It's incredible that people actually think that Deleuze has new insight to add to Darwinism.
-
Show this thread
-
What's worse is that new insight *is* possible -- not through Deleuze but through memetics. It's a shame that otherwise smart people are wasting their neurons pondering the former.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
Classical Darwinism posits one possible historical outcome: fittest design. Prigogine’s thesis of open, nonlinear systems renders fittest design meaningless, and Deleuze grasps this and posits a deeper phylum common to all things: the machinic phylum.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Depopulatus @Locus_of_Ctrl
The update really comes from physics but Deleuze grasps the philosophical implications of the update.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
-
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl
I’m sorry, but classical Darwinism has been updated to reflect nonlinearity. Species aren’t hurtling toward a fittest design once and for all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Depopulatus
> Species aren’t hurtling toward a fittest design once and for all. in this one single sentence you demonstrate that 1) you do not understand classical Darwinism, 2) you do not understand modern Darwinism, 3) you have not read Darwin, 4) i could go on
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If we’re talking about modern Darwinism, that’s different. Everything has been updated by Prigogine’s discoveries. You just said Deleuze didn’t update Darwin, which is kind of a way to put it; Deleuze grasped the philosophical significance of nonequilibirum dynamics.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.