My wife received an e-mail where a poet referred to Giles Deleuze who collaborated with Guattari on some of his later work. The poet didn’t know much about either man so my wife asked me to give some idea of where Delueze’s work stood in relation to Guattari. This is what I wrote and what she sent:
“I asked Dick about Deleuze & Guattari & this is what he said:
Disclaimer: There is god talk in here but only as symbol. Deleuze & Spinoza use the word ‘god’ but what Spinoza really meant was ‘nature’. What Deleuze’s belief was, when he had one, is unclear. This is also Spinoza-prejudiced.
Deleuze & Guattari – In discussing the relation of G. Deleuze to F. Guatarri, we must keep in mind that the early Deleuze who wrote, ‘Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza’ (1968), is not the Deleuze that collaborated with Guattari on ‘What is Philosophy.’ (1991)
While never deviating from the position that true philosophy is expression and not logic, under the influence of Guattari, Deleuze had lost the crescendo of his early work, ‘Beatitude’ (p. 303-320)
In ‘Beatitude’ Deleuze explores what Spinoza calls ‘the third kind of knowledge,’ or, as Deleuze says: “But the third kind alone relates to eternal essence, of particular essences as they are in God and as conceived by God. (p. 303)
Spinoza said the second kind of knowledge was reason which was just a stepping stone to understanding, as Deleuze described it above. We must remember that Spinoza used ‘god’ and ‘nature’ interchangeably. As Spinoza said in the ‘Theological-Political Treatise’:
“But as to the question of what God the exemplar of true life, really is whether he is fire or spirit or light or thought or something else, this is irrelevant to faith. And so likewise is the question as to why he is the exemplar of true life…” (Chp 14, p. 518 in Samuel Shirley trans).
By the time he had been corrupted by Guattari, Deleuze had left his understanding of the ‘Beatitude,’ (third kind of knowledge) and all he had left was reason or the ‘concept.’ (What Is Philosophy, p. 15-34). Unlike Spinoza, Deleuze was swayed by the second kind of knowledge – or reason, which academia exalts and since this kind of knowledge could not satisfy him, he took his own life.
Suicide results, Spinoza said, because we do not know Nature (the exemplar of true life) and ourselves. Deleuze says much the same thing in ‘Spinoza:; Practical Philosophy’ (1970) The Letters on Evil, pp. 30-43. He knew this but forgot it when he lost the vision of ‘Beatitude.’
We owe much to Deleuze because he freed us from the rationalist interpretation of Spinoza that is often seen as the orthodox position. Deleuze opens up the ‘joy’ of the second half of Part 5 of Spinoza’s Ethics as no other philosopher did. Deleuze, like so many academics, neglected Spinoza’s early works: ‘The Emendation of the Intellect & Short Treatise on God, Man and His Well-Being’ and therefore apparently failed to note Spinoza’s caution towards fame (Also wealth and pleasure), that was “…like a man suffering from a fatal illness.” (Emendation of the Intellect (p. 8, 9 – Curley trans, Collected Works of Spinoza).
I adore the early Deleuze but I’m not too fond of Guattari and his influence on Deleuze. But maybe I shouldn’t be too harsh. After all, academic is just what it is, sometimes a guide to enlightenment and at others, the trap of rationalizations and ideology. As Spinoza said, ‘CAUTE!’
P.S. Deleuze’s notion of expressionism has much to say to poets, musicians and artists. His understanding of science wasn’t very adequate, in my opinion.”