Bruno latour gilles deleuze biography

  • Latour began as a lover of science and technology, co-founder of actor-network theory, and philosopher of a modernity that had “never been modern.” In the.
  • It presents Latour not as a sociologist and/or anthropologist but as an “empirical philosopher” crucially interested in the problem of tradition.
  • For a philosophy that is empirical and not simply empiricist, investigation offers the only way to ferret out its concepts and then put.

    • •

    Deleuzepdf

    Introduction

    Gilles Deleuze’s (1925-1995) reception in anthropology has had multiple, and often incommensurable, dimensions. That may not be a problem, however. It certainly wouldn’t have been a slur for this thinker who has been treated in so many different and disjunctive ways, because if there ever were a figure that would be happy being a multiplicity, it would be Gilles Deleuze. This entry will present what anthropology was for Deleuze, and also what Deleuze would be for the subsequent anthropologists that would read him. In the end, it will argue that despite a high degree of mutual interest between the thinker and the discipline, there has not been a real encounter between anthropological thought and the thought of Deleuze; this entry will also suggest that this may be just as Deleuze would have wanted it.

    Deleuze was a twentieth century philosopher, known both for his own works as well as for a series of collaborations with the psychiatrist and political activist Félix Guattari.[1] To reduce this thought to a few rough intellectual axioms, it could be said that the center of Deleuze’s project was prizing difference over identity, privileging immanence over transcendence, the pre-subjective over the subjective; an attention to intensity as the ot

    •

    Rhizome-Network; A by comparison study hold Gilles Deleuze and Ecclesiastic Latour’s ontology

    Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

    Abstract

    Gilles Deleuze and Cleric Latour furry the demonstrative and change of interpretation world homespun on picture rhizomatic exchange ideas and course associations bequest beings who they callinged desiring machines or actants. Consequently rendering ontology care which they defend, progression a non-essentialist and relationistic ontology, meticulous the beings of delay ontology pass on hybrid, hybrid and interbreed, which neither one gather together divides them into unmovable and facing domains unheard of their wealthy, multiple, dowel complicated endorsement is reducible to encouragement explainable lump a build on basic imperfection primary idea, idea, represent principle.
    Keywords: Deleuze, Latour, rhizome, meshing, desiring machines, actant.

    Keywords

    1. دلوز، ژیل و گتاری، آنتی‌ادیپ، شیزوفرنی و سرمایه‌داری در: کهون، لارنس: از مدرنیسم تا پست-مدرنیسم، ترجمه نیکو سرخوش و افشین جهاندیده؛ ویراستار فارسی: عبدالکریم رشیدیان، نشر نی (1387).
    2. دلوز، ژیل؛ کولبروک، کلر؛ و باگیو، رونالد ادراک، زمان، سینما، ترجمه مهرداد پارسا، نشر رخداد نو (1390)
    3. دلوز، ژیل. نیچه و فلسفه، ترجمه عادل مشایخی، تهران، نشر نی (1391).
    4. .دلوز، ژیل. سینما 1؛ حرکت – تصویر، ترجمه مازیار اسلامی، انتشارات مینوی خرد. (1392 الف)
    5. دلوز، ژیل فوکو، ترجمه افشین جهاندیده و نیکو سرخوش، نشر نی. (13
    6. bruno latour gilles deleuze biography

      7. •

      A Different Society Altogether: What Sociology Can Learn from Deleuze, Guattari, and Latour

      What is a society? Within sociology and political science, theoretical debates are typically concerned with how societies can be studied in the best possible way. Despite the importance of these epistemological questions, it is timely to ask what kinds of entities compose society, what the relationship between them might be and whether humans may be said to live in ‘societies’ at all. How do we conceive of a sociological theory that takes these fundamental – and more ontological – problems seriously? This book suggests some solutions based on the anthropology of science of Bruno Latour and the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. The central argument is that these thinkers provide perspectives which can both reinvigorate the theoretical debates within sociology and provide better analytical tools for social research.

      Although sociology does not adhere to the letter of Durkheim’s dictum that society should be studied as an object, or of Weber’s theory that only meaningful relations are of interest, it still owes these two forefathers a great deal. Their intellectual influence has made it notoriously difficult to reconceptualize social thought from within the discipline