Quick Question....

[sodapopinski51]

Before we start AO, I thought it would be worth asking... do you folks believe D&G are "compatibalists"? That is that the concept of free will and determinism can both make logical sense, both sides have an element of truth in their arguments that does not necessarily negate the other side... you can argue for free will and determinism with equal

Comments

[sodapopinski51]

well I dont necessarily think that compatibilism has to necessarily synthesize into some greater thesis. This is of course not always the case. But there can be a space for disagreement and displacement without superceding and totally destroying what came previously... we should perhaps get into this when we start reading, but if Deleuze and Guattari are saying that new knowledge necessarily displaces old knowledge then that seems a bit naive. Or that one line of reasoning that is "true" negates the opposite side, then that is ballyhoo! Perhaps you could show me where in AO they make this point.

[sodapopinski51]

I take this to mean that they are simply positioning their text as a-systematic, and anything but a universal, absolute set of truth principles. I guess compatibilism would imply that various disagreements can be made to agree with one another. this is not what D&G are doing.... they are not in the business of ending various academic scuffles and turf wars in the hopes of producing the ultimate synthesis (ala Hegelian Absolute Mind... which is a form of mental masturbation in my opinion)... they were doing something else. Im not sure what that was, but it was unique.