Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No.

11

N om a dogr a phy: The Ea r ly D e le uz e a nd t he H ist or y of

Philosophy
Robert T. Tally Jr.

Abst r a ct
Deleuzes career is frequent ly divided bet ween his early m onographs devot ed t o t he
hist ory of philosophy and his m ore m at ure work, including t he collaborat ions wit h Flix
Guat t ari, writ t en in his ow n voice. Yet Deleuzes early work is int egral t o t he lat er
writ ings; far from m erely sum m arizing Hum e, Niet zsche, Bergson, or Spinoza, Deleuze
t ransform s t heir t hought in such a way t hat t hey becom e new, fresh, and st range.
Deleuzes dist ast e for t he Hegelian inst it ut ion of t he hist ory of philosophy is overcom e by
his peculiar approach t o it , by w hich he t ransform s t he proj ect int o som et hing else, a
nom adography t hat proj ect s an alt ernat ive line of flight , not only allowing Deleuze t o get
out of t he inst it ut ion, but allowing us t o re- im agine it in product ive new ways. Deleuzes
nom ad t hinkers are like sudden, bewildering erupt ions of j oyful wisdom in an apparent
cont inuum of st able m eanings, st andard com m ent aries, set t led t hought . The early
Deleuze, by engaging t hese t hinkers, discovered a new way of doing philosophy.
I belong t o a generat ion, one of t he last generat ions, t hat was m ore or less
bludgeoned t o deat h wit h t he hist ory of philosophy. [ . . .] Many m em bers of m y
generat ion never broke free of t his; ot hers did, by invent ing t heir own part icular
m et hods and new rules, a new approach. I m yself did hist ory of philosophy for a
long t im e, read books on t his or t hat aut hor. But I com pensat ed in various ways:
by concent rat ing, in t he fir st place, on aut hors who challenged t he rat ionalist
t radit ion in t his hist ory ( and I see a secret link bet ween Lucret ius, Hum e, Spinoza,
and Niet zsche, const it ut ed by t heir crit ique of negat ivit y, t heir cult ivat ion of j oy,
t he denunciat ion of power . . . and so on) .
Gilles Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic 1

n his I nt roduct ion t o t he Lect ures on t he Hist ory of Philosophy, Hegel says t hat What
t he hist ory of philosophy displays t o us is a series of noble spirit s, t he gallery of t he heroes
of reasons t hinking, but t hat t he hist ory of philosophy would have lit t le value if t hought
of as a m ere collect ion of opinions, in t hem selves ar bit rary and t hus wort hless: But
philosophy cont ains no opinions; t here are no philosophical opinions. 2 Hence, Hegel says,
t hose who wish t o underst and t he hist ory of philosophy by st udying t he individual
philosophers it com prises, rat her t han achieving a m ore universal idea of t he t ot alit y of it s
t hought , will be m issing t he forest for t he t rees. Anyone who st art s by exam ining t he
t rees, and st icks sim ply t o t hem , does not survey t he whole wood and get s lost and

Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic, in Negot iat ions, 19721990, t rans. M. Joughin ( New
York: Colum bia Universit y Press. 1995) , p. 5- 6.
2
G.W.F. Hegel, I nt roduct ion t o t he Lect ures on t he Hist ory of Philosophy, t rans. T.M. Knox
and A.V. Miller ( Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1985) , p. 9, 17 .

15

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

bewildered in it . 3 For Hegel, t he hist ory of philosophy is t he overarching concept , and t he
evolut ionary realizat ion, of philosophy it self.
Let it be said up front : Gilles Deleuze hat es t his hist ory of philosophy. I ndeed, he does not
care for t he philosopher and philosophy underlying t hat view: What I m ost det est ed was
Hegelianism and dialect ics. 4 However, Deleuze does not abandon or rej ect t he hist ory of
philosophy. Rat her, he t ransform s t he proj ect int o som et hing else, a nom adography,
which proj ect s an alt ernat ive hist ory of philosophy t hat not only allows Deleuze t o get
out of t hat inst it ut ion, but allows us t o re- im agine it in product ive new ways. Deleuzes
dist ast e for t he hist ory of philosophy, t he Hegelian inst it ut ion present ed t o him and his
cont em poraries in school and which form ed a basic requirem ent of t he profession of
philosophy in France, is overcom e by his peculiar approach t o t he hist ory of philosophy, an
approach t hat redeem s philosophy as it t ransfigures it .
Typically, any discussion of Deleuzes career draws a line bet ween his early w ork, t hose
m onographs produced bet ween 1953 and 1968 dealing wit h individual figures from t he
hist ory of West ern philosophy, and Deleuzes lat er work writ t en in his ow n voice ( such as
Difference and Repet it ion and The Logic of Sense) , 5 followed by his 1970s- era
collaborat ions wit h Flix Guat t ari, and finally wit h his diverse post - Capit alism and
Schizophrenia writ ings, culm inat ing perhaps in What is Philosophy? ( also co- aut hored wit h
Guat t ari) . Alt hough Deleuze him self has rem arked t hat his early works were devot ed t o
t he hist ory of philosophy, readers of his ent ire oeuvre will not ice t hat t he concerns
anim at ing t hose early st udies are st ill engaged in his lat er work. Moreover, one could say
t hat Deleuze never really st opped doing t he hist ory of philosophy, albeit in his own
rat her eccent ric way. I n addit ion t o t hose early m onographs on Hum e, 6 Niet zsche, 7 Kant , 8
Bergson, 9 and Spinoza, 10 Deleuze wrot e st udies devot ed t o t he philosophers Leibniz,
Foucault , and his old friend Franois Cht elet , 11 as well as m aint aining an ongoing

Hegel, I nt roduct ion, p. 94.

Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic, p. 6.
5
Deleuze, Difference and Repet it ion [ 1968] , t rans. P. Pat t on ( New York: Colum bia
Universit y Press. 1994) ; and Deleuze, The Logic of Sense [ 1969] , t rans. M. Lest er and C.
St ivale ( New York: Colum bia Universit y Press, 1990) .
6
Deleuze, Em piricism and Subj ect ivit y: An Essay on Hum es Theory of Hum an Nat ure
[ 1953] , t rans. C.V. Boundas ( New York: Colum bia Universit y Press, 1991) .
7
Deleuze, Niet zsche and Philosophy [ 1962] , t rans. H. Tom linson ( New York: Colum bia
Universit y Press. 1983; see also Deleuze, Niet zsche ( Paris: Presses Universit aires de
France, 1965) .
8
Deleuze, Kant s Crit ical Philosophy [ 1963] , t rans. H. Tom linson and B. Habberj am
( Minneapolis: Universit y of Minnesot a Press, 1984) .
9
Deleuze, Bergsonism [ 1966] , t rans. H. Tom linson and B. Habberj am ( New Yor k: Zone
Books, 1988) .
10
Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza [ 1968] , t rans. M. Joughin ( New York:
Zone Books. 1990) ; and Deleuze, Spinoza: Pract ical Philosophy [ 1970] , t rans. R. Hurley
( San Francisco: Cit y Light s, 1988) .
11
Deleuze, The Fold: Leibniz and t he Baroque [ 1988] , t rans. T. Conley ( Minneapolis:
Universit y of Minnesot a Press. 1993) ; Deleuze, Foucault [ 1986] , t rans. Sen Hand
( Minneapolis: Universit y of Minnesot a Press. 1988) ; and Deleuze, Pericles and Verdi: The
4

16

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

conversat ions wit h his nom ad t hinkers and ot her figures from t he hist ory of philosophy in
t he collaborat ions wit h Guat t ari, 12 in his dealings wit h lit erat ure ( including a book on
Proust and a lengt hy essay on Sacher- Masoch, 13 in addit ion t o t he Kafka st udy) , and in his
books on cinem a and on Fr ancis Bacon, 14 t o nam e j ust t he book- lengt h st udies; his essays
and ot her short er works fr equent ly address t he hist ory of philosophy. Yet it is in his earlier
works t hat Deleuze m ost carefully ident ifies t hat nom adic line of flight wit hin t he West ern
philosophical t radit ion, t he count er- hist ory of philosophy or nom adography t hat t ypifies
Deleuzes radically creat ive engagem ent wit h philosophy.
Deleuzes dist inct ion bet ween St at e philosophy and nom ad t hought is perhaps best known
t hrough his essay on Niet zsche t it led Nom ad Thought and in his m ore elaborat e
discussion of Nom adology in A Thousand Plat eaus. 15 However, Deleuze had alr eady
m ade t he dist inct ion as early as 1968, in Difference and Repet it ion, in which he
dist inguishes bet ween a nom adic dist ribut ion of t he various com ponent s of Being in
Spinoza, opposing it t o t he Cart esian t heory of subst ances t hat , like t he agricult ural or
st at ist m odel, dist ribut es elem ent s of Being by dividing t hem int o fixed cat egories,
dem arcat ing t errit ories and fencing t hem off from one anot her. Deleuze not es t hat t he
st at ist or Cart esian dist ribut ion of Being is root ed t o t he agricult ural need t o set
propriet ary boundaries and fix st able dom ains. Alt ernat ively, t here is a com plet ely ot her
dist ribut ion, which m ust be called nom adic, a nom ad nom os, wit hout propert y, enclosure
or m easure, t hat does not involve a division of t hat which is dist ribut ed but rat her a
division am ong t hose who dist ribut e t hem selves in an open spacea space which is
unlim it ed, or at least wit hout precise lim it s. 16 Deleuzes nom ad t hinkers, like ( and, of
course, including) Spinoza, would part ake in such an ont ological and et hical philosophy, in
one way or anot hert he secret link Deleuze refers t o in his let t er t o Michel Cressole.
These nom ads are t hem selves dist ribut ed t hroughout t he hist ory of philosophy while also
Philosophy of Franois Cht elet [ 1988] , t rans. C.T. Wolfe. The Opera Quart erly v. 21, n.
4, 2005, p. 716724 .
12
Deleuzes books co- aut hored wit h Guat t ari include Ant i- Oedipus: Capit alism and
Schizophrenia [ 1972] , t rans. R. Hurley, M. Seem , and H.R. Lane ( Minneapolis: Universit y
of Minnesot a Press, 1983) ; Kafka: Toward a Minor Lit erat ure [ 1975] t rans. D. Polan
Minneapolis: Universit y of Minnesot a Press. 1986) ; A Thousand Plat eaus: Capit alism and
Schizophrenia [ 1980] , t rans. B. Massum i ( Minneapolis: Universit y of Minnesot a Press,
1987) ; and What is Philosophy? [ 1991] , t rans. H. Tom linson and G. Burchell ( New York:
Colum bia Universit y Press, 1994) .
13
Deleuze, Proust and Signs [ 1964] , t rans. R. Howard ( Minneapolis: Universit y of
Minnesot a Press, 2000) ; Deleuze, Masochism [ 1967] , t rans. J. McNeil ( New York: Zone
Books, 1989) .
14
Deleuze, Cinem a 1: The Movem ent - I m age [ 1983] , t rans. H. Tom linson and B.
Habberj am ( Minneapolis: Universit y of Minnesot a Press, 1986) ; Deleuze, Cinem a 2: The
Tim e I m age [ 1985] , t rans. H. Tom linson and R. Galet a ( Minneapolis: Universit y of
Minnesot a Press, 1989) ; and Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensat ion [ 1981] ,
t rans. Daniel W. Sm it h ( New York: Cont inuum Books, 2003) .
15
Deleuze, Nom ad Thought [ 1973] , t rans. D. Allison, in The New Niet zsche, ed. D.
Allison ( Cam bridge: The MI T Press, 1977) , p. 142149; see also Deleuze and Guat t ari, A
Thousand Plat eaus, p. 351423.
16
Deleuze, Difference and Repet it ion, p. 36.

17

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

st anding som ewhat out side of it . I liked writ ers who seem ed t o be part of t he hist ory of
philosophy, but w ho escaped from it in one respect , or alt oget her: Lucret ius, Spinoza,
Hum e, Niet zsche, Bergson. 17 For Deleuze, t hese t hinkers st and apart from , or even
at hwart , a philosophical t radit ion which has ever associat ed it self wit h t he St at e. For
t hought borrows it s properly philosophical im age from t he st at e as beaut iful, subst ant ial or
subj ect ive int eriorit y. . . Philosophy is shot t hrough wit h t he proj ect of becom ing t he
official language of a Pure St at e. 18 Alt hough Descart es and Hegel would seem t o be St at e
philosophers par excellence, t he nom ad- versus- St at e dist inct ion finds an unexpect ed
precursor in I m m anuel Kant , an enem y t o which Deleuze devot ed a st udy. 19
I n t he 1781 preface t o t he first edit ion of The Crit ique of Pure Reason, Kant nam es
m et aphysics t he Queen of all t he sciences, em phat ically ident ifying philosophy wit h t he
St at e. Kant writ es t hat t he chief t hreat t o t his Queens beneficent governm ent lay in t he
forces of t he skept ics, a species of nom ads, despising all m odes of set t led life, [ who]
broke up from t im e t o t im e all civil societ y. Happily t hey were few in num ber, and were
unable t o prevent it s being est ablished ever anew. 20 Of course, Kant was also wary of t he
dogm at ist s, under whose adm inist rat ion t he Queens governm ent was despot ic, w hich
led in part t o t he com plet e anarchy t hat allowed t hose nom ads t o breach t he walls of t he
kingdom . Kant s m et aphor est ablishes t he conflict ing philosophical t radit ions explicit ly as
st at ist on t he one hand and nom adic on t he ot her. From t his som ewhat playful usage, we
can see already in Kant t he Deleuzes dist inct ion bet ween St at e philosophy and nom ad
t hought , alt hough, of cour se, Deleuze view t he nom ads as a posit ive force, in m ore ways
t han one. Moreover, Kant m akes t his dist inct ion specifically in t he cont ext of t he hist ory of
philosophy, and one m ay approach t hat hist ory as a bat t le bet ween t he cont est ing forces
of St at e philosophy and nom ad t hought . Deleuzes int ervent ions int o t he hist ory of
philosophy, t hen, m ay be seen as a nom adography, an alt ernat ive pat h t hrough Hegels
dense forest , yielding unexpect ed discoveries and innovat ive concept s.
This t errain is t he playground and t he laborat ory of t he early Deleuze. I n fact , even at
his earliest , Deleuze was already known for his t ransform at ive analyses of t he hist ory of
philosophy. I n his 1977 aut obiography, The Wind Spirit , Michel Tournier describes his first
encount er wit h t he young philosopher- in- form at ion when t hey were st ill t eenagers, but
already Tournier m arveled at Deleuzes int ellect ual rigor and speculat ive reach. The
argum ent s m y friends and I t ossed back and fort h am ong ourselves were like balls of
cot t on or rubber com pared wit h t he iron and st eel cannonballs t hat he hurled at us. 21
Deleuze was t he soul of t he young group, and philosophy was t o be our calling, which
m eant t hat t hey would be st eeped in t he hist ory of philosophy. Most of us would becom e
guardians of t hose t welve cit adels of granit e nam ed for t heir placent al progenit ors: Plat o,

17

Deleuze and Claire Parnet , Dialogues [ 1977] , t rans. H. Tom linson and B. Habberj am
( New York: Colum bia Univ ersit y Press, 1987) , p. 1415.
18
I bid., p.13.
19
See Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic, p. 6 ; see also Deleuze, Kant s Crit ical
Philosophy.
20
I m m anuel Kant , The Crit ique of Pure Reason, t rans. N. Kem p Sm it h ( London:
Macm illan, 1933) , p. 89.
21
Michel Tourier, The Wind Spirit : An Aut obiography, t rans. Art hur Goldham m er ( Bost on:
Beacon Press, 1988) , p. 12728.

18

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

Arist ot le, Saint Thom as, Descart es, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz, Berkeley, Kant , Ficht e,
Schelling, and Hegel. As professors of philosophy we would be responsible for init iat ing
young people int o t he st udy of t hese hist orical m onum ent s, grander and m ore m aj est ic
t han anyt hing else m ankind has yet t o offer. 22 The unlikely dream would be t o becom e a
placent al progenit or, t o give birt h t o a new philosophical syst em oneself. And, t o t he
ext ent t hat Deleuzian t hought m ay be t hought of as a syst em , it is clear t hat his
philosophyfor exam ple, t he concept s set fort h in his What is Philosophy?were developed
and refined t hroughout his early int eract ions wit h t hose figures in t he hist ory of philosophy
wit h which he so frequent ly grapples.
The Deleuze whom Tour nier recalls is cert ainly early, about 15 or 16 years old. But even
here Deleuzes prodigious int ellect is visible, especially wit h respect t o his abilit y t o
t ransform t radit ional ideas int o bold new concept s. As Tournier put it , Deleuze possessed
ext raordinary powers of t ranslat ion and rearrangem ent : all t he t ired philosophy of t he
curriculum passed t hrough him and em erged unrecognizable but rej uvenat ed, w it h a fresh,
undigest ed, bit t er t ast e of newness t hat we weaker, lazier m inds found disconcert ing and
repulsive. 23 Deleuze lat er proved j ust how rej uvenat ed t he t ired old philosophy of cert ain
cit adels in t he hist ory of philosophy could really be. Deleuze ret urns again and again t o
older, perhaps canonical figures in t he hist ory of West ern philosophy, producing what
m ight have seem ed t o be fairly st raight forward st udies by t he st andards of t he profession;
of course, in ret rospect , we know t hat Deleuzes seem ingly conservat ive int ervent ions
were act ually m om ent s in t he developm ent of a radically new philosophy. I n t hese ret urns
t o som e of t he great figures of West ern philosophy, Deleuze revives m at t ers fundam ent al
t o, say, sevent eent hor eight eent h- cent ury t hought , and, at t he sam e t im e, Deleuze
dem onst rat es t he cont em poraneit y of such philosophical problem s in our t im e.
Som e m ay find it ironic, perhaps, t hat w hile Deleuze has paid so m uch at t ent ion t o t he
hist ory of philosophy, he has also been an ardent crit ic, even adversary, of t his inst it ut ion.
I n Dialogues, for exam ple, Deleuze says t hat t he hist ory of philosophy has alw ays been
t he great agent of power in t he philosophy, and even in t hought . I t is played t o
repressors role: how can you t hink wit hout having r ead Plat o, Descart es, Kant and
Heidegger, and so- and- sos book about t hem ? A for m idable school of int im idat ion which
m anufact ures specialist s in t hought but which also m akes t hose who st ay out side conform
all t he m ore t o t his specialism which t hey despise. An im age of t hought called philosophy
has been form ed hist orically and it effect ively st ops people from t hinking. 24 Or, in
Niet zschean t erm s, t he hist ory of philosophy is bot h a product and a producer of a priest ly
class who would guard over t he sacred t ext s, regulat ing not only w hat can, and m ust , be
read, but also how t his canon will be read. Deleuze is aware of t he inst it ut ional power of
t he hist ory of philosophy, of it s relat ions t o St at e philosophy, and yet he does not avoid it ,
but rat her faces it head- on, enlist ing t he aid of t hose nom ad t hinkers w ho are bot h part of
t he hist ory of philosophy and yet out side of it as well. I n Deleuzes early writ ings, we see
t his bat t le unfold.
22

I bid., p.12930.
I bid., p.128.
24
Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet . Dialogues, t rans. Hugh Tom linson and Barbar a
Habberj am ( New York: Colum bia Universit y Press, 1987) , p. 13.
23

19

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

By now, a num ber of scholars and crit ics have exam ined Deleuzes early writ ings, and, for
t he purposes of t his essay, I am less int erest ed in providing m y own t ake on t hose specific
st udies t han in looking at how Deleuzes approach bot h t ransform ed and offered a nom adic
alt ernat ive t o t he hist ory of philosophy. Michael Har dt s Gilles Deleuze: An Apprent iceship
in Philosophy, one of t he first st udies devot ed t o Deleuzes early writ ings, offers a nice
reading of Deleuzes st udies of Bergson, Niet zsche, and Spinoza ( Hardt does not really look
at Deleuzes book on Hum e) . 25 Not wit hst anding t he im plicat ion of t he subt it le, Hardt s
fundam ent al argum ent is t hat Deleuzes polit ical and philosophical t hought is const ruct ed
t hrough his early int eract ion wit h t hese aut hors. That is, t hese works are not m erely
occasions for Deleuze t o pract ice becom ing a philosopher, but im port ant Deleuzian
philosophical t ext s in t hem selves. Hardt ident ifies a progressive, evolut ionary proj ect in
which Deleuzes ow n t hought develops t hrough Bergsons ont ology, Niet zsches et hics, and
Spinozas pract ice, culm inat ing in a full- blown philosophy already visible prior t o Deleuzes
works writ t en in his own voice.
This last phrase is unfort unat e and a bit m isleading, but it has been t he st andard view of
Deleuzes career. As Brian Massum i had put it , in int roducing A Thousand Plat eaus and
again in his A Users Guide t o Capit alism and Schizophrenia, Deleuzes early work is lim it ed
t o t radit ional ( and repressive) hist ory of philosophy. Gilles Deleuze was schooled in t hat
philosophy. The t it les of his earliest books read like a whos who of philosophical giant s.
Massum i includes a back handedly com plim ent t hat is paradoxically inclusive of t he early
m onographs Yet m uch of value cam e of Deleuzes flirt at ion wit h t he great s before
dism issing t hese works ent irely by averring t hat Difference and Repet it ion and The Logic of
Sense were Deleuzes first m aj or st at em ent s writ t en in his ow n voice. 26 The
inappropriat eness of t he phrase, writ t en in his own voice, is apparent by sim ply reading
Deleuzes early books, which are not sim ple prim ers or com m ent aries on ot her t hinkers.
Deleuze is not sim ply rest at ing or sum m arizing Hum es t heory of hum an nat ure, Bergsons
ideas of t im e and being, Niet zsches t ransvaluat ion of values, or Spinozas pract ical
philosophy. Rat her, as Tournier suggest ed, Deleuze t ransform ed t hese philosophies and
rest at ed t hem in such a w ay t hat t hey becom e new, fresh, and also st range. I ndeed,
Deleuze m ay be at his m ost original when ret urning t o t hese figures from t he hist ory of
philosophya ret urn wit h difference, one m ight sayand developing his new m onst ers from
t he encount er. I n a fam ous and m ischievous m et aphor, Deleuze has described his
approach as a form of sex ual act ivit y ( or part ing of t he but t ocks: enculage) in which he
im pregnat es t he philosopher in quest ion who t hen gives birt h t o m onst rous offspring.
Deleuze says t hat he viewed t he hist ory of philosophy as a sort of buggery or ( it com es t o
t he sam e t hing) im m aculat e concept ion. I saw m yself as t aking an aut hor from behind
and giving him a child t hat would be his own offspring, yet m onst rous. I t was r eally
im port ant for it t o be his own child, because t he aut hor had t o act ually say all I had him
saying. But t he child was bound t o be m onst rous t oo, because it result ed from all t he
25

Michael Hardt , Gilles Deleuze: An Apprent iceship in Philosophy ( Minneapolis: Universit y

of Minnesot a Press, 1993) .
26
Brian Massum i, A Users Guide t o Capit alism and Schizophrenia: Deviat ions from
Deleuze and Guat t ari ( Cam bridge: The MI T Press, 1992) , p. 2. The language here is
nearly ident ical t o t hat of his Translat ors Foreword: The Pleasures of Philosophy, in
Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guat t ari, A Thousand Plat eaus, t rans. B. Massum i ( Minneapolis:
Universit y of Minnesot a Press, 1987) , p. ixx.

20

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

shift ing, slipping, dislocat ions, and hidden em issions t hat I really enj oyed. 27 Hence, even
where Deleuze had endeavored t o present t he philosophers own t hought s, he
undoubt edly, and perhaps inevit ably, int ended t o present his own as well.
Massum i and ot hers m ay be forgiven for viewing t he work of t he early Deleuze as wholly
separat e or in anot her voice from t he work of t he m iddle or lat er Deleuze, since Deleuze
him self has invit ed t he com parison by referring t o his having paid off m y debt s and
writ ing yet m ore books on m y own account . 28 But Deleuze had also suggest ed t hat t he
way in which his ow n philosophy cam e int o being was by a process of philosophical
buggery sim ilar t o t hat described above. I t was Niet zsche, who I read only lat er, w ho
ext ricat ed m e from all t his. Because you j ust cant deal wit h him in t he sam e sort of way.
He get s up t o all sort s of t hings behind your back. 29 Delight ing in t he m ildly scandalous
wordplay t hat allows doing t hings behind ones back ( i.e., furt ively or covert ly) t o also
suggest sexual act s, Deleuze proposes t hat his own t hought is it self t he m onst rous
offspring of his encount er wit h Niet zsche. The enculage t hat t ypifies Deleuzes approach t o
t he hist ory of philosophy t hus becom es a t wo- way exchange, a reversible relat ion of
powerlike erot ic love, Michel Foucault would say 30 in which t he hist ory of philosophy, t he
nom adography form ed by Deleuzes encount ers wit h his nom ad t hinkers, also creat es
Deleuzian t hought . Hence, t he first rule in dealing wit h Deleuzes early int ervent ions int o
t he hist ory of philosophy is t o recognize t hat we are indeed reading Deleuze, not m erely
reading com m ent ary on Hum e, Niet zsche, Bergson, or Spinoza. But t he Deleuze we read,
whet her in t he early works or elsewhere, is him self a m ult iplicit y: I ndividuals find a real
nam e for t hem selves, rat her, only t hrough t he harshest exercise in depersonalizat ion, by
opening t hem selves up t o t he m ult iplicit ies everywhere wit hin t hem , t o t he int ensit ies
running t hrough t hem . 31
Sim ilarly, one needs t o rem em ber t hat , for all of his t renchant crit ique of philosophy and
t he hist ory of philosophy, Deleuze is also com m it t ed t o philosophy, perhaps m ore t han any
of t hose post st ruct uralist s wit h whom he is som et im es grouped. Deleuze is frequent ly
seen as a t horoughgoing iconoclast , as som eone who desires a radical break from
t radit ional ways of t hinking, so m uch so t hat m any r eaders fail t o perceive j ust how
grounded in philosophy and t ied t o t he principles of properly philosophical t hought Deleuze
really is. This is t rue of Deleuzes approach t o t he hist ory of philosophy as well. Alt hough
Deleuze cert ainly recognizes t he dam age at t he inst it ut ion of t he hist ory of philosophy has
done t o t hinking, he does not advocat e ignoring t hat hist ory, ignoring t he inst it ut ion, or
get t ing rid of such pract ices ent irely. Hence, Deleuzian t hought is not a rej ect ion or flight
from West ern philosophy; it is int ensely philosophical, im m ersed in t he very t radit ion wit h
which it grapples. Even w hen Deleuze vent ures int o ot her disciplinary arenasfor
exam ple, art hist ory, m at hem at ics, lit erat ure, psychoanalysis, and so onhis art iculat ion of

27

Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic, p. 6.

Deleuze and Par net , Dialogues, p. 16.
29
Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic, p. 6.
30
See Foucault , The Et hic of Care for t he Self as a Pr act ice of Freedom , in The Final
Foucault , ed. J. Bernauer and D. Rasm ussen ( Cam bridge: The MI T Press. 1988) , p. 18.
31
Deleuze, Let t er t o a Harsh Crit ic, p. 6.

28

21

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

t he problem s and his painst aking crit iques are profoundly philosophical. 32 I ndeed, aft er
his panegyric t o t he discipline in What is Philosophy?, one can hardly doubt t hat Deleuze
early, m iddle, and lat eis act ively doing philosophy in his work.
Not wit hst anding t heir som et im es broad t it les ( e.g., Niet zsche and Philosophy or
Bergsonism ) , Deleuzes early books select ively engage wit h t he t hought of t he philosopher
in quest ion, addressing concept s t hat relat e t o Deleuzes own proj ect . Deleuzes early
works are punct ual int erv ent ions int o t he hist ory of West ern philosophy. 33 I n describing
t he secret connect ions bet ween his nom ad t hinkers, Deleuze offers anot her m eaningful
analogy. They are linked in a way sim ilar t o t he relat ionships am ong st ars in a
const ellat ion, each independent of t he ot hers yet also const ellat ed in such a w ay as t o give
new m eaning t o each and t o t he ensem ble or assem blage. One m ight say t hat som et hing
happens bet ween t hem [ i.e., t hese nom ad t hinkers] , at different speeds and wit h different
int ensit ies, which is not in one or ot her, but t ruly in an ideal space, which is no longer part
of hist ory, st ill less a dialogue am ong t he dead, but an int erst ellar conversat ion, bet ween
very irregular st ars, w hose different becom ings form a m obile bloc which it would be a
case of capt uring, an int er- flight , light - years. 34 Deleuzes nom adography chart s t hese
int erst ellar conversat ions and cast s t he hist ory of philosophy in a new light .
Exam ples of Deleuzes fascinat ing reconst ellat ion of t he hist ory of philosophy are
abundant , but I would like t o look briefly at his first book, Em piricism and Subj ect ivit y.
Hum es cont inuing influence on Deleuze is apparent in his lat er work, and it is hardly
accident al t hat , in 1986, Deleuze chose t o begin his Preface t o t he English Language
Edit ion of Dialogues wit h t he words: I have always felt t hat I am an em piricist . 35
Deleuzes early work on em piricism not only delineat es t he fundam ent als of Hum es
philosophy, but also suggest s ways in w hich Deleuzes lat er work will develop. 36
For Deleuze, t he em piricism t hat so oft en appears as a chapt er in t he hist ory of philosophy
is act ually a posit ive force in t hinking t oday. Hum e has t radit ionally been cast in a
t ransit ional role, linking Locke or Berkeley t o Kant , w ho would t hen m anage t o correct t he
excesses of Hum e and sy nt hesize t he abst ract st rains of rat ionalism and em piricism . I n
Deleuzes nom adography, by cont rast , Hum e bur st s from t he narrat ive of philosophical
cont inuit y, resist ing facile definit ions, and escaping t he cat egorizat ions im posed by t he
hist ory of ideas. I n a 1989 preface t o t he English edit ion of Em piricism and Subj ect ivit y,
Deleuze list s t hree im port ant concept s t hat Hum e int roduced int o West ern philosophy, and
Deleuzes charact erizat ion shows j ust how m uch he r espect s t he field even as he wishes,
32

Hardt recount s, in a foot not e, how Deleuzes old professor Ferdinand Alqui, aft er
hearing a present at ion by Deleuze, prot est ed t hat Deleuze had failed t o recognize t he
specificit y of properly philosophical discourse, and, visibly hurt , Deleuze responded t hat ,
while his present at ion had dealt wit h ot her discourses, he followed t hose very rigorous
m et hods specific t o philosophical inquiry which Alqui him self had t aught him . See Hardt ,
Gilles Deleuze, p. 124 nt . 3.
33
Hardt , Gilles Deleuze, p. xix.
34
Deleuze and Par net Dialogues, p. 1516.
35
I bid., p. vii.
36
See John Sellars, Gilles Deleuze and t he Hist ory of Philosophy, The Brit ish Journal for
t he Hist ory of Philosophy v. 15, n. 3, 2007, p. 551560; see also m y review of Em piricism
and Subj ect ivit y in Text ual Pract ice , v. 7, n. 3, 1993, p. 522525 ( 1993) .

22

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

wit h Hum es help, t o t ransform it int o som et hing com plet ely different . As Deleuze sees it ,
Hum e est ablished t he concept of belief and put it in t he place of knowledge. [ . . .] He
gave t he associat ion of ideas it s real m eaning, m aking it a pract ice of cult ural and
convent ional form at ions ( convent ional inst ead of cont ract ual) , rat her t han a t heory of
hum an m ind ; and He creat ed t he first great logic of relat ions, showing in it t hat all
relat ions ( not only m at t ers of fact but also relat ions am ong ideas) are ext ernal t o t heir
t erm s. 37 These t hree concept s not only est ablish t he t errain on which his t heor y of
em pirical subj ect ivit y will em erge, but also allow us t o im agine a hist ory of philosophy t hat
escapes t he Hegelian forest - and- t rees im agery alt oget her.
Deleuze insist s t hat em piricism not be confused wit h a t heory of k nowledge. Hist orians of
philosophy t end t o ident ify em piricism as t he philosophical m ode by which k nowledge in
t he form of ideas is obt ained t hrough sensuous experience. But Deleuze argues t hat t his
epist em ological view m isses t he point . Em piricism is, above all, a pract ical philosophy, in
which quest ions of knowledge and t rut h are always ancillary t o and act ivat ed by m at erial
concerns. Belief, which ex ert s it s power in our lives whet her we have t rue k nowledge or
not , t hus becom es m ore significant . Through belief, t he subj ect com es t o const it ut e it self
wit hin t he m ind. Deleuze affirm s, wit h Hum e, t hat t he m ind is not all t he sam e as t he
subj ect . The m ind is a collect ion of sense im pressions, a given wit hout order, a flux of
percept ions which m ust be organized in order for t he subj ect t o develop. Associat ion
allows t he m ind becom es syst em at ized under t he influence of it s principles, such as
cont iguit y, causalit y, and r esem blance. For exam ple, t he principle of resem blance
designat es cert ain ideas t hat are sim ilar, and m akes it possible t o group t hem t oget her
under t he sam e nam e. The m ind is t hus affect ed by t he principles, which giv e it a
t endency or habit . As Deleuze put s it , t he m ind is not a subj ect ; it is subj ect ed. 38
Once t he m ind becom es a syst em and t he given has been organized, it is possible for
subj ect t o const it ut e it self as t hat which t ranscends t he given. Deleuze explains t hat I
affirm m ore t han I k now; m y j udgm ent goes beyond t he idea. I n ot her words, I am a
subj ect . Through belief, we are able t o t ranscend t he given ( I believe in what I have
never seen nor t ouched ) , and t his est ablishes a relat ion ( which is not given) am ong ideas
( which are given) . For inst ance, we have ideas of t he sun, of rising, and t he t em poralit y,
yet t he belief t hat t he sun will rise t om orrow is a relat ion am ong t hese ideas. 39 The basic
funct ion of t he subj ect is t o est ablish relat ions, which are in all cases ext ernal t o t heir
t erm s. Deleuze considers t his t he absolut e fact of em piricism , Hum es as well as his own.
A given obj ect or idea does not have an inherent relat ion t o anot her. For exam ple, since
resem blance is a relat ion, t wo t hings t hat resem ble one anot her m ight seem t o have a
propert y of resem blance, but Hum e would say t hat r esem blance is m erely a relat ion
ent irely ext ernal t o t he t hings t hem selves, since resem blance only arises from t he
com parison t hat t he m ind m akes bet wixt t hem . 40 Hence, a relat ion- est ablishing subj ect
is needed t o creat e relat ions, since t he ideas are not t hem selves endowed wit h a propert y
which would est ablish an a priori relat ionship.
Em pirical subj ect ivit y is t hus a dy nam ic process rat her t han a fixed ident it y. As Deleuze
put s it , subj ect ivit y is essent ially pract ical. To ask whet her t he subj ect is act ive or
37
38
39
40

Deleuze, Em piricism , p. ixx.

I bid., p. 23, 114, 31.
I bid., p. 28, 24.
Quot ed in Deleuze, Em piricism , p. 99.
23

Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry, Winter 2010, Vol. 5, No. 11

passive, as t he hist ory of philosophy has t radit ionally done in charact erizing an act ive
subj ect of rat ionalism and a passive subj ect of em piricism , is t o raise what Bergson
would have called a false quest ion. Deleuze explains t hat t he subj ect is an im print , or
an im pression, left by t he principles, t hat progressively t urns int o a m achine capable of
using t his im pression. 41 The em pirical, pract ical subj ect const it ut es it self on t he plane of
im m anence, and it is recognizable in it s funct ion rat her t han it s discret e or abst ract
exist ence. Already in Em piricism and Subj ect ivit y, t he subj ect unfolds like som e
rhizom at ic m achine. Deleuzes conclusion hint s at t he fut ure direct ions of his t hought even
as it foregrounds Hum es own t heory: Philosophy m ust const it ut e it self as t he t heory of
what we are doing, not as a t heory of w hat t here is. 42
I t m ay seem a bit churlish t o quot e t he concluding rem arks of Deleuzes earliest
m onograph as an exam ple of his lifelong approach t o t he hist ory of philosophy, but it
seem s t o m e t hat t he very early Deleuze of Em piricism and Subj ect ivit y is already ont o
som et hing. I n est ablishing Hum es t heory of hum an nat ure, Deleuze invit es us t o revisit
t hose apparent ly set t led problem s of philosophy, t o see t hem again wit h fresh eyes, t o
t hink t hem again wit h int ellect s now freed from t he cat egories t hat had shaped or lim it ed
our t hought s. I ndeed, Deleuzes ret rospect ive view of Hum e in t he Preface t o t he English
Edit ion of his first booklike Niet zsches doct rine of t he et ernal ret urn, it is a ret urn wit h
differencem ight serve as a m odel for Deleuzes nom adography: Deleuze also est ablishes
belief and m akes it superior t o knowledge, underst ands associat ion of ideas t o be
convent ional, and em braces a logic of relat ions t hat are ext ernal t o t heir t erm s. I n his
unique reconst ellat ion of t he inst it ut ion, Deleuze figures fort h a pract ical hist ory of
philosophy, allowing his own belief in his nom ads ( rat her t han t he k nowledge of t he
granit e cit adels of philosophy) t o guide him , m aking associat ions bet ween t heir ideas t hat
are at once st rikingly original and seem alm ost nat ural ( as if Spinoza were really a
Niet zschean all along) , and est ablishing relat ions am ong t hese diverse and m ot ley figures,
and bet ween t hem and him self, and bet ween all of t hem and us. I n Deleuzes re- im agined
hist ory of philosophy we see som et hing like t hat bizarre subt erranean Et hics t hat
Deleuze finds in Spinozas scholia, discont inuously, independent ly, referring t o one
anot her, violent ly erupt ing t o form a zigzagging volcanic chain. 43 Deleuzes nom ads are
like t hat , sudden and bewildering erupt ions of j oyful wisdom in an apparent cont inuum of
st able m eanings, st andard com m ent aries, set t led t hought . The early Deleuze, playing
around behind t hese t hinkers, discovered a new way of doing philosophy. I n any case,
Deleuzes nom adography m akes t he hist ory of philosophy a w hole lot m ore int erest ing.

41

I bid., p. 112113.
I bid., p. 133.
43
Deleuze, Let t er t o Reda Bensm aa, on Spinoza, in Negot iat ions, p. 165; see also
Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, p. 337350; t he t erm subt erranean
Et hics appears in Deleuze, Spinoza: Pract ical Philosophy, p. 29.
42

24