This paper endeavors to argue that Derrida’s deconstructionist ethics can be construed as an embodiment of immanent ethics. To achieve this goal, it commences with Friedrich Nietzsche’s articulation of immanent ethics, drawing a contrast with formalist and conformist accounts of morality, exemplified in Kant. Following that, the paper explores the ethical thoughts of Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze to establish a connection between immanent ethics and the problem of life. In this context, we observe how immanent ethics redirects ethical concerns (...) from human consciousness to the domain of life, modes of existence, the unconscious desire and its exteriority. Within this framework, the paper characterizes Derrida’s ethics of deconstruction as a convergence of the immanence of deconstruction and deconstruction as a creative mode of life. As a result, Derrida’s formulation of ethical challenges within the context of aporias, impossibility, and responsibility can be understood as a call for resistance against conformity to established forms of life. This imbues deconstruction with an intrinsic ethical-political character. (shrink)

This is a reading of Gilles Deleuze’s masterpiece Logic of Sense. It provides a thorough and systematic reading of Deleuze’s book by focusing on the aspects that are neglected in the existing literature. Specifically, the claim that Deleuze’s Logic of Sense provides a convincing answer for the most important question of the history of philosophy regarding the relation between thought and existence as well as the relation between logic and ontology is defended. The answer is that if thought is related (...) to existence, logic is supposed to be, not the logic of essence, but rather the logic of sense. This analysis s pursued respectively through Deleuze’s readings of Frege, the ancient Stoics, Lewis Carroll, Kant, Lautman, Leibniz, and Melanie Klein. (shrink)

In “Iteration, Reiteration, Repetition”, Quentin Meillassoux accuses Deleuze of forming a subjectalist philosophical system, that is to say, despite his critiques of subjectivism and representationalism, Deleuze absolutizes the correlation between thought and being, while failing to grasp absolute exteriority. Meillassoux’s main argument in support of this claim is his interpretation of Deleuze’s ideas of “intensity” and “intensive difference” as a “difference of degree” instead of a “difference in nature”. In this paper, I argue against Meillassoux’s reading, and claim that, in (...) his early works, Deleuze constructs a transcendental philosophy very different from Kantian transcendentalism, in which exteriority is graspable through the evental aspects of our experience. Meillassoux accuses Deleuze of being a philosopher of continuity and homogeneity, and believes that the only way to evade subjectalism is by establishing a Cartesian dualism of subjective and objective realms. I claim, however, that Deleuze is the true philosopher of heterogeneity, and that continuity in Deleuze’s thought is simply a means of inducing heterogeneity everywhere. In order to reach the absolute, we do not need to establish a sharp dualism; what we need is a Deleuzian version of transcendental realism, which induces transcendental/empirical distinction everywhere, into both the inorganic and organic realms. (shrink)