To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DeleuzePhilosophy/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription!
@@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.
@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.
at 13:03 or so you say that irrational numbers can't be expressed as the relations between integers, but then give the second root of two as an example... The *second* root of *two*. Those are two numbers right there which are relating to produce the irrational number! They're definitely relating in an odd way through a radical instead of a division sign... but it's entirely possible to generate irrational numbers using only division and addition, albeit infinite amounts of it. One could easily argue that the conclusion that the world requires irrational numbers in order to explain is undercut by this fact that the apparently irrational and infinitely detailed numbers can be approximated to beyond any observable difference by integers.
The idea that sadness as a concept should be rejected is terrible to me. To me, to reject sadness is like rejecting a thermometer's readings when it gets cold, the point of sadness is to come to terms with loss by feeling it fully, loss is an enemy, yes, but the best way to overcome an enemy is to know them first, to pity them and see where you and they diverge. Sadness is not the cold but the feeling of the cold, to reject the feeling instead of the thing causing it is to invite numbness which dulls empathy. To claim something so radical as "only tyrants benefit from sadness" is pleasantly bold, but still wrong, poets and musicians also evoke sadness, and benefit from those who feel it, are poets and sad song writers tyrants? An ethics which blames those who hold onto the meaning of their sadness for oppression is not a just ethics to me, though it is always possible that I am only seeing a piece of the context and it does matter very much what else is involved here.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/DeleuzePhilosophy/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription!
Good to see you getting sponsorships too
Thank you! It’s great to have support like this indeed, I appreciate you noticing!
Very well done here! This will be a great resource for avid Deleuze learners for years to come!👏
Thank you sir. Can’t believe your videos aren’t better known. So good
Excellent video, thank you!
great explanation
Great video for a beginner like me, thank you
8:25 This methodology appears not only in Nietzsche, but also earlier in Hegel as well, if you go with the interpretation of Absolute as non-All!
language is as changing and organic as the cosmos it is trying to communicate, nothing is static
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.
Excellent work! ❤ Can you please cite any book or reference containing the Deleuze take on Indian Philosophy - Vedantism, Buddhism, and so on??
@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.
too loud music
how does this project about representation relate to heidegger’s project of “overturning metaphysics”? seems somewhat similar to me
at 13:03 or so you say that irrational numbers can't be expressed as the relations between integers, but then give the second root of two as an example... The *second* root of *two*. Those are two numbers right there which are relating to produce the irrational number! They're definitely relating in an odd way through a radical instead of a division sign... but it's entirely possible to generate irrational numbers using only division and addition, albeit infinite amounts of it. One could easily argue that the conclusion that the world requires irrational numbers in order to explain is undercut by this fact that the apparently irrational and infinitely detailed numbers can be approximated to beyond any observable difference by integers.
The idea that sadness as a concept should be rejected is terrible to me. To me, to reject sadness is like rejecting a thermometer's readings when it gets cold, the point of sadness is to come to terms with loss by feeling it fully, loss is an enemy, yes, but the best way to overcome an enemy is to know them first, to pity them and see where you and they diverge. Sadness is not the cold but the feeling of the cold, to reject the feeling instead of the thing causing it is to invite numbness which dulls empathy. To claim something so radical as "only tyrants benefit from sadness" is pleasantly bold, but still wrong, poets and musicians also evoke sadness, and benefit from those who feel it, are poets and sad song writers tyrants?
An ethics which blames those who hold onto the meaning of their sadness for oppression is not a just ethics to me, though it is always possible that I am only seeing a piece of the context and it does matter very much what else is involved here.