Book | Chapter

In discussions surrounding philosophical texts, the word 'system" or 'systematic" serves as a caveat, be it tacit or overt. One is cautioned against mistaking a part — a single passage, book, idea, or position — for the entirety of a philosophy. The text in question is positioned as a piece of some larger, 'systematic" enterprise. As much as any philosopher Deleuze has heightened our awareness of the numerous types of system and images of system-building within the history of philosophy. In particular, Deleuze has made us aware of the fact that not every "plane of composition," not every instance of philosophical rigor, and not every relation of part to whole can be captured by the more familiar metaphors of the philosophical imagination: the organism (where each part plays a specific, fully determined role within an overall structure), the tree (the root and the body or the trunk and its branches), the building (with its foundation and vertically successive floors). If only philosophers had the decency of conforming to these metaphors. If only reading philosophy were as simple as following discrete premises on their linear path to a conclusion. If only understanding a philosophy were as easy as an elevator ride: stop on each floor until you reach the top or descend until you reach the ground.

DOI: 10.1057/9780230299085_4

Full citation: