I have heard that Deleuze’s works highly derive from Whitehead’s process philosophy (along with influences of Bergson and Nietzsche). Which was pretty unexpected to me, since I’ve previously known Whitehead as a mathematician who tried creating a foundation of modern mathematics with Bertrand Russell (writing the book Principia Mathematica together). So I wouldn’t have expected that he’s actually one of the more foundational people behind continental philosophy, which has a (mis-understood) image of being illogical and vacuous!

Anyways, should read Process and Reality someday, since my interest in panpsychism is growing… (And which might be more useful than reading Deleuze/Guattari since they’re just too cryptic)

You're mixing up two Whiteheads

No

Motte (principia) and bailey (process philosophy).

I'm not sure this would be entirely fair to Whitehead unless he tried to pass off the latter as being justified by the former.

I’m not accusing Whitehead of the fallacy, I’m talking about the parent post.

Parent is suggesting that if we don’t take Deleuze seriously, we should also not take Whitehead seriously. (Despite Whitehead being a fav of the analytic crowd.)

But the Deleuze comparison, to the extent that it makes any sense, only applies to the later Whitehead. We don’t have to reject the Pricipia. The obvious position is that Deleuze is not-even-wrong, process philosophy is not-even-wrong, and the principia is merely wrong (which is amazing in philosophy.)

yeah, sorry for not being more specific, I meant "process philosophy"

the most underrated comment on this thread; i cackled out loud, thank you.

Shaviro's "Without Criteria" which discusses this connection was an absolute delight.