About Deleuze - Lecture 1 and 2_1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2019
- This video with professor in philosophy Todd May, Clemson University, SC, USA, show the 1 and 2_1 lecture Todd Mays gave about Gilles Deleuzes dissertation from 1968: Difference and Repetition in DISPUK, Denmark. This clip is recorded in April - May 2017.
Todd May gave seven lectures each focusing on different aspects of Difference and Repetition. There is especially a focus on the concepts the virtual and the actual.
Todd May is an excellent lecturer. He gives many examples to illustrate the points in Deleuzes difficult philosophy. Foucault wrote about Deleuzes work that this century (the last) might be called Deleuzian
love the first scene, two guys with shaved heads and glasses. A practical lesson in 'difference and repetition'
i also like the shirt color choices.
Nice!
Dad????? is that you?
Foucauldian phenotype
😄
It’s like two clones of Foucault talking about Deleuze
Starts at 11:45.
I was going to like this comment but wanted to keep it nice at 69
1:17:20 Difference & Identity
2:05:13 Traditional notions of "Difference" (Aristotle, Nietzche, Hegel, Plato)
2:14:42 Hegel
2:31:30 Nietzche
2:45:00 active vs reactive (negativity) thinking
thank you so much
Thank you so much.
This is good part of youtube
yeah, never go back lol
@@broquestwarsneeder7617 fuck yes
100% I feel so grateful for people uploading these kinds of videos.
this guy is chill, would defiantly blaze with this brother
Great and authentic
Thank you so much for this. I recently got into Deleuze and fell in love with his affirmation of reality and his affirmation of the continuation of philosophy (as opposed to thinkers like Heidegger, Rorty, and Wittgenstein, who insisted that philosophy should come to an end). I read May's book on Deleuze and am currently reading Deleuze's works on Bergson, Spinoza, and Nietzsche. The whole time I've been thinking "Dear God, what am I going to do when I get to Difference and Repetition. How will I wrap my mind around it." It was super comforting to hear him say that he had to take it 4 pages at a time. Again, thank you so much.
Heidegger never said that philosophy should end
Hey, Are you on any social media platforms? If yes then please ping back I would really love to talk about philosophy as I am just getting into the subject
@@o.s.h.4613 end of metaphysics
@@centurion_ratslayer thats not the same as the end of all philosophy. even kant criticized certain metaphysical approaches in his critique of pure reason but was optimistic about the revisions that could potentially be made to the question of metaphysical categories.
Todd May is one of my favourite Professors. His patience of dealing with his students and his introductory writings of Deleuze and Foucault are both scintillating.
Yes, he's not condescending and doesn't make you feel intimidated by the difficult material. Would be great to work with him
Wow, I have traveled to the far corners of TH-cam listening to lectures and or talks/podcasts on Deleuze and in my earlier "studies" -- the quotation marks because I am not an academic, and like Todd May, I left psychology because of post structuralism, though I was in my first semester of getting my Bachelors at the age of 29. Perhaps my "identity" is a result of maximum entropy production rather than épistémè . With that being said, I was drawn to Foucault after my intoxication with Deleuze ....not faded, but rather...multiplied. Call it a line of flight. I must say that this is by far one of the most comprehensive and pleasurable lectures I have ever listened to on Deleuze and Foucault.
Maximum entropy production in the actual sense?
I am so grateful for this! I'm researching for my PhD and am hundreds of miles away from my university city - not the greatest time to attempt Difference & Repetition, but this is so helpful to guide me through my first go at it!
Professor May's ability to teach is extraordinary. I have never come across someone with such a perfect tempo and lucid language throughout my philosophy education so far.
If these are histories and not essential qualities, then they can be changed. Things don't have to be the way that they are.
That was pretty eye opening for me. 47:07
Yes, but after a certain point in the development of a system, things become the norm and almost impossible to shift!
@@annereidy7981 yes - on the face of it, not exactly that heartening; as in "'bingo - if I can just change the norms , values and beliefs of my entire society/culture - and no less (which has only taken an few hundred years to develop); AND - to nice new one's that will accommodate me and my issues, then I'll be sweet! "I think they call that 'Revolution' ... and no less (ha). Not the easiest thing in the world to get rolling. Might be easier and less stressful just to 'take the pill' ... on the face of it.
@@annereidy7981 Well, yes and no. Macropolitical systems become more stable, but micro-sociological relations can change, eventually causing changed in the macropolitical systems, a change in epistemes.
The whole premise is wrong because history is an expression of essential qualities of humanity.
Todd may is such a good lecturer. I love this series before I read D&R. I read anti oedipus and got most of it but there were a lot of terms like different synthesis that are all referencing D&R
I know I commented a while ago, but I got to mention again how much I appreciate y'all hosting this video. It's a treasure.
Foucault doing a lecture on Deleuze, interesting.
They look identical… but then again what is identity. 47:00
These videos have been really valuable to me. I'm working on my own thing, and this has helped contribute very much. I've been taking notes as I follow each video. So, thank you!
What are you working on
Thanks a lot for sharing what was clearly a private teaching session. Very generous. May is a good speaker/teacher and an even better writer. I would recommend this to non-experts interested in finding out more about Delezue, one of the most interesting philosophers of the last century.
The typing in the background soothes me. Like raindrops.This one and Nathan Widders intros to Deleuze on TH-cam are gold.
Wow, thanks so much for sharing this!
hi, there is one thing i'd like to ask with regards to aristotle's subordination of difference to identity (his conceptualizaion of difference as opposition): can this subordination be said to take place in the mode of potentiality, or only in the mode of actuality?
for example, aristo writes (in metaphysics theta 1046) that all potentiality is impotentiality of the same and with respect to the same (dynamis, adynamia). agamben writes on this in potentialities, and i'm trying to see how this idea can be thought together with the one mentioned in the lecture (difference as opposition, for aristo). thanks!
Listening to audio, sounds like Jerry Seinfeld giving a lecture on Deleuze
holy shit
Hahahahahah
Kramer! You can't just de-center the center! It's there for a reason!
Love Professor May's energy..
Thank you a lot for your free course
I can hear everyone furiously typing away as they make notes and I'm wondering how they managed to do so without being able to stop the video and rewind every few minutes as I'm doing!
Here is the exact PDF of 'Difference and Repetition' that they are referring to, for those who want to read along: altexploit.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/gilles-deleuze-difference-and-repetition-columbia-university-press-1995.pdf
File not found (
Yup , not working
Awesome... thanks a lot
thank you so much for sharing free knowledge
Great class! Thank you so much for sharing this ❤
Any chance that the reading sections for each lecture could be made available?
If it's any help, the page numbers for the first section of reading in the Paul Patton translation, published by Bloomsbury are the bottom of page 63- the end of the chapter, but missing out the section on Heidegger. Hope that helps
This is GREAT! Thanks for uploading :)
Anyone know what the selected readings were?
Is it possible to get the list of what was to read for each lesson?
May looks just like Foucault.
I can see a difference
@@bigbossmatt I can see a difference
@@brigwood7658 I can see repetition
@@agudger11 took a while, but someone got it
Really curious what kinds of students he is delivering to? Are they grad students? Seems like a psych (-ology/-iatry) program? So impressive how fast he ramps up to sophisticated ideas, even given their seemingly very mixed level of knowledge coming in...
Thanks for this. Would you be able to share what the reading was for these students?
I think that they're reading Difference and Repetition
George Pantzikis okay I kind of set myself up for that one
im still confused about the relation structuralism and post structuralism have to identity as both seem to explain them using structures be it socioeconomic standing for example for structuralism and history for example for post structuralism
This is good stuff
This is excellent!
I always thought that when Deleuze says that repetition is always repetition of difference, he means that repetition simply can't be anything but repetition of difference. Repetition of sameness would not be repetition, because for something to repeat there has to be difference in the very fact of repetition
But there are two meanings here, aren't there?
1.-
Either it means that what is repeated is repeated from something, so logically Deleuze would already be implying an identity theory of sorts, or giving primacy to identity over difference in repetition.
Of this thing which is repeated which is also not that thing over there from whence repetition is based, where difference is implied in repetition (as you say) because it stands as a difference from what is not repeated, which is the same. But repetition here is almost equated with difference itself.
Repetition is repetition as an effective differentiation, i.e., repetition IS difference, what permits differentiation from that which is the same.
2.-
Or he's saying that repetition is a repetition OF difference, so repetition is always a differentiation from something that is already a difference. An idea which I find difficult to comprehend, why even call it repetition?
@@lupo-femme think about a drum beat that consists of the same beat over and over in the same rhythm. even it is the "same beat" it is a different manifestation of it. And if there were no difference (silence, in this case), between them, there would be no repitition. It would be a solid tone. This is my current understanding. Please add to it.
@@lukehall8151 I like your idea a lot. By the act of repeating, a thing differs from itself. Only if because it is a repetition of something. I wrote a comment on groundhog day above showing a similar idea
Thank you very much!
difference: juxtaposition of quantum flavour in the place of essence?
On the question about energy, around 1:01:00
Discarding the spiritualist idea of energy ("I'm feeling a bad energy") and focussing on energy as a physicist sees it:
People have this intuition of energy as a "thing floating around". So the question seems plausible, after all isn't this thing that float around different in essence to pure matter?
The thing is that energy does not exist per si. Energy is a matematical concept that one assigns to matter. It is a property of matter. If a object moves through space then we can assign a given energy to it. It also aplies to quantum particles in general. There must be a physical thing making stuff so that we can look at it and assign that number called energy. There is no energy separate from matter, and also energy does not even "exist".
Thinking of different as primary and identification as secondary could mean a baby is born as different but must identify with a caretaker to survive and then as the baby grows, they differentiate to their original difference and more. So in essence, if I get it right, difference is primary and identification is secondary but in psychology, the baby is born blank and must identify with a caretaker to become different. So Deleuze is basically opposite of the foundation of psychology. is this analogy ringing a bell?
This video is awesome, thanks! But the audio could be a bit louder.
Just chill vibes.
You can't make difference primary, and Nietzsche already explained fully why this is.
Pure difference is always (forcibly) synecdochic with regard to our web of intelligibility. It can't be otherwise. Thinking and speaking pure difference or negativity is already a metaphoric endeavor, always-already produced as a 'thing' at the behest of the tyranny of communicative acts, but in this instance, its thingness is constituted not by its content, but by its radical lack of any content, and therefore by form alone. Just like how when we attempt to experience self-consciousness grasping at an omnipotent, omnipresent God, such a concept is delimited precisely by our inability to think it. But, crucially, we are not thinking pure difference here; as I said difference is synecdochic with regard to unity, a knowable or perceptible whole. So we get an equation like 1-X, where the -X cannot gain significance without always already existing within a constellation of stability, unity, identity, and so on, as a subtraction against a constant. This must be observed for communication to be presupposed.
Difference only has meaning when it is a synecdoche of a preestablished unity. If we think we are thinking and speaking pure difference, it is because we have forgotten the fundamentally metaphorical nature of perception and consciousness (according to Nietzsche), (and operating with full awareness of the necessarily metaphoric nature of communication, thought, etc.) because we forget that many of our metonymic substitutions are automatic (as a result of forgetting, as a result of morality, of communication, etc.).
Nietzsche's work during Truth and Lie in an Extramoral Sense is effectively asking the question, 'can we think or speak of difference as anything other than a synecdoche?'. Why does Nietzsche think this? Because 'life has already been decisive' in privileging the capacity for assimilation of likeness through sacrificing difference. "the intellects' aversion to chaos". The justification for the belief in a constant lies in the belief in the 'unity' of willing, and as a result, a metaphorical schema is established that constitutes an ensuing unity beneath every concept.
When the pre-socratics say 'what is thinkable and speakable, is', Nietzsche claims that they say such things with observance to the nature of communication (and of human life!). Hence difference is a metaphorical synecdoche wherein we think and speak absence, lack, or exception relationally, and not directly. To speak of it directly, to speak of pure difference, would be impossible without also thinking and speaking of them as things, as beings, and in this case as possing the unitary form of non-being or non-thing.
Deleuze makes Nietzsche more complicated than is necessary, and misses the value Nietzsche placed on the genealogy of identity and unity as necessarily metaphorical. Nietzsche problematizes the forgetting of the origin of perception and understanding. Overlaying affirmation and ressentiment on top of forces IS NOT A METAPHYSICAL COMMENTARY, but a METAPHORICAL ONE.
Was not the late Lacan at least moving away from a structuralist position of what you call 'reducibility' with his engagement with the Real and other concepts such as the Sinthome?
EMC2Scotia Interestingly after Anti-Oedipus was published, Lacan invited Deleuze to his apartment and asked to work together because he believed that everything D&G said was what he’d already said and thought he was far brighter than most of his actual followers haha
@@MatthewLowery This is true, there is a much closer relationship between Deleuze, D+G and Lacan than often posited. TM here demonstrates this sad and unnecessary tendency for academics in critical theory to raise one and dismiss the other.
Deleuze and Foucault didn't fall out, according to Deleuze! In an interview given by him, some time after Foucault's death, he said that they had just lost touch with each other, that life's circumstances had just taken them in different directions, although, he did have tears in his eyes when he spoke those words!
thank god
there are actually papers on why and how they disagreed
they never got to reconcile
it's quite a sad story
Why this guy keeps recording without a microphone?
Sartre actually died at 74 and was in poor health for a number of years prior to that. This is perhaps why the lecturer made him a bit older.
1:32 identities and the brain. The difference in this example would be the neuron (brain cell)
Name of the University?
cheers guest reckoned the toilet wasent flushing on level three watched this in the elevator, got down there adjusted the valve height, easy
Foucault is also a style icon apparently.
When the video first started I freaked out because of the clones
how is his "difference" any different from "potential"?
I think Difference (for Deleuze) sorta subsumes Potential, and that's a central implication of his ontology. "Potential" implies an end state (potential-for-x-to-be-y), and those are in the realm of abstract indentities--the end state is constructed as a collection of complete, non-actual entities/states of affairs. If we're going to construct an ontology that doaesn't rely on abstractions, essences, etc., Deleuze proposes one that bottoms out at the space where beings *seem* to stand out from, but in fact arise from via Difference as a literal, active thing. The reason I think Possibility gets subsumed into Difference is sorta by definition, then--Difference is what exists before pre-formed realities
@@jaredplaysaccordion7965 my brain hurts
I mean, that's a pretty close term. I would just hazard that difference is actual, whereas potential is "yet to come". But, thinking of difference this way is probably a good way to get a grasp on it.
@@jaredplaysaccordion7965 this is actually a pretty good answer. thx.
@@pygmalion8952 Unfortunately I was robotripping. I think I could give a better answer now.
8 30 41 51 not inside or outsude ir yes n no in processes
Michel Focault convention
1:56:05
this has little to do with deleuze, but i still cant grasp the fact that this man was in his 60s when he was giving this lecture. i thought he was still 43!
Please make a video about Edouard Glissant
Todd May sounds like a Philosopher version of Michael Pollan
1:31:00
I'm jealous of the students... there are birds singing outside the building and we only see a reflection of it on the whiteboard....
Wow I cant believe this guy mentions groundhog day. Ever since I first watched this movie I thought that the only way this films idea works is if every day is precisely NOT the same. Only if for one thing: Bill Murrays character must have the memory of the past repetitions if he wants to pull of the tricks he does, like impressing the girl. Otherwise every day would be like a film looped over and over again. You cant identify identity as long as there is no difference. Was thinking of this stuff and this guy makes that comment.
Edit: I think my idea is more fundamental. Not only in the film does everything turn out to be, but for him, for Bill Murray to have an experience of sameness, it must be not the same, at the very least because in the recurrence of the same day there must be one different thing. The memory of this having happened before.That difference grounds the possibility of repetition
Good point. More important than memory is the ability to recall and reflect. That is, the capacity to process independent of time.
Slow but unfortunately x1.5 speed makes for uncomfortable listening.
50:46
By narrative work he means the critique of grand narratives or what? Sorry im a noob
i think he is talking to a group of narrative therapists. it's a type of therapy that is based very much around post-structuralism, esp foucault (do a quick search, it's all over the web, maybe wikipedia) . i could be wrong but he does mention it quite often, and todd may is into narrative therapy - sometimes teaches at one of their centres.
"You can continue to here if you like in your graduate education but you're going to be paying for all of it, uh, because we don't like your kind."
How Deleuzian.
Deleuze did compose that book schizophrenia!
I'm really not sure if your teaching a class of young foreigners or a class of old people who may or may not be foreign
Danish - probably more young than old, I think.
Its foreigners unless you live in Denmark.
Your set volume is too low. I can barely hear you
I hear a bit of Prof Anton here and there
book name?
difference and repetition
I thought he was gonna open with "Hello, I'm Deleuze Lecture 2"
Amazing lecture! I found some of the questions from the students frustrating but kudos to Todd for being so patient with them. They seemed very underprepared for Deleuze though
you're not wrong - some of the questions really revealed that they didn't have the slightest clue what he was talking about, i could be wrong but i get the feeling that these are not philosophy student though; maybe undergrad counsellors, possibly in narrative therapy given that he refers to this over and over again.
I've gone down this rabbit hole, for better or for worse. I've just read some parts of Difference and Repetition, but it would take a long time to get through the whole thing. Immediately my reaction is that Deleuze is confusing different areas and that the attempt to conjure 'pure difference' relies on the Kantian intuitions of time and space as primary, in other words, even when trying to escape the idea that difference relies on 'difference from' and therefore 'identity', it still relies on the identity of time and space as prerequisites for trying to conjure the metaphysical notion of difference, and therefore of the identity of those. So in that sense it appears to me that it makes no sense to try and get away from the notion of identity being primary. Once time and space are presupposed as the realm in which difference does its thing, difference no longer seems like a metaphysical concept, but rather a way of describing the transitions of substance in space over time, and here we have a prerequisite of something along the lines of 'substance'.
I see a pattern of bald headed intellectuals with glasses
Just the desiring-machine aspect of your psyche.
53
It's all about the cake.
I would like some cake too!
These page numbers are an issue...
He looks like Michel Foucault
Starts at 47 minutes in
I found the Mel Brooks/Carl Reiner routine: th-cam.com/video/MzuNsWrF9LI/w-d-xo.html
Can those 'smart' students stop interupting the lecture?
And I could get a 75 on that one
I'm so surprised how respected these philosophers are in academic philosophy, given that it is so obviously nonsense. There are many philosophers who DO consider it to be nonsense, but the surprise is the big big population of those who do not.
I can't understand the part about alternate practices where the professor suddenly acts being a dunk Yiddish-speaking person. What's this about do not eat paper? And what's a Dakkr Hal Danish? Does someone have the transcript? I listened to it several times and I can't understand it.
Lol
Skill issue
Our postmodernists and post structuralist the same?
Not at all, but somehow a lot of modern thinkers get called postmodern
Attack of the Foucault clones...
the people to come lol
@@lukehall8151 If Foucault spoke like Jerry Seinfeld...
Too much interaction, should be just plain lecture.
That wouldn't be very Deleuzian though haha
"should"?????? Omg/Omfg.
Very helpful (except his pronunciation of 'Deleuze' 😂 sorry 🤷🏼♂️)
Poutine is great leader, this shaved man is jealous. Long life to Poutine and Deleuze
These lectures are great as an explication of Deleuze, but philosophy is much more than merely explicating the thought of a supposedly great thinker. In these lectures, Prof. May might do a fine job of explicating a certain doctrine, but by not encouraging his students to question and doubt that doctrine, he fails to teach them how to think philosophically. Nowhere in these lectures is there any question as to whether what Deleuze is saying is true or not, or whether it is even meaningful. But that is the crux of philosophy: the questioning of all opinions and the pursuit of truth. On the surface at least, the notion that difference (logically, ontologically) precedes identity is patently absurd. But no one dares point that out, for fear of offending the Great Man. A further question needs to be asked: what motivates Deleuze in his philosophy? And what motivates us in studying it today? Because if it turns out to be false and meaningless, then the motivation is not the pursuit of truth, but perhaps something quite different, such as power, or a political agenda, etc.
I understand what you're saying, but don't you think he might be trying to simply get them to grips with the philosophy of Deleuze first? Because it's not easy stuff, right?, and to properly think philosophically about something you'd need to be comfortable with the argument first.
@@beckyisza I'm not sure Deleuze really is all that difficult. I think he was just very poor at expressing and explaining his ideas, which in themselves are rather simple, and mostly false. I think the French of his generation in particular were rebelling against Cartesian clarity and wrote in intentionally obscure ways. I think that obfuscation also creates the appearance that the author is profound, when they are not. The appearance of profundity creates a whole industry of interpreters of their work seeking out the hidden profound meaning behind the surface. Todd May is a member of that industry. You see the same thing in Heidegger scholarship. Heidegger's writing was notoriously obscure and for generations scholars have thought he had something profound to say, but in fact he may just have been a puffed up Nazi.
@@brooklyn6347 I see what you're saying. There is certainly a feeling of achievement when you get to grips with what's been said by Deleuze, precisely because it takes some effort decoding due to the lofty way it's written. This is shortly followed by the sense that it isn't all that confusing after all, but I guess that initial sense of celebration spurs the industry of Deleuze on. I mean, there's a journal dedicated to different decipherings of Deleuze and Guattari. It does have me pretty aggravated that a lot of what is being pointed to (as far as I read it) is delineated in Buddhist sutras and Daoist ontologies as transmitted centuries ago in much greater clarity and far less arrogance. Nonetheless, a French guy comes along in the 20th century and convinces everyone of his novelty because of the way he writes. (Also, Deleuze deigned to reference Buddhism about 3 times in his career and Daoism a grand total of zero times, AFAIK). Good trick/old hat! Anyway, I appreciate Todd May's attempt to make reading the unnecessarily hard-to-read a bit easier for me!
@@beckyisza I'm glad you're able to get something meaningful and important to you out of your reading of Deleuze. I'm not sure Deleuze is a Buddhist but I can see how you might interpret him that way and how that interpretation might be meaningful and important to you. When I first read Deleuze in grad school in the early 80s I found him very difficult to interpret but that didn't stop me from interpreting him according to my own philosophical preferences (having to do with anarchism and radical anti-psychiatry). I did the same thing with Heidegger and Derrida and, those who disagree with my interpretation of Nietzsche, would say the same thing about my reading of Nietzsche. They were all Rorschach blotters for me to project my own ideas onto. And that really is what we should be doing anyway, creating our own ideas and using the texts we find to do that, not worshiping those texts as sacred truth from on high.
I think in some ways their are many reason for them being hard to read especially when translated,Heidegger for example goal is to explain his ideas in a manner on which he uses word like dasein to create a new critiria of thinking of them.I find the way he uses words differently from the way an english speaking person would use words because well he is german and germans haves a unique use of words.When it comes to french philosophy though i find that not only french literature in general are poorly translated but that the way french philosophers(especially the post modern ones)writes is an extension of their philosophy,Like deleuze philosophy can be describe as multiplicity so his books are filled with mutliple intextual references to science.I think in some ways delueze though would agree with what you say that it is a rorschach test for his goal is to give new ways of looking at the world with using the world as the basis for this new possibilities.Though i have to say i dont think they write in a hard to read style to be profund but they write that way because well they did not write for the public but for those who also knows philosophy.Think of it as dialectic between those who are well knowlegable in the subject.Though the idea that why are the writing is quite an interesting thing to think about i think its misses the point as deleuze himself said that the life of a intellectual is not really that interesting and from what i have gathered reading deleuze is that he writes to in some ways continue to progress knowledge itself.