“相信此世”——在与克尔凯郭尔的对话之中重释德勒兹的 “ 否定主义”

“ Belief in This World ”—Reinterpreting Deleuzian Negativism via a Dialogue with Kierkegaard

摘要:

德勒兹与克尔凯郭尔之间的哲学对话, 近来愈发成为研究界关注的一个热点。 但其中也暴露出两个明显的问题, 一是过于将克尔凯郭尔 _“ 德勒兹化_”, 进而忽视了绝对否定这个二者之间的关键区分; 二是过于局限于文本的出处细节, 而无法在二者之间找到深层的互通。 纠偏和推进该项研究, 需要首先围绕绝对否定这个要点辨析两位哲人关于生成-主体的不同理解, 再进一步从否定性这个要点出发对德勒兹哲学本身进行一番重释。 减损式的否定性操作充其量只具有局部和过渡的效应, 但在两卷本 《电影》 中深入诠释的 _“ 相信此世_” 这个命题却逐步展现出绝对否定的潜藏契机。

Abstract:

Among the continental philosophers who had profoundly influenced Deleuze, Kierkegaard is obviously neglected. In addition to the scarcity of textual clues and the difference in thinking styles, the diametrically opposed philosophical positions between the two seem to be a more obvious reason. Deleuze_'s philosophy finally returns to affirmative vitalism, while Kierkegaard is on the contrary, pursuing the inner experience of absolute negation all his life. But in fact, it is still possible to seek the inner connection between the two philosophers around the point of absolute negation. The key point of connection lies in the important proposition of _“belief in this world_” that Deleuze has repeatedly discussed, and has developed in a continuous but obviously different ways in the two volumes of Cinéma. In Cinéma 1, this proposition is mainly intended to highlight the different methods of creating _“any space_” in movies, and to show the creation of ethical subjects from potential fields through the important aspect of spiritual space. This idea has been further elucidated in Le pli. However, many scholars have compared the Deleuzian becoming-subject with Kierkegaard_'s related discourses, which seems ill-advised. Indeed, Kierkegaard also clearly linked the movement of _“becoming_” with his theory of subjectivity on many occasions, but the becoming he explained in depth shows a very strong and fundamental negative color. What Kierkegaard wanted to achieve is definitely not to return life to the origin of creation again and again, and then to affirm the eternal return of itself, but to absolutely deny itself at every moment. Nothingness, death, and rupture are the distinctive forms of it. So, does it mean that there is no possibility of communication between the two philosophers? Is it possible to try a seemingly extreme move,that is, to re-examine Deleuze?s philosophy from the perspective of absolute negation? Numerous scholars have properly emphasized the negative factors in Deleuze_'s philosophy. Moreover, his operation of _“subtraction_” in texts such as _“One Less Manifesto_” does show a distinct negative meaning. But in the final analysis, this negativity is only a transitional, transformational, temporary or partial link, and it has never been and cannot really become Deleuze _'s ontological premise. But in Cinéma 2， the critique of the automatic device of the mind gradually leads to another interpretation of the belief in this world， and the related discussions about the powerless and fragile subject seem to show a stronger negative color. It is also more directly related to Kierkegaard_'s ironic _“groundless_” subject. Through the comparison between the two philosophers，we can also give different interpretations and responses to Deleuze_'s _“ethics of immanence_”.