Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 8-24-2020 10:00 AM Nietzschean Problematics Jacob Vangeest, The University of Western Ontario Supervisor: Biswas Mellamphy, Nandita, The University of Western Ontario A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the Master of Arts degree in Theory and Criticism © Jacob Vangeest 2020 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Vangeest, Jacob, "Nietzschean Problematics" (2020). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 7295. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/7295 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract This thesis is a commentary and exegesis on François Laruelle’s 1977 text Nietzsche contre Heidegger with a focus on the concept of the ‘Nietzschean problematic.’ It explores Laruelle’s use of Nietzsche by comparing his reading with that of Gilles Deleuze. This relation is explored in Deleuze and Laruelle’s reading of the Nietzschean problematic through the distinction between complementarity and supplementarity to enable a reading of Laruelle’s text as an extension of Deleuze’s project. This extension is one that simultaneously overturns what it extends. Laruelle’s aim is presented as a ‘machinic materialism’ infused with Derridean différance. Over the course of the thesis many of Laruelle’s concepts from Nietzsche contre Heidegger—machinic and political materialism, politico-libidinal cut, chiasm, quadripartite—are explored to provide a more concise picture of the Nietzschean problematic and what this problematic can do. Keywords Laruelle, Deleuze, Nietzsche, Non-Philosophy, Non-Standard Philosophy, Materialism, Difference ii Summary for Lay Audience This thesis provides a commentary on François Laruelle’s 1977 text Nietzsche contre Heidegger by exploring Laruelle’s concept of the ‘Nietzschean problematic.’ To do this, I compare Laruelle’s presentation of Nietzsche with Gilles Deleuze’s reading of Nietzsche in a number of texts including Nietzsche and Philosophy, Difference and Repetition and Anti-Oedipus. Deleuze’s interpretation was influential in 20th century France and more recently in English speaking continental philosophy. To provide a rupture in this influence, the thesis explores how Laruelle expands on Deleuze’s work while simultaneously subverting it. In doing so, the thesis also provides an introduction to the early period in Laruelle’s work—titled Philosophy 1—that has remained untranslated, and largely without commentary, despite Laruelle’s recent popularity by way of what is called non-philosophy or non-standard philosophy. The overall focus is on a concept called the ‘Nietzschean problematic,’ which I read as the central concept of the text. This concept is notable for its development of a new method of political production. Commenting on this concept, I explore both its various attributes (as machinic, materialistic, intensive, chiasm, quadripartite, etc.) and the historical lineage that precedes it (through the work of Louis Althusser and Gilles Deleuze). The first two chapters work to gather and discuss these attributes, while the third chapter explores how they function in the Nietzschean problematic through the dissemination of what Laruelle terms the three syntheses of political production. Overall, this work aims at an understanding of how any totalizing theory can be overcome by way of problems that are inherent to it. iii Acknowledgments A work is always written intermezzo. It is only through the engagement with others in a community that something like this project is possible. There are innumerable people to thank. Foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Nandita Biswas Mellamphy for her engagement with my work and encouragement through the project. I would like to acknowledge Allan Pero and Melanie Caldwell for their dedication to maintaining the Theory Centre as an environment for learning development. I would like to thank my fellow students at the Theory Centre for pushing my thought in any number of directions through the various questions and problems unearthed in your work. In particular, this thesis would not have been possible without my continued dialogue with Christina Elle Burke and Jeremy R. Smith. These two brilliant minds have consistently challenged my thought in new and exciting ways. Our discussions on any number of topics has been nothing if not inspiring. I am excited to see the trajectory of your thought develop in the future, whether within or outside of the academy. I would like to thank my parents, Anita Vangeest and Gordon Vangeest, for their continued support throughout my life. In particular, I would like to thank my mom for her support over these last two years, providing me with both food and a place to stay while I was studying in London. More than anyone else, I want to thank my awe-inspiring partner, Margot Oliver, for her encouragement and support throughout this journey. I would not be anywhere if it was not for your commitment and desire for me to be my best self. Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my grandfather, Johan Tamming. More than any other, he instilled in me a love of learning that I will hold with me the rest of my life. I will forever be indebted to him for his love and pedagogy. Financial support for this thesis was provided through both the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) and the Joseph Armand Bombardier Canadian Scholarship Master’s (CGS-M). Parts of the second and third chapter have been previously published in my article “Deleuzian Problematics: On the Determination of Thought,” in La Deleuziana: Online Journal of Philosophy, no. 11 (2020): 81–98. iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Summary for Lay Audience ............................................................................................... iii Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 The Quadripartite as A-signifying Duplicity ................................................................. 1 1.1 Mastery and the dogmatic image of thought........................................................... 1 1.2 A-signification and duplicity .................................................................................. 8 Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................... 22 2 Laruelle’s Intensive Machinic Materialism ................................................................. 22 2.1 The continent of politics and three theses of machinic materialism ..................... 22 2.2 The principle of reduction used to distinguish machines from mechanisms and propositions from statements. ............................................................................... 32 2.3 On the attribute of intensity .................................................................................. 40 Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 48 3 Nietzschean Problematics ............................................................................................ 48 3.1 The Althusserian problematic ............................................................................... 48 3.2 The Deleuzian problematic ................................................................................... 51 3.3 The move from (non)being to the Body-of-the-Other; and the first synthesis of political production ............................................................................................... 55 3.4 The second and third syntheses of political production ........................................ 61 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 71 v References or Bibliography .............................................................................................. 73 Curriculum Vitae .............................................................................................................. 80 vi Abbreviations NcH: Nietzsche contre Heidegger by François Laruelle NP: Nietzsche and Philosophy by Gilles Deleuze DR: Difference and Repetition by Gilles Deleuze AO: Anti-Oedipus by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari vii Introduction “It is just that we should be grateful not only to those with whose views we may agree, but also to those who have expressed more superficial views; for these also contributed something, by developing before us the powers of