By Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari
L'espace lisse, ou Nomos : sa différence avec l'espace strié. – Ce qui remplit l'espace lisse : le corps, sa différence avec l'organisme. – Ce qui se distribue dans cet espace : rhizome, meutes et multiplicités. – Ce qui se passe : les devenirs et les intensités. – Les coordonnées tracées : territoires, terre et déterritorialisations, Cosmos. – Les signes correspondants, le langage et l. a. musique (les ritournelles). – Agencement des espaces-temps : computer de guerre et appareil d'État.
Chaque thème est censé constituer un « plateau », c'est-à-dire une région proceed d'intensités. Le raccordement des régions se fait à los angeles fois de proche en proche et à distance, suivant des lignes de rhizome, qui concernent les éléments de l'art, de los angeles technology et de l. a. politique.
Read Online or Download Mille plateaux : Capitalisme et schizophrénie, 2 PDF
Similar philosophy books
A suite of treatises through Averroes at the nature and homes of the heavens. encompasses a serious variation of the Hebrew textual content with English translation, remark and advent.
Within the early 20th century, Ernst Mach, William James, and Bertrand Russell based a philosophical and medical move often called 'neutral monism', in response to the view that minds and actual gadgets are built out of components or occasions that are neither psychological nor actual, yet impartial among the 2.
Philosophy in approach, quantity 10, keeps the booklet of the operating journals, the highbrow diary of 1 of the best smooth metaphysicians. It offers the original chance to adventure him at paintings, pondering significantly approximately his prior writings and breaking floor within the construction of latest works.
Erhard Scheibe is without doubt one of the most eminent German philosophers of technological know-how. He has written broadly on the entire difficulties that confront the philosophy of arithmetic and physics: rationalism as opposed to empiricism, the legislation of nature, and reductionism. He has released books at the logical foundations of quantum mechanics and at the aid of actual theories.
- Enlightenment and Utility: Bentham in French, Bentham in France (Ideas in Context)
- Five Thousand B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies
- Matter, Space and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel
- Wittgenstein and Quine
- Evolutionary Computation: Toward a New Philosophy of Machine Intelligence, Third Edition
- The Cynic Philosophers: from Diogenes to Julian
Additional resources for Mille plateaux : Capitalisme et schizophrénie, 2
However, nothing in his account guarantees that unilateral just acts, especially punitive ones, will not destroy the world. We cannot conceive of a system of nature in which all humans regularly do this, yet survive as a species; it is not a coherently universalizable practice. ) forces us to think about the long-term implications of policies. But, as far as I know, Kant did not himself actually draw out the consequences of his theory for this issue. He did make some claims about our motivation—he believed that we cannot help but care to some degree about future persons and the sort of life they will have—but he did not spell out what our duty to such persons is, or even if there are any special duties we owe them.
We have avoided the No Obligation conclusion, C, by allowing the concept of an effect on a person to include “effect” on interests, including interests which come to be possessed only because of the “affecting” act. Parﬁt regards such interpretations of the Person-Affecting Principle as a “cheat,” and himself avoids the No Obligation conclusion by renouncing the Person-Affecting Principle in favor of a vaguer principle which says, “It is bad if those who live are worse off than those who might have lived,”9 a principle explicitly allowing comparisons between different possible people, not just comparisons of the possible fates of people of ﬁxed identity.
What troubles most of us about it is that the conclusion seems at odds with our moral intuitions on this matter. We may be unclear exactly what we must, in decency, do for the sake of a future person (I take up this problem in Section 3), but most of us do feel not only that it is wrong to pollute and deplete, but also that it is “future people,” in some sense of that phrase, who are the ones who are wronged if we act wrongly in this regard. The contemporary American political philosopher Thomas Schwartz, when he propounded an early version of our argument above, concluded not that we were free to do what we liked, as far as the consequences for the world future people will live in goes, but rather that we owe it to one another, to our contemporaries who do happen to care about humanity’s future, to restrain our earth-ravaging activities.