Deleuze fundamentally rejects the traditional priority dilemma between metaphysics and ethics, because for him, metaphysics itself is ethical. Instead of treating ethics as an “interruption” of ontology (a la Levinas), Deleuze dissolves the very dualism between being and action, existence and responsibility.
1. The Traditional Dilemma: Ontology vs. Ethics
Most philosophical traditions struggle with the question:
Does metaphysics (what exists) come first, and ethics (how we act) follow? (Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Heidegger)
Or does ethics come first, interrupting ontology? (Kant, Levinas, existentialism)
Deleuze rejects this dichotomy altogether.
2. Deleuze’s Key Move: Metaphysics is Ethics
For Deleuze, there is no separation between what is and what ought to be - because reality is not a set of fixed things (ontology) but an endless process of becoming. Ethics is simply how we engage with the forces of becoming.
(A) Against Fixed Being: Metaphysics as Becoming
Deleuze follows Bergson and Nietzsche in seeing metaphysics as dynamic, a world of flows, intensities, and multiplicities.
There are no static “essences: (Plato), no stable “substances” (Aristotle), only differentiation, transformation, and immanence.
Because reality is always in movement, ethics is not about universal rules (Kant, Levinas) but about navigating intensities.
(B) Immanence as Ethics
Deleuze’s ethics is not about duty or obligation (as in Levinas), but about how to affirm life within immanence.
Unlike Levinas, where ethics interrupts ontology, for Deleuze, ethics is immanent to ontology - the question is not Should I act? but How do I best participate in this flow of becoming?
We do not act according to a moral imperative; we experiment with what a body can do.
Deleuze & Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus
3. Deleuze’s Alternative Ethics: Three Key Principles
Instead of a traditional moral framework, Deleuze proposes an ethics of affirmation, grounded in three principles:
(A) Ethics of Difference (Vs. Identity and Fixed Morality)
Traditional morality is based on fixed identities (What is good? What is evil?).
Deleuze’s ethics is based on difference and singularity - there are no universal good/evil categories, only what enhances or diminishes life in each situation.
Ex: A van-lifer does not follow rules but continuously adjusts to changing landscapes, climates, and encounters.
(B) Ethics of Experimentation (Vs. Duty and Obligation)
Instead of rigid moral codes (Kant) or imposed duties (Levinas), Deleuze proposes experimentation - trying out ways of being to see what works.
Ethics is not about what one must do but about what one can become.
Ex: Van life itself is an ethical experiment - what forms of existence and relations emerge when we live nomadically?
(C) Ethics of Joy (Vs. Ethics of Lack or Suffering)
While Levinas ethics emerges from suffering and responsibility, Deleuze’s emerges from joy and creation (inspired by Spinoza & Nietzsche).
The highest ethical goal is not duty or guilt, but the affirmation of life’s multiplicities.
Ex: A van-lifer does not move because they are “obligated” to, but because movement itself is an ethical way of engaging with life.
4. How Deleuze Differs from Levinas (Ethics of Joy vs. Ethics of Responsibility)
|
Levinas (Ethics of the Other) |
Deleuze (Ethics of Becoming) |
|
Ethics interrupts metaphysics. |
Ethics is immanent to metaphysics. |
|
The face of the Other demands responsibility. |
Ethics emerges from becoming, difference, and joy. |
|
Ethics is about responding to suffering. |
Ethics is about expanding what life can do. |
|
The ethical moment halts movement. |
The ethical moment is experimentation and navigation. |
5. What This Means for Your Question (Ethics in the Metaphysics of Van Life)
Your Metaphysics of van life is in dialogue with both Levinas and Deleuze, but their responses differ:
Levinas: When the abandoned child appears, responsibility halts the journey.
Deleuze: The ethical response is not about stopping but engaging differently with the situation - finding a new line of flight.
In other words, where Levinas sees ethics as interruption, Deleuze sees ethics as transformation. Ethics does not stop the journey - it reshapes it.
Would you say your vision aligns more with Levinas ethics of interruption or Deleuze’s ethics of transformation? Or do you see the metaphysics of van life as an effort to navigate both?
