In my philosophical thinking, I have followed many of those influenced by Heidegger and Nietzsche (particularly Derrida, Lacan and Deleuze) who argue that philosophy has been colonised from its inception by a specific understanding of what thinking entails. Deleuze articulates this form of colonisation in terms of the eight postulates of “the dogmatic image of thought”. This article responds to the disconcerting realisation, elicited by three encounters, that despite my “philosophising about” a disruptive thinking in the name of complexity, my practice of thinking remains deeply habituated by “the dogmatic image of thought” and I have yet to begin thinking as “habitual disturbance” and an “adventure of learning”. To show why an effort to think through thinking remains important for philosophy in South Africa, I tie this reflection to specific provocations (a conference theme entitled “Philosophy in/as Translation”; a pointed remark that “there is no African word for ‘identity’”). However, the topic of the provocations should not mislead readers to expect scholarship about general relationships between philosophy, translation and decolonisation, although these terms are entangled. Instead, I focus on “thinking”. I discuss a personal response to the remark regarding the untranslatability of “identity” through the lens of Deleuze’s critique of “the dogmatic image of thought”, and reminded by the conference theme that this response is situated in the South African academic context where issues of decolonisation form the underlying fabric of intellectual work. From out of this entanglement I consider what philosophy’s internal decolonisation might entail. “Thus, to ‘philosophize’ about being shattered is separated by a chasm from a thinking that is shattered” (Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism”).

中文翻译：

---

通过思考进行思考：德勒兹与“思想的教条形象”

在我的哲学思想中，我追随了许多受海德格尔和尼采（尤其是德里达，拉康和德勒兹）影响的人，他们认为哲学从一开始就通过对思想涵义的特定理解而被殖民。德勒兹用“思想教条”的八种假说清楚地阐明了这种殖民化形式。本文回应了由三次相遇引起的令人不安的实现，即尽管我以复杂性的名义“思考”一种破坏性思维，但我的思维实践仍然深深地习惯于“教条式的思想形象”，而我尚未开始认为是“习惯性干扰”和“学习冒险”。为了说明为什么通过思考进行思考对于南非的哲学仍然很重要，我将此反思与特定的挑衅联系在一起（会议主题为“翻译中的哲学/作为翻译”；明确指出“没有非洲词表示'身份'”）。然而，挑衅的话题不应误导读者期望获得有关哲学，翻译和非殖民化之间一般关系的学术研究，尽管这些术语是纠缠在一起的。相反，我专注于“思考”。我将以德勒兹（Deleuze）对“教条主义思想”的批判为视角，讨论有关“身份”不可译性的个人回应，并通过会议主题提醒人们，这种回应位于南非学术界，非殖民化形成了智力工作的基础结构。从这种纠缠中，我考虑了哲学的内部非殖民化可能带来什么。