*Contents* 00:35 REPRESENTATION 02:27 The fourfold root (or “shackles”) of mediation 06:52 BEING 13:43 Three principal moments in the history of being 15:18 Nietzsche 28:12 THE INFINITELY SMALL AND THE INFINITELY LARGE 29:34 Hegel 37:42 Leibniz 41:32 NEGATION 53:22 Summary
I agree with you. Nietzche spoke of the eternal return of the identical, and that has nothing to do with difference. But there is a poem by Mallarme that perphaps would better illustrate difference and repetition.: "A Throw of the Dice Never Will Abolish Chance". I don't know if Deleuze ever used that simile, but I think it would fit perfectly for his particular version of the eternal return.
@@absurdbeing2219 I forgot to comment this yesterday, but could you explain to me how Calculus fits into all of this (especially on how it relates to the leibnizian critique of organic representation contra Hegels) because, as a sophomore in high school, I haven’t taken calculus yet.
@@immanuel_0697 Honestly, I'm not much of a mathematician (I _have_ studied calculus at school, but so long ago it is now almost like I've never studied it!), but this is how I understand it. Calculus is the study of infinitesimals in which dx represents an infinitesimally small change in x. There are two branches of calculus: differentiation and integration. The former gives us the instantaneous rate of change; i.e. change at a single point on a continuous function; i.e. the rate of change as your interval sizes approach zero. This is the derivative and is represented by the symbol dy/dx. Integration is the summation of these infinitesimals, represented by the area under the curve. I see this fitting into Deleuze’s metaphysics in two ways; one negative, one positive. First, calculus can be seen as a tool for eliminating difference. As a representation of reality, it can make us think of change (becoming) as secondary, or a modification, if you like, to something fundamentally definite (being; i.e. Leibniz’s monads). This is how we looked at it in this video. However, later in the book, Deleuze will use certain elements of calculus to show how Ideas (which are virtual multiplicities, comparable to a continuous function) condense around singularities to become actualised (comparable to getting a specific value for dy/dx), all while preserving, or even prioritising, change/indetermination/virtuality. Organic representation is eliminating difference through a "finite" mediation, which I understand to be mediation that cashes out in a "harmonious organism" or some kind of totalised One. On the other hand, _orgiastic_ representation eliminates difference through appeal to the infinite. This is the technique adopted by both Hegel and Leibniz, although in opposite directions; large for the former (the Absolute), small for the latter (monads), and neither of which refer to an actual existent (which would make them finite). Instead, both are abstract concepts. Hope that helps. By the way, amazing you're tackling Deleuze at high school! I'm sure I'll be the one asking you questions in a few years!
@@absurdbeing2219 Your explanation of Differential and Integral calculus makes sense (and it’s relation to Leibniz), but I’m not sure if I’m understanding Deleuzes interpretation of it. Is it that each individual point on a continuous function are the singularites which only exist secondarily as actualizations of the function? And if so would that mean that continuous functions are analogous to difference in-itself and its many points constitute real repetition for-itself? Also thanks for the compliment. I’m glad that I’ve gotten into philosophy as early as I did; it has turned my life for the better. Nevertheless, because of your video series I’ll probably be able to get into works like Anti-oedipus or Fanged Noumena a lot quicker than without them; which I’m infinitely grateful for.
@@immanuel_0697 Good for you. Glad I am able to help in some small way. You've got the basic idea, I think. Though don't try to read too much into my comment It is a very crude, heavily simplified outline to give you an idea of how calculus relates to Deleuzian metaphysics. In particular, repetition and the notion of singularities are starting to get a little misrepresented here. Don't worry about understanding all of that at this early stage though. We're still in the first chapter! We'll be coming to a much more detailed exposition of this in the second half of _D&R._
Just wanted to pop in and say thank you, first and foremost. I love this book and am happy to hear your thoughts on it. Cannot wait for the rest of this series. Also, a quick note: when you were talking about the eternal return and commenting saying that Deleuze isn’t representing Nietzsche’s concept accurately, I think this is purposeful. I reckon, Deleuze is taking the eternal return as a springboard concept to delve further into difference in itself. Deleuze thinks that most philosophers that have come close to difference in itself didn’t quite go far enough: Duns Scotus, Spinoza and Nietzsche. But because they all come close he can use them as familiar places for philosophers to jump from to get to the concept of difference in itself. It’s like the whole idea of a “bearded Hegel” and a “clean shaven Marx.” I don’t really see Deleuze being “anti-anything.” Most philosophy throughout history has been “anti-something.” Here, I believe Deleuze is just trying to show that we can put emphasis on other things, like difference and repetition, to escape the paradoxes philosophy tends to run into. Maybe you’ll say this later in the video but I figured I’d mention it.
I suppose the abolishing of identity in the return can be seen in the original concept. When we are faced with the eternal return and we rejoice and accept the return of everything, we wouldn’t remember the acceptance on the second pass through until we’re faced with the eternal return again. So if I’m an old man and discover the eternal return, accept it and then say I’m reincarnated into the same life, I’m not going to remember the acceptance until I’m an old man again and therefore return to life without identifying that I’ve already returned. Let’s get rid of reincarnation. Let’s just say that this video has made me ponder the eternal return and I rejoice in it. But then I’m going to turn off this video and forget about it, allowing the thought to enter the unconscious. At the point in returning to me daily life the eternal return is forgotten and the content of life cycles back into habit until I come to the thought again. The contents of my life day to day are essentially different yet they repeat (go to work every week, eat food everyday, drink water, etc etc). We are eternally returning to things in life through the differentiation of pure time.
Thanks Kyle. Glad to have your input. I totally agree that Deleuze is _deliberately_ taking liberties with Nietzsche... and I also agree that that's totally fine.
Sorry Nate, I thought you were going on a looong break. It’s interesting to contrast this with watsujis negation of a negation. I didn’t see that as a totality somehow. The assertion is how I see Heidegger guilt and Sartre’s Neant and Levinas’ enjoyment. As an artist/animator this is how I reconcile creativity as the assertion behind being. Something that escapes the model based thinkers behind AI. I have difficulty reading after the stroke so I just wanted to say thank you for what you do. It really helps me a lot to be able to listen to philosophy. I am trying to read D&R in French but I can never get past the first chapter. It’s funny that he recommends starting the book from the conclusions and working your way backwards. I tried that too - very funny. Anyway thanks I look forward to seeing what he has to say about Plato
Hey Jack. That's a great point. I didn't read Watsuji's negation of negation as resulting in a totality either, but that was because I think he has to be understood as making a phenomenological claim there, not a metaphysical one (although he did mis-apply it to Buddhist metaphysics resulting in the whole Absolute emptiness debacle). Deleuze, on the other hand, is talking metaphysics (regarding opposition); i.e. the way reason attempts to understand reality itself. Negation, I think, can only arise from a specific perspective; i.e. a level 'above' metaphysical bedrock. That is funny Deleuze recommended reading the book backwards. Actually though, the conclusion in _D&R_ is one of the better summaries I have ever read in a philosophy text. Still, I can't imagine starting with it... I am so glad that my vids are helping to keep you in the game. And, of course, I really appreciate your always supportive and thoughtful comments.
Hey, I appreciate your content! Especially on ponty. But I was wondering if it's not impolite of me to ask -- and though it's irrelevent to this video, wasn't sure where to ask -- but I was wondering, are you an atheist? And if so, how do you reconcile that with reading people like Levinas? Thank you.
Hi Jake. Thanks. Totally fine to ask that. I am 100% atheist. So, I pick my religious authors carefully. If I believe the philosopher's ideas rely too much on theology, I won't read them. Levinas was worth reading for his quite unique (positive) take on other people. I also read Kierkegaard because he has so many interesting existential insights. It is, of course, true that both philosophers ultimately ground their philosophies in the divine, but I felt that they have solid ideas that can be picked up and 'secularised,' as it were.
@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you for the response! I know you're busy, and probably inundated with requests, but I'd love to see more of your work on Japanese philosophy. It's really unique, and fascinating; and, moreover, not something most English philchannels give attention to.
@@jakek.403 Thanks for the interesting question, and thanks for the feedback about the Japanese philosophy series. I suspect that is one of my less popular playlists, but nice to hear you enjoy it. I do have a couple more Japanese philosophers in mind, but yeah, given that making these videos is just what I do in my free time, it is tough to fulfil requests.
"Difference in itself" and not in opposition to something, doesn't that mean "uniqueness"? Like standing in front of a painting and saying, hmm, it's different. Very new to this, sorry for the naive comment
Not uniqueness because even uniqueness derives its meaning only from a comparison/opposition to something else. And no comments are naive here, so don't worry about that!
Fantastic thank you for that, I recommend looking into John Vervaeke’s After Socrates series, episode 19 is about Jesus Socrates and Kierkegaard on decision needing to be intentional to be “true”,
33:55 that's a really odd way to attack Hegel, i.e., by equating him to analytic philosophy (?) and then invoking the classic Shellingian "it's not like that in real life". I would maybe get it if you went just straight for the usual "he's too abstract" jab at Hegel but talking about superficial conceptuality is hard when all you have to build that position are superficial concepts. language, the very tool you use for this "critique", itself is superficial, let alone when you have to counter a position which can only be countered by at least minimal equation, thus committing to a contradiction. tbf i wouldnt say that this is a particularly good point you formulated, nor that you have even really looked into the argument itself or Hegel's philosophy, but, regardless of that, it really takes a confusion of profound magnitude to equate Hegel to analytic philosophy. and i am sorry for saying this, i know its mean, and you've done a good job going through the book, but i don't know whether one has to be so uncritical and shallow when it comes to thinker's toward which the author is raising critique; it just seems like you took his position at face value and just embellished it with words that would allow to create an illusion of there being a binary between philosophy which "feels" and captures lived experience "as is" and Hegel/analytic phil. which is just completely detached because of a supposition that the particular is determined through the universal.
*Contents*
00:35 REPRESENTATION
02:27 The fourfold root (or “shackles”) of mediation
06:52 BEING
13:43 Three principal moments in the history of being
15:18 Nietzsche
28:12 THE INFINITELY SMALL AND THE INFINITELY LARGE
29:34 Hegel
37:42 Leibniz
41:32 NEGATION
53:22 Summary
I agree with you. Nietzche spoke of the eternal return of the identical, and that has nothing to do with difference. But there is a poem by Mallarme that perphaps would better illustrate difference and repetition.: "A Throw of the Dice Never Will Abolish Chance". I don't know if Deleuze ever used that simile, but I think it would fit perfectly for his particular version of the eternal return.
Great content. Really enjoyed the section on being.
Thanks a lot!
It’s felt like forever since last week. Thanks for the video
Haha~by contrast, the week flew by for me! Before I knew it, it was time to record this vid. Enjoy!
@@absurdbeing2219 I forgot to comment this yesterday, but could you explain to me how Calculus fits into all of this (especially on how it relates to the leibnizian critique of organic representation contra Hegels) because, as a sophomore in high school, I haven’t taken calculus yet.
@@immanuel_0697 Honestly, I'm not much of a mathematician (I _have_ studied calculus at school, but so long ago it is now almost like I've never studied it!), but this is how I understand it. Calculus is the study of infinitesimals in which dx represents an infinitesimally small change in x. There are two branches of calculus: differentiation and integration. The former gives us the instantaneous rate of change; i.e. change at a single point on a continuous function; i.e. the rate of change as your interval sizes approach zero. This is the derivative and is represented by the symbol dy/dx. Integration is the summation of these infinitesimals, represented by the area under the curve.
I see this fitting into Deleuze’s metaphysics in two ways; one negative, one positive. First, calculus can be seen as a tool for eliminating difference. As a representation of reality, it can make us think of change (becoming) as secondary, or a modification, if you like, to something fundamentally definite (being; i.e. Leibniz’s monads). This is how we looked at it in this video. However, later in the book, Deleuze will use certain elements of calculus to show how Ideas (which are virtual multiplicities, comparable to a continuous function) condense around singularities to become actualised (comparable to getting a specific value for dy/dx), all while preserving, or even prioritising, change/indetermination/virtuality.
Organic representation is eliminating difference through a "finite" mediation, which I understand to be mediation that cashes out in a "harmonious organism" or some kind of totalised One.
On the other hand, _orgiastic_ representation eliminates difference through appeal to the infinite. This is the technique adopted by both Hegel and Leibniz, although in opposite directions; large for the former (the Absolute), small for the latter (monads), and neither of which refer to an actual existent (which would make them finite). Instead, both are abstract concepts.
Hope that helps. By the way, amazing you're tackling Deleuze at high school! I'm sure I'll be the one asking you questions in a few years!
@@absurdbeing2219 Your explanation of Differential and Integral calculus makes sense (and it’s relation to Leibniz), but I’m not sure if I’m understanding Deleuzes interpretation of it. Is it that each individual point on a continuous function are the singularites which only exist secondarily as actualizations of the function? And if so would that mean that continuous functions are analogous to difference in-itself and its many points constitute real repetition for-itself? Also thanks for the compliment. I’m glad that I’ve gotten into philosophy as early as I did; it has turned my life for the better. Nevertheless, because of your video series I’ll probably be able to get into works like Anti-oedipus or Fanged Noumena a lot quicker than without them; which I’m infinitely grateful for.
@@immanuel_0697 Good for you. Glad I am able to help in some small way.
You've got the basic idea, I think. Though don't try to read too much into my comment It is a very crude, heavily simplified outline to give you an idea of how calculus relates to Deleuzian metaphysics. In particular, repetition and the notion of singularities are starting to get a little misrepresented here. Don't worry about understanding all of that at this early stage though. We're still in the first chapter! We'll be coming to a much more detailed exposition of this in the second half of _D&R._
Just wanted to pop in and say thank you, first and foremost. I love this book and am happy to hear your thoughts on it. Cannot wait for the rest of this series.
Also, a quick note: when you were talking about the eternal return and commenting saying that Deleuze isn’t representing Nietzsche’s concept accurately, I think this is purposeful. I reckon, Deleuze is taking the eternal return as a springboard concept to delve further into difference in itself. Deleuze thinks that most philosophers that have come close to difference in itself didn’t quite go far enough: Duns Scotus, Spinoza and Nietzsche. But because they all come close he can use them as familiar places for philosophers to jump from to get to the concept of difference in itself. It’s like the whole idea of a “bearded Hegel” and a “clean shaven Marx.” I don’t really see Deleuze being “anti-anything.” Most philosophy throughout history has been “anti-something.” Here, I believe Deleuze is just trying to show that we can put emphasis on other things, like difference and repetition, to escape the paradoxes philosophy tends to run into.
Maybe you’ll say this later in the video but I figured I’d mention it.
I suppose the abolishing of identity in the return can be seen in the original concept. When we are faced with the eternal return and we rejoice and accept the return of everything, we wouldn’t remember the acceptance on the second pass through until we’re faced with the eternal return again. So if I’m an old man and discover the eternal return, accept it and then say I’m reincarnated into the same life, I’m not going to remember the acceptance until I’m an old man again and therefore return to life without identifying that I’ve already returned. Let’s get rid of reincarnation. Let’s just say that this video has made me ponder the eternal return and I rejoice in it. But then I’m going to turn off this video and forget about it, allowing the thought to enter the unconscious. At the point in returning to me daily life the eternal return is forgotten and the content of life cycles back into habit until I come to the thought again. The contents of my life day to day are essentially different yet they repeat (go to work every week, eat food everyday, drink water, etc etc). We are eternally returning to things in life through the differentiation of pure time.
Thanks Kyle.
Glad to have your input. I totally agree that Deleuze is _deliberately_ taking liberties with Nietzsche... and I also agree that that's totally fine.
@@absurdbeing2219 thanks again for this series. Really looking forward to it
Sorry Nate, I thought you were going on a looong break. It’s interesting to contrast this with watsujis negation of a negation. I didn’t see that as a totality somehow. The assertion is how I see Heidegger guilt and Sartre’s Neant and Levinas’ enjoyment. As an artist/animator this is how I reconcile creativity as the assertion behind being. Something that escapes the model based thinkers behind AI. I have difficulty reading after the stroke so I just wanted to say thank you for what you do. It really helps me a lot to be able to listen to philosophy. I am trying to read D&R in French but I can never get past the first chapter. It’s funny that he recommends starting the book from the conclusions and working your way backwards. I tried that too - very funny. Anyway thanks I look forward to seeing what he has to say about Plato
Hey Jack.
That's a great point. I didn't read Watsuji's negation of negation as resulting in a totality either, but that was because I think he has to be understood as making a phenomenological claim there, not a metaphysical one (although he did mis-apply it to Buddhist metaphysics resulting in the whole Absolute emptiness debacle). Deleuze, on the other hand, is talking metaphysics (regarding opposition); i.e. the way reason attempts to understand reality itself. Negation, I think, can only arise from a specific perspective; i.e. a level 'above' metaphysical bedrock.
That is funny Deleuze recommended reading the book backwards. Actually though, the conclusion in _D&R_ is one of the better summaries I have ever read in a philosophy text. Still, I can't imagine starting with it...
I am so glad that my vids are helping to keep you in the game. And, of course, I really appreciate your always supportive and thoughtful comments.
Hey, I appreciate your content! Especially on ponty. But I was wondering if it's not impolite of me to ask -- and though it's irrelevent to this video, wasn't sure where to ask -- but I was wondering, are you an atheist? And if so, how do you reconcile that with reading people like Levinas? Thank you.
Hi Jake. Thanks.
Totally fine to ask that. I am 100% atheist. So, I pick my religious authors carefully. If I believe the philosopher's ideas rely too much on theology, I won't read them. Levinas was worth reading for his quite unique (positive) take on other people. I also read Kierkegaard because he has so many interesting existential insights.
It is, of course, true that both philosophers ultimately ground their philosophies in the divine, but I felt that they have solid ideas that can be picked up and 'secularised,' as it were.
@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you for the response! I know you're busy, and probably inundated with requests, but I'd love to see more of your work on Japanese philosophy. It's really unique, and fascinating; and, moreover, not something most English philchannels give attention to.
@@jakek.403 Thanks for the interesting question, and thanks for the feedback about the Japanese philosophy series. I suspect that is one of my less popular playlists, but nice to hear you enjoy it. I do have a couple more Japanese philosophers in mind, but yeah, given that making these videos is just what I do in my free time, it is tough to fulfil requests.
"Difference in itself" and not in opposition to something, doesn't that mean "uniqueness"? Like standing in front of a painting and saying, hmm, it's different.
Very new to this, sorry for the naive comment
Not uniqueness because even uniqueness derives its meaning only from a comparison/opposition to something else.
And no comments are naive here, so don't worry about that!
Fantastic thank you for that, I recommend looking into John Vervaeke’s After Socrates series, episode 19 is about Jesus Socrates and Kierkegaard on decision needing to be intentional to be “true”,
Hegel is not an analytic philosopher-you could say that he is when Continental philosophy begins in earnest, even though he has predecessors.
This stuff is pretty good, too bad I don't have time
Yeah, that is the one thing you do need for this.
33:55 that's a really odd way to attack Hegel, i.e., by equating him to analytic philosophy (?) and then invoking the classic Shellingian "it's not like that in real life". I would maybe get it if you went just straight for the usual "he's too abstract" jab at Hegel but talking about superficial conceptuality is hard when all you have to build that position are superficial concepts. language, the very tool you use for this "critique", itself is superficial, let alone when you have to counter a position which can only be countered by at least minimal equation, thus committing to a contradiction. tbf i wouldnt say that this is a particularly good point you formulated, nor that you have even really looked into the argument itself or Hegel's philosophy, but, regardless of that, it really takes a confusion of profound magnitude to equate Hegel to analytic philosophy. and i am sorry for saying this, i know its mean, and you've done a good job going through the book, but i don't know whether one has to be so uncritical and shallow when it comes to thinker's toward which the author is raising critique; it just seems like you took his position at face value and just embellished it with words that would allow to create an illusion of there being a binary between philosophy which "feels" and captures lived experience "as is" and Hegel/analytic phil. which is just completely detached because of a supposition that the particular is determined through the universal.