Programm
A Theory and Practice of Movement: The Influence of Soren Kierkegaard on Gilles Deleuze`s metaphysics of movement
Roel Wolters
Radboud Universität, Niederlande
This study seeks to explore the influence of Søren Kierkegaard on Gilles Deleuze concerning the metaphysics of movement, which increasingly shifts a theoretical discussion of the possibility of movement — reminiscent of Ancient Greek debates — towards a more practical inquiry into how a meaningful movement can emerge. For example, Kierkegaard’s pseudonym Constantin Constantius, opens his work Repetition (1843) with the following passage:
“When the Eleatics denied motion, Diogenes, as everyone knows, came forward as an opponent. He literally did come forward, because he did not say a word but merely paced back and forth a few times, thereby assuming that he had sufficiently refuted them” (Kierkegaard 1983, 131).
The Eleatics debated the theoretical possibility of movement and change, highlighting their logical contradictions. In contrast, Diogenes embodies a type of unquestioning belief in movement, unburdened by any conceptual considerations or representational limitations. Here, actual movement emerges as triumphant, underscoring its significance in theoretical philosophical debates. The rest of the book merely complicates this notion further.
Deleuze, in his early works Difference and Repetition (1968) and The Logic of Sense (1969), is notably dismissive of Kierkegaard. This is especially true concerning Kierkegaard’s works Repetition and Fear and Trembling (1843), which underlie his writings on movement. However, Deleuze's later works, Cinema I: The Movement-Image (1983) and Cinema II: The Time-Image (1985), represent a significant change. These texts, delving into cinematic movement, shift away from his earlier criticisms and highlight a newfound appreciation. As Deleuze remarked in an interview:
“I liked those authors who demanded that we introduce movement to thought, ‘real’ movement” (Flaxman 2000, 366).
Deleuze began to see Kierkegaard as a forerunner to cinema, since he had the ability to understand the fundamental imperceptibility of movement, and how nevertheless to touch upon it — productively, rather than conceptually. Deleuze, examining the transition from 'classic' to 'modern' cinema — rooted in his firsthand experiences with cinema before and after World War Two — concluded that post-war, there emerged a doubt in our naturally assumed connection between thinking and acting. For Deleuze, post-war cinema emphasized the need to move beyond theoretical debates and engage with more practical concerns. This involved creating movements that are significant to our lives, in contrast to the large-scale and impersonal movements that created the circumstances for World War Two to occur.
What is particularly intriguing about the work of both Kierkegaard and Deleuze is how they transition from theoretical discussions of the metaphysics of movement to their practicalimplications. Although one can argue that their conclusions remain equally as abstract, they seem to suggest a practice of how to cultivate movements that infuse our lives with creativity and meaning. The critical question is how this shift from theory to practice can be articulated, as it often occurs subtly and without clear markers. Furthermore, how theoretical metaphysical discussions on movement can guide our actions, shaping how we move through the world and create meaning in our lives?