iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Whenever we hear the words "nobody can deny…", "everyone would agree that…", we know a lie or slogan is about to follow.

0259

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

He does not invent concepts, he poses — in the true sense of the word — he poses no problems. So, to do history of philosophy is this long apprenticeship in which one learns, or one is truly an apprentice in this double domain, the constitution of problems and the creation of concepts.

060

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12/09/2026

One almost wants to ask, what is a bad philosopher, or a great philosopher? The bad one creates no concepts, is someone who uses ready-made ideas. So, he puts forth opinions then and does not do philosophy…. He says, “There, that’s what I do, that’s it, opinions, they have always been around.”

196

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

And we would have a difficult time saying in what respect this is false. No, it’s not false, it’s nothing.

030

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

when you take something ordinary for something remarkable, it affects the content of the idea. Not just formal stuff, so that’s why you always have books about which you say… I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but anyway, no, this is not ok, it’s childish.

140

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

It is justiciable of much finer categories. The important, the essential and the inessential, the remarkable and the ordinary, etc. As long as it is in your head, well, you can take very ordinary things for remarkable things. But it’s not innocent, this kind of confusion,

130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

They are ready-made ideas. Facile, facile, the type of ideas you have when you are eighteen years old and of which you are ashamed when you wake up. No, it’s too facile all that, not serious. You understand, the world of ideas, once again, has never been justiciable of the true and the false.

140

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

So your page is full. Full of what? I would say of ready-made ideas and you would have a difficult time finding them original. Ready-made ideas, that doesn’t necessarily mean ideas that others also have, you may very well have your own ready-made ideas, entirely your own although they are ready-made

292

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

No book ‘against’ anything ever has any importance; all that counts are books ‘for’ something, and that know how to produce it.

2130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 05/09/2026

and missing the new conception of unity he was in the process of creating.

060

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 05/09/2026

To claim that Proust had the notion — even vague or confused — of the antecedent unity of the Search or that he found it subsequently, but as animating the whole from the start, is to read him badly, applying the ready-made criteria of organic totality that are precisely the ones he rejects

170

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 01/09/2026

Writers, poets, musicians, filmmakers — painters too, even chance readers — may find that they are Spinozists; indeed, such a thing is more likely for them than for professional philosophers. It is a matter of one's practical conception of the "plan”.

0121

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

Foucault returns to Nietzsche by reviving the question of the death of man. And, if man has been a way of imprisoning life, mustn't the liberation of life in man himself take a different form?

061

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

What reason is there to think that the resulting composite form is still Man? And as for human rights, Ewald shows that it's precisely legal transformations that mark this change of form.

140

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

when human forces combine with other finitary forces discovered in life, work, language. Then these days it's often said that man is confronting new forces: silicon and no longer just carbon, the cosmos rather than the world...

130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

In the classic period, for example, human forces come into play with infinitary forces, “orders of infinity," with the result that man is formed in the image of God and his finitude is merely a limitation of infinity. The form of Man emerges in the nineteenth century,

130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

Take the human forces of imagining, conceiving, wanting... and so on: with what other forces do they come into play at some particular period, and what composite form emerges? It may happen that human forces enter as components into a form that isn't human but animal, or divine.

140

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

or as though, on the other hand, he was just noting a change in the concept of man ("that's all he's saying"). But he wasn't saying either of these things. He was talking about a play of forces, and a dominant form emerging from it.

150

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 29/08/2026

Misunderstandings are often reactions of malicious stupidity. There are some who can only feel intelligent by discovering "contradictions" in a great thinker. People acted as though Foucault was talking about the death of existing men (and they said "that's going a bit far")

160

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 25/08/2026

Evolutionary theorists no longer speak of species or types but only of populations. There is no animal species or type, only animal populations or vegetable populations.

060

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 25/08/2026

You may think I have totally abandoned science, but what l'm saying is completely scientific. It's not surprising that neo-evolutionists think solely in terms of populations. They no longer distinguish species or types.

170

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 25/08/2026

And what about Moby Dick? Moby Dick, the great white whale? What is he, if not the ‘borderline’ of the school of whales? Perhaps it always takes a monster to make the borderline, and we have to ask ourselves why this is.

1101

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

It is like Spinoza’s delicate health, while it lasted, bearing witness until the end to a new vision whose passage it remained open to.

050

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

The writer returns from what he has seen and heard with bloodshot eyes and pierced eardrums. What health would be sufficient to liberate life wherever it is imprisoned by and within man, by and within organisms and genera?

150

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

by all extensions and parts that happen to fill up or develop the system.

020

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

or partition on the other. Because individuation is the prior condition under which specification, and partition or composition, function in a system. Individuation is intensive, and it is presupposed by all qualities and species,

120

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

This explains the insufficiency of any reminder that individuation functions neither through prolonged specification (species infima) nor through composition or division of parts (pars ultima). It’s not enough to discover a difference of nature between individuation on the one hand and specification

140

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 22/08/2026

And it’s an open system when the concepts relate to circumstances rather than essences.

060

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 22/08/2026

What I and Guattari call a rhizome is precisely one example of an open system. Let’s return to the question: What is philosophy? Because one ought to give a very simple answer. Everyone knows that philosophy deals with concepts. A system’s a set of concepts.

181

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 21/08/2026

Problems are of the order of events — not only because cases of solution emerge like real events, but because the conditions of a problem themselves imply events such as sections, ablations, adjunctions.

040

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 20/08/2026

If Einstein gives new solutions to certain problems, it’s because he started by inventing these problems. If Leibniz discovers infinitesimal calculus, it’s because he poses a certain type of problem that precisely could only be resolved through these procedures.

070

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 20/08/2026

In school, when you are given a problem, there your answer is true or it’s false. But in the life of thought, it’s not that way because problems are not pre-given. You must invent them, these problems. And in science, it’s the same: problems don’t exist. One has to invent them.

182

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 19/08/2026

Spinoza constantly reminds us of the affirmative character of the attributes that define substance, and of the need for any good definition to be itself affirmative. Attributes are affirmations; but affirmation, in its essence, is always formal, actual, univocal: therein lies its expressivity.

060

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 18/08/2026

Without this reversal, the famous Copernican Revolution amounts to nothing.

030

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 18/08/2026

and defining the truth of problems in terms of the possibility of their finding a solution. On the contrary, “solvability” must depend upon an internal characteristic: it must be determined by the conditions of the problem, engendered in and by the problem along with the real solutions.

130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 18/08/2026

The only way to take talk of 'true and false problems’ seriously is in terms of a production of the true and the false by means of problems, and in proportion to their sense. To do so, it is sufficient to renounce copying problems from possible propositions,

151

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 18/08/2026

Why would you have to not know the least bit of mathematics? Because every passage that’s cited as proof that Pascal is a dialectician or that he anticipates dialectics is explained from a completely different perspective through the lens of these passages’ explicit mathematical references.

030

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 18/08/2026

The way Lukacs and Goldmann have interpreted Pascal as a proto-dialectician, a dialectical thinker par excellence. Once again, it’s to Serres’s credit—he says, you must not know the first thing about mathematics if you think Pascal’s thought is dialectical; it is anything but…

130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

At least, the only values that it creates are those of the triumphant slave. Struggle is not the principle or the motor of hierarchy but the means by which the slave reverses hierarchy.

060

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

One cannot over emphasise the ‘extent to which the notions of struggle, war, rivalry or even comparison are foreign to Nietzsche and to his conception of the will to power.’ It is not that he denies the existence of struggle: but he does not see it as in any way creative of values.

170

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

It is characteristic of established values to be brought into play in a struggle, but it is characteristic of the struggle to be always referred to established values: whether it is struggle for power, struggle for recognition or struggle for life — the schema is always the same.

182

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 15/08/2026

What do you see? And what do you make seen? And what do you say? Or, using the more technical terms that we saw last time: what are your forms of proof? What are your discursivities?

052

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 14/08/2026

As Dalcq says, when a caudal appendix is induced by its intensive environment, that appendix corresponds to a certain level of morphogenetic potential and depends upon a system in which 'nothing is a priori caudal’. The egg destroys the model of similitude.

050

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 14/08/2026

Species do not resemble the differential relations which are actualised in them; organic parts do not resemble the distinctive points which correspond to these relations. Species and parts do not resemble the intensities which determine them.

181

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13/08/2026

Pluralism sometimes appears to be dialectical — but it is its most ferocious enemy, its only profound enemy.

050

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13/08/2026

And are bodies, at the other extreme, better able to ground language? When sounds fall back on (se rabattent sur) bodies and become the actions and passions of mixed bodies, they are no more than the bearers of agonizing nonsense.

010

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 13/08/2026

It is not clear, however, by what miracle propositions would participate in the Ideas in a more assured manner than bodies which speak or bodies of which we speak, unless the Ideas were "names-in-themselves."

130

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

I insist on this: there is no less totality in the local than in the global; it is simply that the totality is not conceived in the same way.

000

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

You will say to me, this is not difficult: it is like saying that the local method moves from part to part, while the global method moves from the set to a given part. Well, no, that’s clearly not the way it is.

100

Gilles Deleuze For You @deleuzeforyou.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

The local concerns the most infinitesimal element of mathematical reality, and moves step by step. It moves step by step until it reaches another element.

101