[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 72 KB, 620x428, gilles-deleuze.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16218027 No.16218027 [Reply] [Original]

What would a science based on difference as opposed to identity look like? Is such a thing even reasonable to propose?

>> No.16218036

Why don't you elaborate on your idea? You want us to do the thinking and imagining for you?

>> No.16218040

>>16218027
Nonsensical schizo babble.

>> No.16218051

>>16218027
Science can literally not be understood in terms of difference. It only works for the psyche or language.

>> No.16218193
File: 746 KB, 1000x1000, aocsparkles-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16218193

>>16218027
I felt this would be easier to understand once you already had a great deal of knowledge on a subject. I don't think you can learn something formlessly on the first go.

>> No.16218205

>>16218051

I'm gonna need you to dumb that down for me a little.

>> No.16218403

>>16218027
I think it woud look exactly as it looks now.
think about it
>it's everywhere, affecting and connecting millions of people
>nobody knows how it really works
>people can't be sure if it's right or wrong
>it advances so fast that it has no politics on it's own (real science)
>we stopped in our effort of understanding it and just go with the flow
>war is even better everyday with the products of contemporary science.
If anything the framework that Deleuze thought in actually happened but not because of a decision but because we had no choice.

>> No.16218463

>>16218027
probably something like a squinting frenchman

>> No.16218493

>>16218027
Take either more or fewer drugs

>> No.16218623

>>16218205
that's the dumbed down version. if you don't know anything I'll explain it simply:
philosophy for centuries has thought identity prior to difference. deleuze turns this around and says difference is always prior and identity parasitic. this works well for language (derrida) or for the psyche (lacan) because signs get their meaning from their difference to other signs. lacan applies the structural linguistic method to the unconcious; that's how you get the quote "the unconscious is structured like a language". It doesn't work for science because science deals with predication, synthesis, and assumes identities that it can ontologically quantify over. An electron is not a proton because their identities differ. in fact it seems impossible to even conceive of difference without identity in science but deleuze tries to go through a convoluted method to show how.

>> No.16218652

>>16218623
Imagine crediting deleuze with shit Plato wrote

>> No.16218656

>>16218652
every single philosophical idea has its roots in plato.

>> No.16218657

>>16218027
Isn't this literally just Deleueze, a philosophy which is compatible with science but is based on difference.

>> No.16218731

>>16218036
Go back to your endless chart threads and one line shitposts. OP is inspiring interesting discussion.

>> No.16219677

bump

>> No.16219685

>>16218493
This

>> No.16219710

>>16218027
Ideally, science as a process already is based on difference when it comes to experiment and hypothesis falsification. Identity is just a convenient cope for referencing the results of experiment.

>> No.16219718

>>16218657
this, Deleuze thought he reactualized the same processes that were in science at his time

>> No.16220044

surely a science of difference is semiotics i.e. signs get their meaning in a system only from their relationship (and difference) with other signs

>> No.16220101

>>16218623
So I'm way over my head here, but wouldn't an election and a proton difference of identity come from their difference in function, difference in charges, difference in relation to each other and everything else? Again, sorry if I'm already asking wrong questions.

>> No.16220165

>>16220101
But this is exactly the problem. The difference is in different qualities (identity) that electrons and photons have. But for example words in saussurean structural linguistics dont have different qualities like this word has 5 syllables and this one three consonants or whatever. Their difference relies on difference as such. On the different places they occupy in a differential system, where everything relates to each other not because of shared qualities but because of incommensurable difference.

>> No.16220217

>>16220165
How do you identify difference without referring to quality?

>> No.16220231

>>16218623
Complete and utter nonsensical gibberish.

>> No.16220266

>>16220165
Stop trying to mystify what is a very well-understood concept. Nodes in a graph are identified based on their relationships with other nodes. Basic shit.

>> No.16220940
File: 1.58 MB, 480x270, IMG_20170507_063844_01.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16220940

Identity implies difference, difference implies identity. Either they both come into being at once or not at all. Trying to order these into events is where we dropped the ball.

>> No.16220955

>>16218623
Nigga idk wtf u sayin. Explain in muh ebin ebonics.

>> No.16221116

>>16218656
You mean Parmenides.

>> No.16221204

>>16220940
>order these into events
It's not causal or temporal priority. It's metaphysical priority. The grounding relationship. For example, If I am a human, I am a mammal. My being human grounds the fact that I am a mammal. The result is that you get to have a hierarchical ontology in which the truth values of more fundamental propositions explain the truth values of derivative propositions.

>> No.16221288

>>16220231
brainlet

>> No.16221356

>>16221204
Okay, but to make the claims about human and mammal don't you need both the difference and identity in conjunction?

>> No.16221556

>>16221204
There's no such thing as metaphysical priority. In my view all metaphysics is just screwy epistemology. "Human" and "mammal" are just terms to describe groups of beings that share similar properties with one another, purely out of convenience. One didn't come before another in any real metaphysical sense, though mammals existed before humans in a historical sense and humans existed before mammals in a linguistic sense.

>> No.16221594

>>16218027
No difference.

>> No.16221606
File: 1.49 MB, 1242x682, 1597976469484.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16221606

>>16218027
Difference is a process, not a quality as such (or it is only metaphorically one). The world for Deleuze is made of relations and their histories (series) rather than objects and their interactions (because every object is itself made of relations). Relations are perpetually differentiating and self-differentiating constantly, always forming new compositions by connecting to new relations. A science of this would look at the "wobbliness", the non-deterministic (but rather vitalistic or chaotic) movements of these relations. This is why sound and music is so important for Deleuze since, as Bergson says, you have to look at the melody rather than the individual notes to understand it. The world as virtual is far richer than the empirical actualized world because these countless relations are themselves real without being actual, ideal without being abstract as Proust says (influenced by Bergson). This is approach is not incompatible with science, far from it, but science has a much easier time with empirical data, the second it strays from it you get all kinds of "crazy yet plausible" cosmological and quantic models.

>> No.16221709

>>16218027
I get that Deleuze is all about playing games with language to get you to think about things in different ways, reformulate the assumptions and biases of a given system and so on, but very little of what he says has much of a bearing on reality. It can be fun to think about but I don't see how practical or useful it is.

In this case for example, science is based on both identity AND difference - induction and deduction. Useful results are based on the assumption that elements that share an identity will react predictably similarly in similar conditions. To test this you need to identify significant differences between those elements relative to the experimental context you're placing them in.

>> No.16221782

>>16221709
Try reading Deleuze. You're describing Derrida.

>> No.16221802

>>16218623
When you compare a proton to an electron you're already at the wrong level of difference, which is difference between objects. Difference in itself comes before any constituted identities and pertains to pure relations. They can be difficult to conceive because we're used to looking at relations between things and in this conception the relation has no meaning without its terms. The reference to Plato that the other anon made is relevant since Plato tried, through his Forms, to think of relations regardless of their terms, even if Deleuze does it in a different way.

>> No.16221854

Bump

>> No.16222010

natural sciences by their very nature are based on identity... deleuze in fact has no problem with identity, its only when identity is taken as the end-all be-all that there becomes a problem and not a consequence of more fundamental processes. so you need to situate the use of identity (conventional reality) within difference (ultimate reality)... and this is why philosophy and art is needed

>> No.16222058

>>16222010
Neither of those are needed lmao, they're both just fun diversions

>> No.16222067

this man has ruibned my life when i can read his work i will symbollically overcome him and my transition will progress

>> No.16222111

>>16221288
The brainlet is you, pseud.

>> No.16222113

>>16221709
Identity != repetition. Try actually reading Deleuze

>> No.16222120

>>16221204
That's not what grounding is, and it has nothing to do with identity. Difference is just the negation of identity. Both are trivial concepts.

>> No.16222121

>>16218193
stop posting this thot

>> No.16222130

>>16222113
Deleuze was a nutjob. Try learning some actual philosophy or science.

>> No.16222561

>>16222067
You will never be a woman.

But I'd still cuddle with you, cutie.

>> No.16222567

>>16222130
Name an actual philosopher.

inb4 some boring fart that showed that A=A for a century and then bored students to tears for all eternity

>> No.16222569

>>16222561
1000 keks

>> No.16222579

>>16222567
>A=A
Go back.

>> No.16222584

>>16218027
Alfred Janny

>> No.16222713

>>16222567
>if philosophy isn't fun I'm not listening to it!
The absolute state of zoomers, Jesus Christ

>> No.16222886

>>16220231
>>16218040
>>16222111
>>16222130
>>16222713

theorylet cope

>> No.16222917

>>16222561
:3 turn my shitting machine into a fleshlight machine

>> No.16222935

>>16222886
Retard alert.

>> No.16222993

>>16220044
>surely a science of difference is semiotics i.e. signs get their meaning in a system only from their relationship (and difference) with other signs
Can this even work? Signs didn't exist forever, so there must have been a "first" sign. But this contradicts the statement that signs have meaning only wrt. other signs.

>> No.16223037
File: 296 KB, 410x646, 1568800611044.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16223037

>> No.16223099

>>16218623
Contemporary science is founded upon the
principle of induction: most people have
seen a certain phenomenon precede or
follow some other phenomenon most often,
and conclude there- from that it will ever
be thus. Apart from other considerations,
this is true only in the majority of cases,
depends upon the point of view, and is
codified only for convenience - if that!
Instead of formulating the law of the fall
of a body toward a center, how far more
apposite would be the law of the ascension
of a vacuum toward a periphery, a vacuum
being considered a unit of non-density, a
hypothesis far less arbitrary than the choice
of a concrete unit of positive density such as
water?

>> No.16224281

Aren't you glad I bumped this thread before it archived?

>> No.16224313

>>16218027
Thats what relativity is, dumbass.

>> No.16224325

>>16222713
Imagine missing the point this hard yet judging others.

>> No.16224331

>>16222579
>words I don't like detected
>input shitty catchphrase

This NPC might need some reprogramming.

>> No.16224336

>>16223037
Pretty much this. Intensive differences and all that.

>> No.16224353

>>16218027
it would be a new type of science who see the actual science as a barbaric butchering on things.
from the pov of today that future science (who would have another name) will be almost religious and antiscientifc.
just go with the flow.

>is even reasonable to propose
reasonable depend on what you want to get from life.

>> No.16224688

>>16218652
deleze did, exactly, the oposite that plato did

>> No.16224710

>>16220940
But then that's just a prior identity my man, welcome to the traditional club.

>> No.16224716

>>16221556
>doesn't know what metaphysics is

>> No.16224774

>>16224710
What should I read first as a new member?

>> No.16225177

>>16224716
It's bullshit is what it is lmao

>> No.16226400

bump

>> No.16226445

>>16224710
>>16224716
>>16224774
>>16225177
All these numbers, they move together, they grow bigger, and BIGGER, and then bamn, one has won and gets the numbers; it's a battleground, between contending people or numbers or beliefs. This is life, and occasionally something really random is there, because you're focused in a thread, and something outside of it is happening, and you can't tell what happened here but it makes sense if you have the knowledge of the other. And you can't not be in a thread, when you're in the catalog you can't tell or see any numbers, you have to look at a thread, identity.

The... numbers.

>> No.16226598

>>16226445
I'm hungery

>> No.16226604

>>16226598
Nice to me you hungery, I'm dad.

>> No.16226668

>>16226604
and that's how I knew I was in the right place all along