/lit/ - Literature

>>7163292

He thought it was they were reflections of the west's technologising tendencies.

>>6820097
You forgot to mention that Being is always the Being of beings within Being.

This is a question raised by the other thread about the univocity of Being, but it's beyond the scope of a Millbank discussion so I figured I'd make a new thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univocity_of_being

>Gilles Deleuze borrowed the doctrine of ontological univocity from Scotus.[1] He claimed that being is univocal, i.e., that all of its senses are affirmed in one voice. Deleuze adapts the doctrine of univocity to claim that being is, univocally, difference. "With univocity, however, it is not the differences which are and must be: it is being which is Difference, in the sense that it is said of difference. Moreover, it is not we who are univocal in a Being which is not; it is we and our individuality which remains equivocal in and for a univocal Being."[2]

>Deleuze at once echoes and inverts Spinoza,[3] who maintained that everything that exists is a modification of the one substance, God or Nature. He claims that it is the organizing principle of the Dutchman's philosophy, despite the absence of the term from any of Spinoza's works. For Deleuze, there is no one substance, only an always-differentiating process, an origami cosmos, always folding, unfolding, refolding. Deleuze and Guattari summarize this ontology in the paradoxical formula "pluralism = monism".[4]

My question is: What gives Deleuze the right to do this? Where does he get his reasoning from? I've been reading Anti-Oedipus and most of what he says in it seems to be based on shaky assumptions and overblown terminology. Could a Deleuzefag please explain to me what gives his ideas force? His interpretation of Spinoza seems, like Lacan's interpretation of Freud, to be a way of giving himself legitimacy by attaching his name to someone better known than he is. Especially in this case, it seems like Deleuze's claims have no basis in Spinoza's text, and he's drawing a very shaky connection to Duns Scotus' philosophy that doesn't seem to exist, since Spinoza drew more from Jewish thought than Catholic thought and he doesn't reference the univocity of being in his works.

I want to respect and agree with the work of Deleuze to some degree, I really do, but I find it very difficult when most of his claims seem to be based on nothing but his own interpretations of dead people who can't supply their own input.

Do you believe in truth?
Do you care about truth at all?
Is truth unconcealment?

>>6594857
YA GOT ME

>>6387179

How did you come to accept death? What were some of the books that helped you?

What is Buddhism?
Or is it nothing?

>>6109141

you must unfold

>>5769806

Why do you people love Buddhism so much? Are you all Orientalists?

>>5703446
So I'm curious as to what Witty's respones/solutions/thoughts on some things were

>Nihilism
>Free will
>Abrahamic Religions/God
>Gautama Buddha
>What happens after death
>The Greeks he most identified with

Any and all responses are welcome C:

>>5661593
You're welcome
I'm sorry I couldn't get specifically what you wanted though.