تحلیل و نقد سنتز های زمانی دلوز (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
این پژوهش می کوشد تا سنتزهایِ زمانی دلوز را مورد تحلیل و نقادی قرار دهد. بنابراین هدفِ اصلی این مقاله، بررسیِ انتقادیِ دیدگاه دلوز درباره زمان است که در قالب سنتزهایِ زمانیِ سه گانه مطرح می شود. اگرچه دلوز هریک از این سنتزهایِ زمانی را با الهام از یک فیلسوف خاص مطرح می کند، اما نگاه کلی او در اینجا به کانت و تعریف او از زمان است. سنتز اول، سنتز منفعل عادت است که به مثابهامری ناآگاهانه و پیشاآگاهانه اتفاق می افتد. سنتز دوم، سنتز فعال حافظه است که با مفهوم گذشته نهفته (virtual) برگسونی رابطه ای تنگاتنگ دارد. دلوز سنتز سوم را با استفاده از تعریف کانتیِ زمان به مثابهصورت محض و تهی، مفهوم برش و وقفه، و همچنین بازگشت جاودانه نیچه، مطرح می کند. در نقد دلوز، دست کم می توان سه اشکال را وارد ساخت. (1) جداسازی مفاهیم از کانتکست اصلی آن، ارتباط میان مفهوم در شکل فعلی و قبلی اش را ناروشن باقی می گذارد و شباهت آن ها را مبهم رها می کند. (2) نوع ترکیب این مفاهیم مشخص نیست. اینکه آیا از نوع متافیزیکی است یا از نوع واقعی یا جز آن. و (3) استفاده دلوز از این مفاهیم متنوع، کاملاً به تفسیر و خوانش خاصی از آن ها متکی است و لزوماً شامل خوانش های دیگر نمی شود.Analysis and criticism of Deleuze's syntheses of time
Introduction The present article attempts to carry out a critical examination of Deleuze's perspective on time, which he presents in the form of three syntheses of time. Deleuze proposes each of these times as syntheses with the inspiration of a specific philosopher, but his overview concerns Kant's notion and definition of time. Furthermore, Hume is also the subject of Deleuze's reference in the first synthesis, which is called the passive synthesis of habit. The second synthesis, which is the active synthesis of memory pertains to Deleuze's reference to Bergson. Kant's definition of time as a pure and empty form, the concept of cut and caesura, and Nietzsche's eternal return are used to propose the third synthesis. Our purpose is to present and articulate the distinctive features and attributes of each of these three syntheses, their interrelationship, and a critical assessment of the mechanism proposed by Deleuze. As far as the authors of the article are aware, so far there is no independent research on Deleuze's syntheses of time in Persian. In addition to the works used in this article, at a global level, we can mention the works of (Roudinesco, 2008), (Hodges, 2008), (Lundy, 2017), and (Roberts, 2006). MethodologyIn order to carry out this research work, we will use Deleuze's works, specifically difference and repetition, in order to explain his ideas clearly. Therefore, we have attempted to critique and evaluate his views by utilizing descriptive-analytic methods, relying on commentators' views, and utilizing authentic sources and documents. FindingThe three syntheses of time are actually Deleuze's answer to the Kantian concept of time, according to which time is the condition of all internal perceptions. This means that the relationship between the subject and time is "always" conscious. Deleuze believes that the conscious active synthesis is based on a passive and unconscious synthesis. He calls this synthesis the passive synthesis of habit. Hume explains that our imagination is characterized by the expectation of two phenomena or sequences that always appear together in our experience. This definition describes imagination as a contractile power. Deleuze states that this is not a form of memory, an act of memory, or an act of understanding. Therefore, this process indicates a time synthesis. Time is created only in the primary synthesis that operates on the repetition of instants. The living present is created through the integration of independent and consecutive instants in this synthesis. According to Deleuze, the synthesis is constructive but not active. Deleuze takes the view that the second synthesis, the active synthesis of memory, is based on the passive synthesis of habit. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the foundation and the ground. Therefore, habit is the foundation of time, and memory is the ground of time. Habit is the primary synthesis of time that constitutes the life of the passing present. Memory is the fundamental synthesis of time that creates the existence of the past, which in turn causes the passing of the present time. Deleuze's account of the third synthesis of time encompasses a range of ideas from philosophy, Greek drama, and mathematics. In the third synthesis, Kant has a revolutionary role, because he considered time as a linear concept, also expressing the gap and fracture that are happened in I through the form of time as a form of auto-affection. Deleuze also refers to Oedipus' interpretation of Hölderlin, in order to clarify the effect that the pure and empty condition of time has on the subject. Hölderlin's concept of caesura is used by him to define the past and future, which are inconsistent and asymmetrical. The concept of caesura finds its mathematical expression in the concept of cut, which was developed by Dedekind, in line with the construction of a merely ideal and static concept of continuity. Deleuze proposes three rules whereby the three major innovations that Kant creates in the notion of time are classified. The first rule is Hamlet's rule that "The time is out of joint". The second rule basically says: “Until today, we considered ourselves obliged to represent the space. Today, it is time to think about time.” The third rule is also from the French poet Rimbaud who says: “I is an Other”. The dissolved "self", God's death, and Nietzsche's eternal return create a concept of time that Deleuze expresses in the synthesis of the future. Discussion and ConclusionIt is important to note that Deleuze takes many different concepts from philosophers, poets, and other thinkers and combines them into an amazing concoction. If Deleuze allows such a thing, then the question will arise that, basically, Can we separate a concept and even a poem from its original context without changing its meaning? We also have to take into account the fact that the type of combination of concepts is not clear. In other words, it is unclear if what Deleuze is talking about is metaphysical, real, or something like a chemical compound. Deleuze insists that these concepts must maintain their differences from each other. If that's the situation, then one must question how, despite their differences, they can come together in the ultimate process.As a result, Deleuze deserves praise for his initiative in establishing or discovering the passive synthesis of time. This was not present in Kant. It should not be forgotten that the use of these different concepts of Deleuze is entirely dependent on a specific interpretation and reading. Changes in the meaning of one of these adapted concepts can lead to serious difficulties for Deleuze's explanation.
تبلیغات
