Verschil en gewoonte: Deleuzes anti-Hegeliaanse kritiek van het bewustzijn | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 114, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 0002-5275
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1244

Abstract

Abstract

Since Antiquity, habit has been understood as a second nature, as something that we develop in a conscious or unconscious way, and which directs and structures both our cognitive and practical lives – our consciousness and our actions. For Hegel, habit effectuates the transition from nature to spirit or consciousness, thus forming the basis of morality. Habit thus constitutes an essential stage in the development of the mind and a crucial aspect of Hegel’s philosophical anthropology. Habit also plays a crucial role in the thinking of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze, who characterizes his philosophical project as anti-Hegelian or anti-dialectical. Even though many works examine the relationship between Deleuze and Hegel, almost none of these discuss the concept of habit of these authors, and the role that it plays in Deleuze’s so-called anti-Hegelianism.

In this article, I address the concept of habit in , and the role it plays in Deleuze’s critique of Hegel. I also compare this concept with Hegel’s own conception of habit in his Anthropology. I show that Deleuze certainly does not understand repetition as second nature as Hegel does, because then it is impossible to account for the productive power of the unconscious or the sub-representative, and of real creativity. I distinguish my interpretation of habit in Deleuze from that of a number of other authors, who, in my view, do not draw all the conclusions from Deleuze’s interpretation of Hume. I then expound Deleuze’s original notion of habit and compare it with Hegel’s.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2022.3.004.WIEL
2022-10-01
2024-05-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baugh, B. (1992), Transcendental empiricism: Deleuze’s response to Hegel, in: Man and World25, Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 133-148.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergson, H. (2017) [1896], Matière et mémoire. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Deleuze, G. (2014) [1953], Empirisme et subjectivité. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Deleuze, G. (2016) [1962], Nietzsche et la philosophie. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Deleuze, G. (1968), Différence et répétition. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Deleuze, G. (2011) [1968], Verschil en herhaling. Vertaald door J.Beerten & W.van der Star, Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Duffy, S. (2009), The role of mathematics in Deleuze’s engagement with Hegel, in: International Journal of Philosophical Studies2/4, London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 563-582.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hegel, G. W. F. (1975) [1812-6], Wissenschaft der Logik II. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Houle, K. & Vernon, J. (red.) (2013), Hegel and Deleuze. Together Again for the First Time. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hume, D. (2007) [1739-40], Traktaat over de menselijke natuur. Vertaald door F. L.van Holthoon, Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ingala, E. (2020), Freud’s trope of the ‘beyond’: On conditions, critique, and violence, in: Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, vol. 25, issue 4, New York: Springer, pp. 576–593.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Kant, I. (2004) [1781-87], Kritiek van de zuivere rede. Vertaald door J.Veenbaas & W.Visser, Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kant, I. (2006) [1788], Kritiek van de praktische rede. Vertaald door J.Veenbaas, J. & W.Visser, Amsterdam: Boom.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lumsden, S. (2002), Deleuze, Hegel, and the transformation of subjectivity, in: The Philosophical Forum, Vol. XXXIII issue 2, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 143-158.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Nietzsche, F. (2006) [1872], De geboorte van de tragedie. Vertaald door H.Driessen, Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Nietzsche, F. (2011) [1886], Voorbij goed en kwaad. Vertaald door T.Graftdijk, Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Nietzsche, F. (2013) [1899-1901], Zo sprak Zarathoestra. Vertaald door R.van Hengel, Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Nietzsche, F. (1995), La volonté de puissance. Würzbach, F. (red.), vertaald door G.Bianquis, Paris: Gallimard (dit is de uitgave van de postume fragmenten van Nietzsche die Deleuze gebruikt).
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Smith, D. (2012), Essays on Deleuze. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Somers-Hall, H. (2010) Hegel and Deleuze on the metaphysical interpretation of the calculus, in: The Continental Philosophy Review, vol. 42, New York: Springer, pp. 555–572.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Widder, N. (2003) Thought after dialectics: Deleuze’s ontology of sense, in: The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. XLI, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 452-476.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/ANTW2022.3.004.WIEL
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error