*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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
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
