Titlebook: Deleuze, Whitehead, Bergson; Rhizomatic Connectio Keith Robinson Book 2009 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 2

Arctic

奴才

,Introduction: Deleuze, Whitehead, Bergson — Rhizomatic Connections,both ends of the twentieth century. At the start of the century Bergson’s thought was hailed as ‘the beginning of a new era’ and yet, under the weight of criticisms which labelled his thought ‘intuitionist’ or ‘irrationalist’, he virtually disappeared for most of the middle decades of the twentieth

humectant

Thinking with Deleuze and Whitehead: a Double Test,rison. Comparison always entails the risk of reducing philosophical thoughts to a matter of opinions to be compared from an outside, apparently neutral, standpoint, that is by an unmoved reader, and this risk becomes lethal when, as is the case with both Whitehead and Deleuze, the philosophers expli

ACRID

Language, Subjectivity and Individuality,tivity that is not limited to the ‘human’. Both writers provide compelling reasons as to why and how contemporary analyses should avoid positing the human person as either an object or a subject. Rather, ‘human’ individuality is to be envisaged as an aspect within the wider, processual effectivity w

Biguanides

Whitehead and Deleuze: Thinking the Event,the ‘event’. It is a concept we are all familiar with in a sense, even in philosophy, since it is so central to much of contemporary thought. It plays, for instance, a central role in Whitehead’s process philosophy, but it is also a key concept for postmodern philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Je

合群

The Emergence of a Speculative Empiricism: Whitehead Reading Bergson, William James, and John Dewey.’. There are many readers, particularly in France, who have seen this as attesting to a continuity between the two philosophers.. This impression seems all the more justified given the similar homage Whitehead had earlier paid Bergson in .: ‘I believe that in this doct

FLOUR

abolish

神圣在玷污

Deleuze, Whitehead and the Reversal of Platonism, has been at least one of the primary questions of ‘modern’ philosophy and arguably . question of philosophy in the twentieth century on both sides of the professional divide, informing the questions of language, temporality and other topics. It has also been suggested that the claim regarding the ‘

defray

A Whiteheadian Chaosmos?,nction between a cosmology and a chaosmology. At its most simplistic, the difference in play is that between a cosmos in which order is imposed on a primordial chaos ‘from outside’, or transcendently (as when Form is imposed on matter by the Platonic demiurge, or harmony established . by the Leibniz