* 2013년 8월 11일 페이스북 포스팅
Cconfronted with Deleuze's insistence on some philosophers' texts, I often get a kind of uncanny feeling (das Unheimlich) because he strongly denies what an author explicitly affirms. For example, Hume tells us that imagination is a "faculty" from the section 3 of the first Part of the first Book of A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature on (p. 8), but Deleuze insists that imagination is not a faculty but "a collection of ideas" and is idenitcal to mind and idea in Empiricisme_et_subjectivité (p. 3). For Deleuze, imagination or collection of ideas is like "collection without album, piece without theatre, or flux of perceptions." And it is absolutely not "a symptomatic reading". I wonder how such kind an interpretation is possible. Of course, I'm sure Deleuze's interpretation is more right than that of Hume.
들뢰즈는 저자가 명시적으로 주장하는 것에 대해서마저도 반전시키는 놀라운 해석 능력을 갖고 있다. 가령 흄은 상상을 "하나의 능력"이라고 책 초반부터 말하는데, 들뢰즈는 상상이 능력이 아니라고 역시 책 초반부터 단언한다. 물론 이는 징후적 독해는 전혀 아니다.
* 같은 날
I realize that Deleuzian concept of connexion is from Hume who uses the concept similar to association. Both association and connexion together are natural principle, in the sense of human and physical nature.
* 2013년 8월 14일 포스팅
we cannot go nowhere from the analysis of concepts, because every concept is just language. we must start from the more concrete given, i.e. from experience. Hume goes from experience (ideas) to concept, not reversely. that is one of the secrets of empiricism.