> >From what I have heard from folks, Hardt refuses to get
> into strong polemical debate. I think it comes from
> Deleuze's comments in dialogues, but it really comes off
> as a bit dodgy in debate format (and although it would
> take a bit too long for the format, I also think he is
> misreading Deleuze).
I'd be interested in hearing about how you think Hardt misinterprets Deleuze, as I tend to agree with the latter about debating.
"All these debaters and commentators 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." (D&G, What Is Philosophy?, p. 28)