Thank you so much for the kind comment, I really appreciate it :) It's my pleasure to share this wonderful thought. All best wishes of success for 2025 to you as well!

Thank you very much for watching, my friend! It's a great privilege to be able to share this great thought with you.

Possibly yes, if you're referring to the relation between essence and appearance, about a "fall", an imperfection or a process of degradation. Whereas "Vorstellung" implies an act of the will, a referencing of an object. Though for Deleuze, resemblance is just one case of the four illusions generated by representation, so it'd be the other way around.

Thanks for the feedback, yes I think I'll have to rethink the use of music in the future 😅

Glad to hear! Yes it's not the easiest read (it in fact be one of the hardest ones), but it's quite rewarding

You're welcome, appreciate the comment!

:(

:(

Being separated just doesn’t feel so right

:(

Yes that seems to be the consensus😅thanks for the feedback!

My pleasure, thank you for watching. I made a video about it (more or less) called "Affects and lived experience", you can have a look at it for more on that topic.

Thanks for the suggestion. I've been digging into Bergson quite a bit lately, it is very true that Deleuze owes a lot to him and to other members of the French Spiritualist current as well. Definitely something to keep in mind for the future.

Hello, thank you very much for your comment, I'm very grateful this content is helpful to you. To answer your questions, I'd say that from a Deleuzian perspective, the Eternal Return is not merely a test of one’s will to live or an ethical challenge, it points to the return of difference itself, rather than the repetition of the same--it is the affirmation of becoming, flux, and multiplicity over (or perhaps, after) static identities or fixed representations. Both identities and difference are necessary for thought, and ER gives us the encounter of both in what Deleuze calls the third synthesis of time. Why and how does the Eternal Return eliminate presuppositions of representation? Representation presupposes stable categories: identity, resemblance, analogy, and opposition (cf. D&R). In its classical understanding, ER means the repetiton of the same, because at the end of each cycle, everything begins again in the same way that it did in the previous cycle: you and I live in the same way, have the same names, the same interactions. This assumes that reality can be organised through fixed identities and relations that are the eternal model of temporal copies (our world). The Eternal Return in the Nietzschean sense, for Deleuze, eliminates these presuppositions by affirming only what is really capable of returning: pure difference and singularities that exist outside the constraints of representation. It is not the repetition of things as they are but the repetition of difference, which is the only thing that can be genuinely repeated, precisely because it is not self-identical. What returns is the creative process of differentiation itself-a perpetual reconfiguration of forces that resists being pinned down by representation. In real life, ER manifests in moments when fixed identities or structures dissolve, when affective becomings reveal the dynamic interplay of forces beneath. That is, when there is no "I" but a before and an after of affection where a new "I" is formed. It's found in very simple things, like looking at a bird flying away, or at the most important things, such as the existence of the universe, the cycles of thought, creativity or art. While the one and the many touches on the paradox of identity and difference, Deleuze would resist reducing ER to a dialectical unity of the one and the many or a simple transformation of the subject. It is true that these things are involved, perhaps secondarily, but the question is how they are formed in practice, from which singularities, in which context. The subject, for Deleuze, is itself de-centred in the process. ER is not about a subject persisting through change, or at least not primarily. It's about how concepts, affects, percepts can ground creation in a plane of immanence that is itself the elevation to the infinite of a finite perception, this elevation being conditioned by the affect in its different moments or phases. So ER is not just about testing the will to live or accepting life as it is--it is about embracing life as a site of pure immanence, where creation, transformation, and difference are constantly at work. It demands not just passive acceptance but active affirmation: a joyous embrace of the multiplicity of life, its contradictions, its flux, and its impermanence. In this sense, ER is less about enduring sameness and more about celebrating the relentless novelty of existence. It's about adequate knowledge, which only ever relates to "what we do" rather than "what there is", and the joy of effectuating this creation, even when it "fails". In a sense, as long as you don't repeat the same, or proceed by stereotypes (analogies), or simply give up (negation)--that is, as long as you "become who you are" in the process of creating your life, you cannot fail. Sorry for the long block of text! I hope it can be useful at least.

@@deleuzephilosophy Man, this is why I'm subbed to you. You really cracked the egg for me just now. Thank you so much!! It's really wild how getting to know Deleuzean thought better feels like flipping every paradigm on its head. My mind wants to resist it and at the same time it makes so much sense on an almost instinctual, unconscious level. It sends me reeling every time, like the ground beneath me disappearing, which is why I think there is a feeling of innate resistance or almost intentional misunderstanding for me and yet I can't stop seeking a greater understanding of it. Wild. Thank you again.

@@crocskull3098 You're very welcome. I've got pretty much the exact same experience :) It's a very compelling thought, and an extremely complex one too, which makes it really, really interesting.

Thank you! I use Illustrator to make the visuals and pixabay for the music, it has a great variety of copyright free content.

Well I'm currently writing one, which should be published later this year. But I'm not aware of any reader or text that really does this otherwise in any systematic way. The solution would be to read Deleuze's own sources: Bréhier, Delbos, Hyppolite (who was his teacher) or Vuillemin. And of course the primary texts of 10 or 12 thinkers, including Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus, St Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche.

@deleuzephilosophy Much appreciated

I would high recommend Jay Conway’s Gilles Deleuze: Affirmation in Philosophy

@@stevenf5902 Thanks, yes Jay is an excellent scholar, I hear he is an excellent teacher as well

You're welcome, thanks for watching! That's an excellent question. The one vs. the many is the classical opposition by which the rule of abstract essences is said to rule over the many visible manifestations of these essences: each essence is the model of a number of visible copies. This supposes that the abstract (essence) logically precedes the concrete (appearance). However, if you decide to reverse this framework, because you think for instance that concrete experience does in fact precede abstractions, what you have isn't a simple reversion where the many suddenly explains the One. Rather, you have a multiplicity *in which* the One can occur as an Idea. This is, very insufficiently explained, how immanence appears in philosophy. Deleuze discusses this at length in "Difference and repetition", regarding notably the concept of asymmetry.

@@deleuzephilosophy I see, so in this case, "The One" is a collection of multiplicity, and not its source?

@@Daniel-ew5qf I'd say that the One is a special multiplicity, one which occurs when a subject, becoming able to represent itself, can define not only a collection of things, but the (abstract) collection of all collections. It's an absolute, an end-point of reflection. However, rather than being the condition and origin of all things, the One as a concept is itself a creation. Deleuze discusses this exact case in example 2 of "What is philosophy?" (chapter 1), and shows what the concept of One is made of, if you're interested.

@@deleuzephilosophy Alright, thanks for making it clear! 👍

​@@deleuzephilosophy This video and your responses to the question are very helpful for myself, coming from a Platonic cosmology. It gives voice to a nagging intuition and has thereby afforded a path to enrichment. It affords the ontological feedbacks that I have felt were necessary but were too vague to articulate. Thank you 🙏

Well, his interest in schizophrenia is not so much clinical than it is philosophical. In "Capitalism and schizophrenia", Deleuze and Guattari discover schizophrenia as both the obscure ground of, and the line of flight from, economic processes that are fundamentally immanent. Which is why, incidentally, they mention Marx, who described like no other the immanent nature of capitalism. But I agree, the rhizome is a wonderful and very rich concept indeed!

Thank you very much, I appreciate the kind words!

Actually I meant to say that barking is an attribute of the essence "dog", as in the proposition "the dog is barking". But thank you for bringing up this distinction, it is quite interesting. Actually, I'm wondering whether, if all barking things are dogs and if all dogs are barking things, the two sets would have to be exactly identical, that is, superimposed.

@@deleuzephilosophy If indeed all barking things are dogs and all dogs are barking things, they're the same. I think "the A is B" is generally depicted as a circle A lying inside of B, but I see how each would be okay in this scenario. Thank you for your video!

A difference is always understood as a difference between two distinct quantities, for example, the difference between 2 and 3 is simply 1. However, calculus introduces an expansion of this concept by seeking to quantify infinitesimal differences-changes that occur on an infinitely small scale. One of its central aims is to capture the rate at which a quantity changes, such as how a curve becomes steeper or flatter at any given point. This rate of change is expressed through the slope of the tangent line to the curve, which offers a precise mathematical representation of the curve's behaviour at any instant. In this way, calculus is able to represent change, which is one of the main things that Deleuze seeks to achieve in philosophy, and which he develops in many of his books.

@deleuzephilosophy Nice! Thank you very much

Thank you very much! I appreciate it.

Thank you very much!

You're welcome, thank you for watching :)

You're very welcome, thanks for watching!

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 :/

Yep, for sure. Get rid of it; it's simply tiresome and wholly superfluous.

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.

but hegel engages in an immanent theology, assigning subjectivity to nature itself. i don't understand why would nature seek to comprehend itself? in the opening of the phenomenology, he posits that knowledge perpetually subsists as substance, while simultaneously striving to articulate that this very substance inherently bears within itself the dynamic of subjectivity, thus embodying both carrier and subject in unity

@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!

Just stumbled on this little passage in "What is philosophy?", p.49: "Artaud said that 'the plane of consciousness' or limitless plane of immanence-what the Indians called Ciguri-also engenders hallucinations, erroneous perceptions, bad feeling". Perhaps a point of departure for your future endeavours!

​@@deleuzephilosophy Thank you! ❤

Buddhism is mentioned in the last chapter of Nietzsche and philosophy.