 |
 |
in "The Logic of Sense" Deleuze writes about the notion of time as Chronos and Aion. in his other books "Cinema 1 & 2 he also talks about the notion of time from Nietzsche's perspective, namely the "eternal return". ali, >From: Paul Gallagher <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Deleuze and Kierkegaard >Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:02:17 -0500 > >Julie wrote: >> >> Just a short question... >> >> >> What fundamental concepts of time do Deleuze and Kierkegaard present >> to us and how do they differ from other understandings? >> >> Julie G > >Here are two papers that might offer some clues. > >Kierkegaard wrote about the timelessness of God in relation to the >individual, who exists in existential time. > >Penelope Palmer describes Kierkegaard's views in her review of Mark C >Texzon's "Kierkegaard's Pseudonymous Authorship. A Study of Time and the >Self." (Philosophical Quarterly, Apr. 1977, p177-180): > >"SK's fundamental category is that of the individual; it is hardly >surprising that Taylor should choose to elucidate-and very competently--the >theme of the self in the pseudonymous works. What is more unusual, and >extremely welcome, is his attempt to bring to light an intimately related >theme of time. In The Concept of Dread SK argued, with maddening brevity, >that the traditional concept of time was inappropriate to human existence. >Taylor, aided by Aristotle (Phye. IV), engages in an honest attempt to >understand in detail what SK was criticizing. Briefly, SK questioned that >view of time which derives from our understanding of space; consists in >'visualizing time instead of thinking it' (op. cit.); upholds an >indissoluble connection between time and the motion of bodies; sees time as >a line composed of an infinite series of points (the successive 'present' >points dividing past from future). SK calls the 'now' of this 'spatialized >time' an 'atomistic abstraction'-from past and future. He doubts whether >one can even speak of tenses of time from within the standpoint of >spatialized time. In Taylor's words: 'If only the present is, and the past >and future are consistently excluded from the present, it is difficult to >see how one could become aware of the past and of the future.' SK does not >think an individual can stand outside the time continuum in which he >exists, and thus become aware of time as tensed. A concept of 'life-time' >related to individuals' lives rather than to objects in space, is, Taylor >claims, inherent in SK's pseudonymous works, and closely bound up with his >view of the structure and possible development of the self..." > >Nathan Widder describes Deleuze's conception of time here: >http://www.huss.ex.ac.uk/politics/research/readingroom/WidderTime&Discontinuity.pdf >"Against the common or ordinary conception of time as the number or measure >of movement, this work follows Deleuze and others in treating time as the >unchanging form of what changes or moves. Following this route, time >becomes associated with a transcendental structure or synthesis of >differences, which Deleuze calls a 'disjunctive synthesis' or a synthesis >of differences through their difference." > >Paul > >* >* >Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. >After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are >replying to. >To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: >[log in to unmask] >For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. >** * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **