This article constitutes one of the first comparisons between the philosophies of Peter Sloterdijk and the philosophical tandem Gilles Deleuze-Félix Guattari. The subject of the discussion between both philosophical positions is on communication with the exterior, and thus also how an interiority is to be conceived. Both philosophers raise these questions in reference to the work of the Estonian biologist Jacob von Uexküll. At first sight, Sloterdijk's focus on immunity mechanisms seems to suggest a preference for restricting this communication, whereas Deleuze and Guattari's interest in becomings seems to direct us in the opposite direction. However, a closer examination of both positions reveals that the difference lies in the nature of their approaches: whereas Deleuze and Guattari's interest in opening up interiorities is ontologically motivated, Sloterdijk's focus on shielding them off is existential. These findings might help us in demining the opposition between progressive socialism and conservatism.

No abstract

This interview with the philosopher Bernard Stiegler was conducted in Paris on 28 January 2015, and first appeared in Dutch translation in the journal De uil van Minerva. The conversation begins by discussing the fundamental place occupied by the concept of 'technics' in Stiegler's work, and how the 'constitutivity' of technics does and does not relate to Kant and Husserl. Stiegler is then asked about his relationship with Deleuze, and he responds by focusing on the concept of quasi-causality, but also by arguing that there is a certain trajectory in Deleuze's thought, situating his own philosophy in relation to its various moments. Stiegler is then asked to respond to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks carried out three weeks prior to the interview. After making a couple of precautionary remarks, Stiegler relates such occurrences to the problem of what he calls 'spiritual poverty', to the intensification of 'negative sublimation' that can occur when there is a disconnection between the generations, and more generally to the growth of nihilism. All of these phenomena relate to the exploitation of technology by a virulent capitalism that irrationally believes that only the market is rational. After consideration of the complex historical relationship between Islam and modernization, and of both of these to Nietzsche's 'death of God', and after recalling the destructive role played by the West in the rise of fundamentalism and jihadism, Stiegler concludes by reflecting on the fact that, ultimately, 'intellectuals' have failed to use technologies in ways that produce alternatives to consumerism.

No abstract

No abstract