วีดีโอ

Perfect timing!

@@deleuzephilosophy Deleuze is so interesting

Thank you and happy new year, wishing you the best for 2025 :)

You're very welcome, thanks for watching!

Yes me too, I really believe Foucault was right. No worries about the card, I appreciate you trying!

‘Sadness’ in a Deleuzian sense often refers to something more like Spinoza’s ‘sad passions’, not the feeling of sadness as such, but those affects which reduce our capacity to act. It’s sadness in a more technical sense, and is part of Deleuze’s broader rejection of the primacy of negativity in philosophy. Confusingly, there seems to be another kind of sadness in Deleuze though, one which has more of an instigative role to play in the philosophical encounter. Pertinent quote: “The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy.” Ultimately there’s more to Deleuze’s position here, sadness in his writings can mean something different depending on the context. Keep in mind this is just me shooting from the hip - someone more erudite can probably correct me or expound on it.

The thing is that Deleuze does not postulate or defend joy as a synonym for happiness or euphoria. I sense that this is where the rejection of sadness sounds like an intolerant stance, in the interpretation that Deleuze seeks or encourages, by contrast, a happy state. The difference between one and the other is given by what allows you to create, act, do something. I think this also comes from the fact that Deleuze was a great advocate of work, in all its forms, and above all to the extent that work allows this joy of one's own power. In Deleuze's view, sadness would prevent the creation of a piece of music, regardless of whether the music could evoke sad feelings. In the famous Abecedaire, Deleuze gives a curious example, which allows a distancing from subjective, fully human instances, saying that 'The typhoon in its power must rejoice in its soul, but it does not rejoice in knocking down houses'.

@22ChampagneSupernova ok, so it sounds like we agree but just use slightly different definitions of things, that's not a bad thing, it's more a problem of incomplete translation of intended meaning than true disagreement. Thank you for giving me more context! :)

@blyntrly I'm also a fan of making neat things, when possible, I appreciate his opposition to feelings which slow individual progress towards beauty and better living. I'm not sure that I follow you about the typhoon though. Isn't the feeling of great power, separate from its destructive aspect or not, still a subjective experience? For joy vs happiness vs euphoria they are definitely different and it's nice that we have words to describe them, but I suppose I was focusing on the near, other side of emotions. Certainly despair is reasonable to oppose but sadness I think in its healthy shades, and I'm certain from experience that it has unhealthy ones, is often misunderstood as weakness, when it is closer to an acknowledgement of weakness, which isn’t the same thing at all.

@blyntrly Out of curiosity, "Abecedaire" reminds me of the term "Abecedarian" which (among other things) is a type of poem.

Thank you so much Kyle, you're the best!

@ 💙💙

He said the "square" root of two - not the "second" root of two. The square root of two is commonly cited as an example of an irrational number as it cannot be represented e.g. as a fraction of two integers.

@maxmontauk7281 But the second root is the square root? They're just two names for the same thing. There are cube roots and all sorts of other ones too. Usually the two isn't written on top of the little short part of the check mark part of the symbol for brevity but my point is just that it's still an operation between two integers, there is a way to get it with just integers, you just need to use a different tool.

Well, if you divide 2 by 3 you obtain a definite value, and the convention to note it as 2/3 works well for that purpose. Whereas the square root of two, like Pi, is closer to a symbolic form, it doesn't give you a definite value or isn't conducive to any operation by which you can define a certain quantity. As you rightly say, an infinite amount of operations would be necessary to seize the number itself in its fullness. If I recall correctly, Leibniz says that God himself cannot terminate this operation!

@@deleuzephilosophy I completely agree with you.

Ok, almost completely, there are still ways to get to actual digits out of sqrt(2), but why should binary digits be the acceptable form of numbers? Numbers can be represented by lengths of lines quite directly and there is definitely a finite procedure for drawing a diagonal across a 1 by 1 square. Even if you do only accept decimals as a representation 2/3 will go on forever too, but god may be slightly more bored writing 6's forever. Edit: changed to to too

Fair point, you'll find a few discussions about Heidegger in Deleuze, notably in "Difference and repetition", which has a whole section about it. Heidegger's "Not" is said to be a difference rather than a negation which shapes the framework of the problematic and which Deleuze also tries to develop for his own thought.

Thank you for watching!

Sorry about that, I'm still in the process of experimenting with it :/

Fair enough, but the aim of the method was quite different I'd say. Hegel was aiming at defining or encompassing (does he use "realising"? I can't recall) the Unity, while Nietzsche (and Deleuze) want to maintain the framework of multiplicity, contra Badiou's interpretation.

@dineshpandiyan885 I thought long and hard about your question and couldn't think of any mentions of Indian philosophy in Deleuze's oeuvre (there must be some at least marginal,, but I can't think of any), but it's easy to conclude, since Deleuze was a Nietzschean, that he took any thought of life as an illusion (maya) for nihilism.

Thank you! I don't recall one such passage in Deleuze's texts, though perhaps indirectly through one of his (few) discussions of Schopenhauer. I'll come back at you if something pops up!

Thank you!

You're welcome, thank you for watching :)

Thank you very much! It would indeed be great if it became useful :)

Very true, Heraclitus was right. And yet, so was Parmenides!

@@deleuzephilosophy I think Plato tries to save Parmenides theory that 'all is one' and 'unchanging' with his 'Realm of Forms' which is supposedly 'more real' than what we see. The Forms themselves are unchanging and perfect, and no matter what happens in the chaotic changing material world around us, the forms themselves never change. at the surface things appear to change but at its core all is one and unchanging, sounds a lot like Democritus' atomism, no wonder Plato disliked Democritus.

Thank you! It’s great to have support like this indeed, I appreciate you noticing!

Thanks a lot! Yes it's a very rich concept, there are likely many ways to use it for the present and for particular situations/current conflicts. If you're interested, studies by Ewald and Veyne may be a good starting point for theoretical considerations related to power!

Thank you for watching!

Thanks for watching! I think one possible answer is that the distinction between classes is itself an effect of the play of forces. What Nietzsche calls "noble" or "strong" or "active", though, isn't synonymous with "dominant class" but rather with "active force". Such forces are always in minority. In NaP, Deleuze says: "One of the finest remarks in The Will to Power is: 'The strong always have to be defended against the weak'. We cannot use the state of a system of forces as it in fact is, or the result of the struggle between forces, in order to decide which are active and which are reactive" (58). So indeed, while a dominant class may exert violence on a dominated class, it is not necessarily an expression of power. Power would rather be where activity (creation) is found.

Oh that'd be nice, thank you 😋

You know, if I was selling loans at insane rates, that would be one thing. The Brilliant app is literally a product that I’d want my kids to use. Now if your point is that “selling things is bad”, I have bad news for you. Unless you come from high privilege or you’re a trustfund kid, you will have to sell something in life, even if you’re a teacher, a factory worker or an academic (especially if you’re an academic). Unless you go live in the woods, your choice isn’t whether you’ll sell something for a living or not, but *what* you’ll sell. Selling unethical things that destroy people (and your own soul with it) is easy; selling things that edify people is usually way harder-but, in my opinion, worth it.

Thank you so much for the kind words, that's very nice of you to say! I really appreciate it. I don't have this particular definition in mind tbh. I wonder if he means the *search* for power, meaning politicians, tyrants and all those who thrive by imposing affects of sadness on others? Because he says something like that in the seminar on Spinoza: trying to control others through force and coercion is not a show of force but a form of hate (in one's self, against one's own power to act). Seems there's a lot of truth to it!

@@deleuzephilosophy I think that's exactly it, we could consider power as a force in the sense of Spinoza, but in the lowest form possible because it impedes bodies from doing what they can (like in reactive forces). It seems contradictory perhaps, but I tend to read Deleuze trying to apply some sort of logical intuition to his texts. There's something beyond his strong logic that needs to be grasped and whenever I see people that rejects his philosophy entirely, the more I think his thought can be applied.

@@blyntrly Agree, the more I read him, the more I realise how eminently practical his thought is!

Very glad to hear it's useful to you! Thanks for watching.

If you're more interested in another aspect of his thought then absolutely go for it, there's nothing heretical in that ;)

Thank you 🙏

😂

My pleasure, thanks a lot for watching, Kyle!

Thank you so much, welcome to Deleuze - U 😂

🧑‍🏫

Well, then, I suggest, that you find out from where the confusion arises. I'm the kind of elective non-academic philosopher enthusiastic (fool), and I'm gona say, that go back to the ancient Athens in this case. It's like if you have a knot in understanding mathematical basic concepts, it's gona affect the whole thing!

@Artholic100 Nice schizo post 👍 Get back to me when you feel like being coherent

@picardcook7569 nice Ad-hominem. Come back to me once you get past it.

@Artholic100 Nice non-sequitur, get back to me when you learn what an ad hominem is

@picardcook7569 OK. Look. What was the thing you thought was overcomplicated in this "nonsense"? Or are we gona print every error here we can imagine? When you accuse me of being crazy, but you didn't even bother to inform in first place anything other than stating your non-understanding, I then tried to ask, if there was something in the context of this which made it overcomplicated or what? I admit, that I am indeed sometimes not as clear as I have to be.