Deleuze:

[Anonymous No.19850769]

Can anyone here actually explain the terms difference and repetition in comprehensible terms?

you cant

[Anonymous No.19850853]

Pseud word-gibberish
Deleuze will be forgotten in 20 years

[Anonymous No.19851234]

>go to normie bookstore
>see Capitalism & Schizophrenia at showcase
it's over

[Anonymous No.19851831]

Haven't read Deleuze, but from what I understand he sees difference and repetition as prior to identity and negation (Hegel). Instead of having intrinsic identities things are defined by their differences. Things within a species (like humans) are repetitions of the same structure but they are all different (no two humans are the same). An embryo becomes an actual human by a process of repeatedly breaking its symmetries. I don't know.

[Anonymous No.19851937]

>>19851831
having read deleuze, this is a pretty good starting point
this is pretty entertaining and may help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCzWUyjY5Q

[Anonymous No.19852162]

Difference and repetition is the same process, repetition is always difference, there can’t be ”pure copies/sameness” of an ’entity’ (like an atom) due to it’s embededness in a diachronic movement (time) and space

Deleuze is reacting to Plato (mimesis and simulacrum, no ”original” idea/form in this case according to Deleuze) and Hegel (who can only grasp conceptual difference and not difference in itself) with the help of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Kant

[Anonymous No.19852203]

>>19852162
>due to it’s embededness in a diachronic movement (time) and space
wait wait wait... that sounds an awful lot like ergodicity breaking systems in disciplines like quantum physics. Or am I doing that Deepak Chopra thing where I wrongly conflate a /sci/ idea with a humanities idea?
>(mimesis and simulacrum, no ”original” idea/form in this case according to Deleuze)
When you say no "original" idea/form, is this sort of like, stuff like if I glance at a hatrack and for a split moment mistake the hat and the jacket for a person standing there, but on closer inspection I see it's just a hat and a jacket, that the 'person' had no original? Or would the hat and the jacket be the original?

[Anonymous No.19852224]

>>19851937
One of the best breatube channels out there. Was going to write "based", but I've been thinking since based comes from righties, perhaps we should say "valid" instead. Dunno.

[Anonymous No.19852280]

>>19852224
>valid
a monumentally gay choice, lets not

[Anonymous No.19852281]

>>19851937
he has a great video dunking on fascists too and with real arguments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZZbIanKxs

[Anonymous No.19852289]

>>19852203
He's trying to (re-?)construct a Heraclitean philosophy: complete and total nominalism. No forms, no hylomorphism. All is in flux. "Hatness" is just as malleable as the matter that makes the hat.

[Anonymous No.19852294]

>>19852281
Valid

[Anonymous No.19852303]

>>19852280
What's wrong with being gay though? Are you afraid the fascist bros will call you gay? Who cares

[Anonymous No.19852377]

>>19852224
I'm sticking to dank. I think it's making a comeback guys.

[Anonymous No.19852467]

>>19850769
Why are this nigga threads always so full of faggotry?

[Anonymous No.19852494]

>>19850769
> “Difference in itself” is difference that is freed from identities seen as metaphysically primary. Normally, difference is conceived of as an empirical relation between two terms which each has a prior identity of its own (“x is different from y”). Deleuze inverts this priority: identity persists, but is now a something produced by a prior relation between differentials (dx rather than not-x). Difference is no longer an empirical relation but becomes a transcendental principle that constitutes the sufficient reason of empirical diversity (for example, it is the difference of electrical potential between cloud and ground that constitutes the sufficient reason of the phenomenon of lightning).

>the concept of “repetition for itself” is produced as repetition that is freed from being repetition of an original self-identical thing so that it can be the repetition of difference. Following the formula of Deleuze’s reading of Nietzsche’s eternal return, repetition is the return of the differential genetic condition of real experience each time there is an indviduation of a concrete entity. Ultimately, then, Difference and Repetition will show that the individuation of entities is produced by the actualization, integration, or resolution (the terms are synonymous for Deleuze) of a differentiated virtual field of Ideas or “multiplicities” that are themselves changed, via “counter-effectuation,” in each individuating event.
pretty simple really

[Anonymous No.19852544]

>>19850769
What's even more important than Deleuze's metaphysical discoveries/inventions is what he believed to be the political and ethical upshot of this work. Those being:
>the destruction of the subject
>the relativization of truth
>the validation of an anarcho-communistic ethic
and of course:
>the validation of chopping your penis off, wearing a dress and pretending to be a woman
That's all you really have to know about him.

[Anonymous No.19853548]

>>19851831
>>19852494

Sounds like Demiurgic Dispensation.

[Anonymous No.19853606]

>>19852281
I'm going to go ahead and assume this person has never read anything Evola has ever wrote or said

>Evola was a fascist

Stopped right there, no he was definitely not, in fact he wasn't even a nationalist and thought nationalism was bourgeoisie and favored aristocracy. So no, he was definitely NOT a fascist

[Anonymous No.19853654]

>Things are the same but different.

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19853676]

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContGunz.htm

[Anonymous No.19853697]

academic “philosophers“ should be round up and shot

[Anonymous No.19853702]

>>19851831
I rape black, as contrasted to raped Bi blacks (Hegel)

[Anonymous No.19853782]

>>19853606
What was he?

[Anonymous No.19853788]

>>19852544
>>19853548
>>19853606
>>19853702
Why do you niggas keep posting the same shit in every Deleuze thread

[Anonymous No.19853805]

>>19852494
Isn’t the difference in electric potential between ground and cloud the difference between highly charged/not highly charged? How does Deleuze escape duality when talking about difference?

Can you clearly explain how Deleuze would think about, say, the difference between a green and red apple?

[Anonymous No.19853840]

>>19852289
Do you know anything about his ideas regarding creating the new?

[Anonymous No.19853844]

>>19853805
>Isn’t the difference in electric potential between ground and cloud the difference between highly charged/not highly charged? How does Deleuze escape duality when talking about difference?
>judgement as analogy
filtered
>Can you clearly explain how Deleuze would think about, say, the difference between a green and red apple?
that's not what he means by difference you fucking cocksucking retard

[Anonymous No.19853853]

>>19852467
The only people reading deleuze are trendy intellectual teens with stinking bo and messy rooms

[Anonymous No.19854033]

>>19853844
>”I don’t know”

[Anonymous No.19854046]

>>19854033
ohhhhh my god, fuck you. you think like a woman.

[Anonymous No.19854057]

>>19852494
Deluze misread Nietzsche's eternal return, it's the idea that our lived reality repeats without change forever. I thought it was about giving our actions weight arguing that there not ephemeral puffs passing into nothing but decisive moves which bind us eternally to the sufferings inbound beyond our choice, whether we can alter it or no. You can decide to ask a girl out, you can't discover in advance the outcome (marriage, betrayal, incompatibility) and so will is subject to fate which overrules our action, even this won't stop Nietzsche from giving our plays infinite significance, every moment is as weighty to the soul as the final of the World cup is to the potential championship, only we can never achieve this level of saturation of experience and fall short into the gutters of habit. Anyway idk how Deluze extracts his theory from Thus Spoke, I've read the part in DandR and feel it's idealism and Deluze is a idealist in general, then again after reading Wittgenstein and Cioran I've only read Deluze for the prose.

[Anonymous No.19854176]

>>19852162
So difference and repetition are processes that describe how we break down pure experience?