20 世纪下半叶开始，伴随着后现代主义思潮和价值多元主义、文化多元主义等多元论的冲击，现代社会似乎逐渐从 17、18 世纪启蒙运动以来理性的绝对同一性之中抽离，西方左翼的身份政治、差异政治等运动亦随之蓬勃发展，然而这也带来了一系列问题。在比以往任何时代都更加追求差异和多元的今天，人们如何继续“求同存异”？如何在肯定差异的前提下整合差异，实现“和而不同”？本文认为，德勒兹的繁复态理论有助于以上问题的解决。

德勒兹的繁复态概念指的是排除了同一性之后纯粹的“多”和差异的组织形式。这一概念在法文、英文和中文中的译法并不统一，众多看似不同的哲学概念实则都是繁复态概念的衍生或派生，我们因而有必要对繁复态理论的历史进行梳理、整合和研究。本文首先将繁复态总结为一切实存的共同状态，并将德勒兹的繁复态理论与黎曼、柏格森、胡塞尔、康德、斯宾诺莎、西蒙东和鲁耶等人相联系，梳理了繁复态理论形成的历史脉络。

随后，本文讨论了繁复态在形而上学层面的结构与运动。在静态方面，不同于学界的普遍观点，本文将德勒兹的繁复态概念划分为数量、性质和强度三种类型，强度的繁复态负责表达潜在世界差异尚未分化、“和而不同”的状态，而数量和性质两种繁复态则负责表达现实世界的具体差异状态，即“求同存异”状态，强度的繁复态因而是数量和性质繁复态的背景、场域和生产机制。另一方面，强度繁复态对差异的统合借助的是一种“飞掠”运动，而非实体性的统一。它不仅包含着缩合和扩张程度不同所造成的多个层面，也包含着新的经验内容加入所造成的潜在全体的每一次变化。繁复态的另一重运动是潜在与现实之间的转化运动，在现实领域，这一运动表现为结晶（层化）和龃龉化（去层化），二者分别代表了潜在的现实化和现实的潜在化；在潜在领域，这一运动则表现为根据化和脱根 据化，二者分别代表了对潜在领域的发现和对潜在背后之潜在的不断求索。

以三种繁复态类型的划分为基点，本文将其应用于存在论、认识论和政治哲学领域，得出了以下结论。首先，德勒兹将存在的单义性总结为最终落脚于差异的强度运动，这解决了多元论的根本悖论。其次，数量、性质和强度三种繁复态与三种时间综合之间巧合般 的对应关系也意味着二者之间的密切关联。最后，德勒兹政治哲学理论中的原始社会、国家社会和微观政治同样对应着性质、数量和强度繁复态的往复运动。

在最后一部分，本文认为德勒兹的繁复态理论可以为现代多元论提供理论支持。现代多元论主要以西方左翼的价值多元主义、文化多元主义和身份政治等为表现形式，但是在尊重差异的理想背后，这些集合式的多元论最终必将导致差异作为既成事实存在，却丧失了彼此交流、互相转化、自我整合的可能性。而在德勒兹的繁复态理论中，差异之间并不依靠更高的同一性相互关联，而是依靠它们的共同背景、机制和场域，并在其中彼此转化生成。这种背景、机制和场域并非实体，而是一种不断变换的流和运动，因此并不产生一个更高的维度。为了实现彻底的差异性，德勒兹提出了对最终的统一性——主体——的消解，要求我们去除一切先验的立场、主体和身份。该理论对于现代多元论和多元社会的指导意义在于，首先，它强调了差异之间的平等性；其次，它将差异整合为了一种团结的关系，而非一种同一性的实体；最后，它强调了差异之间的彼此生成及其背后的场域和条件。

因此，德勒兹的繁复态理论为实现和而不同的理想状态，构建一种真正包容并蓄的差异秩序提供了具体途径。

Since the second half of the 20th century, along with the impact of post-modernism and pluralism such as value pluralism and cultural pluralism, modern society seems to have gradually moved away from the absolute unity of reason since the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. Left-wing movements such as identity politics and politics of difference have also flourished in the West. At a time when differences and pluralism are being pursued more than ever before, how can people continue to seek common ground while preserving differences? This paper argues that Deleuze’s theory of multiplicity can help solve these problems.

Deleuze’s notion of multiplicity refers to a purely multiple form of organization after the exclusion of oneness. This concept is not uniformly translated in French, English and Chinese, and many seemingly different philosophical concepts are in fact predecessors or derivatives of the concept “multiplicity”. This paper begins by summarizing the multiplicity as an omnipresent unique entity, and links Deleuze’s theory of the multiplicity with Riemann, Bergson, Husserl, Kant, Spinoza, Simondon and Ruyer to sort out the historical lineage of the formation of the theory of multiplicity.

This paper then discusses the structure and movement of the multiplicity at the ontological level. Unlike the prevailing view in the academy, this paper divides Deleuze’s concept of multiplicity into three types: quantity, quality and intensity, with the intensity of the multiplicity being responsible for expressing the state of potential differences as yet undifferentiated, and the multiplicity of quantity and quality being responsible for expressing the specific state of differences in the real world, the multiplicity of intensity is thus the context, the field and the mechanism of quantitative and qualitative multiplicities. On the other hand, the integration of differences by the multiplicity of intensity is achieved through a “flying over” (survol) movement rather than one entity. It encompasses not only the multiple dimensions resulting from the varying degrees of contraction and expansion, but also each alteration in the potential world resulting from the addition of new empirical content. In the realm of the real, this movement manifests itself as crystallization (stratification) and disjunction (déstratification), which represent the actualization of the potential and the potentialization of the actual respectively; in the realm of the potential, this movement manifests itself as grounding and de-grounding, which represent the discovery of the realm of the potential and the constant search for the potential level behind the potential.

Taking the division of the three types of multiplicity as a base, this paper applies it to the fields of existentialism, epistemology and political philosophy and draws numerous conclusions. Firstly, Deleuze’s summary of the univocity of being as a movement of intensity that ultimately settles on difference resolves the fundamental paradox of pluralism. Secondly, the correspondence between the three multiplicities of quantity, quality and intensity and the three temporal syntheses also implies a close connection between the them. Finally, the concepts of primitive society, state society and capitalism in Deleuze’s political philosophy theory also correspond to the reciprocal movement of the multiplicity of quantity, quality and intensity.

In the final section, this paper argues that Deleuze’s theory of multiplicity can provide theoretical support for modern pluralism. Modern pluralism is mainly expressed in the value pluralism, cultural pluralism and identity politics, but behind the purpose of respect for difference, these pluralisms inevitably lead to differences existing as a reality without the possibility of communicating with each other, transforming each other and integrating themselves. In Deleuze’s theory of multiplicity, on the other hand, differences do not rely on a higher oneness to relate to each other, but on a common context, mechanism and field in which they transform into each other. Such contexts, mechanisms and fields are not entities, but rather a constantly shifting flow and movement, and therefore do not generate a higher dimension. In order to achieve radical differences, Deleuze proposes the dissolution of the ultimate unity—the subject—by asking us to remove all a priori positions, subjects and identities. The theory is instructive for modern pluralism and plural societies in that, firstly, it emphasizes the equality among differences; secondly, it integrates differences into a relation of solidarity rather than a homogeneous entity; and finally, it emphasizes the mutual transforming of differences and the fields and conditions behind them. Deleuze’s theory of multiplicity thus provides a concrete way to realize the ideal state of difference and to construct an order of difference that is truly harmonious but not uniformed.