들뢰즈(Deleuze, Gilles)의 존재론- 베르그송(Bergson, Henry), 니체(Nietzsche, Friedrich), 그리고 노장사상의 상대주의적 관점
Gilles Deleuze's Being - from Bergson's, Nietzsche's, Laotzu's, and Chuangtzu's relativistic standpoints
1
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aims to discuss Gilles Deleuze's Being in terms of the contextual perspective of Bergson's, Nietzsche's, Laotzu's, and Chuangtzu's relativistic thoughts. Deleuze's Being is simulacrum, or image with no origin or foundation behind or beyond its space. It is becoming on the basis of the diversity of difference. Therefore his philosophical thought of Being is different from those of structuralism and Hegelian dialectics. Deleuze thinks structuralists' systematic structure and Hegel's end-point of history both are not free of the Western commitment to some ultimate being and its binarism. And his anti-structural and -Hegelian thoughts show that his philosophical thought has its root in post-structuralism. Deleuze's post-structural thought of Being can be understood more naturally through East and West relativistic thoughts comparing the logos and its binarism. In other words, his philosophical context, which appears in the study of his French senior Bergson, is similar to that of East and West relativistic thoughts. In Nietzscheism and Taoism, Being comes from the diversity of relativistic difference with no origin or foundation behind or beyond its space. It is ontologically the community of individual conflict and multi-connection. Therefore, these relativistic thoughts of Nietzsche's and Taoists', which represents the perpetual becoming of one thing from another or from one point of opposition to the other, encourage us to more clearly understand Deleuze's Being.
Abstract
This study aims to discuss Gilles Deleuze's Being in terms of the contextual perspective of Bergson's, Nietzsche's, Laotzu's, and Chuangtzu's relativistic thoughts. Deleuze's Being is simulacrum, or image with no origin or foundation behind or beyond its space. It is becoming on the basis of the diversity of difference. Therefore his philosophical thought of Being is different from those of structuralism and Hegelian dialectics. Deleuze thinks structuralists' systematic structure and Hegel's end-point of history both are not free of the Western commitment to some ultimate being and its binarism. And his anti-structural and -Hegelian thoughts show that his philosophical thought has its root in post-structuralism. Deleuze's post-structural thought of Being can be understood more naturally through East and West relativistic thoughts comparing the logos and its binarism. In other words, his philosophical context, which appears in the study of his French senior Bergson, is similar to that of East and West relativistic thoughts. In Nietzscheism and Taoism, Being comes from the diversity of relativistic difference with no origin or foundation behind or beyond its space. It is ontologically the community of individual conflict and multi-connection. Therefore, these relativistic thoughts of Nietzsche's and Taoists', which represents the perpetual becoming of one thing from another or from one point of opposition to the other, encourage us to more clearly understand Deleuze's Being.
참고문헌 (14)
- 김상환, "노장과 해체론 - 개방성의 기원에 대하여?, 『노자에서 데리다까지』, 한국도가 철학회", pp.323~364 (2002), 예문서원
- 김성곤, "탈구조주의의 문학적 의의와 전망 in 탈구조주의 이해", pp.11~44 (1988), 민음사
- 김형효, "도가사상의 현대적 독법 in 노자에서 데리다까지(한국도가 철학회)", pp.15~36 (2002), 예문서원
- 노자, "노자" (1987), 명진출판사
- 로도윅, 데이비드. 노먼, "질 들뢰즈의 시간기계" (2007), 그린비
- 보들리야르, 장, "시뮬라시옹" (1995), 민음사
- 뿔레, 조르주, "인간의 시간―프랑스 작가를 통한 연구" (1998), 서강대학교 출판부
- 여종현, "노자의 도 사유와 하이데거의 존재사유 - 휴머니즘의 탈형이상학적 정초 in 노자에서 데리다까지(한국도가 철학회)", pp.150~198 (2002), 예문서원
- 장자, "신역 장자" (1987), 현암사
- 하트, 마이클, "들뢰즈 사상의 진화" (2006), 갈무리
- Colebrook, Claire, "Gilles Deleuze" (2006), Routledge
- Milton, Colin, "Lawrence and Nietzsche: A Study in Influence" (1987), Aberdeen Univ. Press
- Nietzsche, Friedrich, "The Will to Power, eds and trs. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hlingdale" (1968), A Division of Random House
- Sarup, Madan, "An Introductory Guide to Post?Structualism and Postmodernism" (1988), Harvester Wheatsheaf
