[D-G] Deleuze on Leibniz, (Spinoza): Merleau Ponty and the innocence of the thinking of the infinite

[Harald Wenk]

Dear Mr. Laudenberger,

The probelm of the eternal soul after death,
which nowadays  is commited almost soley to theology,
is present in Plato (OPhaidon), too.


But of course, especially Spinoza fought against teh theologicians
as the intellectual masters of his time.
Descaretes and Leibiz stayed catholic.
As Leibniz treatd lengthly the "Thodizee" problem,
on a first view, he seems to be theological at first sight.

But Descartes, who had been posed by a catholoc proest, weared a catholic 
mask.


--------------------------------------------------
From: <deleuze-guattari-request at lists.driftline.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:02 PM
To: <deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org>
Subject: Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5

> Send Deleuze-Guattari mailing list submissions to
> deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> deleuze-guattari-request at lists.driftline.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> deleuze-guattari-owner at lists.driftline.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Deleuze-Guattari digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1.  Deleuze Leibniz and Merleau-Ponty (John Laudenberger)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 23:37:08 -0300
> From: John Laudenberger <johnnywoops at gmail.com>
> To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
> Subject: [D-G] Deleuze Leibniz and Merleau-Ponty
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTil8gACSqRUKj4Pc03dfYMTucmdmi2LkLu0oFTSt at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Does anyone on this list know to which text by Merleau-Ponty Deleuze is
> referring in his second class on Leibniz?
> Here is the link:
> http://www.webdeleuze.com/php/texte.php?cle=53&groupe=Leibniz&langue=2
>
> Here is a quote from the class, it is at about the middle:
> Leibniz does not know that. Moreover, the indefinite appears to him to be
> purely conventional or symbolic; why? There is an author who said quite 
> well
> what creates the family resemblance of philosophers of the 17th century, 
> it
> was Merleau-Ponty. He wrote a small text on so-called classical 
> philosophers
> of the seventeenth century, and he tried to characterize them in a lively
> way, and said that what is so incredible in these philosophers is an
> innocent way of thinking starting from and as a function of the infinite.
> That's what the classical century is. This is much more intelligent than 
> to
> tell us that it's an era in which philosophy is still confused with
> theology. That's stupid. One must say that if philosophy is still confused
> with theology in the 17th century, it's precisely because philosophy is 
> not
> separable at that time from an innocent way of thinking as a function of
> infinity.
>
> Thank you,
> John Laudenberger
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
> Info: 
> http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
> Archives: www.driftline.org
>
> End of Deleuze-Guattari Digest, Vol 63, Issue 5
> ***********************************************