(questions in note form that are partly naive and part of my current work, questions as connections, as the objective reality of a thinking practice)
“Thus Marx, rather than Kierkegaard or Hegel, is right, since he asserts with Kierkegaard the specificity of human existence and, along with Hegel, takes the concrete man in his objective reality.” (Sartre, The search for a method)
Jaspers thinks that “We are taught to catch a presentiment of the transcendent in our failures; it is their profound meaning.” The death of god is the failure that reveals the transcendent (negative theology). What’s the difference between this and Critchley’s ‘achievement of a certain meaninglessness’ that he outlines at the beginning of his little book on death? Is it that to succeed is to already be beyond ourselves? Failure – is this the encounter with the problematic in Deleuze? Is what we are involved in when we are forced to think by the problem the lack of ease with which we navigate and move through the world (the ease of living)? This might appear so but this would defy the constant injunction by Deleuze against lack as a grounding or primary force.
Note also the theme of failure within Monsieur Dupont’s work (Species Being).
Note also the emphasis on pluralism as a problem in this first passage from Sartre ‘Search’ and the ‘magic formula PLURALISM=MONISM’ which Deleuze searches for (and which Hallward so rapidly identifies as central to the thought he wants to transform into a fully idealistic philosophy).
“Starting from there, Marxist idealism proceeds to two simultaneous operations: conceptualisation and passage to the limit”: Sartre, ibid – is this not an adequate description of Deleuze, does it not seem to capture the two crucial elements of his creative philosophy? Who else fits this description though?
“As soon as there will exist for everyone a margin of real freedom beyond the production of life, Marxism will have lived out its span; a philosophy of freedom will take its place.” For everyone? How do we take this? Is this margin of freedom not already here? Is Marcuse, for example, not articulating the problem with this ‘margin of freedom’ in ‘One-dimensional man’?