*Contents* 05:48 GENERALITY 09:17 Three categories of the general 27:35 REPETITION 34:56 Three categories of natural blockage 01:01:58 The element of disguise in repetition 01:03:40 The two types of repetition 01:14:43 KIERKEGAARD AND NIETZSCHE 01:22:11 Summary quote 01:24:42 Summary
Huge fan of Deleuze myself- you describing Anti-Oedipus as 'traumatic' gave me a good laugh! So happy you are doing this book though, your Bergson videos are fantastic.
Thank you so much for this! I will be keeping up with these videos eagerly. There is no philosopher I would want elucidated more than Deleuze, especially because he called himself a "metaphysician at heart."
As far as I think I understand, this philosophy says that the new arise from repetition, because each repetition is different. It seems paradoxical and contradictory, but it has sense. For example, with each reading of a book new interpretations emerge, it is something that occurs over time. I don't know if I explain myself.
Brave AND generous attempt to explicate a truly (arguably perversely) difficult text. Very illuminating. Thanks! I would just refer you to Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where Freud explains the seeming un-pleasurable-ness of the repetition of memories of traumatic events - esp as he saw in WWI veterans -- as aimed at mastering or binding the memories to the repressed pain/terror etc of the event -- all towards a kind of psychic homeostasis via desensitization. Which he develops into the Death Instinct. So, the repetition of the memories has a curative aim.
I'm going to make an attempt at Deleuze, and I've been thinking about utilizing secondary sources. I'll be sure to follow the rest of your videos in this series on Deleuze. I appreciate your hard work. Thank you
It's interesting that he uses so much psychology without going into psychology such as, repression, consciousness, unconscious, perception. It's interesting that philosophy goes into psychology without acknowledging the actual psychologists such as Freud and Jung which developed the field. Very similar to behaviouralism's reinforcement with 'sign and response'. Signs - Jung's symbolism. Dialectical progression to eternal return to deleuze. Jung 1. Individuation and generality. 2. True repetition and generality. 3. Dynamic repetition - archetypes - symbolism. 4. Repression - the shadow.
Thanks for the vid. I like your thorough style of explaining texts. I've read a lot of Deleuze over the years, but it's been a few years since reading Diff and Rep. If I am not mistaken, I think you conflate the individual and the singular somewhere in the beginning of the vid. You will certainly tackle this later on, but it should be stressed that Deleuze is most likely drawing on "singularity" in the mathematical sense where an object can no longer be defined or is no longer "well behaved". You are certainly right about the Nietzschean and Bergsonian influences; if you are not aware of them, I recommend that you check out the suite of studies on Proust, Bergson, Nietzsche, etc. that Deleuze published before DnR, which were something akin to preparatory works. Regarding Nietzsche, Deleuze's interpretation is significantly indebted to that of Pierre Klossowski. Lastly, I think you would appreciate Anti-Oedipus a lot more after a reading of both Difference and Repetition as well as Logic of Sense. There is a lot of conceptual tissue connecting early Deleuze with his middle work with Guattari (although, I somewhat agree that Anti-Oedipus is not the best from the Deleuzian corpus).
Nice. Thanks for all that. Your point re: singularities and individuals is a good one, and I will take care not to conflate them later when we get to virtual multiplicities and actualisation and all that good stuff. I actually didn't think about it at all when I was prepping this vid, but at this point, in the intro, I'm not sure the word singularity carries that technical mathematical meaning. He seems to just use it to mark non-exchangeable and non-substitutable 'things,' citing things like reflections and festivals as examples. Having said that, he also assiduously avoids the word 'individual', perhaps saving it for that later section. Either way, noted. Fair enough re: Anti-Oedipus. I was thinking about it this morning though, and since I'm not really into psychoanalysis/psychology or political philosophy, a book whose title is wholly comprised of psychoanalytical and political references was probably never aimed at me in the first place! Let me just say shelved... for now.
This is amazing work. I’m going through this with you now. I tried reading the text but it’s a bit outside my scope and where I am in life. I’ve been fascinated by difference and repetition for a few weeks now. I fall into a lot of neurodiverse labels/groups. My whole life in my humble opinion has been Difference and Repetition. I am taking this in from a left-wing angle as well. If any one is interested in taking things over with a theory beginner like myself, let me know!
Therefore what is repeated is the difference, and the repetition is thinking. Thus what is repeated in thinking is the difference, and repetition produces something new. It seems as if Deleuze is setting out to resolve a contradiction. A synthesis between matter and thought, difference and repetition.
I'll agree in part with you. Yes, broadly speaking, what is repeated is difference (itself) because difference is the fundamental metaphysical 'truth' for Deleuze. Identity (essence) and resemblance (in representation) seem to be fundamental truths but these cover the deeper truth of difference. Your example (in your other comment for this video) of re-reading a book is a good one. Each reading is fundamentally different in-itself (i.e. not _from_ anything; e.g. other readings, because this would make each different reading merely relative; i.e. not different in-itself), but is still repetition because the _act_ (of reading) is being repeated. I'm not sure I would say repetition is thinking, however. I discuss repetition in the second chapter in ways which precede thought. Thus, although there _are_ syntheses going on here (again, you'll encounter them in the second chapter), they aren't between matter and thought (because matter and thought must be understood as 'emerging' out of a process which is not merely a synthesis of the two) or difference and repetition (because difference and repetition don't need synthesising). I think this will become clearer as you work through the book.
As a Chinese, I think his opinion seems like Dao by Laozi in this generality. They are similar to debate how two individuals convergence and convert under the law of nature which represents yin and yang by symbolisation. I'm not sure that I understand you correctly.
@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you. I‘m interested in the convergence in media and progress philosophy, and found this video and thought that today. I hope my opinion can serve as a different from Europeans’ view for a favor to you.
Dan Simmons' _The Fall of Hyperion._ Great sequel to the equally great _Hyperion._ Books 3 and 4, however, I found disappointingly slow and a little drawn out.
Thanks. Ironically, the reason I chose _D&R_ is precisely because it _isn't_ very postmodern! I haven't been particularly drawn to postmodernism (yet), but _Of Grammatology_ is burning a hole in my bookcase at the moment.
This is one the books I really want to read, but I wasn't sure if I needed to read more of other philosophers first (like Bergson, Freud, Kierkegaard & Nietzsche). Do you think that their books are a requirement in order to get something out of D&R?
Good question. You definitely need a decent general background in philosophy. This is not the book to read if you are fairly new to the subject. You want to be particularly familiar with Bergson (memory), Nietzsche (eternal recurrence), and the main ideas of Kant, Hegel, and Plato. Do you need to read their books to get something out of D&R? I probably wouldn't go that far, but you do need to be pretty comfortable with them, I think. You don't really need any Kierkegaard. Freud (and some Lacan) is also important, although mainly for one section (about 30 pages or so, if I remember correctly). I haven't read either of these guys so my hold on that section is definitely weaker, but it didn't really affect my overall understanding of the book (in my opinion), for which you need more philosophy than psychoanalysis.
I have read at least one work from all the philosophers you mentioned, plus I watched all your previous videos so that helps a ton! Definitely going to try an read along in the next few months :) Thanks for your quick response!
@@kadaganchivinod8003 Good question. In a nutshell, Deleuze is metaphysics. Sartre, MP, and Heidegger are all phemonemology/ontology. All the differences in their respective philosophies begin there, I think.
my one critique of your videos is ironically the Repetition, like why did it take 10mins to say it’s a difficult read with influences from Nietzsche and Berks
*Contents*
05:48 GENERALITY
09:17 Three categories of the general
27:35 REPETITION
34:56 Three categories of natural blockage
01:01:58 The element of disguise in repetition
01:03:40 The two types of repetition
01:14:43 KIERKEGAARD AND NIETZSCHE
01:22:11 Summary quote
01:24:42 Summary
Deleuze is brilliant. I’m almost done reading Difference and Repetition and this video series will probably cement these concepts for me. Thank you
Awesome! Great to have you on board.
This is a book l always wanted to get in to, but never really felt ready for. So awesome that you are doing a series on it.
Thanks Robin. That's music to my ears. Hopefully you'll find this series helpful.
Literally wait 3 years for this to drop
They do say it's a virtue. I'll try to make it worth the wait!
I was recommended this completely randomly, but this seems very enlightening
Where would we be without the TH-cam algorithm? Hope you enjoy the rest of the series.
Huge fan of Deleuze myself- you describing Anti-Oedipus as 'traumatic' gave me a good laugh! So happy you are doing this book though, your Bergson videos are fantastic.
Thanks Joey! Good to have you onboard.
This is exactly the kind of guide I was looking for! Thank you.
Good to have you onboard!
Thank you so much for this! I will be keeping up with these videos eagerly. There is no philosopher I would want elucidated more than Deleuze, especially because he called himself a "metaphysician at heart."
Great. Welcome aboard, sir!
I wasn't aware of that quote, but that totally gels with what I got from _D&R._
@@absurdbeing2219why is physician part of what he calls himself in metaphysician? Sounds interesting
@@chase_saddy Ha - I never thought of that. I think it's probably less significant than it sounds though, being derived from the word 'physics.'
As far as I think I understand, this philosophy says that the new arise from repetition, because each repetition is different. It seems paradoxical and contradictory, but it has sense. For example, with each reading of a book new interpretations emerge, it is something that occurs over time. I don't know if I explain myself.
I reply to this in your other comment for this video.
Brave AND generous attempt to explicate a truly (arguably perversely) difficult text. Very illuminating. Thanks! I would just refer you to Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where Freud explains the seeming un-pleasurable-ness of the repetition of memories of traumatic events - esp as he saw in WWI veterans -- as aimed at mastering or binding the memories to the repressed pain/terror etc of the event -- all towards a kind of psychic homeostasis via desensitization. Which he develops into the Death Instinct. So, the repetition of the memories has a curative aim.
(If i could edit my comment, I would include the important descriptor "compulsive" ahead of the term "repetition" in the third line above.)
@@paulppinto7657 Great reference. Thanks for that. This first section of _D&R_ would have gone much more smoothly if I had read some Freud beforehand.
I’m here for Deleuze! 👏
Welcome!
I'm going to make an attempt at Deleuze, and I've been thinking about utilizing secondary sources. I'll be sure to follow the rest of your videos in this series on Deleuze. I appreciate your hard work. Thank you
Thanks Kevin. Good to have you onboard.
It's interesting that he uses so much psychology without going into psychology such as, repression, consciousness, unconscious, perception. It's interesting that philosophy goes into psychology without acknowledging the actual psychologists such as Freud and Jung which developed the field.
Very similar to behaviouralism's reinforcement with 'sign and response'.
Signs - Jung's symbolism.
Dialectical progression to eternal return to deleuze.
Jung
1. Individuation and generality.
2. True repetition and generality.
3. Dynamic repetition - archetypes - symbolism.
4. Repression - the shadow.
There's plenty of Freudian acknowledgement and discussion coming as we move through the first half of _D&R._
Thanks for the vid. I like your thorough style of explaining texts.
I've read a lot of Deleuze over the years, but it's been a few years since reading Diff and Rep. If I am not mistaken, I think you conflate the individual and the singular somewhere in the beginning of the vid. You will certainly tackle this later on, but it should be stressed that Deleuze is most likely drawing on "singularity" in the mathematical sense where an object can no longer be defined or is no longer "well behaved".
You are certainly right about the Nietzschean and Bergsonian influences; if you are not aware of them, I recommend that you check out the suite of studies on Proust, Bergson, Nietzsche, etc. that Deleuze published before DnR, which were something akin to preparatory works. Regarding Nietzsche, Deleuze's interpretation is significantly indebted to that of Pierre Klossowski.
Lastly, I think you would appreciate Anti-Oedipus a lot more after a reading of both Difference and Repetition as well as Logic of Sense. There is a lot of conceptual tissue connecting early Deleuze with his middle work with Guattari (although, I somewhat agree that Anti-Oedipus is not the best from the Deleuzian corpus).
Nice. Thanks for all that.
Your point re: singularities and individuals is a good one, and I will take care not to conflate them later when we get to virtual multiplicities and actualisation and all that good stuff. I actually didn't think about it at all when I was prepping this vid, but at this point, in the intro, I'm not sure the word singularity carries that technical mathematical meaning. He seems to just use it to mark non-exchangeable and non-substitutable 'things,' citing things like reflections and festivals as examples. Having said that, he also assiduously avoids the word 'individual', perhaps saving it for that later section. Either way, noted.
Fair enough re: Anti-Oedipus. I was thinking about it this morning though, and since I'm not really into psychoanalysis/psychology or political philosophy, a book whose title is wholly comprised of psychoanalytical and political references was probably never aimed at me in the first place! Let me just say shelved... for now.
This is amazing work. I’m going through this with you now. I tried reading the text but it’s a bit outside my scope and where I am in life.
I’ve been fascinated by difference and repetition for a few weeks now.
I fall into a lot of neurodiverse labels/groups. My whole life in my humble opinion has been Difference and Repetition.
I am taking this in from a left-wing angle as well.
If any one is interested in taking things over with a theory beginner like myself, let me know!
Good to have you along. I hope the videos help bring _D&R_ 'into' your scope.
Thank you very much for your excellent explanation which makes it much easier for me to read this difficult book.
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment. Glad I could help make Deleuze a little more accessible!
Welcome back!
Thanks!
Therefore what is repeated is the difference, and the repetition is thinking. Thus what is repeated in thinking is the difference, and repetition produces something new. It seems as if Deleuze is setting out to resolve a contradiction. A synthesis between matter and thought, difference and repetition.
I'll agree in part with you. Yes, broadly speaking, what is repeated is difference (itself) because difference is the fundamental metaphysical 'truth' for Deleuze. Identity (essence) and resemblance (in representation) seem to be fundamental truths but these cover the deeper truth of difference.
Your example (in your other comment for this video) of re-reading a book is a good one. Each reading is fundamentally different in-itself (i.e. not _from_ anything; e.g. other readings, because this would make each different reading merely relative; i.e. not different in-itself), but is still repetition because the _act_ (of reading) is being repeated.
I'm not sure I would say repetition is thinking, however. I discuss repetition in the second chapter in ways which precede thought. Thus, although there _are_ syntheses going on here (again, you'll encounter them in the second chapter), they aren't between matter and thought (because matter and thought must be understood as 'emerging' out of a process which is not merely a synthesis of the two) or difference and repetition (because difference and repetition don't need synthesising). I think this will become clearer as you work through the book.
As a Chinese, I think his opinion seems like Dao by Laozi in this generality. They are similar to debate how two individuals convergence and convert under the law of nature which represents yin and yang by symbolisation. I'm not sure that I understand you correctly.
That's an interesting perspective. I must admit I didn't think of Laozi when I was preparing this video.
@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you. I‘m interested in the convergence in media and progress philosophy, and found this video and thought that today. I hope my opinion can serve as a different from Europeans’ view for a favor to you.
Awesome, this series is going to be useful thank you.
Welcome aboard!
I’m trying to work out what the SF Masterworks title behind you is…Dhalgren?
Dan Simmons' _The Fall of Hyperion._ Great sequel to the equally great _Hyperion._ Books 3 and 4, however, I found disappointingly slow and a little drawn out.
I wondered if you are going to make a video on some postmodern thinkers. I love your choice. However Derrida or Foucault would also be awesome
Thanks. Ironically, the reason I chose _D&R_ is precisely because it _isn't_ very postmodern! I haven't been particularly drawn to postmodernism (yet), but _Of Grammatology_ is burning a hole in my bookcase at the moment.
Thank you sir!
This is one the books I really want to read, but I wasn't sure if I needed to read more of other philosophers first (like Bergson, Freud, Kierkegaard & Nietzsche). Do you think that their books are a requirement in order to get something out of D&R?
Good question.
You definitely need a decent general background in philosophy. This is not the book to read if you are fairly new to the subject. You want to be particularly familiar with Bergson (memory), Nietzsche (eternal recurrence), and the main ideas of Kant, Hegel, and Plato.
Do you need to read their books to get something out of D&R? I probably wouldn't go that far, but you do need to be pretty comfortable with them, I think. You don't really need any Kierkegaard.
Freud (and some Lacan) is also important, although mainly for one section (about 30 pages or so, if I remember correctly). I haven't read either of these guys so my hold on that section is definitely weaker, but it didn't really affect my overall understanding of the book (in my opinion), for which you need more philosophy than psychoanalysis.
I have read at least one work from all the philosophers you mentioned, plus I watched all your previous videos so that helps a ton! Definitely going to try an read along in the next few months :) Thanks for your quick response!
@@jamie1601 Oh nice. Probably a good idea to let me get a head-start on the vids.
Repetition makes sense to me if taken as re-petition, from the root pet. The language of birds perhaps?
How this philosophy is different from Sartre, M. Ponty and Heidegger?
@@kadaganchivinod8003 Good question. In a nutshell, Deleuze is metaphysics. Sartre, MP, and Heidegger are all phemonemology/ontology. All the differences in their respective philosophies begin there, I think.
my one critique of your videos is ironically the Repetition, like why did it take 10mins to say it’s a difficult read with influences from Nietzsche and Berks
The good part of Delueze
Yes. I agree. And when he's good, he's great!
Which one is difficult to read , Oidepus or this?
I found Anti-Oedipus much more difficult.
@@absurdbeing2219 perhaps , you should learn french . I do not know
It repeats certain ideas and concepts a lot, making the video unnecessarily long. Planning and previously drafted text would solve such "nonsense."
Who is this Deloose?
I hope to be delightfully surprised. I suspect he may not be delighted to read it.
He sure isn't what you'd call pleasant reading. I've got my fingers crossed (but maybe not my breath held).
😍