Hence a return to this sort of cry of Spinoza’s: what can a body do? In a morality, you always have the following operation: you do something, you say something, you judge it yourself. We are trying to compose a kind of landscape which would be the landscape of ontology. Spinoza never defines man as a reasonable animal, he defines man by what he can do, body and soul. There is you, this one, that one, there are singularities. Now, how can this essence which is only potential, be realized?
Morality is the system of judgement.
Ethics is not that at all, they are like two absolutely different worlds. This differentiable quantity is power. In a morality it is always a matter of realising the essence.
Sur Spinoza. x��]}�]�u�녵�H,Z�j���DVy[��;3w���1�?�7k{�(�^HM�����b�.�m>�"d䴲RD!�1UpT+J�(B�i�$`ɍBC��ȨD��� '������{�ݙ�[��{�~����3���k�]B۱�_�a��V�^/��dk_+�2�G��>��ݾu�5�5m������=-��y�P��'m�nN�)���[wt֏�]��HEg�ȍ�Ki���}����1�)����%Y,�N{�Fڍ3��mK��$����.�D�e�Oٗ�?���}b�^ Là-dessus on forme la notion commune, là-dessus on essaie de gagner localement, d’étendre cette joie. What can Spinoza have to say to the others. Never would a moralist define man by what he can do, a moralist defines man by what he is, by what he is by right. Fichte and Schelling developed a very interesting theory of individuation that we sum up under the name quantitative individuation. When one speaks of an ethology in connection with animals, or in connection with man, what is it a matter of? How must it be in order to say that? Essence is always a singular determination. 5 0 obj The word essence is quite likely to change sense. To say that it is to be realized by morality is to say that it must be taken for an end. Écouter Gilles Deleuze. Two criteria of ethics, in other words, the quantitative distinction of existing things, and the qualitative opposition of modes of existence, the qualitative polarization of modes of existence, will be the two ways in which existing things are in being. Somebody says or does something, you do not relate it to values. How is this possible in an internal way? to carry out the essence is the task of morality. Spinoza explains very well such and such a body, it is never whatever body, it is what you can do, you. Cours Vincennes : 24/01/1978 Cours Vincennes : 25/11/1980 Cours Vincennes : power (puissance), classical natural right : 09/12/1980 Cours Vincennes - St Denis : 16/12/1980 Cours Vincennes : Ontologie-Ethique : 21/12/1980 Cours Vincennes - St Denis Nothing. Gilles Deleuze Curso sobre Spinoza Dictado: 24/01/1978 Traductor : Ernesto Hernández B. epropal@col2.telecom.com.co Hoy hacemos una pausa en nuestro trabajo sobre la variación continua, volvemos provisionalmente, por una sesión, a la historia de la filosofía, sobre un punto muy preciso. In a morality, on the contrary, what is it a matter of? It is another landscape. The essence is only potential, it is necessary to realise the essence, that will be done insofar as the essence is taken for an end, and the values ensure the realization of the essence. When it is suggested to us that, between you and me, between two persons, between a person and an animal, between an animal and a thing, there is ethically, that is ontologically, only a quantitative distinction, what quantity is involved?
they can't do the same thing. We never know how we’re organized and how the modes of existence are enveloped in somebody. It always implies one more than Being, the Good which makes Being and which makes action, it is the Good superior to Being, it is the One. To be mad is also a part of the power ( It is essence. What is our essence? At this level, there is already an existentialism in Spinoza.