Forget the last URL I sent.
Just as I thought I had found something interesting on Romanticism there
is instead more of the same. Perhaps this equivocity is the failing
ground of Kantian immanent critique?
Just to explain, wrt the below, ontology merges with philosophy is
Deleuze's univocity (and I'll leave this aside as D's idealism.)
http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/deleuze/mitchell/mitchell.html
A particularly bright undergraduate who was taking the course objected
to Deleuze's attempt to ground sensible and perceptible syntheses in an
"organic" synthesis, and the nature of his objection was quite astute.
The student argued that whereas Deleuze's contentions about the first
two syntheses seemed like philosophical claims, in the sense that
philosophy could adjudicate their validity, the question of an organic
synthesis seemed to be operating in a completely different level of
analysis (e.g., biology or physics rather than philosophy). Or, as he
put it, and in a more Kantian tone, Deleuze was guilty of making an
unwarranted movement from transcendental to ontological claims: that is,
from conditions that had logical necessity to conditions that
(purportedly) had ontological necessity. I think this is an astute
observation, but the purpose of this paper, in part, is to map out the
itinerary that would justify Deleuze's movement through Kant to
something like ontology.
|