/lit/ - Literature

what did you....expect?

this was before he met...guattari

>>11677075
Difference is fundamentally linked to identity. Who you are is defined by what you are not (it is a form of symbolic distinction). What D is saying is that the difference are really connected to the same concept. Think in terms of light and shadow. The two terms (thought polar opposites) are fundamentally connected. They are entwined and repeat each other’s existence. They thrive off one another. Saying “the light” is the same as saying “the shade.” You think the two are separate, but they are one and the same. This diaphora (or reiteration) is caused by consciousness being shaped by the dualism of language itself.

>>11677216
actually thats wrong libtard.
Let (S,∗) be a set S with a binary operation ∗ on it. Then an element e of S is called an identity if e ∗ a = a for all a in S

>>11677264
you think postmodernism adheres to logic? the very language (logic) you are using is axiomatically flawed. Godel showed this.

>>11677274
yes, while godel did prove that lanaguge(logos) is flawed he also implicitly showed that the syntax of propositional logic is a perfect representation of human reasoning and interpertation.

>>11677303
>interpretation

>>11677264
>Let
why tho

what does your equation prove?

>>11677315
it proves that a=a, and its actually a proposition, not an equation
>>11677307
>>11677274
>postmodernism
no thanks, i dont want anything to do with your gay little multicultural neomarxist death cult, sorry.

>>11677264
Can't really reply in formal logic, but for Deleuze difference is itself creative in the sense that the rules are not set in advance, but rather created on the spot as a result and can be understood after the fact, but do not preexist the act of differentiating. I wonder if that doesn't change the problem a bit.

>>11677364
>I can't into logic or math so let me conjure up some magical act that will render them irrelevant

continental philosophy basically

>>11677364
>>11677328
what is so complicated about saying, difference exists?

For example, an apple and a carrot.

If you had a table, and laid down 20 apples in a row... that would be a repetition of apples
but then if you placed a carrot at the end, it would be a difference

>>11677328
an equation is also a proposition
you numbskull faggot

>>11677373
It's more like the fact that logic and math describes something once it is already formed, a somewhat stable identity whereas Deleuze is concerned with something preceding identity which he believes to be difference.

>>11677440
Not sure what you're getting at, conceptual difference as in difference between identities (apples are different from carrots) isn't the same as pure difference, but rather a result of it.

>>11677216
>Saying “the light” is the same as saying “the shade.”
Any philosophy that leads you to say stuff like this has provided its own reductio ad absurdum.

>>11679260
>isn't the same as pure difference, but rather a result of it.
what is meant by pure difference? What is an example of pure difference?

>>11679966
Tbqh that's the difficult part. I'm not an expert so take it with a grain of salt.

Afaik it's a relation subsisting independent of its terms. In Leibniz's differential calculus it's dx/dy = 0/0 where dx and dy are the infinitely small (infiniteimal) values for x and y. The relation does not cancel out to 0, but remains despite the values tending towards 0 or something like that. What you have to keep in mind is that Deleuze is at times a bit vague about whether he believes in the Leibnizian / Spinozist actual infinite (turtles all the way down so to speak). It does go very well with pure difference (relations all the way down, every identity being reducible further to relations), but Deleuze admits that it's unintuitive since we're used, both in philosophy and science, to think in terms of identity (for example atoms both in philosophy and in science, both being identities despite not being the same thing in the two approaches, philosophical atoms being indivisible). As to why this infinite is actual and can actually lead to everything concrete we experience in the world, that has to do with multiplicities (connections, relations between identities) and the virtual (real all the time and striving to actualize rather than being actual).

Tl;dr Deleuze is against identity and representation as a starting point for metaphysics and instead focuses on relations and their becoming.

>>11677328
>postmodern multicultural neomarxist
oh god you read Peterson don't you
show me how Derrida is a Marxist or a proponent of multiculturalism, you intellectually indolent little cunt

>>11680084
> In Leibniz's differential calculus it's dx/dy = 0/0 where dx and dy are the infinitely small (infiniteimal) values for x and y. The relation does not cancel out to 0, but remains despite the values tending towards 0 or something like that

What in the fuck did I just read? Jfc

>>11680131
Like I said, I'm by no means an expert (I even mixed up the dy and dx, it's been a while). Not saying Leibniz used it in the way I described, just that it's what Deleuze did with it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_notation

>>11680131
>>11680162
Googled it and found this, pretty spot on:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8993/was-deleuzes-understanding-of-the-infinitesimal-calculus-primitive

Bumperino

>>11680131
>>11680162
>>11680195

Lacan used the same symbolism. You cannot reach the real, only approach it like a mathematical limit. The Real does not exist through linguistic representation.

>>11680289
The thing is that Deleuze was a kind of materialist realist (if by matter we mean process), it's not quite the same thing even though there is quite a bit in common between the two thinkers (these days most books think them together rather than in opposition). They could certainly agree on the limits of language, but not for the same reasons.

>>11680306
For Lacan the object of our desire is the search for the Other, which is illusory tied to language and symbolic associations.
For D&G desire is not just an illusion, but an act of becoming. For example, D&G often use the example of the egg or the cocoon. The egg/cocoon (desire) is necessary in order to transform the caterpillar into the butterfly, or the yoke into a chicken. Though the egg/cocoon should be discarded once the trans-formative act occurs, for D&G is is not illusory, but a necessary part in becoming Other.

>>11680336
>For Lacan the object of our desire is the search for the Other
Is that all? I see so many statements like this on this board, when you make such a specific statement you so limit. For Lacan, is the object of our desire absolutely only the search for the Other? So far I must assume so, because you said so.

>>11680336
>(desire) is necessary in order to transform the caterpillar into the butterfly, or the yoke into a chicken.
What about this isn't obvious? If there was no desire, there would be no life

>Though the egg/cocoon should be discarded once the trans-formative act occurs
What is an example, of desire that transforms a person, but than the person should discard that desire once they are transformed?

>>11680476
any 'bad' relationship you can learn from

>>11680084
How do you
>focus on relations and their becoming.
Without
>identity and representation

So, I dont know if I got my question answered, what is meant by pure difference.

Carrot and apple are not purely different, they are different, but not purely, because they are related by the fact they are food, maybe they share certain nutrients.. ok..

So what, there is no thing or idea that is Purely different, because everything is composed of atoms?

And then you also are talking about the noumena, the impossibility to get to the bottom of all things, infinite reduction, nowhere finding God saying "This is what I meant by the electron, it represents a _________ and symbolizes and means _______ and the reason I chose to specifically design it that way is because __________" what does this have to do with 'pure difference'?

>>11680336
desire is constitutive, not representational.
if we were using heideggers terms, we could call it ontological.
or we could just call it eros, which better captures what is meant.

>>11680495
the anon I was speaking with made it seem like 'desire' should always be discarded after it transforms, which is partly what I meant with these anons uncareful speaking
>Is that all? I see so many statements like this on this board, when you make such a specific statement you so limit

I have the desire to have sex, I use that desire to turn into the butterfly of successfully having sex... then I throw away that desire.... and never have sex again?

Why couldn't Deleuze simply say that a language category doesn't contain the infinity of possibilities within that category itself?

If you have 2 apples, they are precisely the same in 1 category, specifically the category of apple, but they are certainly not the *same*, because they are two distinct apples. Hence the word apple does not, and cannot contain the entire concept of apples.

This is literally the same discussion Stirner has when he talks about how human names function.

>>11680528
don't read deleuze through the lens of the post-kantian 'linguisitic turn'
it's not about our language and its supposed limits, but about the 'fundamental' 'structure' of reality

>>11680517
probably can't have sex with that butterfly again
on account of it being smashed to bits

>>11680552
Well then, Deleuze should've been a theoretical physicist, and not a philosopher.

>>11680336
<------- sorry, but i had to meme it.

>>11680590
gross

>>11680584
would have done as much good as your theoretical wit

>>11680642
>Physical reality
>Not a fundamental structure of reality

I love continental philosophy as much as the next guy, but stop being stupid.

>>11680654
ur a dumm

>>11680105
>Specters of Marx

>>11680084
Wait till you realize that there's a finite calculus, and that all of calculus is really just an extension of measure theory.

>>11677264
>for all a in S
Then wouldn't e be an identical set, and not an element?

>>11677328

>gay little multicultural neomarxist death cult

i love postmodernism, but this is just great

SO MANY ANONS IN THIS THREAD HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT BUT SPEAK WITH CERTAINTY AS IF THEY DO, AND THEN OTHERS BELIEVE THEM AND CONTINUE THE CHAIN OF UNUNDERSTANDING SOPHISTRY

>>11680552
>but about the 'fundamental' 'structure' of reality
What are some things he said about it? Give me some short bullet point gist
"no you gotta read these 6000 pages"
No genius, you read them all, consumed them, digested them, regurgitate some nuggets into my little baby bird mouth daddy

>>11677075
>he didn't read division two of being and time

>>11680528
>Hence the word apple does not, and cannot contain the entire concept of apples.
Well, partly because the imperfect knowledge of biology, like certain little crab apples, and this is the blurred line of apple family, and genus and stuff... but how does the word Apple, not point to and refer to 'all possible Applenesses', those known and yet to be known?

Is there such thing as Appleness, or is there only such thing as relations of DNA terms? that ultimately eventually reach a blurryness of edges, when a few differences of DNA genes makes item A an apple and item B not an apple?

>>11680833
>but how does the word Apple, not point to and refer to 'all possible Applenesses

Because it's not called "all possible Applenesses", it's simply called apple.

I mean, come on. There's literally mountains of knowledge among human beings that is tacit, and not spoken out loud, and yet we act as if words contain concrete and unalterable meaning.

>>11680801
what i meant was deleuze was engaged in speculative metaphysics, not meta-logic or epistemology

>>11680795
edify us then

>>11680695
Deleuze wrote about the holocaust so I guess he must be a nazi, but also a radical post-leftist since he also wrote on May 68

>>11680878
>it's simply called apple

how is "all possible Applenesses" not contained in the word Apple?

It is only when you point to a specific apple that you are saying, this is one particular type of apple, out of the all possible appleness that is, Thee Form/s Of "Apple"

>>11680967
Make some statements about the topic so I can see if they are correct or not

>>11681090
>>11680933
>>11680552
>>11680513

>>11680933
>it's not about our language and its supposed limits, but about the 'fundamental' 'structure' of reality
How can he engage in speculative metaphysics about the fundamental structure of reality, without caring about and tieing it through and using (whether aware or not, inescapable): meta-logic or epistemology

>>11680504
Apple is made of several substances. These substances are themselves composed of other stuff. This other stuff is composed of other stuff. All the way down, never stopping. You are made of infinity. Yes it sounds bonkers, but the point is that in each case the relations are what is fundamental rather than what they connect. These relations are "pure differences". They differ constantly from themselves and from one another. Once you get to the level of the apple you've passed through so many wobbly multiplicities and constantly re-actualizing virtualities (the connections that form the multiplicity are all virtual and striving to reactualize) that you're tempted to compare apples and oranges in order to find difference, which is to start from representation and identity which is something like seeing a chair and believing that it must've been there for all eternity before you saw it for the first time.

Also, relations between objects (Peter is taller than Paul) fall into the same trap. Pure differences as relations are not the same thing because they are already what the compared objects are made of so to speak. It's Deleuze's fault for calling them pure differences and not "shit I made up" which makes you confuse it with conceptual difference.

Again, not a Deleuze expert so if anyone has a better version please correct me.

>>11680513
>desire is constitutive, not representational.
What do you mean by: desire is not representational? What do you mean by representational? How are you certain, what do you mean, by desire never represents?

>>11681111
you are boring me

>>11681109
>Apple is made of several substances. These substances are themselves composed of other stuff. This other stuff is composed of other stuff. All the way down, never stopping
I dont know if thats true.

I believe an apple is composed of finite parts, I dont know how necessary your bringing infinity into this is though, we werent talking about infinity and it didnt seem like that was a necessary part of this concept of 'difference and pure difference..' (What The Fuck Is Attempting To Be Gotten At... What is being pointed at for what reason, What is the significance.. what is trying to be said? What is the motivation behind saying it? How is it grounded in certainty, understanding, Truth?)

>>11681116
ouch, you lost already, instant destruction of you false understanding... maybe you do know though...but you dont seem to want to test that

>>11680709
Deleuze isn't talking about mathematics though, it's quite explicitly something like "look at this stuff in Leibniz, I'll use it in a different way to make a metaphysical point". Basically his weird proof of how to consider a relation persisting independently of x and y.

>>11681138
oh man i totally fell compelled to, like, prove you wrong lol let me waste the next ten hours chasing a rotten carrot around this muddied track

>>11681135
That's just the actual infinite thing that Spinoza and Leibniz went on and on about. I did mention it in the previous posts. Yes, you can think a philosophy of relations without it and at times Deleuze does think in terms of the clinamen (self-moving deviation of atoms in a philosophical, stoic and the like, sense). I do agree that it's weird and I have no idea why Deleuze liked the idea since he himself admitted, as I said in another post, that science and even philosophy has put us off it.

>>11680336
How do you make a living by becoming expert in this kind of ultimately meaningless garbage? Is 'teaching' this shit to others the only way? Or do some people just delve as deep into philosophy as possible as a hobby?

>>11681153
Not him, but you have to admit that this vitalistic way of discussing desire is pretty weird and Zen-like. It's like some physicists that say that one particle loves another or whatever. It can be explained step by step by showing desire's material aspects (at least with Deleuze, in Lacan's case the lack adds a different perhaps idealistic dimension).

>>11681173
People learn to make use of this stuff. Both Deleuze and Lacan, as well as most if not all of their peers, can be used to orient your own life and in fact have this advantage that even if their models are wrong, you can still take a lot from them. Deleuze even insists, against deconstruction in a sense, that his texts are only worth what you can do with them "in the real world" and that chasing after meanings and writing a book about a book about a book is missing the essential. But /lit/ it seems is mostly made of people who already have all the answers and are just looking to prove it.

>>11681153
yep, you are not confident in what you 'think you know', you said something, I questioned it, you scurry away into your dark mouse hole

>>11681442
keep on goring your own ox

>>11681209
so avant garde self help?

>>11680105
>>11680695
>>11681010

Derrida went on, in his talks on this topic, to list 10 plagues of the capital or global system. And then to an account of the claim the creation of a new grouping of activism, called the "New International".

Derrida's ten plagues are:

Employment has undergone a change of kind, i.e. underemployment, and requires ‘another concept’.
Deportation of immigrants. Reinforcement of territories in a world of supposed freedom of movement. As in, Fortress Europe and in the number of new walls and barriers being erected around the world, in effect multiplying the "fallen" Berlin Wall manifold.
Economic war. Both between countries and between international trade blocs: United States - Japan - Europe.
Contradictions of the free market. The undecidable conflicts between protectionism and free trade. The unstoppable flow of illegal drugs, arms, etc..
Foreign debt. In effect the basis for mass starvation and demoralisation for developing countries. Often the loans benefiting only a small elite, for luxury items, e.g., cars, air conditioning etc. but being paid back by poorer workers.
The arms trade. The inability to control to any meaningful extent trade within the biggest ‘black market’
Spread of nuclear weapons. The restriction of nuclear capacity can no longer be maintained by leading states since it is only knowledge and cannot be contained.
Inter-ethnic wars. The phantom of mythic national identities fueling tension in semi-developed countries.
Phantom-states within organised crime. In particular the non-democratic power gained by drug cartels.
International law and its institutions. The hypocrisy of such statutes in the face of unilateral aggression on the part of the economically dominant states. International law is mainly exercised against the weaker nations.
On the New International, Derrida has this to say:

The ‘New International’ is an untimely link, without status ... without coordination, without party, without country, without national community, without co-citizenship, without common belonging to a class. The name of New International is given here to what calls to the friendship of an alliance without institution among those who ... continue to be inspired by at least one of the spirits of Marx or of Marxism. It is a call for them to ally themselves, in a new, concrete and real way, even if this alliance no longer takes the form of a party or a workers’ international, in the critique of the state of international law, the concepts of State and nation, and so forth: in order to renew this critique, and especially to radicalise it.

>>11681465
You are the Other I desire my being to reify and reciprocate in the shadow of the verge of Paranasus' kettle drum, not so much a goring, in the rainbow vicissitude of unbecoming, but moreso, slightly sort of sometimes, a flaying we might say, and only in use of sacred ceremony, the horns, which interestingly are coned shape, which represents the connection of the diminishes to the abundant, the fundamental characteristic of the aetheric void, which calls, as if a trumpet call, or sometime a flute, all the lingeringness of the transcripient 'hurl', so to say, being is a hurling in the inner realm of outside the others other, and all others are themselves not otherly, but to themselves sometimes the horn, the cone, the arrow, the vector, does perform entanglement, and jurisprudence with its anti self, which becomes an unbeknownstifying of the nonexistent antiself, which comes to being through a gradual nonself noncreation, but as an infinite hall of infinite mirrors made of pure beings pure desire of knowing its not knowing, thus, cancelifying the essence of the past, into the eternity of the dying future, the soul is a constant rapture and all it can do is set up its own shop on some bizaar corner somewhere in the kingdom of capital, and sell its own self slaughtered self, cart and all, before and after

>>11681481
Kek, pretty much. But it does involve some stuff that regular self help does not and cannot touch on.

>>11681513
>>11681513
So, your proof that Derrida was a marxist is copy pasting the summary of a book in which he criticizes marxism and tries to provide a way out for it.
I see

>>11680476
Insatiability as a lifestyle is the ideology of a Heroin addict

>>11681517
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>>11681550
jesus christ kys please

>>11681606
>zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
yes.. this is your contribution

>>11681513
which of those 10 points do you disagree with?

>>11681724
even so, exceeding your own

well this thread sure confirmed my suspicion that /lit/ was way too pseud-tier for deleuze. stick to nick land and stirner or whatever.

>>11681799
still waiting for you to start the lesson

>>11681775
>even so, exceeding your own
yes, much so exceeding mine in contentlessness and zzzz'ness.... make a sloppy ill thought out statement of your belief that you think you know that may be controversial or difficult to prove and I will destroy it and prove you wrong again.. oh whats that.. im receiving a premonition... you dont want to do that... I wonder why... oh look... another worthless post by you.... oh.. another premonition... no...u...nice... another pointless post... no.... u.... oh great... another premonition... of another pointless post... no.... u..

>>11681838
and you persist in conflating a jejune prolixity with 'content' 'of interest' to 'anyone' other than your own omphalos.

>>11681880
this whole ad hominem back and forth started because I asked you to make a statement that I could attempt to challenge: you pointed me to 2, I questioned them... you began a meltdown tantrum (symbolic, metaphoric, I am afraid if I didnt make that clarification you are the type that would have ignored everything else I said to say, I didnt have a tantrum! omg I didnt!) because making a handful of ad hominem deflecting posts is much easier than attempting to dig the points of yours I questioned out of the dusty weeds of your barren mind

>>11681952
you are this fellow (>>11681111) yes?
you believed this would lead to what? a socratic aporia, where i am lead by your able hand to that cliff, that most primordial wisdom--yea, that i don't really know nuffink, now do i? look how deep she goes, aye mate? s'like an hole, or an abacus, innit? the mind, mind. mind yer step now, dearie.
yeah, man, that would have been a much better use of our time than this.

>>11682024
You made some statements: I asked questions about them... you broke

It is the tossing out into the air that the public can consume and parrot, ideas, statements, phrases, that cannot be backed up, that is much partly the ruin of the world

>>11682042
you pulled a tired canard and honked a couple times on its gullet
riding the god-damned definition carousel is BORING
but hey, at least it feels like we're getting so where, right?
this has a purpose, yeah?
you
are
a
snorer
and you WILL reply to this post like a faggy little puppy dog

>>11677264

>an element e of S is called an identity

Go baptize some pagan latino girls and leave e alone, you analytical beta cuck.

>>11681481
lolled

Got my biggest laugh today, thanks anon.

>>11680716
no moron, if it was a set it would be capitalized like 'E'

>>11681513
what's your point? how is this a testament to Derrida's "neomarxism"?

>>11681816
lol start with the greeks my child, can't eat your cheese puffs (deleuze) until you've had your hoho's (plato)

bump

>>11682424
haha you tell him sweatie

>>11681550
>a way out of it

lmao he called for a "new International" FFS

>>11681736
i disagree that deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing. it's a good thing. so are the "walls" around nations that derrida is speaking against in the quotation.

i could go on and on. but i think the point is made.

>>11683849
>i disagree that deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing. it's a good thing. so are the "walls" around nations that derrida is speaking against in the quotation.
>i could go on and on. but i think the point is made.
well seeing as there were only 10 points, and you only mentioned two, and on and on would have meant at most, 8 more... it seems like you may only have a problem with 2 points?

>>11682384
see
>>11683845
>>11683849

>>11677264
words can have more than definition, think "kernel" since you sound like you just took a first class in abstract algebra

>>11682064
For the record you're both retarded.

>>11683961
no, i dont "only" have a problem with 2 points.

3. in typical marxist fashion, he bad mouths trade blocks. which is another way to couch his anti-capitalist rhetoric.

4 "contradictions of the free market" -- i'll live with those any day over a state controlled system.

5. "foreign debt" again, he uses the anti-capitalist talking points, pointing fingers at the World Bank, instead of blaming the tyrannical, corrupt leaders in africa, etc. it's always the "capitalist elite" who are merely "exploiting the brown people" everywhere. i can smell that bullshit a mile away.

6."the arms trade" again, a not so veiled swipe at "muh western imperialistic hegemonic" blah blah blah

7. spread of nuclear weapons. if he wants western countries to severely limit them from pakistan and tehran, for example, then good.

9. Inter-ethnic wars. "mythic national identities." fuck this neo-marxist "nations are a construct" bullshit

10. drug cartels. again, if he was a proponent of an all out war against them, then good. i suspect that's not quite his "spin" on it, though. he means it as a phenomenon of failed states (and surely would blame the "western hegemonic imperialists" blah blah blah again

"unilateral aggression...economically dominant states" -- of course he's referring to Western (read: capitalist) powers again. "weaker nations" -- muh brown people being oppressed again.

"no countries...without national community..."

"continues to be inspired by at least one of the spirits of Marx and Marxism"

"the concepts of State and nation"

FUCK YOU AND FUCK THIS REPACKAGED WARMED OVER "NEW" MARXIST MOTHERFUCKING SHIT

>>11684027
alright, alright, I see you

>>11684027
>yeah, i mean, if someone were to hold me down and force me, i guess i would call myself a 'civic nationalist'

>>11684027
>>11681513
Can you be more intellectually dishonest?

He wasn't speaking against the disallowing immigrant per se, he even specifically noted that it is hypocritical to disallow immigration in supposedly "free world" and "freedom of movement. All of his issues are valid if you take the statements of these powerful countries claiming to be free and helping others while exercising this law of the Jungle, the strongest nation deciding what is right and wrong for all other nations, as in the case of US, itself first initiating WTO, yet complaining about the the others from its domestic laws prespective rather then the wto.

He was no politician and rarely philosophers make good politicians. The double speak is against the nature of philosophers who seek this logical honesty rather than haphazard rethorics of political stratagists.

Now go be a good cuck and buy one of Peterson's carpets.