Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deleuze, Nietzsche, and the overcoming of nihilism

  • Published:
Continental Philosophy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper critically examines Deleuze’s treatment of the Nietzschean problem of nihilism. Of all the major figures in contemporary continental thought, Deleuze is at once one of the most luminous, and practically a lone voice in suggesting that nihilism may successfully be overcome. Whether or not he is correct on this point is thus a commanding question in relation to our understanding of the issue. Many commentators on Nietzsche have argued that his project of overcoming nihilism is destined to failure because of the affinity between the problem of nihilism and the logic of negation. While Nietzsche wants an absolute affirmation of life, Spinoza’s principle that “all determination is negation,” as well as Hegel’s dialectical conception of negation, suggest that affirmation free of negation is not possible. However, some commentators indicate that Deleuze successfully shows how overcoming nihilism is possible because his “logic of difference” allows for an affirmation which is not dialectically reappropriated by negation. This paper argues that beyond such logical considerations, there are metaphysical and existential reasons why Deleuze’s interpretation of nihilism fails to show that it can be overcome. For Deleuze, the overcoming of nihilism hinges not just on a logic of difference, but on a radical interpretation of Nietzsche’s doctrine of eternal return as “selective being.” Drawing on recent scholarship and on Nietzsche’s own writings I argue that this is not a tenable interpretation, and also, more importantly, that the metaphysical and existential implications of this understanding of eternal return reinstate nihilism at the very point where it is supposedly overcome. Moreover, I argue that there are attendant ethical and political dangers to Deleuze’s position on nihilism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Norman (2000).

  2. Norman (2000, p. 190).

  3. For a historical overview of the problem of overcoming nihilism, see the preamble in Critchley (1997). More recently, the collection of essays Nihilism Now: Monsters of Energy! (Ansell-Pearson and Morgan 2000) has reflected, in the “Anglo-Continental” philosophical scene, the view that nihilism is an intractable problem, destined to return. See especially Howard Caygill’s essay “The Survival of Nihilism” (Caygill 2000) in this volume.

  4. Hardt (1993).

  5. Deleuze (1962, 1983).

  6. Levi R. Bryant has rightly noted that while this is a common practice, it is not an unproblematic one. He warns that ‘we must be careful to determine whether what appears in one of Deleuze’s studies of other philosophers repeats itself in the works articulating his own philosophy.’ Bryant (2008, p. xi). I hope that in what follows it will be made clear that although Deleuze rarely speaks of nihilism in his own works, the same themes which are played out under that name in Nietzsche and Philosophy are present, particularly in Difference and Repetition (Deleuze 1968, 1994). Important themes treated in the Nietzsche book (especially eternal return) find important extension and clarification in Deleuze’s “own” philosophy. Moreover, the essential point is that commentators such as Norman have taken Deleuze to have discovered something which others have failed to find in Nietzsche. To what extent the overcoming of nihilism is properly attributed to Nietzsche or to Deleuze is not the issue at stake here; what is at stake is whether Deleuze’s work reveals a possibility for such an overcoming.

  7. Deleuze (1962, pp. 169–174, 1983, pp. 147–152).

  8. Deleuze (1962, p. 59, 1983, p. 52).

  9. Nietzsche (1967c, 1994).

  10. See Deleuze (1962, pp. 191–196, 1983, pp. 166–171). Chapter 5, section 8: “Is Man Essentially ‘Reactive’?”.

  11. Deleuze (1962, p. 226, 1983, p. 198).

  12. Spinoza (1995).

  13. This is how Judith Butler—incorrectly in my view—interprets Deleuze: “Nondialectical difference, despite its various forms, is the labor of the negative which has lost its “magic.”” Butler (1987, p. 184.) Cited by Hardt (1993, p. xii).

  14. Norman (2000, p. 194).

  15. Deleuze (1968, p. 43, 1994, p. 28). Quoted by Norman (2000, p. 195).

  16. Norman (2000, p. 195).

  17. Norman (2000, p. 195).

  18. Deleuze in fact distinguishes two forms of negation, one associated with the base, nihilism, and opposition, and one associated with the noble and affirmation. The base negates the noble first, and from that negation derives an affirmation of self. The noble however affirms herself first, and this affirmation negates the base will which would oppose it. See Deleuze (1962, pp. 204–206, 1963, pp. 178–179).

  19. Deleuze (1962, p. 216, 1983, p. 188).

  20. Deleuze (1969, 1990a).

  21. See Deleuze (1962, pp. 53–55, 1983, pp. 47–49). Chapter 2, section 5: “First Aspect of the Eternal Return: as cosmological and physical doctrine.”

  22. Deleuze (1962, p. 77, 1983, p. 68).

  23. Deleuze (1962, p. 79, 1983, p. 70).

  24. See chapter 2, section14: “Second Aspect of the Eternal Return: as ethical and selective thought” in Deleuze (1962, pp. 77–80, 1983, pp. 68–71. (This section also introduces the “third aspect” of eternal return, selective being.).

  25. See, for example, Deleuze (1968, pp. 59–61, 1994, pp. 40–42).

  26. Deleuze (1965, p. 33, 2001, p. 84).

  27. See Deleuze (1968, pp. 96–168, 1994, pp. 70–128). Chapter 2: “Repetition-For-Itself.” For analytical summaries, see (for example) Williams (2004), chapter 2 and Hughes (2009), part 3, section 4.

  28. Deleuze (1968, p. 123, 1994, p. 91).

  29. On eternal return as discussed here, see in particular Deleuze (1968, pp. 119–123, 1994, pp. 88–91).

  30. See for example Deleuze (1968, p. 382, 1994, p. 299).

  31. Deleuze (1968, p. 383, 1994, p. 300).

  32. Deleuze (1969, p. 306, 1990a, p. 265).

  33. The analysis of the eternal return in Difference and Repetition thus undergoes some potentially confusing topological transformations. As Deleuze explains it, “The order of time has broken the circle of the Same and arranged time in a series only in order to re-form a circle of the Other at the end of the series.” Deleuze (1968, p. 122, 1994, p. 91).

  34. Deleuze writes: “The eternal return is the being of becoming. But becoming is double: becoming-active and becoming-reactive, becoming-active of reactive forces and becoming-reactive of active forces. But only becoming-active has being; it would be contradictory for the being of becoming to be affirmed of a becoming-reactive, of a becoming that is itself nihilistic. The eternal return would become contradictory if it were the return of reactive forces. The eternal return teaches us that becoming-reactive has no being.” (1962, p. 81, 1983, pp. 71–72).

  35. After Jonathan Dancy’s discussion of the “short way” with the skeptic. See Dancy (1986).

  36. Vattimo (1980, 1993).

  37. Vattimo (1980, p. 149).

  38. “Renverser le platonisme”—to reverse, or overturn, Platonism—was the original title of the essay published as “Plato and the Simulacrum” in The Logic of Sense. Deleuze (1966b, 1990b).

  39. Heidegger (1976, p. 328, 1998, p. 250).

  40. Heidegger (1977, p. 217, 2002, p. 162).

  41. Norman (2000, p. 190).

  42. See Heidegger (1987, 1997).

  43. De Beistegui (2004, p. 235).

  44. D’Iori (2000, 2011). Ward (2010). A key text calling into question the integrity of La volonté de puissance is Montinari (1996).

  45. D’Iorio (2011, pp. 2–3).

  46. D’Iorio (2011, p. 3).

  47. D’Iorio (2011, p. 4).

  48. Nietzsche (1935, II, §309, 1968, §619). Quoted in Deleuze (1962, p. 56, 1983, p. 49).

  49. D’Iorio (2011, p. 3, note 7).

  50. D’Iorio (2011, p. 3, note 7). For this argument, see also D’Iorio (1996).

  51. See Müller-Lauter (1974, pp. 35 f).

  52. D’Iorio (2011 p. 4). D’Iorio’s criticism here draws on and references Brusotti (1992, pp. 83, 102, 103).

  53. Ward (2010, p. 102). The passages in question are one of the discovery of the essence of philosophy requiring its freedom from the foreign forces of religion and the ascetic ideal (Genealogy of Morality essay III, §10) and the fable of the lambs and the birds of prey (Genealogy of Morality essay I, §13). Nietzsche (1968c, 1994).

  54. Ward (2010, p. 103).

  55. Ward (2010, p. 103).

  56. Ward (2010, p. 112).

  57. Borradori (1999, 2001).

  58. Deleuze (1966a, 1991).

  59. Deleuze (1956, 2004).

  60. Borradori (2001, p. 12).

  61. Borradori (2001, p. 6).

  62. Borradori (1999, p. 144).

  63. Borradori (1999, p. 143).

  64. Although she does briefly note it: Borradori (2001, p. 6).

  65. Nietzsche (1967e, 36[15], 2003, 36[15], 1968, §1062).

  66. D’Iorio (2011). See in particular section 3, “Genesis, Inter-Textuality and Parody.”

  67. Thomson (1882–1911).

  68. Caspari (1874).

  69. Nietzsche (1968a, §109, 2001, §109).

  70. D’Iorio (2011, p. 37).

  71. Hallward (2006).

  72. Hallward (2006, p. 3).

  73. Hallward (2006, p. 63).

  74. Hallward (2006, p. 149). On Nietzsche and Philosophy, see pp. 63–65, and on eternal return, pp. 149–151.

  75. Deleuze (1962, p. 198, 1983, p. 172, and translator’s note, page 219, note 22).

  76. Deleuze (1962, p. 199, 1983, p. 173, and translator’s note, page 219, note 23).

  77. According to Hallward, for Deleuze “[a] thinking that proceeds independently of any reference to or mediation through a world or reality external to itself will prove to be our most adequate means of expressing an absolutely creative being or force” (2006, p. 2).

  78. Hallward (2006, p. 4).

  79. Hallward (2006, p. 3).

  80. See for example Nietzsche (1968b, §6, 2001, §6).

  81. Nietzsche (1967a, b, §370, 2001a, b, §370).

  82. Nietzsche (1967d, 26[280]. Quoted and translated in Vattimo (2001, p. 77).

  83. Deleuze (1965, p. 35, 2001, p. 86).

  84. My point here has certain affinities with the well-known criticism of Deleuze made by philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Todd May, viz. that he is not truly a philosopher of multiplicity at all, but rather, one whose ontology implies a more fundamental unity. See Badiou (1997, 2000) and May (1997). However, I emphasize that my argument concerns solely the existential value of Deleuze’s categories, and so does not stand or fall on the basis of any claim to their formal inconsistency or other metaphysical or logical problems.

  85. Ward (2010, p. 106).

  86. Ward (2010, p. 106).

  87. Ward (2010, p. 106).

  88. Nietzsche (1967e, §1041); quoted in Ward (2010, p. 105).

  89. Deleuze (1965, p. 39, 2001, p. 91). .

  90. Hallward (2006, p. 149).

  91. Lyotard (1974, 1993, p. 42).

  92. Lyotard develops explicit objections to this kind of politics, with reference to Plato, in Lyotard and Thébaud (1979, pp. 41–84, 1985, pp. 19–43). “Second Day.”.

  93. Deleuze (1968, pp. 381 and 382, 1994, pp. 298 and 299).

  94. Malabou (2009, 2010, p. 25). [I have reversed the order in which the points are made.].

  95. To take just a couple of examples at random, Ferry and Renaut (1991, 1997) and Appel (1999).

  96. Ward (2010, p. 111).

  97. Nietzsche (2006, §11); quoted in Deleuze (1962, p. 79, 1983, p. 70). [Note that Tomlinson provides a slightly different translation of this passage, taken from the Kaufmann and Hollingdale translation of The Will to Power: Nietzsche (1968, §55).].

  98. Nietzsche (2006, §11).

  99. The Lenzer Heide notes have been published in their correct order twice in the Colli-Montinari edition of Nietzsche’s complete works: Nietzsche (1967f, 5[71], 1967g, 5[71]). They have appeared in their original order in English translation in Nietzsche (2006) and in Nietzsche (2003, 5[71]).

  100. On the connection between Heidegger’s concerns with overcoming nihilism and his political involvements, see (for example) Dreyfus (1993).

  101. Hallward (2006, p.162).

  102. Deleuze and Guattari (1980, 1987).

  103. See Žižek (2003).

References

  • Ansell-Pearson, Keith, and Diane Morgan (eds.). 2000. Nihilism now! Monsters of energy. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appel, Fredrick. 1999. Nietzsche contra democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badiou, Alain. 1997. Deleuze. La Clameur De L’être. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badiou, Alain. 2000. Deleuze: The clamour of being, trans. Louise Burchill. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Borradori, Giovanna. 1999. On the presence of Bergson in Deleuze’s Nietzsche. Philosophy Today 43: 140–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borradori, Giovanna. 2001. The temporalization of difference: Reflections on Deleuze’s interpretation of Bergson. Continental Philosophy Review 34: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusotti, Marco. 1992. Die ‘Selbstverkleinerung des Menschen’ in der Moderne. Studie zu Nietzsches ‘Zur Genealogie der Moral’. Nietzsche-Studien 21: 81–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, Levi R. 2008. Difference and givenness: Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism and the ontology of immanence. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 1987. Subjects of desire: Hegelian reflections in twentieth-century France. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caspari, Otto. 1874. Die Thomson’sche Hypothese von der endlichen Temperaturausgleichung im Weltall, beleuchtet vom philosophischen Gesichtspunkte. Stuttgart: Horster, 1874. [Thomson’s hypothesis of a final state of thermal balance in the universe considered from a philosophical point of view].

  • Caygill, Howard. 2000. The survival of Nihilism. In Nihilism now! Monsters of energy ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson and Diane Morgan, 189–197. Newyork: St. Martin’s.

  • Critchley, Simon. 1997. Very little. Almost nothing: Death, philosophy, literature. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, Jonathan. 1986. An introduction to contemporary epistemology. Oxford; New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beistegui, Miguel. 2004. Truth and genesis: Philosophy as differential ontology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Iori, Paolo. 1996. Postface. In Montinari.

  • D’Iori, Paolo. 2000. Nietzsche et l’éternel retour. Genèse et interpretation. In Nietzsche. Cahiers de l’Herne. Paris: l’Herne.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Iori, Paolo. 2011. The eternal return: Genesis and interpretation, trans. Frank Chouraqui. The Agonist IV.1: 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1956. La conéption de la difference chez Bergson. Les Études bergsoniennes IV: 77–112.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1962. Nietzsche et la Philosophie. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1965. Nietzsche. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1966a. Le Bergsonisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1966b. Renverser le platonisme (Les simulacres). Revue de métaphysique et de morale 71.4: 426–438.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1968. Différence et Repetition. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1969. Logique du Sens. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1983. Nietzsche and philosophy, trans. Hugh Tomlinson. London: Athlone.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1990a. The logic of sense, ed. Constantin V. Boundas, trans. Mark Lester with Charles Stivale. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1990b. Plato and the Simulacrum. In Deleuze 1990a.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1991. Bergsonism, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. New York: Zone Books.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 1994. Difference and repetition, trans. Paul Patton. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 2001. Nietzsche, trans. Anne Boyman. In Pure immanence: Essays on a life. New York: Zone.

  • Deleuze, Gilles. 2004. Bergson’s conception of difference, trans. Michael Taormina. In Desert islands and other texts, 1953–1974, ed. David Lapoujade. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).

  • Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1980. Mille plateau. Capitalisme et schizophrénie, tome 2. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. 1987. A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia Vol. 2, trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1993. Heidegger on the connection between Nihilism, art, technology, and politics. In The Cambridge companion to Heidegger, ed. Charles Guignon. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, Luc, and Alain Renaut (eds.). 1991. Pourquoi nous ne sommes pas Nietzscheans. Paris: Grasset.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferry, Luc and Alain Renaut, eds. 1997. Why we are not Nietzscheans, trans. Robert De Loaiza. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

  • Hallward, Peter. 2006. Out of this world: Deleuze and the philosophy of creation. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardt, Michael. 1993. Gilles Deleuze: An apprenticeship in philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1976. Brief über den ‘Humanismus’. In Wegmarken. Gesamtausgabe band 9. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1977. Nietzsches Wort “Got ist tot”. In Holzwege. Gesamtausgabe band 5. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1987. “Nihilism as determined by the History of being” trans. David Farrell Krell. In Nietzsche, Vol. IV: Nihilism. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1997. Die seinsgeschichtliche Bestimmung des Nihilismus. In Nietzsche. Gesamtausgabe band 6.2. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

  • Heidegger, Martin. 1998. Letter on ‘Humanism’ trans. Frank A. Capuzzi. In Pathmarks, ed. William McNeill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

  • Heidegger, Martin. 2002. Nietzsche’s word: ‘God is Dead’, trans. Julian Young and Kenneth Haynes. In Off the Beaten Track, ed. J. Young and K. Haynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hughes, Joe. 2009. Gilles Deleuze’s difference and repetition: a reader’s guide. London and New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, Jean-François. 1974. Économie libidinale. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, Jean-François. 1993. Libidinal economy, trans. Iain Hamilton Grant. London: Athlone.

  • Lyotard, Jean-François, and Jean-Loup Thébaud. 1979. Au juste: Conversations. Paris: Christian Bourgois éditeur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, Jean-François and Jean-Loup Thébaud. 1985. Just Gaming, trans. Wlad Godzich. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Malabou, Catherine. 2009. L’éternel retour et le fantôme de la difference. In Nietzsche und Frankreich, ed. Clemens Pornschlegel and Martin Stingelin. New York and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Malabou, Catherine. 2010. The eternal return and the phantom of difference, trans. Arne De Boever. Parrhesia 10: 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Todd. 1997. Reconsidering difference: Nancy, Derrida, Levinas, and Deleuze. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montinari, Mazzino. 1996. ‘La Volonté De Puissance’ N’existe Pas. Paris: Éditions de l’éclat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Lauter, Wolfgang. 1974. Nietzsches Lehre vom Willen zur Macht. Nietzsche-Studien 3: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1935. La Volonté De Puissance, ed. Friedrich Würzbach, trans. Geneviève Bianquis. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967a. Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967b. Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. In Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe V, 2, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967c. Zur Genealogie der Moral. In Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe VI, 2, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967d. Nachlass. In Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe VII, 2, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967e. Nachlass. In Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, VII, 4/2, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967f. Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, VIII, 1, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1967g. Nietzsche Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, IX, 3, ed. Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari. Berlin: de Gruyter.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1968. In The will to power, ed. Walter Kaufmaan, trans. W. Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1994. On the genealogy of morality, ed. Keith Ansell Pearson, trans. Carol Diethe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2001a. The gay science, ed. Bernard Williams, trans. Josephine Nauckhoff and Adrian Del Caro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2001b. Beyond good and evil, ed. Rolf-Peter Horstmann and J. Norman, trans. Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2003. Writings from the late notebooks, ed. Rüdiger Bittner, trans. Kate Sturge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. 2006. European Nihilism, trans. Duncan Large. In The Nietzsche Reader, ed. Keith Ansell Pearson and Duncan Large. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Norman, Judith. 2000. Nietzsche Contra Contra: Difference and opposition. Continental Philosophy Review 33.2: 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinoza, Benedict de. 1995. “Letter 50 (to Jarig Jelles)” trans. Samuel Shirley. In Spinoza: The Letters. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett.

  • Thomson, William. 1882–1911. On a universal tendency in nature to the dissipation of mechanical energy. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 19th 1852, 20 (1850/1853), 3: 139–142; reprinted in Mathematical and physical papers I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1882–1911.

  • Vattimo, Gianni. 1980. Le Avventure Della Differenza: Che Cosa Significa Pensare Dopo Nietzsche E Heidegger. Milan: Garzanti.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vattimo, Gianni. 1993. The adventure of difference: Philosophy after Nietzsche and Heidegger, trans. Cyprian Blamires with Thomas Harrison. Cambridge: Polity.

  • Vattimo, Gianni. 2001. Nietzsche: An introduction, trans. Nicholas Martin. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

  • Ward, Joseph. 2010. Revisiting Nietzsche Et La Philosophie: Gilles Deleuze on force and eternal return. Angelaki 15.2: 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, James. 2004. Gilles Deleuze’s difference and repetition: A critical introduction and guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, Slavoj. 2003. Organs without bodies: Deleuze and consequences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Dundee, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Ashley Woodward

Authors
  1. Ashley Woodward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley Woodward.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Woodward, A. Deleuze, Nietzsche, and the overcoming of nihilism. Cont Philos Rev 46, 115–147 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-013-9245-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-013-9245-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation