Scan barcode
alexander0's review against another edition
4.0
As a book that takes Leibniz to an extreme that Leibniz would have never done himself, this book is excellent and drawing him out to what could be seen as his philosophical ends. This is a great piece of historical philosophy in that sense. However, if we understand this as one of Deleuze's works of unorthodox philosophical history, which it is, then we must understand there are some abuses in context relative to his goals. Namely, what Deleuze offers is a context in which Leibniz is right in just such a way that bodies and logical inquiry of God enable such a utopian system in that God can't fail, but rather succeeds, through the damnation, the sins, the "failures" of much of humanity. In showing such a system, Deleuze creates instruments of how to think about bodies and the consistency of rational approaches. Doing this allows him to reconsider what Kant was attempting, and what much of the enlightenment philosophers were attempting. This is a huge step in the metaphysics of empiricism that is expressed in Deleuze's _Difference and Repetition_.
However, if one wished to problemitize this account of logical inquiry, one would only need to look to Godel's incompleteness theorems. As the basis of Deleuze's inquiry into Leibniz is roughly an account of the metaphysics of set theoretic or algebraic inquiry, it would seem not to difficult to suggest that Deleuze's analysis of Leibniz (whether or not Leibniz would have been aware of such a thing in his time) is open to criticism in his utopian vision of the completeness of the infinite due to the failures of consistency or completeness in the metamathematical statements of related to functional analysis that also seems at least analogous to Deleuze's accounts of difference (differences being directly related to derivatives in mathematics).
The folds themselves may find difficulty in their completeness of account through such a connection between the "rational" logic of mathematicians and the empirical of scientific.
However, if one wished to problemitize this account of logical inquiry, one would only need to look to Godel's incompleteness theorems. As the basis of Deleuze's inquiry into Leibniz is roughly an account of the metaphysics of set theoretic or algebraic inquiry, it would seem not to difficult to suggest that Deleuze's analysis of Leibniz (whether or not Leibniz would have been aware of such a thing in his time) is open to criticism in his utopian vision of the completeness of the infinite due to the failures of consistency or completeness in the metamathematical statements of related to functional analysis that also seems at least analogous to Deleuze's accounts of difference (differences being directly related to derivatives in mathematics).
The folds themselves may find difficulty in their completeness of account through such a connection between the "rational" logic of mathematicians and the empirical of scientific.
More...