Well, you need to know what is meant by event in D&G. I'm not sure but I suspect a "making a difference", crossing a threshold. Their concept of becoming is important here, since as far as I understand, becoming is equal to series of events.
A concept is there to solve a problem, to tackle a problem or even to propose a problem in the first place. So the task of philosophy is to propose and solve problems which means you have to invent new concepts and these concepts actually provoke events then and that "feedback" on you or on life, not sure.
So the nature of an event is the events qualitative/quality structure, its texture, its character...you name it, the German word I try to translate here is Beschaffenheit
, Die Beschaffenheit eines Ereignisses = the nature of an event, the German D&G translations also says Natur der Ereignisse, yet Beschaffenheit can be translated as nature of sth.
In What is Philosophy
the first chapter is about philosophy and concepts, they lay out what a concept is to them and it's very different from the usual approaches and based on certain decisions made throughout their philosophical writing and reading. If you read that first chapter, you would perhaps even see that the event as concept is part or neighbor of the concept of concept, if I got that right.
People are not willing to accept such approaches I sometimes think, because it's not in line with classical western though that is about substances and closed entities, which D&G dismiss. They favor motion and difference over rest and identity.
some quotation a few pages before the initial quotation:
>Planes must be constructed and problems posed, just as concepts must be created. Philosophers do the best they can, but they have too much to do to know whether it is the best, or even to bother with this question. Of course, new concepts must relate to our problems, to our history, and, above all, to our becomings. But what does it mean for a concept to be of our time, or of any time? Concepts are not eternal, but does this mean they are temporal? What is the philosophical form of the problems of a particular time? If one concept is "better" than an earlier one, it is because it makes us aware of new variations and unknown resonances, it carries out unforeseen cuttings-out, it brings forth an Event that surveys [survole] us. But did the earlier concept not do this already? If one can still be a Platonist, Cartesian, or Kantian today, it is because one is justified in thinking that their concepts can be reactivated in our problems and inspire those concepts that need to be created. What is the best way to follow the great philosophers? Is it to repeat what they said or to do what they did, that is, create concepts for problems that necessarily change?
They like to work with rhetorical questions often...>>26669
The thing is just that the french have a certain tradition since at least late 19th century that is different from e.g. Germany and clearly from the dominant form of academic philosophy which is concerned with formal logics and language as base analytic philosophy
. I will try to dive into that history in order to understand it all better. They built upon each other, so it gets more hermetic over time which is worsened by french academic expectations. Usually people don't go beyond the memes they encounter and it's kinda funny how buttmad people get because they don't understand it, if they don't grasp it, it must be rubbish. A fools attitude, a close (and somehow learned) examination of the architecture of any thought construction is necessary before you can come to valid conclusions. Usually people don't go behind the memes and that's a problem. But some quote to round it all up
>it is this image of affect that some of the deacons of intellectual high culture instinctively oppose, because they see it go against fixtures of humanist inquiry: against representation, normativity, the subject, intentionality, critique, disciplinary standards of scholarship, and much else
What is said here about affect is also true for D&G because they are in the lineage of what affect studies are today, they are some of the fathers of affect theory you could say.
D&G are influenced by Spinoza and Bergson, outsiders of European thought. Process philosophers, Deleuze as transcendental empiricist. Writing about something that is abstract-but-real :DDD yup it can make sense if you have the right combination of concepts gathered
Also a good quote that perhaps makes mad all and follows the passage about concepts must in line with the present:
>For this reason philosophers have very little time for discussion. Every philosopher runs away when he or she hears someone say, "Let's discuss this." Discussions are fine for roundtable talks, but philosophy throws its numbered dice on another table. The best one can say about discussions is that they take things no farther, since the participants never talk about the same thing. Of what concern is it to philosophy that someone has such a view, and thinks this or that, if the problems at stake are not stated? And when they are stated, it is no longer a matter of discussing but rather one of creating concepts for the undiscussible problem posed. Communication always comes too early or too late, and when it comes to creating, conversation is always superfluous. Sometimes philosophy is turned into the idea of a perpetual discussion, as "communicative rationality," or as "universal democratic conversation." Nothing is less exact, and when philosophers criticize each other it is on the basis of problems and on a plane that is different from theirs and that melt down the old concepts in the way a cannon can be melted down to make new weapons. It never takes place on the same plane. To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All these debaters and communicators are inspired by ressentiment. They speak only of themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do. Debate is unbearable to it, but not because it is too sure of itself. On the contrary, it is its uncertainties that take it down other, more solitary paths. But in Socrates was philosophy not a free discussion among friends? Is it not, as the conversation of free men, the summit of Greek sociability? In fact, Socrates constantly made all discussion impossible, both in the short form of the contest of questions and answers and in the long form of a rivalry between discourses. He turned the friend into the friend of the single concept,and the concept into the pitiless monologue that eliminates the rivals one by one.
And take notice, I just vaguely understand D&G, but I'm grasping (and sensing as sensation) enough to be interested. I'm resonating with the ideas of process philosophy.