/lit/ - Literature

>>11632689
self = self

>>11632689
Might relate to his concept of folding.

>>11632714
that wasn't Deleuze

yo dawg

So, the self equals the self.

Give this man a Nobel prize.

Deledude didn't say that.
Just read what Peirce said about thirdness.

>>11632726
No, the self is the relation between the two terms that is set up by this very relation

>>11632726
No, the self equals the relation relating itself to its own self. It's literally one sentence, you might as well try and read it.

>>11632689
Read it in the original french you absolute child.

>Selvet er et Forhold, der forholder sig til sig selv, eller er det i Forholdet, at Forholdet forholder sig til sig selv; Selvet er ikke Forholdet, men at Forholdet forholder sig til sig selv.

>>11632749
>>11632751
Sounds to me like he's trying to define consciousness using philosophical parlance. He failed.

Consciousness is a little more complicated than that.

Better luck next time, philosophy.

>>11632828
enlighten us O wise one

>>11632828
you can't posture because you're a tripfag so I already know how uneducated you are

>>11632855
I'm actually working on an explanation for future publication. So, I think I'll hold on to it. Nothing in my experience on this board in the past 5 years has given me any reason to offer anything other than my expertise when asked; which means I rarely delve into it.

who the hell hasn't filtered this tard yet

it's """satire"""
he, like many, had a terminal case of hegel derangement syndrome

>>11632779
>read it in the “french”

Pis af din narretrold:-)

>>11632981
deleuze isnt a hegelian

>>11633127

>>11633127
The quote is though.

>>11632689
Just making smalltalk

>>11632689
why did you post deleuze next to that quote?

whats deleuze on religion?

>>11632981

Yeah, I read that on wikipedia too. Then I read the Judith Butler article that was the origin of that line on wikipedia, and realized that taking Judith Butler's reading of Kierkegaard seriously was absolutely retarded, and that the Hegel/Kierkegaard relationship was much more complex than Judith Butler's idiotic ideas on parody. I then understood, almost in flash, that I should stop regurgitating stupid shit I've heard on /lit/ about texts I've never read without any reflection whatsoever.

>>11632689
This is Kierk not Deleuze right? If so, it probably has to do with the synthesis of the finite and infinite constituted in spirit.

>>11633419
lmao i didnt even know that was from juden butler but now i do, thanks anon

Google tells me that quote is from Kierkegaard. Anyway I can understand the first part of the sentence. The relation "is identical to", or the relation "has the same reputation as", is an example of the kind of relation described in the first part of the sentence: The relation "is identical to" is identical to the relation "is identical to". The relation "has the same reputation as" has the same reputation as the relation "has the same reputation as". The second part of the sentence seems to be saying that the self is it's property of reflexivity, since it is in virtue of a reflexive property's reflexivity that it relates itself to itself. But I cannot render that coherent in my own mind, the idea that a thing is identical to a certain one-place property it has, where that property is reflexivity, for the property "is reflexive" is not reflexive, for by definition no one-place properties are reflexive. I could interpret Kierkegaard as thinking of 1-place relations, as then think of the property "is a property", since it is a property that possess itself: "Is a property" is a property. Or: "is existent" is existent. But such relations do not relate themselves to themselves, for they are only one-place relations; hence I can still not make this part of the sentence coherent. The third part of the sentence seems to be saying that the self is not the reflexive relation itself, but the fact of the relations being related to itself. If we represent the relation in question by the symbol R, the thought is that the self is not R but (R)RR. But this is inconsistent with the preceding parts of the sentence, so I can still not make it coherent.

>>11633373
he was an atheist

>>11632689
>literally no one knew this was Kierkegaard without looking it up
I hate this place

>>11635584
see
>>11632722
>>11632748
>>11633205
>>11633444
you are not as smart as you think