Spinoza vs. Leibniz

«”Mais Leibniz est de la grande tradition rationaliste.
Imaginez Leibniz : il y a quelque chose d’effarant.
C’est le philosophe de l’ordre ; bien plus, de l’ordre et de la police, dans tous les sens du mot police.
Au premier sens du mot police surtout, à savoir l’organisation ordonnée de la cité. Il ne pense qu’en termes d’ordre.
(…)
Il y a une visite Leibniz-Spinoza (lui c’est l’anti-Leibniz): Leibniz fait lire des manuscrits, on imagine Spinoza exaspéré se demandant ce que veut ce type là. Là-dessus quand Spinoza est attaqué Leibniz dit qu’il n’est jamais allé le voir, il dit que c’était pour le surveiller…

Abominable. Leibniz est abominable. (…)»

– Deleuze, Cours.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

«Si SPINOZA se distingue essencialmente de LEIBNIZ

es porque ÉSTE, cercano a una inspiración barroca, ve en lo OSCURO («fuscum sub nigrum») una matriz, una premisa, de donde saldrán el CLAROSCURO, los colores y hasta la luz.

En SPINOZA, por el contrario, todo es LUZ,

y lo Oscuro no es más que SOMBRA, un mero efecto de luz, un límite de la luz sobre unos cuerpos que la reflejan (afección) o la absorben (afecto):

estamos más cerca de Bizancio que del Barroco.

En vez de una LUZ que sale de los grados de sombra por acumulación del rojo, tenemos una luz que crea grados de sombra azul.

El propio CLAROSCURO es un efecto de esclarecimiento o de oscurecimiento de la sombra:

son las variaciones de potencia o los SIGNOS VECTORIALES los que constituyen los grados de claroscuro, pues el AUMENTO DE POTENCIA es un esclarecimiento,

y la merma de potencia un oscurecimiento.»

– Deleuze, Critique et clinique (1993). Trans. Essays Critical and Clinical (1997).

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

«…we must take in account of 2 basic factors in LEIBNIZ’s conception of expression:

ANALOGY, which primarily expresses different types of unity relative to the multiplicities they involve,

and HARMONY, which primarily expresses the way multiplicity corresponds in every case to an underlying unity

This all forms a “SYMBOLIC” philosophy of expression

is inseparable from SIGNS of its transformation,

and from the obscure areas in which it is plunged.

What is distinct and what confused vary in each expression

(mutual expression means, in particular, that what a monad expresses confusedly, another expresses distinctly).

SUCH A SYMBOLIC PHILOSOPHY
IS NECESSARILY a PHILOSOPHY of EQUIVOCAL EXPRESSIONS.

And rather than opposing Leibniz and Spinoza by citing the Leibniz themes of possibility and finality, it seems to me ESSENTIAL to bring out this concrete point concerning the way understands and operates with the phenomenon of expression, for all the other themes and concepts flow from it.

(…)

If LEIBNIZ’s pre-established harmony and SPINOZA’s PARALLELISM

both break with the assumption
of a real causality between soul and body

the fundamental DIFFERENCE between them still lies here:

THE DIVISION into ACTIONS and PASSIONS

remains in LEIBNIZ what it was according to the TRADITIONAL assumption (the body suffering when the soul acts, and vice versa) –

while SPINOZA in practice OVERTURNS all the division, asserting a PARITY between

the soul’s passion and the body’s,

and between the body’s action and the soul’s.

For the relation of expression holds in Spinoza
ONLY BETWEEN EQUAL TERMS

HEREIN lies the TRUE SENSE of this PARALLELISM:

NO SERIES IS EVER EMINENT (…)

FAR FROM perfection implying “ANALOGY or “SYMBOLIZATION” in which the more perfect term would exist on another qualitative level than the less perfect,

it implies only IMMANENT QUANTITATIVE processing which the more perfect term exists IN the more perfect, that is, IN and UNDER the same UNIVOCAL form that constitutes the essence of the more perfect term (this is also, as we have seen,

the sense in which Leibniz’s theory of QUALITATIVE INDIVIDUATION,

should be OPPOSED

to Spinoza’s theory of QUATITAIVE INDIVIDUATION, without our concluding, of course, that the MODE has any less AUTONOMY than a MONAD».

– DELEUZE, Spinoza et le problème de l’expression (1968) Trans. Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza (1990). P.331

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

«My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.»

– Kurt Gödel

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Em síntese (por Híbrido Mutante):

“Ambos, Espinosa E Leibniz, se contrapõem a Descartes, construindo o Expressionismo em Filosofia (tal como Fichte e Schelling o vão fazer depois de Kant – comparação feita por Deleuze).

Mas depois é necessário não os confundir e descartar a filosofia simbólica de Leibniz (com sua harmonia “ontológica”, sua analogia “epistemológica”, suas “hierarquias”, sua relação alma-corpo inversa, seus “signos”, suas monadas, sua individuação qualitativa, sua EQUIVOCIDADE) pelo rigoroso paralelismo de Espinosa, sua quantidade imanente, sua paridade nas relações alma-corpo, sua univocidade…

Como fazer um pensamento sem “alto e baixo”? Sem transcendente?”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s