isthe case even though i may sometimes beets ne o other ofthese, ara elf the apy tf every dsiline to prodace ts own illsions ant hide behind its ‘own peculiar smokescreen, It nt contemplation, fr contemplie tions are things themselves as sen in the eration oftheir specific ences. I oot flection, bec no one needs philonopy to reflect om anything. Ie i thought eat pilonophy it being given & frat deal by bring earned into the art of refletion, bat acu loses everthing. Mathematicians, as mathematicians, have never swat for philosophers before efletng on mithemate, nor stis before reflecting on punting or music. So lng as thee reetion belongs to thei respective creation, i i bd jake to say tat this rukes them philosophers. Nor does pilasopy Sd any Binal ruge Jn communication, which only works under the say of pions in onder to create “conser and nt concep. The ide of a Western democratic conversion between fends has nese prod a single concept The idea comes, perp, trom the Greeks, bat they di feasted it 9 much, and subjected it to such harsh teatment, that the concept was more lke the ironical sally hid that surveyed Ioursoli) the bated of destroyed itl opinions (he deunken quests atthe Banquet). Philosophy des not contemplate, ref, oF Communicate, hough must create cnerpt for thew actions of ‘pissin. Contemplation, reeson and eammiication aren i plines bat machines for constuting Universal in evry dsipline “The Univenals of contemplation, and then of rection, ae ke two Iasions trong which philosophy has ey passed in its dream of| iredvetion: The Question Then honing dhe tr eines (objective elim and subjective iain). Monee dacs no eed philsopy for ito present itself aa new Athens by fling back o@ Universal of eommunia tion that wold provide rules fran insaginary mastery ofthe markets land therein inersjective deli). Every eeation is singular, fn the concept as specially pileophical creation i lays a Singular. The first principle of pilosophy that Universal ex- pin noting ba mast themscles be explained, “To know wnesl to ean think, to at asf nothing were sl cident wondering, “wondering that here is bei ‘any other determinations of philosophy erate interesting ties, however tiresome they say’ be inthe Tong en, but even rom a pedagogical point of view they do nt consttte a welldfined oceu- tion or precae activity. On te oer hand the allowing dinition (of philly can be taken st being decisive: knowlege through [pre concepts. But thee sno reasin to oppose knowlege through once and the construction of eoneep within posible experience fn the one hand sil through ition on ee other. For, acorn to the Niethean verdict, you wil know nothing though concepts ules you fave fist crate dhem-—tha is comsracted them i an intuition specific to ehems aed, a plane, ane ground hat must ot becouse with them but that shlers their seeds and the personae who eutate them, Constrtivin:rquies every cestion to be 3 onstruction on & plane that gives it aa autonomous existence. To Create concepts tthe very le, to mske something, This ater the question of pilsoply’s me or weflness, oF even of ts han fulness (to whom is it harafl) ‘Many problems hurry before the hallucinating eyes ofan old nan wh ses ll ots of philosophical anceps and conceptual personae Confronting one nother, Fst eageeps are and retain ed: Aris totes substance, Descartes’ ogi, Labaio's mona, Kats cond ‘ion, Schling’s power, Bergson's duration [durée]. But ao, some concepts mist be indicted by an extraordinary and sometimes even thes, sodQnestion Maem Antes skin wo wher aes ake wi a ary. everyday word that fle! with Hon sta tt i risks being imperceptible toa nonpilosophical ear, Some concepts call fr archaisms, and others for neologis, shot trough with slmost ery etymological exercise: etymology is ikea spill Diilosopical atheism. In each ese there mist a stage neces sity for thse words and for thelr choi, ike an element ste ‘The concepts Ips ells fora specially pimp dat that proceeds wth violence or by insnuation an consitues a pilsop i ‘al language within Inguage—not jst vocabulary bat a syetax {hat attains the sublime oF a great beauty. Although comets are Ate signe, and baptiaed, they have dri en way of a dying while remaining subject to consents of renewal, replcement, nd mutation ha giv philosophy history as wells turbulent gegre py, each moment and place af which s preserved (tin ime) and tha pases (hut outside ine). What unity reins for philoso, ic il be asked, f concepts costanty change? Ise the se forthe sciences and ants that donot work with canrpt? And wht are the "spective histories the histories of? IF philosophy this continous creation of concep, the obsiosly the question arses aot ony of ‘what a concept a6 pillowphical Ides bt san of the nature of the ter erative Kas that are not concepts and at are de to the ts tn cence, which have thet on history ati beoming and which have their own variable relaonships wid one another and with Dllosoph. The exclusive ight of concept ection secures funtion fer philosophy, butt doesnot give i any poeminence or privilege since there are ohee ways of thinking and cresting other sdes of ideation tht, like scene thought, donot have to pss through concess. We always come back to the ston of the use ofthis xcivity af erating concep in its diene frm scenic oats setivity. Why, through what necessity, and for whit use mst con eps, and always new concepts, be crete? Ad in oer todo theo say tat Uh eatin of pio Hes precy it not evi any wef rvolous ener that tt even young people Bod sing any more. Tn any ese, the death of metaphysis oF the ‘vezeming of phiksophy has never Den 2 problem or we i is jus ties le citer. Tay isa that stem are Bankr, bt its ony the concep of sytem tithes changed So lang theres a time and a place for erating concepts, the operation that under {ales this wll aways be called piloseph, or wil be ndings sl rom philoopiy even iis clled someting ee. We know, however, thatthe friend or lve, 3 litnant, does ot lack rival I we rally ant to say that phil originates wth the Greeks, it is bees the city like the empire o sae, invents the agon ar the rule of society of ends” of the community of ee rena vals (etzens) This isthe invariable sition described by Pot: if each ctizen lays cai to somthing then we need to be ble ‘o jude the validity of clans. The joiner sca to wea, but he comes up ayaist the forester, the lumberjack, and the caper, two al sy, "Tam the fiend of wood” Hit is master of the care of sen, then there are many claimants eho intoice themselves os man's fend the pesant who feds pple the weaver who thes them, the dator who nurses then, abd the warrior who pects ther.” In ll thee cases the selection fs ade frm whit after al, ‘somewhat nitro cre of elaiants. Bt this i at the casein police where, scrrding to Plat, anyone ca ny cai to anything in Athenian democracy. Heace the necessity for Plat to pt things inorder and crest authorities or judging the vay of these cin the Ideas a pilosophical concepts, But, even here, do we not en ‘counter ll Kinds of esimants who sy, “Tam the true pilsopher, the rend of Wiadoon oof the Well Founded”? This rivaly et sats in the battle between philosplier and soph, hing one the fl ges remains. Hos, then, ithe fe eno be dining from the tre rin, the concept from the smlarumn? The snHal er Prone the con al he erage ‘Cliser to our own time, philosophy has encountered many’ ne rival. To sat with the human sciences, and expecially sankey, wanted to replace But because pksophy taking eigen univer sh, increasingly mbundertod its vocation For ereating concept, ‘was no longer clear what was at take. Was ta matter of ging up {he craton of concept in favor of rigorous hutnan scence on ternative of transforming the nature of enceps by turning tern mt the collective representations or worldsews reste bythe vit, strc, and spr! forces of dierent peoples? ‘Then it was the turn of epistemology, of Hinguistes, o even of psychoanalysis and logical analy. In successive challenges, pisos eotronte in essing inset and calamitous rials tht Plato himself woud fever have imagined in hs most comie moments Finally the most shumefal moment came when computer scene, marketing, design, tel advertising, all the disciplines of eominaniation, seized hold of the word cone isl and sid: “This is our concen, we are the weave ones, ear the ideas men’ Weare the Bind ofthe concep, ve put ii our computers." Tformation sd eet, concept and arp thee iseeady a abundant bibllgraphy. Marketing has proseeved the idea fs certain relationship beeen the concept and the event But here the concept has become the set of pot d= phys (historical, cient, artistic sexi, pgs) the event has become the exhibition that sets up various displays and the “exchange of ideas it supposed to promote ‘The only events are talubitins, and the only concepts are products that can be sl Philesophy fs not remained anafected by ee greral movement {hat repliced Critique with sles promotion. The simuleram, the simulation ofa packet of nodes, has become the tre concep sd the one who packages the product, commodity, or work of sr has tbcome the philosopher, eneeptusl persona, oF artist. How could The Question Thew ply, perv, compete aint yung earcaies in a fave fr the univers fcomnnaiaton for determining he market ile arm af the concep, Mer Cesta espn toler that Conexpe cates 4 sey of inrmation Services and engineering tthe ore pilosphy comes upagsinst shameless and inane vals cn] encounters them tts very ore, the more ies den oli the tank of creating concepts tit are serait rather han commercial products, It ges the gigs, which wipe vay its tears. i “question of poopy i he singular pont where concep ad ere ‘tion ae elated to ach oer Philasopers have not ben sfcienily concerned with the naire 1 he concepts philosophical ray. They have pele to think tf tas a given knowledge representation that canbe expe by the facies able for it (abstraction or generalization) oe employ ie Gjmlement, But the concept is at given, i created tt be ‘seed Rs formed bat pois isl in isl it ia el posting, (Creation and se psiting mull imply each ater because what truly rete fo the Hiving bing othe work ot, setey enjoys avelf posting of el oan atopic characteristic by which i resognived. The cont pass ielf wo the same extent that is ated, What depend om fe creative activity abo tat which, independently and neces, post ise in itsel the ms subj tive wil be the most objective. The post Kantian, and notably Schelling and eget, ar the pilosophers who paid mast attention to the concept as pllowphical ely in this sense. Hegel powerully defined the concept bythe Figures ofits creation and the Moments tits selF posting, "The figures become parts f the concept beause they constitute the spect through which the conepe is created by axl in consciousness, through sacesive minds; whereas the Mo-Seow hit te con Bs igs whats td wth abstract idea, any are than with an ane! Wil hot depend on philosophy el. But he suceeded inden hi at the cost of a indeterminate estnsion Plilsophy that, Bea reconatiated unverss wit sown snes an treated the pen ae af its ow creation 36 wo more chan gly puppets es ny independent mavement af dhe arts andl sciences reaiing. The pst Kantans concentrated un a wiverlencyipdia ofthe concept that atibuted concept cretion ta & pure subjectivity rather than taking onthe mone modest ask ofa piggy othe concept hich would hve to analyze the conditions of craton a actors f always singular moments. the three ages af dhe concept are the eneycloe 4, pstagoy and commer profesional taining, onl the second ‘an safeguard yf Elling from the eight of the fist ito the aul iter for tht whatever it Denes might be, of cour, rom the vewpunt of univer cap tal Asst of the thin PhilosophyThere ae no simple concepts Every concep as ‘components ani defied hy ther, I ehetefore ‘asa combination [iff Iisa multiplicity, though nt every ultipicty s onerpt “There so concept wih only one component xen the st concept, dhe oe with whieh a phi Josophy “begin,” has several components, be ae it snot obvious that pilsophy must have s beining, ae fit oes determine one mst combine t with a point of view or grand [ene ican] Not only do Descartes, Meg, nd Feuerbach not begin wih the same concept, they not ave the sme concep of begining. Ey cry concep iat least double or triple te, Nei ther i there a concept possessing every cmp nent, since this wou be chaos pare an sip Even go-caled univers imate concept rust scape the chaos by cveumserbing uni ‘verse that explains them (contemplation, rele: tion, communication) Every cert hss a i regular contour define by the sum of ts compews shies hy, ft Ma Yo Mev fi the of smc beng ater of ati ‘The concept whole cane it atalies i cmp at fragmentary whole: Only this condition ean it ‘chaps constantly threstning it, talking it tying tear ‘On what conditions a eacept ist no abate a i ation tw another? For example, i onthe perso (tral aes secu in elation tose? Tf to the extent that concep is that of an others subject that presets elf van objet—hi fr special in reation co che self they ae vo composents i fact, she other person i dentifed with special objet, i is now only the oher ‘abject ait appears to me; andi defy with anothe saj, itis me who isthe other person as F appear to that sujet All ‘once are connected to problems without which they woul have sma and hich can themselves ony he ited understood 2s their alton emerges. We are dealing herewith problem eo ering the plaraiy of subjects, tee eelatonship, and thei rip fal presentation. OF course, everything changes if we think that we dicoveranadher problems what i the nate ofthe ater pers ‘Poston tha the oer subj comes to occupy” only when ap eas to me aa spi abject and that Tine cote to occupy a8 special objec when {appear tothe oer subject? From this point of view the other person isnot anyone—ither subject or objec. ‘There are eral subjets because there i the other person, tthe reverse. The other person thus requtes an a prior concept fom Which the special objet, the other subject and the sf rst all derive nt the other way sand. Teor as hanged, hs the nature of dhe eonerpts and the problems to which they are sp bose to respond. We pt to one side the question ofthe difesence beeween scenic and philosophical problems. However, even in pllosoph, concepts are only created sa function of prem which are thought to be badly undestd or bly pose pedagogy of the comer Let ws pcre i tary Eni: we wil omer fel ‘expec taken area world ong in elation to lf ut 0 s sinple there &." There is at some moment «cal and rest ‘work. Suldenly fighter fae looms up tha looks something ‘ot the el, The other person appears here as neither sujet noe abject but as something that very diferent: a possible woe, the sibility ofa fightening word. ‘Thispusble world is not real, or ‘ot yet, bu texts nonetheless it isan expres hat exists ony in its expression—the fice, or an equivalent of he fice To bein with, the other prewon this astence o's posible worl And this pons ble word ao has specitc reality n sl, as posible: when the expressing speaks and sys,“ am figtened,” even its words re ‘utr, this enough for realy to be given to the possible ss suc. “This isthe only meaning of the“T” as lingua index Bu is ot indispensable: China posible world, butt takes on a eaity 2 sn a Chinese isspolen oe China is spoken about within given fei of experience. "Tis ery iret from the situation in whieh China is raed by becoming the fl of experience il. Her, then, isa concept of the other that presipposs ao mee than the determination oa sesory woe as condition. On this eoiton the oer appears the expression oa possible The oer a posle wot 3s i eit in fer that expresses nd takes shape in a langage that gives ie rity. In thin sense i iva concept with Le inseparable components: prsile worl, exiting ice, an el Iangnage or speech, Obviously, every concept has history, This concept ofthe other person goes Bek to Leb, to his possible words and to the ronad 1 expres ofthe work But ite the sae probe, beease in Leiba possible doit exit inthe eal world als fond inthe Imada legie of propstions. But thee do nt canker on possible worlds the rality that corespoms to ther truth entions (even when Witgenstin envisages propositions offeror pin he des not see thems mites that canbe expressed in position af the otherrs beats he leaves the ther person tin ste subject and a special objet. Possible worlds aes 2 hg sr! stort, we say tha every concept always as a hibry, eve th ths history gag, though He pases, if er be, theo thir problems or ont diferent planes In any eanept there ae sly Tits or components that come fram other conepty which ear pnded to other problems and presupposed other planes. This is Inevitable because cach conerptcatice out anew etng-at takes ‘on new contours and must be reactivated o ecu (On the other hand, «concept ssn has a Acoming a involve is relationship with coceps stated om these plane, Here cones Tink up with ac oer, support one another, coardinate thee con tours articulite their repetive problems, ad belong to the sare philosophy, even if dey have diferent histories. In fic, bavi Fite numberof components, very concept wil branch off toward “athe eacepts tha are diferent composed but cat constitute other regions ofthe sane lane, answer to poles that ean be exec ‘to eah other, and patcipat in a co-tetion, A concept requires nt ‘nly a problem chr which it roasts or replaces erie concep Tt junction af problems wher it combines wih other coeiting ‘conerps: The conept ofthe Osher Person a expression ofa possible ‘world in percep fel east conser the components ofthis Tek for ite new way. No longer being either subject ofthe Fld or object in the fe, the other person will become the eondition under which net omly subject andl abject ae redtrbted bt ako Fgura your, int, transitive al substi length an depth. "The Other Pern isalways perce as an ther, but in ts comer isthe onion ‘ofall pecepgion, fr others for oureves. Ks the condton foro passing from one world to anther. The Other Persin makes the wold goby, and the“ now designates only pst world CT was aclu”). For example, the Other Person is enough to make say Jenga posible dep in space, and vice versa so that this concept ead enter, moving object atl reference ia ft he percept fk trations wl aversons mk] taco: incompreensibe, and we would always ran up sss things, the posible having disappeared. Or atleast, pil sophia would be ncesary to find nother rasa fr not ean ring again them. Hei in this way that om a determinable ple, ‘we go from one concept osnother by a Kin of bride. The eration ff concept of the Other Peron with these components will ena the creation of new concep of perceptual spe, with ther compo- rents tobe determine (not running up agains. things, oF not too ‘nueh, will be pst ofthese components) We started with a ily complex example. How could we do there, because there fs nestle concept? Readers nay start from whatever example they like. We believe thi hey wil ach the sane conchision about the mitre ofthe concept or the concept of ence Fest every concept relates back to other concep, nt only In ts sory but in ts becoming oF present connections. Every fomeept hs components that may, in tar, be grasped a concepts (Go tht the Otter Peron hs he fice among its components atthe Face will self be considered a concept wit sown compet). Concept therefore, extend to infinity and, being ected are never create fron nothing. Seeand wht is disnctive abou the concept Js tha it renders components inseparable within ise: Components oe what defies the consiteney ofthe concep, its endoconisteney, are distin, heterogeneous, and yet no separable. “The pint is chat tach partially overlaps ha 2 zone of neighborhood [ame de vi nage”, threo of ndisceaibity, wih another one. Fo ex ‘len the cance ofthe ater person, the pons worl! dies not ‘st outside the face that expreses aoa iis dings from its expressed and expression; andthe fae fn turns the wcnity ofthe words fr which itis alkeady the megaphone. Components eran distinct, But something pases fom one to theater, sme:hig ha save tee a lee te a Tato t Deh aa whe oi # one” ili ‘Mase nes, thresholds, von, ths npr ant inwesnaleonsstency of the concept, But the cane ab as an fxoconsteney with ater concepts, whea ther reece eran implies dhe constrvtion of Bede on the same plane. Zon st tridiges are the joins of he concept Third, each concept will therfore be corded ws the point of ‘vinidence, cones, or sceumtin af 6 own components “The eonepal point consent taverses its eamponents, Hsing and falling within ther, In this sets, each component isan tense feature, a kensive inate [ordomne intense"), which rust be funders ut a general oF particule but as a pare and simple Singlrity—"a possible worl, "=? ace, “se words—that urtclarved orgeneralized depending upon whether itis given Sarible values or comseantfneton. But, unlike the postion in ‘eience, there snither constant no variable inthe concept, and we tho more pick out vara spies fora constant gems than we doa Constant species for variable Individual, Inthe eoneept tere are fnly ornate reitionships, not eelationships of comprehension or extension, and the concepts components are neither eomsants noe ‘arable but pore ad splesaraime oer acconing to thee ght. They are procs, red. The eoncept of bind fs found not i is genus or species but in the eompostion of is postures, colo ard songs: something. indiscernible Ut & wat so Inch synthetic or syncidetic. A concept a hetergenesis—that tosayyan ordering of ts components by zone of neighbor. Ks tna an ntenion presen nal ee etares that make it up. The Concept is ina state srcy snr in relation cits components tiles traversing them according to an onder without distance. I hesiey epee tl Hs camps oF variations, 0 stance foo te, ping ack and Forth ehtough ther: Ris «| rein, a an with its number (cif The camcept i an incaepored, even though i incarnated oF Ait oes, Hn ft not ed up with the tte of lls in which i efeemted. eds not have spatiotemporal ‘oeinates only intensive ones. Ke hs no energy, only inte jes its anenergetic (energy isnot intensity but rather the way in ‘hich the ltr i deployed and nullified in an extensive state of aller). Th concept speaks the event, not the essence othe thing pure Eve cet, an entity: dhe event ofthe Ot of he fice (en, fm tr, the fice is taken ax concep) 1 Hk the bid as rent. The cntept i defined by the sacra of finite mob of htragencous component trai by aint of wane sary a Infinite seed. Concepts ae absolute surfers volumes,” Forms whose only object the inseparably of distinct variations.” The “survey” [ure the state ofthe concept oie specie init, tough the infities may be lrger or smaller secrding tthe umber of components, ehrebolls and bridges. In this sease the concep iv act of thong, is hough operating at infnie(thongh rete or lesser pee. ‘The concept istherefore bth abssute and relative: iti relatve to its own eomponents, to other concepts, tothe plane om which i efined, and to the problems tix supposed to resolve; but i i bwolate ehh the condensation terri ut the ste ic ceupies ‘on the plane, a the eondition tans othe problem. cole itis abot, bt instr ax iti fragmentary is lative Tinie through es survey ot sped ba fie ough its movement tha aces the contour of components. Pisophers ae always resting and en changing thee concepts: sometines the develupment a a pint of detail that produces a new condensation, that adds o withdraws components, is enough. Philosophers sometimes exhibit a forgetful res that almost mses them il. According to Janpers, Nictasche,consti ies inne inns ete sn wit cexplicily adi i ahem hi ath deere he fret He ‘omelsions he had arsine calc" Or 8 Le Itoh had reaches port but... seemed oe cs bk ssi iat th ‘open sea°* What resins sbslue, however ithe way in which he tested concepts pote in self and with chery, Te relativity aid bnoiteness ofthe concept ae lke its paliggy and its onto, is creation sid its self posting seat and its resity— ‘Sanity and permanence Tis again implies ew eon ptf pce that can no ge be defined by simple smuls- sy and cies frm of eatery. Spat, ine, dT ‘hin are the rg concept inked Beds st re sh jonctions—a Bt of orignal concepts. The hiory of Pilonophy means that we erate not only the historia taney af the concepts rete by philosopher bat so the wer ef their becoming when nytt oe ane “The same pedagogical stats of the concept cane Found every where: a mulipiciy, an absolute sufce or volume, sel-eerent, rae up of cerein nr of inseparable intensive varaons a= Coding to 4 onder of neighboehood, and tasers by a point 3 ste of survey. The conerpt isthe contour, the configuration, the comtelltion ofan event em, Coop in his ee bong to oh soph by vight, bese ii pip that erates them and sever atin crating then. The ener is abviouly knowledge—but ledge af ef id what ow is the pire event, which mist te be conte withthe state of afr in which is embodied. The ‘tok of philosophy when i creates concepts, entities, is aay 10 cera an event from things nd Brings, to se up the ne event om ‘hings and begs, aay to give dhe a mew events space, ine, rate, though, the possible event es poindes toy tht there are concepts in selene. Even when science is coneemed with the sime “objects” itis not from the ‘iewpoin ofthe concept its wot by erating eanepts. Height be ssid that this just a matter of words, uti rare for words not to involve intentions and uses, I would bea ere matter of words it ‘was decided wo rserve the concep fr sence, even i this meant Finding another word to designate the busines of pilsophy. But vesually things are done differen. "The power ofthe concept i suite eo since the concept being define by te restive mth ‘ds of science and’ measured against scence, The isue is then wheter there remains possibility of philosophy forming secondary cimcepts that makeup for thelr own fsuceny bya vague appeal to the “ive” Ths Gilles Gaston Granger begins by defining the conerpt as scientiie proposition oF faction aad then cards that there may, nonetheless, be philosophical concepts tha replace reference wo the objct by coelatan to a “tality of the lived” leat du écu* But actualy ther philosophy completly ignores the concept oF leit enjys ity right and at fest band, so cat cere is othing of le for scence—which, moreover, his a9 eed of the concept an concer self only eth states of airs ed thee ‘onlin. Science aes only propositions fantions, wheres plilosophy, or its art, des not eed to invoke e ive that would tiveonly a ghosl and estine ie to secondary, Blodless concepts “The philosophical concept does not reker to the lived, by way ofPhitosophy = 34. eompensation, bat const, through ison eesti, in stig an event that surveys the whole ofthe lived no es thn every tate of alfirs. Every concept shaps and reshpes the event in is own way Te greatness of philsopy is measured by the nature ofthe events to whichis concepts summon us oF that i enbles ue to Fle in eancepts. § plilosophy ava creative discipline mn be teste in is est deta "The canept belong to philosophy ano the ungue,exchsive bond beeen eonerpts and yt piso plane of immanenee of concepts, the plano { tmenon.Conceps and plane retry corel | trey, ad the plane woudl alo lve open es, Philophy i constructivism, sd comPhilosophy 30 strvctvio, has two qullstively dire complementary sept the eration of concepts and he lying ot of plane. Concept te like mukiple aves, rng and ling, bt the plane offence e the single wave that rolls them up and unolls them. ‘The plane envelop inte movements tt pass back and forth through but concepts are te iniite spd of nite movements that, neal ae, ps nly through their on components. From Kpicuras to Spina ae incredible bok 5) and from Spinoza to Michaux the problem of ‘ought sini speed. But this peed requires aie that moves infin in itsel—the plane the vid, the orion. Both east of the concept and ity of the mie see needed. Bath are vd to rake up “the slow beings” tht we are. CConerpts ae dhe archipelago or skeletal Fame, » spinal ecko rather than = skll, whereas the plane is the breath tha sass the separ parts. Concepts ae absolte sures or volumes ormlest tn rgmentary, wheres the ple isthe Fores ulmied bso- Fate neither surfice nor volume but aliays fractal. Concept are concrete assemblages, Uke the configurations of «machine, but the plane isthe abstract nace of which these asemblages ave the working part: Conepts are events, but the plane the horizon of evens the reseroie or reserve of prey cancel events not the relative horizon that fancions a6 Fini eich changes with at observer and enclousobscrable stats of afr, bit the abate horton, independent of any observer, which makes the event ay concep independent of sible ate ffs in whi ite brought snout? Concepts pave, cceupy, oF populate the plane st by bit whereas dhe ple ise the indie aie in whic once re stibted without breaking up i onto integrity: they’ apy i witht meaning i out (the certs combination fk & number) or are distibuted without splitting it up."The planes ikea exert that concepts popalte without diving up. The oaly regions of te pane are concepts themselves, but the plane i ll hat ol them eget, "The plane has no other regions than the ties pop Ling aa ning on i is the plane that sear anceps ik nd concepts that secure the puputiag of the plane on analy renewed and a she curve “The plane ofimmanence snot concep tha sca be thought lau rather the image of though, the image thought gives tel of what i meanso think, to make use of thought, to iad one bearings in hough. His nots method, since every meted i concerned ith concepts and presupposes such an image. Neither is state of| Knowledge onthe brain adit anetoning, since thought hee mak related to dhe slow brain a othe seienally termine state of llr in which whatever its use and orientation, thought only brought about, Nor iit opinions eld abou though, aboot its forms, ces, and means, t @ particular moment. The image of thought implies a strict division between fct and righ what pecans to bought as such must e distinguished from contingent fetes of the baie historia opinions Quid jurs?—ca, fr example sing cones memory or bing mad long ta thought ss sch, o ae they nly contingent fears of the brain thit sould be cided simple fits? Are contemplating, reflecting, oe communicating ny thing more than opinions bald shout though at partic ime nd Ina pariulrcivlizaton? ‘The image of thought resins only what ‘ought ca lain by ight "Tht demands nly” movement tht cane carted to infinity. What thought elsims by right, wht selects i infnite movement othe movement ofthe ifn, i the that constitutes the mage of though ‘Movement ofthe infinite doesnot rele to spatiotemporal cor ates that define the sucessive postions of 3 moving che ad the five reference pts ia ration to which these potions vary “To orientate oneself is thought” implies neither objective releece pint noe moving object that experiences elf asa subject std thy ax seh, strive for needs the infinite, Movenen ake in everyting, and there is 0 plie fr a subject and an object that cn ony bePhilosophy 38) concepts: Ie isthe boiz itself at i in movements the relative hornn roe when the subject advaners, ton the ple of immanence wear always and ale om the absolute horizon. In nite movement ix define by = coming and gong, bens it drs not advance toward a destination witha already turning bck on se, the neal also beng the poe. turing toward” che movement of thought toward teat, how could truth not abo turn toward ABought? And how could truh il not turn away fom thought when thought tres sway fom KP However ths wot» fasion bt 1 reversibility, an imme, perpetual, istantincus exchange—a Fihtning fs Infite movement x double, and there i only «fd from one to the other. Kein this ese that thinking and being ane ‘sido be one and the same. Or rather, moverent snot the image of thought without being ao the substance of being. When Thales thong ape out, it comes bck x water. When Heracits's thought becomes pemos, ts fie that retrts.I sa singe sper om bth sides: “The atm will traverse spe with the spr of thonght.”* ‘The plane of immanence has wo facets as Though and as Natt, Now and as Phys. "That is why there ate always many inte ‘movements caught within each other, cach ded ia the oer, so thatthe eeturn of one istantaneusly elauneas anther in such a ‘way that the plane of immanence i cemeley beng woven, like a siti shuttle To turn toward dos ot ply merely to taro away bt to confront, to lse one's way, tv move aide Even the negative produces infinite movements: ling ato error as much as avoiding the fae, allowing one tobe dominated by passions av much 28 ‘overcoming them. Diverse movements of the inate sre so mixed in with each ther tha, fr rom breaking up the Ove All fhe plane of immanence, they conse its vrab cata, it oncaeid corte its Fractal nature ani were. Ie is his fractal ate tit makes the plnomenon an infinite et i ley dierent from any surface or ylume determinable asa conerpt Every movement passes ‘tough the whol ofthe plane by immediately curing back on and foie ts bo by ig other movements or allowing el (ote kl them, giving rie to actions, connections and dirt inthe fratizton ofthis iit folded up iniity ‘Gorse curvature ofthe ple). Bu if is tue dat the plane of inmasence always single, being tse pie variation, the ii all themore necessary o explain why there re varied an itn planes sf inmanence tha, depending pon which infinite movements se retsined an! rete, succeed and contest each othe in history. The Plane i ceainly noe the sae inthe tie ofthe Greeks in the Seventeenth cent, and today (and thee ae il vague and general term): there fs neither the same image of thought nor dhe same substance of beng, ‘The pine i, therefore, the object of an inte specication so that it stn toe « One-Al nly fn cas specie bythe selection of movement. Tis difiuty concerning the ulkimate nature of the plane of immanence can only be resolved ep by top. eis esental not to confse the ple of immunence andthe concepts tit cecupy it AWhowgh the sme ements may appear {ice oer on the plane ad in he concept it wil at bein the same true, even whe they re expres inthe sme verbs and words We have seen tis for being, though, aod one: they ener ito the concepts components and are thenseves concepts, but they belong tothe plane quite diferny a image o substance. Convery uth ‘an only be defined on the plane by a “cursing coward” or By “that toward which thought turns but dis doesnot pve us with « oncep of tat, ero elf san element that by right forms part ff the plane, then consists spy i taking the fle for de rae (alight i only receives «concep if we determine its comp nent according to Descartes, fr example, the two components of Snite understanding and an inte will. Movements or ements of the plane, therefore will sem to be ely nominal definitions in relation to concepts x long a we dsregard the dilerence inmate tetween pine sd concepts. Bue in reality, elements ofthe ple are lagrammatic features, wheres concepts ae intensive fares. ThePhilosophy 40 former are movements af the infinite, whereas he ltr ar intensive ordinates ofthese movement, like orginal sections or dierent aston: finite movements in which the inflate ow only spend and each of which consiutes a surace ge volume, a rege ‘contour marking halt in dhe degree of proliferation. The former are income that are retain ature, wheres the later ae abate mension, itensively dtd, always fragmentary stifices oval ues. "The former aren, andthe ter ines, The gra ‘ Leitnizian or Bergwnian perspective that every pulsophy d= end upon an intuition that is conepts constantly develop chang slight ferences of intensity is js inti i tho of a8 the envelopment of ifnite movements of thought that constantly ps droog a plane of msnene. OF couse we shou nit em ‘le fom this that eoneepts are deuce from the plane: concepes| requires spl constriction dint fo that the plane which is vey coneepis must be tented just as the plane mst be set up Intensive fetures are never the eanseqener of dngrommatic Fes tures, and intensive ordinates ae aot deed fom movements Alvections. ‘Theis coeespondence goes beyond even simple mse nance ad intrduces instances adjunct to the cation of emer, sal, cneeptl persons, IE philosophy begins with the eration of eerpt, then the plane of fmmanence mst be warded as prepilgopia. It pres posed notin the way that one concept may refer to ther at inthe ‘way that concepts thenselves fer to « nonconcepusl understand Ing. Once sain, this intuitive understsndng varie secon tothe vain eich the plane is aid out, In Descartes it a mater af @ subjective understanding implicidy presppored by the“ think” se frst concept in Pat its the view image ofan aed: thogh that Aoubles every actual concept. Heeger invokes » “preontolgical Understanding of Being,” a “preconeeptl” understanding that Seams to imply the grap of a substance of being elatonsip with predisposition of thought. In any event, philsopiy pois ax reveal or eve an ampikanpcl, the power of One AU ike 3 ing der chat anceps come to populate. Prep sephicl ches nt ean soning peers bit rather something that oes not xs utside phil, aM pilsopy presses it "Thewe re it interal conditions, The nonphilsophic i erhape loser tothe heart of phibsopy than philosophy ise, and this ‘means tha philosophy cannot be content to be understond only plilosophically or conceptually, bur i dressed essentially to now: plilosphers 3 well We wl thar dis constant eatiasip with onphilsrphy has various features. Accom to this ft etre, Blilosophy defined asthe creation of canerpt implies a distinct bit inseparable prsuppestion. Philosophy is st once concept creation and instituting ofthe plane, "The once isthe begining of philoso ply, but the plane isis iosttating.® ‘The plane is cleanly not 2 rogram, design, end, or means: iis plane of inanence that nites the absolute ground of pileup, it ath deter alization, the foundation on which it crete its certs Both the creation of eonerpt and the isting ofthe plane are euie ike to wings or ins "Thinking provokes genera indifrence. Iisa dangerous eerie reverthees. Indeed, it ony when the dangers become obvious that inference eases, ut they often remain hidden and barely pererpte inherent in the enterprise. Precily case the plane of Jmanence i prephiloephical snl doesnot misty tke fot with concepts, i implies sort of groping experimentation and is layout rar’ to measures tht are aot very respectable, raion, or reasonable, These measures belong tothe order of dreams, of athological races esoteric experiences drunken, and exces ‘We bs! for the horizon the plane of mmanence, an we return with blodshot eyes yet they are the eyes of the mind: Even Des «arcs ad his deeam. To think i lays tofllow the wite’ ight “Take Michaurs plane of imanence, for example, wit it infite, wild movements and speeds. Usually these measures do aot sppearhye inthe real which must be grasped solely in el and ably. But then "danger” takes on another meaning: it becomes case of obvious consequences when pe immnence provokes 8 stn, nsincive Alssppeoal in pub opinion, and the nature ofthe crested concepts strengthens this disapproval ‘This is because one des ait thik without becoming someting el, something tat des ot think ‘mimi, a molecule, «pats that comes back to thought and resivesit "The plane ofimmanence is ike «section of chaos and acs ikea see la fa, chs is characterized les by the absence of detering- tions than by the iainite sped with which they take shape and sant This not # movement fom one deteroation to the ther but on the contrary, the ipa of connection between them, ince oe does not appear without the other having akeady dap peared and one appears as disappearance when the other disappears 1 outline, Chaos snot an inet or saconary mate, oti chance titre. Chaos makes chaotic and undoes every consistency inthe Infinite. The problem of philosophy ist sequite consistency with ut losing the infinite ints which thought plunges (inthis respect ‘hao has at rich a ment sa pial ete). To ge coms tency within ong anything ofthe infinite very lille from the problem of seiner, whieh secks to provide chaos with reference points, on condition of renouncing infinite movements and speeds and of carrying outa Tinitation of speed fist ofall. Light, oF the relative horizon, pimary ia scence. Pisophyon theater lad, pers by presupposing or by instituting the plane of imanence ‘tis the pla’ variable curser that retain the ifite movements ‘hat turn ck on themselves in incessant exchange, bt which aso ‘intinully free other movements which ae retained. ‘The concepts ‘an then mark out the intensive ordnstes of thee infinite move rent, at movebests which are themselves Gite which frm, at infinite ped, variable comfoureinsvibed on the plane. By making a section of cha, the plane of lomtsencereuiesaexeatlon of con eps ste question “Can ene pip e guts Greek?” fit aster sro be thatthe Greck ity aetaly appears as the ew set tend” with al the ambiguities of chat word, Jean- Vierre Vera asa second answer: the Greeks were the Sst to somctve of strict fmmanence of Order tos cosmic mile tht Sections chaos inthe form of plane If we cll sich = pnesene Lagos, the logos sa rom cing ike simple “eason” (as when one sayy the sold i rational). Reason i omy a concept, and very impoverished concept for defining the plane and the movements that ps through In short, the ist pilosophers ae dase who inst tute plane of immanence like sieve stretched over dhe chaos. La this sense they contnat with sages, who are religions personae, Priest, because they conceive af the intution ofan always tasers deat onder inpsed fom outside by a great despa or by one god higher than che oters, ingpeed by Ei," pursuing wars thit go eyo any gon and hatreds hat objec in advance othe ei of rivalry.” Whenever there is transcendence, vertical Being, imperial Staten the sky oF on earth, there religion; and there is Philosophy whenever there fe immanence, even i functions as arena forthe ‘gon ad ivy (the Greek tyrants do nt consiate an objection to this, becatise they are wholeheartedly om the side ofthe society of frends such a it appears in thee widest, most violent rvare) Perhaps these two possible determinations of philosophy as Greek are profoul inke Only fends can sto plane of mmanence ‘64 ground from which idols have been cleared. In Empedodes, [Lave cut the plane, even she des ot return othe self without folding Hatred as mosement that has become egatve showing a subtranscendence af chins (the voleno) anda spertranseendence of 2 oi ery be thatthe fist pilsophers sil lok ike pies, fren kings Thay borrow the sge's asad, as Nietahe 95, TR Orie of i Pat (Mo Sek Crt Unie Pr 98Philosophy 44 how could pilosophy not dinguise elt i it early stages? Wilt ‘ver stop having to disguise itself? If the insatng of plilosophy rerges with the presuppesion of « prephilsophical plane, how ‘could pilosophy not prof from tis by donning mask? I eins the case that the fist philosophers ly out plane drow whieh unlimited movements pass continually on two sides, ene determin bless Physi inasmuch a it endows Being with a substance, nd the ether ax Nous nasnch as gives an insge to though. Hs Anasimander who distnguhes between the #60 ides mos rigor ‘ously by combining the movement of quits with the power ofan solute horizon, the Apeeon o the Boundless, bu always on the same plane. Philosophers cary ut vst diversion of wim; they plbce i at the service of pure imanenee. They replace genalogy witha gol Can the ence history of pinophy be present ran the ‘viewpoint ofthe naatng ofa plane of inmanencet Phys ‘ais, who ini on these of Beng, would then be Asinguised rom nology who init on the image of ‘ough, Hut risk eonfsom so rises rather Shan hi substance of Bago chis age of thought being coos ‘uted by dhe plane of inmanence isl, insmanence willbe ‘elated something Hie tive” Mater oF Mind. Tis omer cer with Pty and his scr. Intend ofthe line of immanenceenostating the One Al, immanence is immanent to” the One, s0 tat anther One, this Sie ‘ransendet, s superimposed on the ene in which ina rence ented oro which tribute: the Plato st formula wil lays bea One beyond the Oe, Whe Ce enmanence is interpreted a immanent" something 2 cofnion of plane a ance eels 0 hat the corp rome tascendentinivenal and the plane bots an the lane tiene eves the ramet aie it spl fk of phenomena tht ae only press in 3 ecvary way that wich fst fli abated to the trance unity 1 gets wore with Christin pilsphy. The pasting of ‘nsnence reins pre pilesopicalnsttating, bast the sme tie tolerated onlin very sal es steiey Cenirlled and eatin by the demands of am emiamatve nd, sbove al, erative teanseadence. Putting their work a sot thei ives at k,l posers must pone ‘at the dive of mmanence dey injec into world and ind oes sit compromie the trncendener of God wo whic inmanence mst be atrbed only econ (Nichols of Cus, Hela, Brun}. Religius authority wants imma nee ta be tolerated oly ally a ta ntermtiy ee, alse ke a tema outa wre water ean bil ne te on cach evel but on expo tht IC comes frm 8 higher sone and falls lower down (eapbecndence sal transcendence, as Wah tf). Inmanener can be sid to te the burning eof al pilospy case takes onl the dangers that pinoy mis conto, al the conden ations, persecutions, snd repliations thai undergoes, "Thine lee pers ws that the problem of immanence ut attract or merely there He timely esr ‘why immncce is dangerous, bat Heng sages sd gos, What single ot the pile the part played by i cmssquenty captures everthing, asus AT-One, and eaves thing seni to which could be manent. any ese, whenever imaneace interred a manent 0 Semething, we ca be sure ha this Something reinaduces the trumcendet inane fir, Knmanence manent oy olPhilosophy 46 Beginning with Descartes, and then with Kant and Hs ser, the cogito makes it poste to ret the plane aun ‘ence a Bel of concurs, Inmanence spond to ‘oe immanent toa pure cniiousnes, ta thinking sje. Kent il all thi abject transcendental rather than tan seen, pencils besa i the sie ofthe eld of fnmanence ofall pose experience from which nothing, the externa aswell a the interna, escapes Kant ait tw any tanseendent use of the sys, ut he series immanence othe subject of the yess new, subjective sity He may er allow himself he sary of denen tramcenden eas, 0 ork thes the “hain” of he Feld inmaneat tothe bjt Bin 0 ding, Kant di ‘ives the mneen way of ving tumcendece his is 00 longer the ransenence ofa Somehingo a One higher thar vrs Gcaterpatin), bat tat of Subject to hic dildo nance is only atte by belonging tose that cesar epesents such nite to al (toction. The Grek world that bonged 6 ae ine ‘rail becomes the property of Christin oasciousbes Yet one more tp: whe immanence cme inmsnent ‘to tanseendenal abject, vat the her af is ow fel thatthe hallmarks or figure Fhe of «tancenence rs appear ston now refering to anthro an ‘her consis (communication. This wha happens | Huse and tany of his successors wh discover io the (Ontur or in the Flesh, the wole of the tascendent within femanence et Hct conceives anece that of het ie by ctv: Bu since allthis pre aed even sted Hed doesnt Blue competely othe self that represents ito al smeting ranscendent i restbist on the horizon, in the regions of nonbeloging st inthe form of 20 “inanent or prinoel rnscendence” of & wpe hy ines bts acon a8 hep yl nsec ofa nterjecve word populte by she evs atin, as abjetve amsendenc fa eal ‘or pple by cera erations ad the human com nny. this mer moment we ane no langer said ‘vith hiking nnanene a8 nianet toa tramceadeat we ‘ban kink trance hin he manent, end iti from mance that Breach expec Ths, i spy the line frmaneace sien the rest profound determine tion a6 “Encomaosing” (Engle, ba his encompassing ist more than eer for espions of tamcendence “The Juke-Chrtian word replice the Gres. logos m0 lenge ated with sxbing immanence to something n= Inanence tl i made to dgorge the transcendent ery where No lange content with handing oer ianence to the tracndent we wat i to charge i, repre it, tft lI fat this sot ill ais ecesary ie for movement Be ped? "Transcendence es fers ar soon as moverent of the ini stopped Rakes vantage fhe nero wo reemerge, reve and spring fon agin. The the srs of Univerals—coterp ation, ‘ellen, and commniieation—are ike tree pilsopicl ‘rv -Ektie, Cie, and Phenonenologcl—ieseprae {fom the lng his of a hon. The revel of vac to 90a us hink tht inmanence a prison (slips rm whieh he Trassecadent ll ae ws. ‘Sarees presopposton ofa fpersnal tracert fel retires the rights fmmanence © When manent ng manent soning ther than ei ps ‘ie to speak fle of mane. Sich plane i per ops, rail epi des mit present af ofthe ive ehat is inmanent to asubjet ad individ in hat which belongs toa sl presents ony event thatlorophy 48 sible wold = cooeps nd ther people a expressions of posible words or conceptual pene The eve des ot rate the fied toa tanscendeatmijpt = Self bt on the contrary, i ret to the immanent survey of fk without subject; the Other Penon dors at restore trance dece to am ether sf but etuns every oer sift the Ummanenee ofthe fl surveyed. Expiiinn knows only events and other people ais therfore great erator of omcepts. Is force bags fom the moment dies the subject his, biting bt x bin el of Sen, the hai of ying Spina wa the philosopher who Knew fall well that Smsnence ws ony mmaneat to self an herein chat seas pline traversed by movernts of the ini, ile ith nese urinate. Hef thereon the prince pine ers Taps he isthe only philsoper never to ave compromised with tacendeme ad to fave hunted it own everywhere nthe lt Dk the ite prods the movement ofthe iaite aod gave infinite sped eo ‘hough in the dhitd ind of knowlege, Thee he atins Incredible sped, wth sch Fighting compensa ope can ony speak of mosis, ftrmidos, of wind aod sting ‘Me dscovere tht freedom exists oly within inanenee elie philowphy bese be atid its prepiesphi tal pesippostion, Inmasence dies not rf back to the Shino sustance and odes but, on the con, the Spinristconepts of asbtance ad mes reer back to "he plane of inmanence as thei presupeston. This pe resent two es ow exten an hh rather ‘vo powers power ong and power of thinking Spinoea [the vertigo of ianeaee fom hich so any pln ts yin int sap: WH we ever br te eh he einige aad Memary ark ot plane ht sf hag the cheb the fie movement of & subtance tht continually propagates ise and the nage of hgh tat everywhere catia spreads 2 pure co seis by righ (nmancnce i at immanent “a” ean scious bt he ther ay aod) These are not abstract isin: “The plane surrounded by isons." terpetatons or jst extemal pessures but rather Hugh's mages Can they be explained by the sluggishness of our bain, by thereat re fitting paths apage of dominant opinions and by oor ‘ot being able to tlente infinite morerents or maser the infite speeds that crush us (50 that we have to stop the movernent an make curseves prisoners ofthe telatve orion once more)? Yee iis we curses who appeaach the plane of immanenc, who are on the sbwoluve brian. His indeed neesy, in pat at ea, hat sons se fom the plane sl ke vapor rm a pond, ike pre-Socatic santos given of by transformations of the elements thst ate always at work on the plane, Artaud sid that “the plane of con- ‘eiousness o Timi plane of immanence—what the Indias lad Ciguri—alo engenders hallucination, erroneous perceptions, bad felings Wee must dra up Fit of tse sions a ake thee rene, just Nietache following Spine, listed the our grt trtors” But the list infinite, Kirst of all there isthe iltasion of troncenienes, whic, pets, comes before all the eters Gin its double aspect of making inmanence immanent eo someting and of rediscovering @ warscendence within iamanence ise); then the isin of unsseral when concepts ae conse withthe plane. Bt (his confison ares soon a immanence spite as rng ina ‘ent to something, since this something x nocessaily a concep. We ‘ink the universal explains, whereas iis what must be explained, sud we fl ito tiple usion-—one of contemplation or rection ‘or commun, Then these isthe ion of the etemal when it=~ forgotten that concepts must be erst, and chen the asin of dacurineres when propositions are confised with concepts. vou be wrong to think tat al these isons Iga entail one smother like propositions, but they enna reverberate i orm = {ick fog round the plane rom clos the plane of mmanence rakes the determinations with which i makes infinite movements o its diagrammatic feces CConsequenly, we can and must presuppose a multi of planes, since no ane plane exuld compass all of eos without easing tack into and cach retsns only movements which can be fled together, ‘The history of philosophy exhibits 0 many quite dint lanes not just a «rst of lsions, of the variety of isons, nd ‘ot merely because ech plane has its own, constantly renewed, way of restoring eanserdence. More prbundl, itis beause cach plane Js its cn way of eonsteucing inmanence. Fach plane caries out 2 selection ofthat whi da to that Dy right, but this selection ‘aries fam one plane to anaher Every plane of immanence isa One Alli i not partial ike scientie system, of frgmentry Hike concepts but dstibative—it san “eae.” The plane of immanence Isierleted. When comparing psticua eases it sno dou dieu to judge whater there is a single plane or several diferent ons: do the pre Socrates have the sane mage of thought, despite the die. ‘ners between Heracitis and Purenides? Can we speak o' plane of mmanence o image of called elasial dhought eat eontinies from Plato to Descartes? I isnot jst the planes that vary but the very in which they ave distributed, Are there moreordes close oF stant points of view that would mike possible to group diferent layers over ily long period o, othe conteary, to separate ayers fon what seemed to be a common plane? Where, pact fam the absolate horizon, would thee points of view come Fam? Can we be ‘sisi here wi historcion or witha generalized retin? kn all ches respects the question ofthe one oF the mie once gin becomes de mos important oe, inttedcing itself ino the plane Tw lee has wt every eat pooper yout anew ple innanenke,intrdice anew substnce of being and daw up new in thot, so that there cul at be two great pilophers ‘on the same plane? Ie is true dat we cannot imagine great phos lier of whom it could note sid tat he as changed what means to think; he has houghe diferety” (ns Foucault put i), When we find several philosophies in the same ator, it nt because they have changed plane and once mone fund new image? We cannot be unaware of Bins complaint when he was near to death“ el 2 lite too old to start the construction ain." On the other hand, those who do not renew the image of thowsht ate not pilorophers ‘ut fanctionaves who, eajoyng a ey mide thought, are not even conscious of the problem snd are tnwate even a the efforts of those ‘hey claim to take as thee mel, But hn, den, can we proved in plilosoplyif there are all these yrs that someines knit together tnd sometines separate? Ate we not condemned to attempt to lay ut our ov plane, without kaowing which panes it will eu across? 1s this not co reconstitute a sort of has? "That is why every plane s ot only trend but holed eng through the igs that servo it and in which the philosopher who bid out ein danger of beng the itt lose hse That so many fogs arse explained in two ways. Fistly, because thought cannot sty ie fom imterpeeting Jmmanence ss immanent t smth, the great Objet ofeoten plato, the Sujet of efletian, o the Other subject of comune io: then transcendence is inevitably eentodce. Ad his an- tot be avoid iis because cers tht each plane of immanence ‘an only claim t be unique, tobe te plane, by rsonstiing the hos i had to ward of the choice is Between tramcenence and acs When he ple sles what by wight de to tah, in cede to ke its tes, ition, dictions, or daraPhilosophy 52 atic movement, i reegtn other determinations t the seatun of tee et characteris of ate of aso ed ‘contents. And of aus, pilsphy il beable to daw aut comet ro thse tats of afi ius a extracts ‘he event om them, That which Belang to thought by "ight hat which retain ax grat etre itl, represen aber ral determinations (even f thn tera called upon to recive a concep), Thus Descartes makes rth etre o diction that express what i ric ‘le negative in thought. He was tthe st to do thi ed aror” might be ser ne of the principal eats ofthe lac image of though We ve that there ate any ber things nhs mage tha hesten thinking: tui, Forges, aphasia, dtu, muds but all hese deter mains wl oir Gat Ua i ence have oly single elt inane fn thnght—err, alway tor Error isthe infinite movement that gathers togeter the ‘whole of the mative. Can this fnture be ted back to Soemtes, for whim the person who i wicked (in fat) is someone wh i by ight mistaken"? But, i sre that ‘he Thats es undton of erodes nt Pato lin resewe the ght foster vl dtr, ke the dee Jum of he Paras, tht it sens tw ht the mage of ‘hough in Pato pts many other ack? ‘Aso change occurs, not only in concepts Et in the image of thought, when igoorace sad superstition eeplace cro and peje in expressing what by right the nea tive thought Fontenelle plays a majo le here, and what change theme time the init movements which ho last and gai. Thre a even eter change ven Kant shows tht tht is thretenct Tess by ero ‘han by vitae hos tht cone fy within ean ve wie He wre of ey wes any atthe sae Sine a i principle etal by etiam. He no lnger trate fone plane of inmanence bythe oles or sf path that follows but by None fogs that cover eveything. The easing of the question of nding one beatings in taught ise changes Mestre cant elated En fac he monet ie a native sg eel ded within other movements with Postive or ambiguous sigas. Inthe casclimage,eror hes not express what sy ight the wor ha an app tw thought, wthot thought being prt a “wing” tout rete twa rh, sero toad rth fe this confidence, whic ot without Bamor, hie ai oes the cil insge—a tlio rth at ont totes the infite movemeat of kao as agra Seu. In contr, the eighth century what mai fess the mutton fight fom natal ight he lighten the subtton of ble for knowhage—that ig a new inne movement implying another image of thigh it so ner ater of rang teed at ther ‘neo lowing tacks, of arsing aber han grap or tring grasp. Under what cons inference leg ‘mst? Under what conditions can bl be legimate when i eco scar?‘ question wl be tered ony ‘vith the creation of the gre emp cone (asi tion, reton, abit probability, convention). But am very hea cone inelding the conc of ei il rep igri eacures tha make belie an infinite fnovement independent of religion abd traversing the pe sane a inanence (gar Bello the ter hand, wil come a comeptlinble cae, the legitiney oF igi ‘macy of whic ea be mente in accordance with he oder ff the oft). OF coarse, we id in Kant any ofthese features ier’ orn Hume, Du again a the pie fPhilosophy 54 profound mutation, ona new ple acini to aother mage Hach tne there ae ret acts of daring, When the Altri of what dare that y right changes, what ‘hangs rom oe pane of immanent anther are mot only the postive or negative ures but abo the ambiguus features tha may become incrensingy tamer and tht re longer restricted to folding in acorn wih veto opposition of movements Wee aterp to set ot he ete oa made image of tag in suc summary Eso, this min ri ist way, even ror. No innge of though can be Timed ow skein of am deer, nd al of them encounter somthing that is abominable in peinple, Inher this be the eo to ahi thug cotinally {lo he sion within which contol rs, the tupity n which conn walls, o he defram in which coin tues aa fom ie of fom gu “The Grek image of thong sey invoked the madness of the doable erning-, whic aun hougar iat in site wandering rather than into err. The eelatoesip of thonght to rth inthe ambit fine movement as never ee snp ket ane contin, mater Tha why ‘tis poise ory om sch a reahonship to die pi hy Theft charter f the ern mig of tought is prt, the complete renucition ofthis lions 1 to regard th 3 sly the eration af thought, taking into acct the pine of manence Hat tke a pesuppston, andl his plan’ rates egtive a well { porve hating become indscerile. As Nite ede in woking ws understand, thought is eetion, not ilo rth, Buti eantazy to wht see to be te se inthe asia image here owl to rath, his Deas "hg cansttes 4 simple “posi” of hiking with ot dining thinker “espe” and able to sy“ Ith ince mat be exerted om eg fr to Bore sable of ehinkings wet vile of sn infite movement that the sane te, takes rm sour power to ay PP Farous texts af Heidegger and Blaeboe del with his se on lure. Ba, hid carat, her ini this way an Tneapaty® of though, wich resis at its core even alert has aque te esp determinable as ‘retin then ast of amigas sigs are, which become Agric ares or iniite movements and which ake ‘on al by it where inthe ter ies fee they were simple, deriory fats exci fom alesis at ies or Artaud suggest, dhugbt as suc Bris to eit snark squel tamer; tals fa tongues and screams, ‘whi ade ito create oto yt! thought sears, {sles in the manner of someone who psec ‘han tat of» dog hut xems to be making nerd Jeaps. We have no reason 0 take pide in thi age of hough, which involves ch suring witht gry and inate the degree to wich thinking hus become incre ingly ial immnene The tory of plop is comparable to dhe at of the ostit e t mater of nang lk” that epi what a pilopher sid but ether of producing resemblance by separating ot both te plane of miner he tut and the new eanceps he eet These ae rental, otic, and machiie pores. Alba they are only rated with pilonpbial wa, Uy ca abo be prodhed sett, ‘To ingly recently presented ‘one monametal machin portraits of popes, work ing wih power, inked raring afte movements that an be fed over or spre ut, wth sounds ihting ashes, substances af being, sd images of tho cording56 0 comple curved pane! However, ii permite to rte sich gest ar the ten est ie soem it the mark Nothing dances inthe Nietache, alah lsewhere Tiogualy as been gui able to make machines hance. The Schopenber ges thing deci, where the fur Roots a the el of May seem red to oe the Inert plane ofthe Weld a will and representation. The Heidegger des not retain any velng-unetng on te plane ofthe tht doesnot yt think. Perhaps ore tein sould be given to the pune of immanence id ut ab seact machine ane to crated concepts asp ofthe ma thine Ta this sense we eld imagine «machine porta of Kat sions cade (ce shea soma he seen ae fle 3) the“ nk” aan ox bes wine fr sound, eich comanly repeats Sl = Sel; ) the etegores universal comes (Gor et heading: sls tha re extensive and retail scontng tthe movement of); 3) the moving whee ofthe ‘cheat; 4 te shallow stream of Tine for of inteior {yn and at of which the whee ofthe schemats plunges 5) sp 98 Frm of exter: the streams Banks ad bed 4) he piv elf tthe tom af the team sd ncn the te farms 7 the priciles of synthetic judgments that run erst spent: 8) the tascendental eld of pombe experienc, immanent to the TY (plane of fme- ‘ence; 9) the de Kes sins of ranscedenee (Gices taming on the abot horizon: Soul, Word end Goa), “This account gives ise to many problems that concer philosophy and the histary of philosophy equally, Sometimes the layers of the ple of imanence separate to the pont of being opposed to one tnater each nesting thio that philosopher, Sometimes othe onary, they jon together at last to over fil long peviods “Moccses, the telationships betwen the inten of »prepil sophia pave and the eration of phisophical conerpts ae them selves complex. Over long periadphilsophers an create new ‘Concepts while seasining on the sane plane and presippoxing the sme image a5 a rarer philosopher whom they invoke os thee ‘master: Plato and the neo-Patoniss, Kant nd the neo Kenia (oe ven the way in which Kant hinelf reactivates certain pars af Platonian). However, in very can, thisnvoes extending te orig ral plane by giving i new curves, until a dot aie: eis ma 2 Aieent plane tat is woven in the mesh of the fst one? Ths, the question of knowing whe and to whit extent philosophers ate ‘disciples of another plosopher and, on the cotrary, when they are eareying outa rique of aotr philosopher by clanging thephy si ne nd ding p aster nage veel he me compen tal elaine mesma comes tht en tose hoes er beside Cee tat apes pd 2 singe plea tt dite sins od vite eon Shon ihe cle oer tem pa Tae cone ‘sr bck to ie pms ilo tthe nae Thee ct coven betwen the el orp ed Se tela et ces stat hgh nes to ‘pein els been an we that la eth athe ot a hat 3 deo dst anette equrenel opt We sree tg aap i tehetwen themed tse en Ct haga he nc rl aso et We an onl ke heavy wit hoe questi ie po rary his pe of vw ie sl es a Comte tne rather th he hry ny, Ps ‘etic ee wee“ on ene ay er {sprints Csi th mote take or ee Siren onl we sree eu of ed pt seas cert cn aro the ean eo ne xs stn or eye he pane t inane il ce te lve o els i to tae, rage gh Cs asin ny ere wee ee ey ech a creation hat at et ed oho teas a ‘ren the pit of conto at dterinenthe coe ae Sines pps aig pos pat we cope of crs yr). Mea lays font chang tga shh te ae monn ve eo es ‘hs gin rect he gn nowy al fay oh Perr aparece eee i eat ey ll ws a Set the sre in on ca yt he etn Severe nds ety on tee sn ahh they imparts new caratur. Furthermore, depending on the rgions ‘onsen, superinpstons are nat necessarily the same pd donot ave the stme order. Phiksophial ine is thus 2 grandiose tne of snexitence that dors not exch the before and alter but superin poser them in a stratigraphic order. Ht ivan ifinite bering of Disp tha roses ts history with Being one with “The lie of philosophers, and wht i mest external t their work, ‘onforns to the ordinary laws of succession but thee proper names Cosi and shine eters huninous pints that tae us tnough the mponets of concept ence more o ax the eadinl pint of a trator layer that continually come hack tw, Hhe dead tary ‘whose light f brighter than ever. Philowphy is becoming, ot i tog) itis the cxesstenc of planes, nat he sucession of stems “That becoming, that etexstence is why planes may sometimes separate and soe join togethers ste for bth the best saul the worst The lve i common the restoration of tanscendence se ihason (hey cannot preven) but alo the lenses toggle guns transcendence andl isin; and cic lo hay its pare ‘way of ding bh one andthe other. Is there a "best ple chat ‘would nt handover immanence to Something = x and tt would 10 longer mimic anything transcendent? We wil ay that THE plane of immanence isa the same tine, tht whieh must be thooght sed that whieh cannot be dhught I the oathought within thou eis the base of all planes, immanent to every thikable plane that docs not sce in thinking He is the most atin within chou an yet the absoteontside--on outside moe tant than any eter ‘al world because tis an inside deeper tat any interna world it inmanence, “atinacy the Outside, the exterior becom the inte som that tif, and the reversal of but the one and the ther" the inessnt toring and f-ing of che plane, infinite move Perhaps this the supreme at of philsopy: not so much to thiak THE plane of irmanence a to show that iis there, woth in ‘very pte, ad o think tin this way a8 dhe outside ad ese of‘hough, a the not extemal outside and the nt inter insde—that which cannot be thought and yet must be thought, which was ‘thought once, as Crit was incarnated once in order to shove, tht ‘one time, the pasty ofthe inpssibe. hs pinnate Christ of philosophers, and the greatest philosophers are hardly more than pestles who distance themseves fro o draw rea to thi mystery Sina, theinfitebecomingpilsopehe showed, dee up ed ‘hong the “best” plane of mmanence—tht i, the pores, the oe that does not and ise? over to the transcendent restore any transcendent, the ane ths inspires the fewest sions, bad fckngs, sd erroneous perceptions Ahoagh Descartes oto rete as con ‘ep its presuppositions. Thisis not inthe ‘vay that one concept presupposes others (or x= pe, “an” presupposes “animal” and “ratio ‘al; the presuppositions Bete re implicit, ub Jective and preconceptn forming an image of tought everyone knows what thinking means [very ca think everyone wants the tet Are these dhe only two ments te concep av the plane of inamaneace or mage of thought ‘hat wl be ecupied by concepts af the sme rap (the cogito another concep that can be cones tosthere something es, in Des artes ese other than de erated coi snd the presuppose nige of thot? Actually thee omething es, somewhat yates ht op eas fom time to time or that shows throng and seems to havea han existence alway be tween concept and preconcetaal plane, ping from one tothe other. In the present ese it ithe Ie i the ot who says TP” and sts up theogi but who alo asthe subjective premppiition oly ot the plane. ‘The iit is the private thinker, in contrast tthe public teacher (the schoolmn) the teacher ees constant taht con- ‘rps (nan-rational anima), wheres the private hinker forms a ‘onerpt with innate faces that everyone puseses on their ove ‘sccunt by ight think”), eve i very strange type of persona who wants to think, and who thinks for hell by the “natural Tight The ine concept perma. The question “re there precursors af the cnt?” can be made wore precise. Where docs the persona of the idiot come from, and how does appen? Ts i in 9 Christan atmosphere, but in rection agaist the “scholastic ongani- zation of Christianity and the authoritarian organization of the ‘huh? Can trees of this persona already be found in Saiat Au trstine? Te Nichols of Cus the one who ccd the iit ul tats 2 eanceptl persona? Tis would be why he is ne to the cogito bt il able to crystallin ance ty eae, te history of philosophy must go through these persona, thoogh ther changes cong to planes ae through ther varity aconding to concepts Phitsoply constantly brings conceptual persone to ies it gives ile to them. “The iit will reappear in anoer ae in ilerent contest that fall Christan, but Rosin now Incoming Say the iin x il the snguli ind or private thinker, but with « ileent singularity. It Chest who Bids in Destoyeri the power ofa ‘ew opposition Between pritate thinker and public teacher 2 The old ‘io wanted dita tri t which he could asve by himself in the mente he would doubt everything, even that 5 + 2 5 Ine would dub very rath of Natre The ew idiot has 0 wish ie indbitable rth he will never be “exigaed™t the fc that 5 + 2 5 and wils the abard—this snot the same image of thought. The old itt wanted trath, bat the new idiot wants to turn the simu ito the highest power of thought—in ater words, to crete “The od itt waned to be accountable oly to reson, but the new tol tha Sere, wants weunt ta be taken of “every vita of Tisor "these ar atthe sme concepts The new itive il ever serps the tats of History. Theol itt wanted, by el tn setoant for what was of was nt compretensible, whit ‘wat owas not atonal, what yas lost or saved but the new iit wants the lost the incomprehensible, and the abmurd to be restr to him. ‘This is most ertanly not the sume person; mutation has taken place, And yet lender del ik the twa iit a the first bd ole reason a that the second rediscover what the ther In winning it had lst in advance: Descartes goes lin Rosi? Tes possible thatthe conceptual persone only eaey or allasively appears fr himselt. Nevertheless, hes there, and however arelest and subterranean, he must always be reconstituted by the reader Sometimes be appars with proper nme: Socrates the pric oncepual persona of Pltoisn. Many philosophers have writen Aislagues, but hee isa danger of config the logue characters with concept personae: they only nominally coincide and do nok have the ste role ‘The characte f the dialogue sets ou eoneepts: in the simplest case, one ofthe character, whois sympathatic the tutors representative; whereas the ahers, who are mere-o lee ntipathi, efeto ler philosphies ws conepts they expound in such way ao pepe them forthe erin or mediintons to whic dhe suitor wisest sujet them. On the other han concep tual personae cary out the movements that describe the autoe’s plane of fmmanence ar they play par ia the very eatin ofthe tutors concepts ‘Ts, even when they are antputi,” dey are ‘0 while Belonging full othe plane chat the phish in qustion lays out and to the concepts that he eats. They then indicate the dangers specie to this plane, the bad perceptions bd elings and fem negative movements that emerge fom ity a they will hen selves inspire original conerptswhowe repulsive character remain @ ont property ofthat phitnophy. This ill the truce forthePhilosophy — 64. lane paitve movements, for atractce comeepts and samputic ervonse: an entire philosophical Einfukg.” And in oth cen there are oten great ambiguities, “The concept persna isnot the philosopher's representative but, rather the reverse: the phase is only the envelope of his principal conceptual persona and of al the other personae who are the intercesors[itrsaurs],the real subjets of his pilosphy Conceptual personae ae the phikwopher's“leteronyms” and the ‘Phils name ithe simple preudonym of is personae. Lam no Jog nyse bt thoughts ptt for finding sel and spreading ross plane that passes though me at several places. The piso pher ithe iioynerasy of his concepuslpervonae. ‘The destiny of the philspher ist become his concept person or persnse at the same time that thew persue themselves become something ster than what chy are historically, mebologcly, or commonly (dhe Socrates of Plt, the Dinas of Nietzsche, he Kit of Nich las of Cis, The concept jem ete beeing or dhe sujet ‘piles, on pa wth the philosopher, 30 that Nichols of usa, or even Descartes, should have sigoed therselves he Ii,” jst ms Nietzache signed himself “the Anichria”or"Dionysin cri Fel” In everyday Me spevele-acs refer ack to psychosoil types who ctualy atest to a sujet hid persons decree mobiiation ‘President ofthe Republi” "spe to yo fa Inthe same way the plilbsophicel shifter fa speech i the tind ern whee fs always concep! persona who says thik 2 Ko Twill as Zarthustr,” dance as Dionysia” claim a8 Ler” Even Bergsaian duration has need of runner. In philo- sophia enoncintions we do ot do something by saying i but pro ‘ce movement by thinking i ehrough the intermediary of concep and 5000 *Eiftngo empty he ie of Wain Ware at ma A li an Eine te Eng Ao sn Egy by Ftd He ad: Rae, 95 ual prone Cel peremarara he ee agent enunci- i "Wa 2 I saan thi person, We invoke Niece because few philosophers have worked 50 wel wich Doth sympathetic Dionysus, Zarate) and sci tte (Chris, the Priest, the Higher Mens Socrates himself become spate) conceptual persona. K might be dhought hat Nietsche rennunces concepts. Hossever, he crates immense and intense con cepts (oroe” waka” “becoming,” “he; and repulsive concepts like rssntiment and bad conscience), just ase lays out 2 new plane ofimmanence (infinite movements of the wil o power and the ternal return that completly changes the image of thought ei sn ofthe wil uth). But iw Nietsche, dhe concept! persue involved never remain plc Hts tre that their manifestation for hemes gives re to an ambi that leas many reer o soe [irtache ava poe, haumatrge, or crestor af myths. But concep personae, in Nictnche and elsewhere are not mythical peronfc- tion or histrial persons r literary at novelistc heroes, Nets Dioassus 6 n9 more the mythical Days than Plas Socrates the historia! Socrates. Beaming i wot being, and Dionysus be nes pilosopter atthe sume tne tht Niece bacon Dany so Here, agin, tis Plt who begins: he becomes Socrates tthe sane time that he makes Socrates come philosnpher The dience between cane persona and aesthetic Figures ‘const ist ofall inthis: the former ae the powers of concept ad the kter ate the powers of affets and pert, ‘The former take flee on plane of nianence that an ime of Thought Heng (ournenon), and the later take effect on plane of compton at image of a Universe (phenomenon). ‘The great aesthic figures of thought and the novel bit abs of piting,sculptre, and nic proce aft tha surpass ordinary alfections and percepsions, jut 2s concepts go beyond everyday opinions. Melle sid that a novel ines an infinite ounber of interesting character but jst one original Figure ike he single sun of eanstellation of universe, kethe Beginning of things Fike the Beam ofight hat daw ion universe out of the shadow: hence Captain Ahab, o Barby? Kleist’ universe fs sot throng with aets that traverse i ike arrows o that suddenly foe the universe in which the figures of Homburg or Penthesilea loom. Figures have nothing to do with resemblince or rhetoric bat are the canton der which the arts produce alfets of stone and meta, of srigs and win, of Fine aad ‘ole, om plane of composition of 3 universe. Art and philosophy ‘rosseut che chaos and confont it, ba it not the sae sectional plane tf not populated in the stme way. In the one there isthe ‘eomstelltion of universe or ales and percepes nd in the oes, Comsitations of mminence or conerpts Art thinks no ess than lilosophy, butt thinks rough lcs and percepts, This does nt mean that the two entities do mit often ps ato ‘ach othe in becoming that sweeps them Both up in a intensity which co-determines them. With Kierkegaard, the that and rascal figure of Don Juin becomes» concptal persons, and the “Zarastra perma is ale 9 geet snusial ad theatre Tess between them, not ony alinces bt al branchings and ‘substitutions ake pce. In contemporary thought, Michel Guia ‘one of those who fas made the mos profound discovery of the existence of conceptual personae tthe Hest of philosophy. But he ‘efnes than within logedama” o “gurl” that pte alee into thought *This means ha the concep a such canbe concept of the ac, just the affect ean be ct ofthe concept. Te plane of composition of art and the plane of mmanence of plow ca ip into eachother to the degre that parts of one may be acid by cents ofthe ater In fic in each ease the plane and tat whieh ‘ccupies it az ike two relatively distinet and Iecerogeneous parts. thinker may therefore decvely modify what thinking ene, draw up anew image of thought and institute anew plane of msnence Bat, instead af rating new canepts that ocipy i they populate with eter instances, wih ther poetic, nove even pictorial or Iter sus such ease of “ enerplual persons aasportal oto a plane of composition, a neti gre creed ont a plane of manence: Ns proper nae 5 conjunction. "These thinkers are “half” philsophers bot abo ‘owe more thin philosphers. But they are not sages. There is ‘uel force in those unhinged works of Holden, Klest, Rimbaud, ‘Malla, Kafka, Michauy, Pessoa, Arad, and many English and American aol, fom Medill to Lawrence or Mile, in which the reader discovers aditingly tht they ave writen che wovel of Sinai. To be sir, they donot pradue a sys of art sd pilosphy, They branch ont and do et top branching out. They tre hybrid genes who neither erase nor cover over dierenees in ‘Kind ut, onthe conteay, use all the resources oftheir athletics” east themselves within this very ifeence, ke serobats tora part ina perpetual sho of strength “There i all he more ras for saying tat eonerpt! personae (and anaesthetic figures) ae ieedible ta pyehocal type, even ‘there again there are constant pectrtions. Simmel, sa then Go rman, have prob far into the enclaves or margin ofa society the dy ofthese types, which often sem to be unstable: the strange the exile, the migrant, the wane, the native, the bomecomer “This i not though a taste fr the aneedote. He Seems tous that a social eld comprises structures and fanctios, but this does nt tll tas very mich diet about particular movements that fot the Socins We lead know he sportane in annals of thon sett that consist in forming triore, i abandoning or ewig cher, and even in re-creating tertory on someting of deen nature (echologsts say tat an animals partner o frend is the equivalent of home” or that the fay ia obi terete)". All dhe wore so forthe borin: om its act of bith, tetris its foa ps, sweets fom the earth to turn i ito and snd eters con branche ad tol. tick in tars, deterstrazed branch, We need to sce how everyane, a every an the smallest tings 36Philosophy — 68 in the greatest challenges, serks a testy torte oF carts ot deterrtorialatons, ands eteritoiliod on almost anythin memory fish, or dream. Refsine express theie power dyn rma: my cabin in Canad... farewell, ata avn.» yes it te; Thad to come tek, We cannot even say what comes fist, and Deas every teretry presupposes a prior deterioration, oF ‘everything happens atthe same tie, Soil fds ae inextricable kot in which the three movements re mie up than order to lsentangle them, we have t diagno real types ar personae. "The rmercant buys in terior, detertoralies practi commod ties, and is tetestraaed on commercial ccs. In capitalism, capital property is deteriora, eras to be landed, ands rerun on the means of proton wheres a bones “abstract” labor, eeritviein wages: this is why Mare at only seas of eaptal and bor but fs the need eo draw up some ve psychical types, oth atiathetic and sympathetic: she capa, ‘he proletarian. IF we are laking fr the originality of the Greek world we must ak what wrt of testy insite bythe Gneks, low they deteritorilize theme, on wht they ae reteritori. inedand, in onder to do this, 10 pick ou specially Greek types (he Friend for example?) ts not alas ay to ese whic ta _iven moment ina gin sity, are dhe god types: hus the fed Slave as type of dteriuriaization inthe Chinese Cho empite, the Figure of the Eile, of which the snalgit‘okel as given us a eile portrait. We believe that psychoneil types have this mean ing: to make perceptible in the most insignificant orn ptt sdrcumstances, the Formation of ervitries, the vectors of deteritri: Taation, and the process of terrain But are there no also estores and detections tht ate ot oaly physical and mental but spiitual—not oly relive but lolute n'a sense ye to be determined? What i the Fatherland or Homeland invoked by the thinker, by the philsopher or atti? Philosophy inseparable from a Homan to which he pri the inate, oF the nery ely attest. But why this fatbertand unk st agen, turning the thinker into an sie? Whit sil restore a equivalent of etry, valida home? What wil be plulosophical reins? What though’ relationship wi the earth? Socrates the Athenian, who does nat Fike to travel i guided by Purmenides of Flea when he is young, who is replaced by the Sanger when he ol, 8 Phtonism teeded at least two concep tual personae! Whit sor of stranger there within the plisoper, with his loo af returning fom the land of the dead? The rae of oncptal personae to show hough erties, it abe deer eliztions and raterstrialzatione Conceptual personee ar thinkers solely thinkers, an thei persoaliaed features ar clos inked to the cingrammace features of thought and the intensive features of concepts A particle conceptal persons, who perhaps didnot exist tefone us thinks in us. For example, if we say eat 2 conceptual person stmmery, its longer ape who stammers na parr language but a thinker who makes the whale of lnguige stance ‘he interesting question then is “What this thought that can only stammer?” Or again, f wey thats concept persona isthe Pind, ‘or that hei the Junge othe Leistr, we reno longer concerned with private, public, of legal tats but with that which belongs by Fight to thought and oaly to thought Stammerer, endo lige do rot lose their nereteeistence But, on he conta, tke on 2 new ‘one a thought’ interleoadions foe its ra exereise with this or ‘ha conerptal perma. This is not to ends wo engage in thought ater, it sou self at egies he hiner be a frends that thought i ddd up within te and ean be eerie eis thought elf which requires thi division of thought ete frends ‘These are uo longer empivcal psychological, ae cil de ternational as abstractions bt intercessor crystals or ede thought. Even fhe word bse tras oa tobe exact, we must thik that deterioration nd reteritoriaizations of though ascendPhilosophy — 70 pyehoncil ones ay more than hey are reducible da, tn sn abstraction or ieokial expression of them. Rather, thew ‘njntion, x stem of elem perp lay: Fete | conceptual persona have relationships withthe epach oF historical nilen in which they ppear that ony pychosoca types ene ws to assess But, conversely, the physi and mental movements of pyhosodia ype, tei patilogicl symptoms, dei elationa tds, heir existential mes, al their gal sts, bene nce be toa determination purely of thinking and of ought that wets ‘he ram both the historical tate ffir of society ad the ie ‘experience of individuals, in onde to turn them int the features of ‘oneeptal personae, oF thoughteven on the plane Mi ot by thought or under the concepts tert. Concept personae sl piyelioncal typ fer to each other and combine without ever [No lst of the fratures of conceptual personae can be exhaustive, sinc heya cst asin and wary wih planes of manence (On «given phe, erent Kinds of fstures are mixed together to make up a persona. We ase there are gue future: the Ia, the ame wae watt to think fr Niel a isa person whe can hanged take on another meaning. Bat alo a Mada, kind of ‘malian, cataleptic thinker or “many” who dsconers in tht 1m inability to thinks ora great mania, someone ferzed, who fin search of shat which precedes thought, an Aleady-there bu tthe ‘ery het of thought sell. Philosophy and sczopreia have oem tee associ with ech ther. But none cate the schizophrenic conceptual persona who lives intensely within the thinker and forces him to think, wher in the athe dhe schinphrenic i = pychosocil type who repress the lrg being and rbs him of hie ‘honght. Sometimes the two are combined, cape together as an event that to intense corresponds toa ved condition tattoo ade bear. "There ae fain feamre: ot end who a ‘liane tle sca only nm the thing Towed, which Frings rly. we “Claimant” aod the “Rival” quarrel over the ihigg oe concep, ut the concept eds a dormant, unconscious erp dy, he “Boy” who faded to the conceptual persone, ‘ewe not already on another pine for lve ike the violence that impels thinking—"Soerates dhe love™—wheres fendship asks onl fo «itl godvil? And how could» “Flanede™ be denied hee lice in the role conceptual perona hough may sacan using to her destruction, but aot without the philosopher himself eco ing” woman? Ax Kierkeguard asks (or Kl, of Prost): not a ‘woman more worthile tha the fend who Knows one well? And ‘whit happens ifthe woman herself becomes philosopher? Or a "Co Ble” who would be itera to thought and make “Socrates the Inusind” the conceptual persona? Unles we are led back co the Friend” bu afer an ordeal that isto powerful, an inexpressibe ctstrophe nds in yet another new see in tal tess, a rutin weariness that rms new right of thought (Sorrates be- ‘comes Jewish). Not wo feds wo communicate and esl he pst together bit, on the contrary, who ser an amesia or aphasia capable of pit thought, of viding it in isl. Personae poi ‘Me and branch of jt one another and replace each other” “There are dnc featur if moving forward, climbing, and Ascending ae dyaiians of concept persian, then leaping ke Kierkegaard, dancing lke Nietache, and diving like Melle are hers for phileophical athletes inedible to one ameter And if today eu sports are completely changing, i te old ener prae ing activites re giving way to exercises tat, a the entrar, insert theaelves on existing energetic networks, thi swt just change in the ype nt yet eter dynam estes tht enter hag hat “tes” with new substances of being with wave or sow, al ara the thinker into sort of surfers conceptual person: we renoence then the energetic vale of the sporting ype inorder tick out the re dynamic diference expres ina new conceptual eronaphy 78 “There ae uri! farrier thought cont ly hia to whit belongs ot by right an rom the tne ofthe prea, has cononted Justice. But is this the power othe Chitmant oer ‘of the Pint philosophy extracts it fam the tage Grec ta tal And will no philosophers be baane fr slog ime fron beng “Tes, Being at most doctors earl in Gr’ justice, so long 35 they ate mt themes the accosed? When Lee tans the piso per into the Lawyer aa god who threstened on al sides, this new concept persona? Or the strange persons of Investigntor a ‘raced by the emp? Is Kant who ally urns the pibso- pier into the Jude td same tne tat reason becomes ena Tau is thisthe Irgiative poster ofa determining judge, othe ji rower, the ursprudenc, of electing judge? Thou are two quite Aileen conceptual persone. Ores though reverses everything — imlgrs, howers, pint, acces, andl accosed—Uke Alice on & plane af nmanence where Justice equals Innocence and where the Troe bee the cep persona who no longer st jus Ait het a ont of ek ayer int whom we can longer do anything, « Sponea who leaves no kon of teaiceadeoee re ining. hold not judge and innocent merge int each the, that ist sy should not beings be jugs fom within—not at all inthe tame of the Law or of Values or een by virtue oftheir conscience tut bythe purely immanent criteria of thee existence (alleen tyond Good and Ei des not mean beyond god and ed)? ‘Ad there ate esitentalfatres Nistache sid that philosophy Invents modes of existence or posable of ie. That i thy’ fee vital anecdotes are slicent to produce portal ofa philosophy, like the one Digens Lets knew how to price by writing the Philosophers’ Bedside book or golden leend-—Empedctes and his ‘kano, Diogenes and his barrel It wil be agued thst wnt piso pers ves are very Bourgeois: but aot Kan’ tucking sanpendee stl anecdote appropriate othe tem of Resoa?* And Spine king for baths between spiders & du to the fact that in pie fee ey pal ai Fics hor oly. Use anecdotes do not eee simply t0 sonal oe even pychological types of philosopher (Empedoces the Iie, Diogenes the save) But show ther the conceptual personae fol ibie ther, Posse of ie or modes of existence ean be invested only on 4 plane of immaneace that develops the power of ‘omer prong The fae anl boy of pilaspers veer these ‘personae whofe yive them a strange apace espe nthe lance, a if someone ele was looking through thei eyes. Vital tmecdotes recounts conceptual person’ relationship with animals plants or rocks, a reatonship according to which plosopers themseves become somthing unexpected and take on a tag nd commie dimension thit they could not have by themselves I is through aur personge that we philosophers Become alays something ‘he and are rebora as public garden or 20. pxanres 6 Even illusions of rameendencr ae welt ws nd provide vital anedterfor when we tae eden encountering the ‘ramseendent within immanencr, ll we dois recharge the pane of immanence with innaneace Hell: Kieren Tea cutie the plane a wha is restored” to i inthis suspension, this Pale vere, the ance othe st tenis existence onthe plane of mane” Keres does ot hese to aay: ite “resignation” will be ‘aough fr what belongs to erancrdencr Dut inane ln be rete Pascal wages the transcendent ex tence of God, ut the sae, that on which one bets, the immanent existence f the one who sess tht God exis (nly that exitence i able to cover the plane of manent, to achive infinite movement, and to produce and ypmace Intenstis, wheres the exiteee of the one who des nat tive that God exsist he negative. I might evenrophy 74 be sid ere, Francis Jon sys of Cline dh that transcendence relative and epee no me than 3 ‘solution of immanence.”! Thre ot the slightest eon fr thinking tht modes of existence need trance len ales by whi hey el be compare, sete an Judge relative to one another. On the contrary, thee ate nly immanent enter A pombility of Me i evalsted ‘hog selinthe moveriens iis out and he intensities it creates on apne of mmunenc: what snot ido oF creates ejected. A de of easence god or bal, ble or vulgar, eomplete or emp, dependent of Good and Ex or any tramsendeat vale: thee are never any erin her than the enor fesse he inesaton of he Pascal and Kieregued, who were fla with inte movement, ad who extracted fo the Ol est ew omcepal persone ble to std up o Socrates, were well aware ofthis Kites “Right ofthe ath he who makes the kp oe Pascal gambler, he who tows the ie, se men oa transcendence oe 3 ith Bit they constantly ‘eae immaence: thy ar philosophers rather, tr ‘esorscooeptl persia who sand in for thee wo phi bbopers und who ae eonceoed vo lange wth the tan seendent exitenee of God bit only with the aint ms nent poses bought bythe ane who tees tat Ga ‘Te prem would change i were ster plane of Inmanene. I snot that the person wh des mi believe Go exists would goin the upper and, sine he wold Ilo t the old planet aegtive movetent. Ba on the ‘new ple it poste thatthe pron now ences the ‘ne who bas isthe worl, and nt even the existence the worl bat ints posi of movements ates ‘es sas ce an oie ith to new mes existence, heer ain sl os. H ny Be that elev hi wt i hs He, becomes ut el tsk o he ta sade of exsene silt be dicoveced om ou ple of Jmmanence ty, This ithe empires conversion (ve have so many reasons to bbe in the human world we have Jost the world, worse than a fate or «ge. Te problem as indeed hanged “The concepusl persona an the plae of immnence preipote ‘acheter. Sometimes the persona semi to precede te times to come ater that i appears twins i intervenes vce, ‘On the one hand it plunges nt the chaos rom which extracts the ‘duced a invite sped by creating Brite Fens coeesponding to the intensive online of thee ovement every concept fa combine tion that did oe exist before, Concepts are not deed fom the plane. ‘The conceptual penn i node to create canes on thePri yeophy 76 plane, jst asthe plme itself needs to be Id, Bhat tvs: si operations do nat merge in the persona which itself appears distinct operator. ‘There are innumerable planes, each with vale curve end ‘hey group together or separate Hhemales according othe pits of ew onsite by personae. Bach persona as several featres that may give rive to ather persons on the sane ora deen plane ‘onerpinl personae poles, These san infinity of possible con ‘xs on a plane: he resonate an connect up with mobile bridges, ‘bot its impossible to foresee the appearance they take on ab Santon of variations of curiature. Tey are evel in busts ed Constantly biforeate, The gan ill the mone compen Beeause ‘ach plane negative movenents are envied within posite move ment expressing the risks and dangers conlontd by though, the fale perceptions and bad felings tht surround i "There are aan Aanipuhrc conceptual perwnge whe cling to sympathetic personae el frm whom the ater do ot snag to fie themselves Gis at ly Zarathustra whois haute by “his” ape or clown, or Dionys who doesnot separate hinsel trom Chit bat Socrates who never ‘manages to distinguish insel from “his sphist, and the eal Blilosoper who is always warding of is bai doubles). Finally, there are repulive conenpts lacked within atactive ones bu that ‘tine regions af lowe oF empty intensity onthe plane and that ‘contin cut therselves of ereate discordance, atl sever cone ‘ions (doesnot transcendence itself have ts” comets), Bat even more than a vector ditbation, the say persone, and conepts ‘of ples are ambiguous because they are fled within one anther, ‘embrace o ie alongside ene another, Tati why phils lays ‘works low By blow Philsophy presents tree elements, each of which fs with the ther two but must be considered fa ise the pepe plane ‘eam oy ou (immanent persone opersmac it mast invent nd fring to Bie nist), end the phiorpical concepts it must eee (oman Laying nt, venting, aed xeatog constitute the pi ‘pial inty—diyranmatic, personal abd intensive etre. Concepts se grouped according to whether they resonate or throw ‘ot mobile bridges, covering the same plane of mmanence tha on nets them to one another, Ther ate file of planes according to ‘whether the infinite movements of thought fold within one anoer and compose varaons of curvature oon the contr, select nn ‘omponable varieties, There ae types of perona according to the pbs of even their hole encounters onthe sme ple ain group. But ts often diful to determine the sme grou, ‘the same typ ote sme fail. A whole ate” is eee ere. ‘Since none ofthese elements ae deduced from the ater there rst be otdopaton of the thee, ‘Thepilosophical culty of a= Adaptation, which alo regulates the creation of concept, i alle ‘ase, If he laying out of the plane called Reasan, Ue invention af perwonae Imagination, and the craton of concepts Understanding, ‘then taste appears as the tiple faculty of te stil-undetermined com ‘ep, ofthe person sil in limbo, and ofthe sil-tanparent plane. Thats why itis necessary to create invent, and ley’ out, while taste is lke the rte of correspondence of the thre instances hat are lien in kind Ie certainly nota faculty of measuring. No mea sre wll be found in those infinite movements that make up the plane of mmanenc, in thow accelerated ines without contour, nd those inclines and cares; in those sys excessive and sometines antipattie perce; on those concepts with gl for, dent intense, and clas that are so bright sd artes ha they an inspee a Kind of disgust” (especially in repulsive concep) [Nevertheless apprars as philsophial tte in every case save ofthe wellmade eneept, “wellnade” meaning not a mserition f| the cance bata sor of stilton, art of matin which concep scvity has no mit self but only in the other two Ties cvs. Heady-ade concepts lead exited they would Ive to bide by Emits. But even ce prepilosophic™ plane i nlyphy 8 ‘0 called because icf hd out 8 presupposed ad nok Drs i preexsts without being lid ut. ‘The three activities are stity ‘Smaltaneous an have only ineonimensirabe eltonships, The re tion of eamerpts has no oer lint than the plane they happea to Populate: but the pane tse is Himites, id layout only confirms to the concepts to be erated thit it mist connect py oF to the personae to be invented tht it ms mann. I sas in pt there fa taste scoring to whichever monsters and daves mist toe well made, which des not mean insipid that thei regular Contours ae in keeping with skin teatare of with background of ‘he earth as germinal substance with which they sean to ft, There tase fr coors that, in great pers, does ot esl in restrain ‘he cestio of colors but, om the contrary, dives them to the point here colors encounter tir figure made of contours, a thee ple made of ts curves, and srabesques. Van Gogh takes yellow othe ines nly by inventing the answer snd by laying ‘ont the plane of infinite ie commas The taste fr cory shows at ‘once: the mpc with which they mt be apprhed, the long wait that must be pased th, tut als the lily cestion dat kes them exist. ‘The same gies forthe tne for concept: he philosopher does not appraich the uiternined concept except with fear and respect, and he estates fora lng ine belo setting Forth, but he can determine a concept only through weasirless creation wove only rule va plane of inmanence that he fs out and hase only compass are the strange personae to which tives li, Pike sophicl taste neither replaces creation nor strains it, On the ea teary, the eration of concepts als far tate hat malts i The fee eration of determine concepts need taste for the undter ined comer. Taste this power, this beng-pieatl ofthe con ‘ep is eertinly not for “atonal or resonable” reasons tha 4 Drtiular concept is eretad of a paticalarsomponentchosen [Niewsche sensed this relationship ofthe cretion of concepts with 3 specifcaly philosophical tase and if the phiesopher she who ee ses cami is ks fv fe dt ie a in| ive nt ail aper—a Fiat or Fat that gives exh pulso- plier the right of access to cei prnbles, ke a imprint om his fame a alii fom whichis works lowe" ‘A eancept leks meaning to te extent tha its not connected to osher concep and i nat Tinked to a problem that it resolves of helps to resolve. Bu itis importat to distinguish pilsophia rm seintiic problems. Lite ie yained by saying that philosophy asks “question” Beemsequetion& merely word fa problem that ae feredcible to thowe of sence, Sine eee are ot propastionl, they cannot refer to problems concerning the extensional conditions of propositions esiilable to those of sence Hal the same, we continue to taste the philosophical concept ito propastions his fan ony be in the fon of more-or-less plausible opinions without scientific vale, But inthis way we encounter dilicalythat the (Grocks hl already come up again. Thi is the tied ehraceritie by which philnophy thought of sx someching Grek: the Grek cy pts forward the fend rival sacl reation, adi ay ut plane of immanence—but alo makes ire opinion (dove) preva Prilsopy mist therefore extrac from opinions a “kaowledge” hat transfor the bu that sal ditnt fom science. The pisoph- ical problem hus consi in Badin in cach ase, he nstance thats le to gauge a truth vale of oppose opinions, either by seeing some a more wise than others or by fixing thee respective share of the truth, Such was alwys the meaning of what elle islet and that reduces philosophy to interminable discussion. This ean be seen in Pato, where univers of contemplation are supine to sie the respective vale of ital opinions 08 trae them tothe level of knowledge. His tre tht here are ll aralitions ia Plato in the scaled spore dalages, which forced Arielle to Ae the dsetcl investigation of problems toward univers of cmmunicstio (the tpi). In Kant, agen the problem will consist in the selection or distibution of opposed opinions, but thanks toyeophy — Bo universal of reflection, until Hegel as heen of making ue ft contradiction between val opinions extract rom them supra tic propositions able to move, contemplate, reflect, ad emma. cate in therselves and within the aboot (the speculative propos. ‘don wherein options become moreno the concept). But beneath {he highest ambitions ofthe dialectic, and iespectve of the gain ‘tthe great dalectiians, we fl bac ito the most abjetcamions that Nietshe digaosed athe at ofthe ple or bad taste in pil ly: aredution ofthe conce® to propositions like simple opinions false perceptions and bod flings (illsions of tramsendence ot of univers) engulfing the plane of manne; the rel of form of Knowledge that consicutes only a supposedly higher pinion, Ur toa: a replacement of concept personae by teachers o leaders of schools. The date lis to discover a specially pilosophical lneursivenes, but it en only do ths by inking opinions ogee eos ined sone beyond opiaion toward knowlege, bt opinion bake dag and contnaes co break through, Even with the re sons am Urea, philosopay retains dography. Is always {he sae metncholy tat raises disputed Questions and Quodibets frum the Middle Ages where one Irs what each doctor thought without knowing why he thought i (the Event), and that one finds ‘in in many histories of pilosophy in which sltions are reviewed without ever determining what the problem i (eubstance in Avi tote, Descartes, Li) since the problem is only copied om the ropstins tht serves its ase, I pilosophy is paradoxical by nature, this not case i sides withthe les plausible opiion obras it maintains cotendictoey ‘opinions bu rather brea it uses sentences ofa standard langage ‘to express something tht dest belong tothe onder of open ‘ren of the propsition The concep i indeed soliton, but the problem to which ic correspond es ins intensinal conditions of oust and not in acence, in the ceions of reference of tatexsonal propositions. the concept solution, the conditions epee pole ne fo on the plane of inane supped by the eoncept (Lo whit nine movement dest reer fin the fnmge of thought), and the unknowns ofthe problem are fond inthe conceptual personae that i calls up (what perm, ret). conor ike knowledge his mening only in relation to sn image of thought to which it reer and toa eonerptua persona that it needs diferent image and diferent persona ello other concepts (bel, for example, and the Investigator). A. solution has 0 meaning independently o's problem ta be determined in is oeiions and unkown; bu these conditions and unknowns have 1 meaning independently of sokations determinable as concepts ach ofthe thee stances found in the ahers, bt they arent of the ume kind, nd they cuexst and subsist without one disappearing it the othe. Bergson, who contebuted so much tothe eomperhen sion of the nature of pilsophial problems, sid data well psed problem was «problem solved. But cis does not nea that pea lem is merely the shadow a epiphenomenon of ts sation, or that he soltion is only the redndancy or analytical consequence of the problem Rather, the dice atte making up constructions ‘continually pas from one to the other, sport one anather, some tine precede and sometimes allow each ether, one creating concepts 2 a ease of slain, another laying out «ple and a movernet on the plane a the conditions af» prom, sa dhe othe inventing person athe unknoven of ee problem. The whole of the ables (ot which the scton is ise» part) always consists in constructing the other two when the third is underway. We have sen how, rom Pato to Kant, thought, “itt,” and time took diferent concept that ‘were able to determine solution, but onthe basis of presppestions that determined diferent problems. This is beease the same tems can appear tie and even three tines: once in skins 5 concepts sain in the presopponed prablems, an once more i persona sx intermediary, interes, Bt each time it appears in a specie, Fence femPhilosophy [No ule and sbove all no discon, wil sy in ance: wel ‘his the good ple, the good persona, or the good cone ‘ach ofthe determines if theater two have succeded oF mi, bt tach must be constricted on its own account—one eet, me invented, and the other lid out. Protiems and slutions are com structed aboot which we ean sy, “ile «Sacer bit only a8 we go along and on the base of their coadaptationsCon- strcvim disqualifies dicusson—which holds bck the neces sry consructions—just as it exposes al dhe univers of eonterp- tion, reflection, and communication as sources of what are eld “se problens” emanating tam the sions surrounding the ple "That yal that can be sai in advance. Is posible tat we think we ave fund aslo; but a new curve afte plane, which ist we Aid not se, tarts al of gin, posing new problems, «new bath ‘of problens, advancing by scene anges and socking concep to come concepts ye tobe erat (vedo at even know itis is nota ‘ew plone tt hs separated Gon the preceding plane). Converse, itis posible tht anew concep is buried ikea weg betwen what ‘ne thigh wee 40 eighbrng concept, skin in ts en the Aeteminaton of poem that spor ike srt of extension on the table of immanence, Phiosrphy tus lvs ina permanent rss ‘The plane takes effect though sacks, eanepts proceed in burs, nx! personae by pens The eelatinship among the the faces is problemi by nature, ‘We cannot sy in advance whether « problem is well posed, whither a soiton ts, really the eae, or whether 3 persons it ‘able This beau the criteria for each philosophical activ ate found only inthe other two, whichis why philosphy devloe in pax. Philosophy does not consist in koowing and is no inspired by uth, Rather, iti categories Hike Intrsting, Remaskable, ox Important tht detemine suecess or flue. Now, this eanaat be “know before being constructed. We will not say of many books pllosphy tht they are fb, fr tha so sy nothing, bat rather lot they Lack inportance ur intrest, preiely Because they donot crate ny conerpt oF contribute a image of thought oF beget a reon worth the effort. Only teachers can arte “fe” in the ‘aris, perhaps but readers doubt the importance and interest, i to sa, the novey of what they are given to read. These are ‘cteyories of the Mind Mev a that gest novel characters snust be Original, Unique. The same steve of conceptual persone “They must be remarkable, even if they are anipthei 2 concept rst be intersting, even i ie repive, When Niece eon stricted the concep of “had conscience” he could se hi what most disgusting inthe world and yet exci, “This is where man teins to be iteresting” and consider himself actualy to have ee sted a ev concept fF man, one that suited man, related to a new oneal person (the priest) and with a new nage of ehought (he willi poser uderstd rm the ino view ons). Criticism implies new caeepts (of the thing exticied) jos rich as the most postive creation. Concepés mit have regular ncours molded on thei ving materia, What naturally uniter sting? Fimsy’ concepts, what Nietache elle the “Tomes and id daub of concepts” —or, on the contrary, concepts tha are too regular pete, snd reduc to a famework, In this spect, the rot universal concep, those presented a eleral forms ovals tre the mot skeletal an lent teresting. Nothing prstive is ane, ‘othing a all nthe domains f either ecm or history, when we ae content t brandish readsmade od eonerps ike skeletons in tended intimidate any craton, without sig thatthe scent hikophes from whom we borow them were sley ding what we wold keto prevent modern pioophers rm ding: hey wer crating their coer, and they were at happy st tc and serape bons ike the etc and historian of urine. Even the history of pilosphy i completely without interest iit doesnot uerake to awaken s dormant concept and to play i again on 8 new stage, ‘ven itis comes atthe price of weing i apunst iseTo phy Subject and object gives poor approximation of ‘bought. Thinking nither line drawn be ‘sen subject and objet nora evolving of one sound heather, Rather, thinking takes place in the relationship of terior and the earth, Kant isles prioner of the ctogories of subject and je than he it beled tobe, sine of Copernican revolution pts thought into a dret ‘elatonship with the earth, Hassel demands 2 round for thought a rg attio, whic is lke the earth inasmuch ast ether moves at et. Yet we ve sce that he earth con scanty caries ont a movement of detest Yin oe pot hy which ees beyond any ter ory: it is detrital and detest Tae merges with the movement ofthase who leave hee tervtny en masse, wit eras that set off waking in le athe btm af the wate, ith pilgrims knights ho ride eesti of ig. The earth snot one element mong oth esut rate rings togeter ll he elements within single embrace while using one ora ter of them to deteritriiveteritory, MovePhilosophy 86 ments of detritriition are inseparable from eit ht open tonto an ewher; and the process of reentoriition impr le fom the earth, which estres tetris. Terstry andl earth re ‘vo components with two zane af indscernbiy deteriora tion trom territory to the earth) and reterstraizton (Com crt toteritory). We canoe sy which comes is, I what sense we ak, {Greer the philosopher territory or pisophy’s earth? ‘States ad Cities have often ben define ertor a substi ‘using atest priniple fr the principle of lineage, Bu hiss inexact lineal groups may change tersitry, nd they are only really determined by embracing territory a residence in 2 local ineage.”| Sate and City onthe contrary, carry outa detest be ‘es the forneejustaposes and enmpares nicl tetris by relating them to higher arthmesical Unity id heater ads the territory to a geometrical extensivenes that ca be coatinged in ‘meri rit "he era spain of the State an hep tates of the ety ae not so uch orm a tertile ssa deterioration that tkes place om the spt when the Sete appropriates dhe teritory of laa groups or hen the ty tas ie ack on i hinteland. In one can, ther is etertraization onthe lace snd its supplies; and inthe other on the aor and commer tial networks. In imperil states deterioration takes place through sranscen- Aner it tends to develop verily om on high, according to & ‘cesta component of the earth. The teritory has heme desert cath, but a celestial Stringer aries to reestablish the territory oe reteitoilize de earth. Inthe cy, by contrast, deteriuriaton takes pice through immaence: i fees am Autclthon, thi to say, a poner ofthe cath th floss nari component tha goes under the sea to establish the tty (the Eelam, temple of Athena and Poseidon). In ft, things are more complicated ecase the imperial Stanger hinsel needs surviving Aitoelthons sd be use the citizen Autodhian callsom strangers in ight these hy Geophitosophy sr taal sae peta ype anymore than the ply fof te enpire an ce poytheisn ofthe city are the same rei ‘Greece ems to haves ral stractre instar seach pin of the eninsls is close tothe son and ts sides ave great length. The Aegean peoples, the tes af ancient Greece and especially Autoeh- thonous Athens, were not the fist commercial cies. But they are the fist tobe a ance near enough to and far enon aay from the archaic astra empites to be able to benef fom them without following thei model, Rather than establish theses in the pores ofthe empires, they ae step in new eamponent they deelop a particular mode of deterioration tht proceeds by inaanence, the frm a mil of ono. I ike a “international market” “organized long the borders ofthe Orient between multiply af independent cites or distinct societies ha are neverthelesatached to one anther and within which artisans and merchants ind a re hoes ad eobility dene to dhe bythe empites? These ypes come from the borderands ofthe Grok world, strangers in High, break ing with empire and colonized by peoples of Apollo—aet only ar sand merchants bt pilowphers. As Faye sys ituok a century forthe name pilaopher, no doube invented by Heracles of Ephe- su, to find its coreatin the word pho, no dou invented by hao the Athenian: “Asi, Raly nd Aca are the odysean phases co the journey connecting phioopls to pitsophy™ Philosophers ae strangers, but philoso i Grech. What do these emigre find in the Greck milieu? At lent thee things refund tht ate the de facto conditions of philosophy: a pure wcabiity amen of imma ence, the “intrinsic nature of asciation,” which 8 opposed to imperial sovereignty and implies no prior interest because, on the ‘competing interests prespose it; certain plemure in forming ssociatons, which constiuts friendship, bt alsa plensare in braking up the asoition, which constitutes vival (vere there tot already “cities of frends” fred by enigres, Hike the PyPhilosophy 8 sgoreans, but stl somewhat secret, whieh fond their chance in Greece?) sid a tate for opinion inconceivable in an empire, «taste forthe exchange of views fr convertion We constantly reincover these thre Greek fetares immanenc,fendship, and opiaian. We donot ce a sfer work here because sibility has its erwin friendship has is ives, and opinion has its antagonism and blondy reverts Salamis is the Grosk miracle where Groce expe fiom the Persian empire snd where th autochthonous people who os its terior preva on the ea, fretted on these, The Dian League i ike the fatalizton of Greece, For fly short period the deepest bond existed berween the democratic ety, colo ‘ation, anda new imperil tito lnger saw the sca init of its temitory or an obstacle to its endeavor but at a wider bath of| Jimmanence AI ofthis, ad penal plomphy' ink with Greece, sec rccgnized ct batt racket detours and contingency ‘Whather physical, prychologcal, or soi deterioration i relat insofar a concerns the historical elton of the each ‘ith the teretres that take she and ps ay oi esi relationship with eras and catastrophes, ts sstropomicl relationship with the cosmos and the ella system of which i i pt. Bt deterioration is abeolue when the eth passes into the pare plane oimmanenee of Bring cought, ofa Nature thought of in nite diagrammatic movements. Thinking consists in strtching ot & plane of immaneace tht absorbs the cath for ether, sudsrtn” i Deterioration of such plane doesnot prec rerio tion but posits tas dhe eeaton ofa fture new earth, Nonetheless, sot deteetraization can only be thought according to certain sil4o-be-deermined relationships with relative detritriiations that are aot only came but geographic, historia and pyc lal, There is alvays 9 sey in which absolte detersitrzton lakes over fom lative deteritariization ns yen el is at his point that mse diferenceseves depending on wheter relative deterstriaaton takes place thraigh immanence ‘eg trend, When tis transcendent, vertical, seta ‘awl rg abou bythe imperial nity, the tassendent element rust always give way ce submit 10a sor of rtstio inorder to be inscribed on the alvaysinmmanent plane of Natue-hought. ‘The ‘eles vertcal sets om the horbontal of the plane of thought in sccodance with «spr. Thinking hee implies «projection of the transcendent om the plane of immanence. ‘Transcendence may be ctirely “empty” in il, yet it comes fll to the extent that i descends and crosses diferent hierarchin levels tat are projected ‘ether on a regio af the plane, that wo say, on an aspet cares ponding oan infite movement. In his respect, ithe same when transcendence invades the abate or mothe places unity the transcendent God would remain empty, ofa east abicondita, iit were not projected on a plane of inmanence of eration where it traces the stages a ts dheophany. In bith eases, pera ity oF spiral empire, the transcendence that f projected onthe plane of inmanence pes itor poole it with Figures. Hi wisdom oF 2 religlon—it does aot mich mater whieh es only rom this pol of view that Chinese hexagram, Hinds mands, Jewish sephiroth, Islamic “imaginal” and Crit cons can be considered together thinking through igre. Hexagrams are combinations of continuous and discontinuous features deriving fom one another according to the levels of pial hat Byures che set of ments dou which the transcendent descends, The manda «projection on 9 fice that establishes comespondence betwen divine, conic, ple, a citectural, and organic level 0 many vies fon and he sme transcendence. ‘Tat is why the figure hus a ference ane that plrivoeal and circular by nature. Cera, i nt defined by an external resemblance, which reaios praibited, But by an internal tension that relies othe transcendent on dhe plane of inanence of thought. Ea short, the Sure i sently paradigmatic, project, earch andere (hearts and cence al st up power Fagwes, but what citnguishes them from al religion ist thatPhilosophy — 90 ‘he lay claim t probibted resemblance bu tha they emancipate 3 articular levels to make tint new planes of thong on which, ' willbe sen, th nature ofthe refrenes snd projections change). Earle, in order to move an quickly, we sid thatthe Gresks Invented am absolute plane of imsmanence. But the cra ofthe Greeks should rather be sought inthe teltion between the relative and the absolute, When elative deterioration site orion ‘or mmanent, it combines with the absolute deterioration of the plane of mmanence that cares the movements of lative deter ization to infty, pushes them to the absohe, by trnsorming ‘em (lie, fiend, opinion). Inwnanence is redouble. Ths ib here one thinks no longer with figures but with cones. Is the txmerpt that comes to populate the pine of numanence:"Tere i no longer projection in figure bt conection in the concept. This why the concept elf abandons all references as to retain only the ‘onjuaions an enonetons that constitate its consieney. ‘The concep’ only mle fs internal or external eight es ner sighborbad or consistency ix secure by the connection ofits em ponents in zones of indiseribliys ts exter neighbarod oe xoconsistency is secured by the Bridges thrown from ane concept to nother when the earponents of ane of ther saturated. Ad this ' really what the cretion of concepts means: to connect interna, inseparable components to the point of lose ot sturation 4 that we can no longer ad or withdeaw a component without changing the nature ofthe conept; to connect the concept with anther in sich a way that the tature of other connections wll change, The Dlurvocity ofthe cneept depends solely upon acighbortwod (one ‘oneept can have several neghborbods), Concepts ae fat surfaces without level, orderings without hierarchy hence the importance in philosophy ofthe questions “Wht to put in 8 concept? ad “What {0 put with i?" What concept should be pt alongside a former ‘concep, and what components shoul be pt in ech? These are the ‘questions ofthe creation of ences. The pre-Srais treat physical is ty take then fr thee, ndependenty fay weve, and sec only the good rules af neighborhood be- eon en and in their possible components. Ide answers ary it ince, inside and outside, they donot compose these elementary ones in the same way. "The eonerpe is not paradigmatic but yrtagatic: nok prjective bet comets; not hier bt ink tng” not relerentalbtconsient "Tt bng 0 inevitable that Philosophy, scence and art are no longer orgnized as levels of single projection and are not even dierentited according to «com ‘mon mattx bu are immediatly posted o reconstituted in respec tive independence, in division of labor that gies se to elton shipsof connection between them. ‘Mast we conclade from this that there is & radical opposition becween figures and concepts? Most tempt to fx thei dilerences expres only -empered judgments that ae content to depreciate fe or there the term: stetines concepts are endowed with the prestige of teasn while gure: are refereed tthe night of the rational nd ite symbols sometines Figures are granted the pris leges of spiritual life while concepts are relegate tthe arf movements of @ dead understanding. And yet disturbing antes appear on wht seems tobe common plane af mmanenc.°Inasort of toing and tering, Chinese thought iseribes the diyrammatic ‘movements of « Naturethought on the plane, yin and yang; a Ieaagrams are sections of the plane, inteasive odiates of thse infinite movements, with heir components in continuous and icon tinaous festites, But corespondences like these domo rue ost here beng a boundary, however dificult to ake ut. Tis is because Figures ure projections on the plane, which implies something vertical or tamscendent. Concepts, on the oer hao, ply only meighbor Lea hr ay a rh dee yada toons segs ct wt erPhi phy 9 thd nel connections on the horizon. Cesky, 3¢ Frans lice tas aed shown in the case of Chinee thought, the transcendent ‘rues an “abacutzation of immanence”ehough projection. But philosophy sppeals to a completly ifrent immanenee ofthe abso- Inte All that can be sa is that Figures tend toward eanceps tothe point of drawing infinitely near t cham. Frm the filet tothe seventoenth century, Chitty made the prea the envelope oa oncett” but the concetto has mot yet acoied consistency and depends upon the way in which i ford or even disimulated "The question that aes periodically there a Christin pilos- phy?™ancans “Is Chistiniy able to rete proper concepts” (be Ti, anguih, sn, ream). We have seen this in Pascal o Kierke- cir perhaps Bebe becomes a genuine concept only when its ‘nae itn ele in this word and comnected rather than beng pioecte. Peshps Christianity does ot produce concepts exerpt heh i ates through the athe tat it more than any ether ‘oligo, serten Ati ota problem for philosophers ofthe death of Go, Problens begin only afterward, when the atheism of| the concept has ben stained, ei amazing that cany pilso- hers til ake the death of Ged a8 tage, Ahem isnot dame Tut the philosopher’ serenity and philosophy’s achievement. There is always anaheim to be extracted from a religion ‘Phis wala ‘ue Jewish thought it pshed its figures sar as te concep, but itareived at cat point oaly with che atheist Spinoza, And iit is trae that figures ten toward concept inthis way, the converse equally trun, and philosophical concepts epreduce Figures whenever inns enc hatte to something. The thee Sues of philosophy are objet of contemplation subject of flection, and interject iy of ommancation. I should be noted that religions do no arrive at the concept without denying themseres, jus 8 philosophies do ut arrive atthe igure without betraying themselves, There Ailezence of Kind exwen figures and concepts but every pose Aliezence of degre as, Can ne sak oF Chine, Hind, Jewish, oF Ianie “phil, Ii Vey tthe extent that inking takes place om plane of inamanwce cat can be populated by figures mich a by concepts oswever, this plane of immsnence not exactly philsophia, but philosophical. es aleted by what populates and reacts omit in such a way thit i Booms philosophical only trough the effect of the concept. Although the plane i presuppsed by philosophy, i nonetheless insite by it and i unfolds in philosophies Ship withthe nonpioophical. In the ease of ures, on the ther Tan, the prepilouphical shows that a eration of comers o plilowphical formation was not the inevitable destination of the pine of iimanence itself hit that could fla in wisdom aoe religions according to bifurcation that wards off philosophy in tnlvance from the pint of view of Rs very posbiity, What we deny is that there fany internal necessity to philosophy, whether i isl or in the Greks (and dhe idea of a Greek eae would aly be shor aypect ofthis peudneeenty). Nevers, philosophy was soroehing Geeek—although brought by immigrants. ‘The birch of Dilly required an rnonter been the Grecia andthe plane of immanence of dough. Ie required the conjunction of «90 ‘ery diferent movements of detersitraizton, dhe relative and the stolue, the fst already at workin immanenee. Alwolut deters Falzation of the plane of thought hal to be aligned or diety tonne with the relative deterrriliation of Grok cet The encounter betwen frend al hough as nese nat, pi py does have principe, bu i yt atl contingent prin le—sn encounter, «conjunction. Int ise yo bt otingent in ise Fen i the concep, the pencil dep upon ‘connection of components tht cold have been lileent, with dierent neighborhoods. The principle of eason cs ait pear in pikeophy is principle of contingent reannn ac sp like this {here ie an good mason but contingent reason thee tno avers history excep of contingencyexaneur 7 ye es poles to se, ke Hegel or Heidegger, an and neces principle that would Kink phiosphy 1 Gree Rca the Grek are ie en they athe fst gp the Object in relationship wth the subject aceoning to Hee) ths would be the concept But, bens the objet is il opted a4 “bail” without its eltioship to the sujet yet beng eterined, we io aa the low ing tage or this etna ob eflc self and hen pt nt movement or ommaniotd. Nog it remains the cae that the Grek invented the it stage on the bass of whieh everthing develops intel othe cont. No thoubt the Oe hoa thot he object el 'spureabsrction, the empty vives decal to simple parity taketh relaorsip to the subject com {ete nivel ora vera init. The Orient is ane af the once cae i ont opt the mes tract sid dhe et rivaling in elaosip of foxxbtence without any mdton, However, ent dear ni dstingishes the antpspic sage ofthe Orient tn the phisopicl sage of Gre, since Greek tout {emt cnscausof the reatinoeip to the sujet that it pronne witht yet bengal to ree “Tis, Heidegger laglcs the problem and states the ‘concept inthe diference between Being and beings rather than in tht between subject nd bjt, He iw the Gece the Avtahnhon rather thas adhe ese tien (ands she themes f biling and wing ete, ll of Hedges refctin on Being and beings briny cath ad teitory fogeter: the spuiy ofthe Gree i to dull ia Being nat poses is word testi he Geek ee Ftv on ht ow lange ad is inguin ese te ea Tas the Ori st efor pip at sng, becae i thinks but docs not ‘think Being” Prilsopy dos nt so much exlve and pass trough de gros of sujet and object a Haut a strvtare of Being edges Grcks never siceed in “atclting” ther r= Lbontip t Beings Hegel Gresks acver came rfct hae restoanip tthe Subject. But in Heide i at a ‘ution of ging farther than the Greeks, enn to resume thee movement na nian, commencing ree tition. This is Besuse Being, by vite fs strate, com Ynualy urs aay when i tars ten an he hry of Being fhe earth i the hiory of trig of ite etertrltion i the tehnin- world development ‘of Wester viiation tare by the Greeks and eter lard on National Scan What rerains common to He ‘egger and Hegel is bving conse of the eltionaip of ‘Grese and plosphy an origin snd has a hep of epatore of history itera to the West suc hat pe ply nese ecmes iting from it ou Ky. Horse las he gt tot, Heeger betrays the movement of deterioration bec he fies once and rl tose Being aod being becween the Greek tenitry and ‘the Westen earth tht the Greks would have ale Being Hegel and Heidegger remain histori inasmuch as they posit istry a8 8 form of interiority in stich the coneepe necesriy evel or nei its destiny, The necessity ress on the sbtraction ofthe historical clement rendeted circuit. The unfiresable ce ation af concepts thus poorly understood, Philosphy geoph sop in precisely the same way that history i geohistory from Braudel’ point of view. Why plilosophy in Greve st hit moment? Teds the sme fr expt, scoring to Bead: hy capital in these plas and at these moments? Why atin China ot some other96 moment, since so many af ts components were ae present the? ‘Geography i nt confine o providing historical Frm with a sub- stance and vale pices, I snot merely physical and human bt mentale the landscape, Geography wrest history from the el of recat inorder to tes the imeducbiiy of eontingency Ie wrets ic from the eat af origin in order to ali the power ofa “nen” {orb philbsophy finds inthe Grecks, said Nictaache, stan origin Ta mile, an ambiance, an smbient atmosphere the philosopher rats tobe 8 come). Re wre i from seractres i oder to trace the fines of fight chit pas through the Greek workl aos the Mediterranean. Finally, it wrests history trom itself in order to d= ‘over becomings that do ot belong to history een if they El back int its the histry of piosophy ia Greece must ot hide the et that fu erey cme the Greeks lad to become philosophers inthe fat place stay pibsophers nd to become Greeks “Becoming” does rot belong to histry. Misty tay til deat only the set of Contitons however recent dey may be, fom which one ms away in oer to become, tht myn onde to create something new The Greeks didi, bt von say ie valid once and forall Phikacpycant be reduced to it our history, because contin ally wre itself from his history inorder to eet new concepts that fal back int history but do ut come fom it. Hove coll something come frm history? Without histrs, bresing wold ean nde terminate and unconditioned, but becoming isnot historical. Pay choscial types belong to history, but eonerptal personae belong to ‘bectming. The event self ness becoming 8 an unhistorical ele ‘ment. The uistural, Nite ys, slike an aumsphere within ‘which alone ie can germinate an with the destruction of which it st vanish” Ti ke a moment of grace and what “deed would ‘man be capable off he bl nti entered int that vapomn ron ‘ofthe unhistorcal?™” Philosophy appears in Greece asa resi of| contingency rather than necesity, asa esul ofan ambiance of miew rather than an origin, of becoming rather than a history, of sear etler Maw 3 hitrigeapyy of ace rather than & ‘Why dil pisophy survive in Greece? We cana say that api tals during the Mile Ages isthe continuation ofthe Greek ity ‘even the commercial firms ae hardly comparable). But, fr slays contingent reasons, capitalism leads Burp nt a fatatic relative eeritoiaaton that isd st ofall tte end that lf tubes place rough inonanence. Territorial pce connected to an lmmaneat common frm able to cos the es ah in gener” "iabortout our,” and thee coming together 3s commodity. Mare accurately construct concept of aptali by deterniing the to principal components, naked aor and pure wealth with thee zone oF indisceriiiy when walls buys lor. Why capitalism nthe West rather dh in China ofthe thir or even the eighth cesiny?® Because the West slovely brings together and adjusts these comp rents, whereas the East prevents them fram reaching ruton. Only the West extends end propagate its comer of mance. Te soil Fick! no longer refers to an externa lini chat restrict i oa above, sin theempies but immanent itera iit that constantly shit by extending the system, snd that rcoasttte themsles through displacement? Estemal obstacles are now only technological, and ony inert remain. A world markt extends to te end of| the earth before passing int the gala even the kis cone otal. Tiss nota result ofthe Greek endeavor but a resumption, in another frm and with other means, ona sae idherto show, which nonetielest relaunches the combination for which the Grerky wok the intative—democrate imperialism, colniving democracy “The European can there, regard hime as the Grek iy not one paychoweal type among others bat Man pa excellence, and with mich mote expansive force and msn zal han the Grok iosser sid tht, even in thee hostility, peoples group themselves into types that have terior “home” and fly Misi, sacha the peoples of Inds; but only Europe, despite its matin rare,Philosophy 08 will propose to itself and other peoples “an incitement to bese ‘ver more European,” so tht in dis West the whole af humanity connected to itself a never wa in Groce However, tis diel to believe dat isthe rise“ pilosophy and the mutually ncasive sciences” that accounts for this privilege of « pecan Earopean teanscendental subject Rater, the infinite movement of thought, whit Huser calls Telos, must enter inc conjunction withthe grt Feltve movement of capt tha is continually deteriora’ in fonder to secure the power of Europe over all other peoples and their rterriariiaton on Europe. Modern philoso Tink with capita, therefore, isa the sme kin as tha of ancient pilosophy ‘with Greece: te comevion of an abate plane of inmanence with & relative il mic ht aa Fess though immanene, From the int of view of philosophy's development, there is no necessary ontinuty psig fom Greve to Europe trough the iatermaliry ‘of Chistanity; there isthe contingent rosammencement of sae contingent proces, in dierent conditions. “The instieme rebtve deterioration of world capitalism needs to be rterritrized on the moder national Ste, which finds an oueome in democracy, the new society of nother,” the ‘capital version of the society of reds. As Braudel shows, capital ium started oat rom cy-towns, but ehese pushed detertorazation so far that immanent ocr Stats bad to temp thee made, t0 capture nd invest them 3098 carryout neces retrial ios in dhe fot a new introa its! Capa reactivates the Greek work oa these economic, political, and soil bases. Its the sew Athens. The man af expitlisn snot Robinson but Ulysses, the ‘ning plebein, sme average man oor Hv inte big towns, “Autochthonoas Proletriane ot foreign Migrants who throe theme sels ito infinite movernent—reveltion, Not oe but to ris traverse capitalism and ted for the sane disappointments Imm: rans ofall counties, unite—workers of al countries. At both ends ofthe Wet, Ameria and Russa, pragmatism and sociis payout fe star of Uyses he ne soy of brothers of comrades ta as takes up dhe Gres deans and recontetes emecraic igi.” Tn fact, the connection of ancient philosophy with the Gree city saul the conection of ders phiosopliy with capitalism are not ‘ological and donot top at png historical and cal deter ‘is tn nity aoa to extract prt igus from them. Of course, it may be tempting to see philosophy as an agreeable commerce of the mind, which, with the concept, would have ts own commodity, or rather it exchange value—which,feom the put of view of 2 lively, sintered sociability of Wester democratic everson, ale to generate consensus of opinion and provide exmmunication With an ei, art woul! provide with anaesthetic this what incall philosophy, i understndable why marketing ppnopristes the concept and advertising puts itself forward asthe eoncsver pat ‘excellence, asthe poet and tinker. What is most distressing i not this shameless appropriation but the conception of pilohy tht uae it pusible in the Hest place. The Greeks sued sinilar di res, relatively speaking, with certain sophia But whit saver ‘modern philaopy is that iso more te friend of apts than ancient philosophy was ee fiend of the city. Philosophy takes the relative deterioration of expitl to the absolute; t makes i pass ‘over the plane of immanence as movement ofthe infinite and sup ress it as intra lini, ras i ac eit ef ae sun Furth a new earth, «ne people. But thin way i arrives a the ‘onpropsitional frm of the concept in which communication, ex shang, casera, srl opinion vanish entirely. Ke therefore lsc to what Adoro called “negative dake” and to whit the Franke School called “utopian.” Actually, utopia fs wha inks philosophy with its own epoch, with Europea capitalism, But abo already with the Greek ety. In each ase i with utopia that philosophy becomes pial sid takes the eis of ow tne to it highest poi. Uropla doesnot split of fom iafnite movement: tymaogiallystands for absolute detereitarilzaton but slays tthe ria pint a which itis connected withthe present relative mae and pr cially with the force te by this mien. Brea, the wor us by Samuel Butler, refers not ony to no-wlere But oto non-hee What maters isnot the suppose distintion between utopian atl ‘centile socials but the diferent sypeso utopia one of ther beng ‘revolution, In utopia (ain pilosophy) there is always the sk of 4 ‘restoration, and sometimes a proud aration, of rnscendence,s0 that we ae to datingush between authoritarian utopia, o won of transcendence, sn nimanent, reolionary, ibertaranwtopis But to say that revolution i itself opis of immanent ty that iiss dream, something tht is at raid oe dit only alo by betraying ll. On the contrary, sto posit relation 2 ple of immanenee, iaiaite moverient ad absohtenirvey, bit totheestent that hese Features coset up with whit sel het id ow inthe srg apint capitalism, relainching new strugees whenever the earlier one is betrayed. The word tops theefre estes tha enantio of phony, o of he cone te the pent mies philosophy (however, in view ofthe mt loed meaning public opinion as given toi, perhaps wpa ix not the best word. Te isnot fe to say that ee revolution “i the fl of piloso- pers” (although i isnot philosophers wh led). Tha the two sgt moder revolutions, American and Soviet, have tuned out 30 badly does not prevent the concep from parsing it inanent pth, As Kant showed, the concept of revolution exits notin the ay in ‘which revlon is underaken in necessarily relative soil ik but in the “enthusiast” wih which ici thooght of at absoite pine of immanence, like presentation of the infinite in the here snd now, which incies nothing rational or even reasonable. The oncept Fre immanence frm all he Fits stil nosed on i by capital (or that imposed on il in the form of epital apparing 36 something trnscendent). However, i is ot so much a ease of = sepa of de srcttor fom the sete in this entusian as of 2 tstincton within the action Ie betwen historia actors and “anita vapor” between a ste of firs andthe event. AS concept and as event revolution i sllsefeentil o eye sel sing that enable it co be apprehended in an immanent ens sm without anything in states of airs o Hive experience being shlet tone it down at even the dsppoiatments of reson. Revol tion absolute detevtriaization evento the point where dis calls fora new eth, new people Alboitedeteritoriiaton doesnot ake pce without teri, Filton. Philosophy x retestoraized on the concept The con- ep not objet ut terior. It does not have an Object but a teitory. For that very reason it has a pst Fr, present fem and, perhaps, form to come Modern philoophy i eterstrizd 0 Greece frm of sown pst. German philosophers expecially have lived the relitionsip with Greer asa persona relationship. But they indeed ved its the reverse or contrary of the Grek, the symmetrical inverse: the Greeks kept the plane of mmanence that they constructed in eats and drunkenness, but ehey bad to sear forthe concepts with which to io st avoid ling back Sint the Figures of the East. for ws, we pes coneptaller 80 many centres of Westem thought we think we pss them —but wwe hardly know where opt the becase we nk a genuine plane, tse as we are by Chistian transcendence. short is past am the concept tat wich was at yet. We tay panes comcepS tot the Gres didnot yet posses then hry pss Ue plane that wen longer ponies. That i why Plt's Geeks cmtmplate the concept as something that fs sl very far any aul yond, whereas we posses the coneept—we posses it inthe ming innately all that is needed isto wef. This is what Holderin expres 50 profoundly: the “Autochthon” forthe Grea is our ranger,” that smhich we have to acquire, wheres our Autoctuhn i what tothe onteay, the Grecks halo sequiea Ue stranger Or, ss Schel:Philosophy — 102 ling putt the Greeks ved and thug i Nature but et Minin the “mysteries” whereas we live, think, spd fel inthe Min, reflection, but leave Nature in a profound alchemical mystery tht we constantly prafine. The Autachon and the stranger steno lange separate ke two dane perionae, but dsb ike one ad the same double persons who folds into two versions in tur, pet aps: what as Autochthonous Becomes strange: what wat strange becomes Autecthonous. With all his strength Halden tals for a “society of ends asthe condition of hoz, bt i i a6 If this scieey had suffered catastrophe that changes the nature of fendship. We retertraize ourselves among the Greeks but coring to what they did ot poses and had nt yet come, 30 that we rterioriize hen om urslves Pilbsophicalreterritovializaton therefore als as present form Can we my that philosophy feted on the modern demo trate State and human rights? But because there ino univers ‘denocratic State this movencat plies the particularity of « State, of a Hight, oof the spit ofa people capable of expressing human Fight ia “is” State an of outing the mdern society of bathers fat, isnot only the pilose, a man, who has maton it bllosophy that is eeritriaize on henna State ad the prt of the prope (usualy dhse of dhe phils, but no alia) ‘Thus Nictache founded geopilouphy by seeking to determine the tinal characteristics of Frenel, English and German philosophy But why sere only ther enuintries colestivly able to produce pi Tasopiy inthe capitalist world? Why’ not Spin oe Kal? Hay in patclar presented st of dtersitvinize cies and 9 maritime Power that were capable of eibing the conditions fra “miracle.” Inarke the tt ofan ineamparaleplosophy. But aborted with its heritage passing instad to Germany (with Leibniz and See lng). Pes Spain was to subject t0 the Church and Italy too “dase” othe Holy See. Perhaps i was the break with Catholicism that saved England and Germany spiritually and perhaps Glan fu wes wet saved France aly and Spain lacked ile for isp, stat thei hikers remained “comets and they were ‘nent barn their comet. Kay and Spin were the two Western ‘nti capable of poser development of conection, that i to ‘ayy ofthat Catholic compromise of enerpt and gure which ad feat estate value but which masked philsophy diverted it to- vad a ori nl prevented fill posession of he concept ‘The present form is expressed thus: we have concepts! ‘The Garecks, however, did sot yet “have” them and contemplated them from afar, oF sensed them: the dilerence between Paton reins: ‘cece and Cartesian innate or the Kuti a pron derives fom this But possession ofthe eanept dors ot appar to coined with revolatin, the denacratic State, and human rights. fin Ameren the piloophial enterprise of pragmatism, s0 poorly understood in Franc, has continues with the democratic revolution and the nee society of Brothers this not tue ofthe golden age of seventeenth Century French plilosph, o of eighteeth-cetury Englane, or of ninetcenth-century Germany. But this only to say that human istry andthe history of philosophy donot ave the same ehh, French plilsophy already speaks nthe name of republic of nds an of capacity to thik a something that is “be most widely Stored” and that wil end up being expresed in a revoltionary Cato, England wil eonsacly reflect oa its revoationsry experience fd will be the fst to ak why revolutions cura out 0 bly in reaity when in pnt they promise so much England, America, and France exist asthe thce lids of una rights. As for Germany, it wil continue to teflect onthe French revolion from itd 5 that which it cannot do (i lacks suiiently deterstralized towns it rf from the weight of hiteland, the Land). But what teannot soup ei he tate ches ofthe Cr Gal Pe ntl heii the Hea Chacha dae painoi undertakes to think. Hn each ese philsphy fds wy ot retrsitorazng itself in the modern world in eonlormity wit He spirit «prope and its eaneeption of right. The history pis Dy therefore is marke by national characteristics or rather by tionaltaransms senate’ sts oom Act u pisaphizing, toe or phishing sujesviy (the oto hero takes on aire meaning since conquers and las down the ron). Eng, om cis point of ve is Germany's oisesion, forthe English are preily those aomads who tat the | which ae ike phils earue & we moderns pases the concept bt have las sight ofthe pane af mmanenes the the teeny of the French pena in piloophy i to manage ti sition by spertng com ‘pts thnugh simple onder of etlexve kaw an oder of reaons, an “epistemology.” It Whe the inventory of Tubitabe, evible, knowable or known lands tht are summed up by an awareness or cg, even if this eit rs beoie pease, and thi coosiaaesn mse be ome sont, to cate wht i st aren The French are ke Ksndowners whe sare of Income the soit. They are aluayy rere on consciousness Germany, onthe other had, des give up healt: ‘Rmakes use of onsciosiess ba mene of deteriora ‘ation. I ants to reongue the Greek plane of mmanence, the unknown earth ht no ete tow arr om anarsy son the nomad since the dapat ace ofthe Greek Te must ko constantly clear and om soldat his round hat 0 a, 8 ty amdatios. A ‘mann for owning for conquering pies tis ploy, nh the Greeks poses Auocthonaly, German phi Iosphy would hive though conquest and fandation, 30 ‘hat it would make frmanence iment something, to lane of tumanence aa movable and vig Growl, a eld taal eperiener an arhipelin world Whee hey ae ‘app to pth ther ets rm nd olan a ove he se. The English omar over theo Grek ath, broken 1p fractal, and extended othe entre iene, We e- st even sy tat they have concepts ike the French and (Germans at they aie tery, they only eleven wha acquired aot bens everyting comes rom the senses bt tecoue a concept acid by ining, by pitching ces ten, by contracting a Habit In che rity Founding Buiking-nbabiting the French il and the Germans by Sods, bot the English inhabit For ther tnt ah that ened. They develop an extrandiary conception of Ibe habits ate taken o0 by contemplting and by con eeting that which is contemplated, Habit erative, The ba eontampltes wate, eth, ntoge, cxbon, cris, to slits, and contracts the in der to ee fen conceal al with enjoy") The cert ies habit acquired by contemplating the cements ure tick we come thence the very pei Gress of Enis plilsop, ts empire pe Pstonbs). Weare all conten lions and therefore babi, «abit, Wherever there ae habs here re concepts, a Ibis are develipl aad fea upon the plane of mimanence of allel experince: they are omens” That wey Rags piknphy 1 rand wil resto fence. To wht convention