Le nomade, le migrant et le sédentaire chez Gilles Deleuze et Félix Guattari


Le nomade vit dans un espace formé de points (point d’eau etc.) qui sont des relais dans un trajet. Les hommes et les bêtes sont distribués dans un espace ouvert. La loi est le nomos (contrairement à la polis qui a un arrière-plan stable) dans cet espace lisse qui s’oppose à l’espace sédentaire, strié et clôturé de l’Etat.

Mais le nomade n’est pas le migrant qui est constamment en mouvement. Le nomade s’installe et le mouvement de ces deux types de personnages diffère. Le nomade est déterritorialisé, le migrant se reterritorialise après et le sédentaire se reterritorialise sur la terre de l’Etat : « Bref, on dira par convention que seul le  nomade à un mouvement absolu, c’est-à-dire une vitesse ; le mouvement tourbillonnaire ou tournant appartient essentiellement à sa machine de guerre » (Mille Plateaux p.473).

Avec le nomade, la terre devient sol, ce qui fait de lui le vecteur de la déterritorialisation. Paradoxalement, le nomade est dans un absolu local  qui se manifeste dans des opérations à orientations diverses : le désert, la steppe, la glace, la mer, comme l’affirment Deleuze et Guattari.

Le résumé de Mille Plateaux se trouvent sur le lien suivant:


The Prophet by Khalil Gibran



My hometown famous writer, Khalil Gibran (1883-1931), was a Lebanese-American writer, poet and a painter, also considered a philosopher although he rejected this title. Gibran’s life has been described as one “often caught between Nietzschean rebellion, Blakean pantheism and Sufi mysticism”. He wrote about love, happiness, religion, justice, soul, death, life and so on.

He wrote his most famous book, The Prophet in 1923, while in New York. I personally think it has been very much inspired by Nietzsche’s Thus spoke Zarathustra. The Prophet is divided into chapters dealing with love, marriage, children, giving, eating and drinking, work, joy and sorrow, houses, clothes, buying and selling, crime and punishment, laws, freedom, justice and all topics of human questionning.

I picked this paragraph of it for all of us to meditate upon:


This book is a must-read. I would love to know how do you interpret this prose poetry. Please leave you comments down below

How to save the world?


If I have to recommend one writer, it would be him: Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Simply, magnificent! And my favorite book is : The Brothers Karamazov! It is a masterpiece.

Dostoyevsky wrote this quote in his book: The Idiot.

It can be understood as God. God is beauty. So, God/beauty will save the world.

It can also be understood as love. Love is beauty and only love is what we need to make the world a better place.

What about beauty and aesthetics? Is art the world savior? It can also be an interpretation for this quote.

Now things get complicated with this quote taken from: The Brothers Karamazov:


So, how would the world be saved? If God and the devil are fighting in “beauty” which is in the heart of the man, does it mean love will save us all? This quotes describes to me the tragic human condition. What do you say on this?

On Anarchism… by Noam Chomsky


Insightful book about Anarchism and the importance of its serious consideration in politics today. In this essay, Noam Chomsky defines Anarchism as a skepticism about any type of authority which needs to be questioned constantly in order to justify its legitimacy. In other words, any authority that doesn’t justify its actions is not legitimate and therefore should be dismantled or replaced. This book is a wake up call to all people to question themselves first on their blind acceptance of their political structures the way they are. Second, it is a call to read Anarchist philosophers and to be inspired from their actions.

It is crucial to distinguish the American concepts of Anarchism and Liberalism from the European ones. Historically, in Europe, Anarchism is a political movement, spontaneous sometimes, that as aforementioned question authorities and fight for freedom and social justice. European Anarchism is synonymous to Liberalism. Whereas in U.S.A, Liberalism is ultra-conservative and capitalistic, which is the opposite of the original Anarchism. Moreover, the word “anarchy” as chaos was forged from the word “anarchism” by the opponents of the latter to point out its danger. Any authority is scared of Anarchism because Anarchism doesn’t believe in any system unless it is a voluntary organization based on the general will of its people.

To give more objectivity to his speech, Noam Chomsky analyzes some historical events, mainly the Spanish war and others, only to find that the real revolutionary people who wanted to change the world and make it a better place, were all anarchists.

This book is a great read. For the full review please check the link below: