Talk:Plane of immanence

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Practical sense

I am familiar with deluze's term and how it is used but for the life of me I can't make much sense of this article here. It seems way too technical, it could use some concrete examples, some history maybe? Perhaps the opening paragraph could explain the term more simply. I think the article also needs a reference to kant as well as logos perhaps. I am very happy with this page but its just a wee-bit too abstract I thnk. does anybody else have suggestions?

-No, but this is a good test of wikipedia. To produce a useful article on a topic like this, it's not enough to be familiar with the idea, you have to have a stylistic handle on it too, and be able to explain it through your composition.

The reason the ideas are incomprehensible is because this is purely speculative philosophy.. That wikipedia defers to canonical published sources in such matters, makes wikipedia susceptible to the same incoherence as is/was perpetrated on philosophy students.

references are no longer working for this article - they use to - anyone know how to correct that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.72.253 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above complaint that this page is too technical and difficult to understand. This seems strange, as Wikipedia itself is a perfect example of a Plane of Immanence. (Each page is cross-linked to related pages. It's impossible to understand pages with complex ideas (like the Plane of Immanence page) with out some knowledge of related pages. The Plane of Immanence page cannot exist discretely, it must occur as a node in a web of related topics.)

To alleviate this dilemma, I propose that we replace the Plane of Immanence page with this page, the wikipedia What Links Here page for the Plane of Immanence. This way, the Plane of Immanence will be defined, not by it's discrete content/concepts, but by the web of pages that link to the Plane of Immanence page.

It's a definition by demonstration, which Wikipedia rarely gets the opportunity to do (and maybe a slightly unorthodox (as far as wikipedia is concerned) method), but I think it could hardly be less cryptic than the current Plane of Immanence page.

Dirtmcguinness (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religions

Some theologians have suggested that religions are a plane of immanence. See for example the death of God theological movement, where it says that Altizer offered a radical theology of the death of God that drew upon William Blake, Hegelian thought and Nietzschean ideas. He conceived of theology as a form of poetry in which the immanence (presence) of God could be encountered in faith communities. ADM (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this whole page drawn from Deleuze? --Zujine (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PoMo gobbledygook

I call bull. A PoMo bull. The sentences such as:

"The plane of immanence thus is often called a plane of consistency accordingly. As a geometric plane, it is in no way bound to a mental design but rather an abstract or virtual design; which for Deleuze, is the metaphysical or ontological itself:"

are riddled with grammatical errors and mean little. I suggest a drastic rewrite of this article, but then I doubt if anything encyclopedic would be left thereof... Zezen (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the box on Planes of Existence from this page.

It’s not clear to me that the box on Planes of existence is relevant here. I suggest removing it. Spiralford (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]