Deleuze in 16 minutes

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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!

[@gavinyoung-philosophy]

Very well done here! This will be a great resource for avid Deleuze learners for years to come!👏

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much! It would indeed be great if it became useful :)

[@terrycook2881]

@@deleuzephilosophy It's very very useful, I've watched it 4 times, once a day. It helps me know I"m on the right track studying Deleuze & G. I read his works in isolation (for about 18 years or so) it can be daunting. Thank you so much, so helpful.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

@@terrycook2881 I agree, it can be quite daunting. It takes a long time to figure out what D&G mean, which "tone" they speak from. I'm very grateful that people find an interest in this content at any rate, as trying to explain these texts is a great opportunity to understand them in more details.

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Very useful, anti oedipul territorialization - people don't identify with people but systems identify with people then deleuzians identify and territorialize the system after a process of transfer to the identifier. Objective reality is not to be identified by a person but identified the person.

[@rouslanrouslan2677]

I know that Deleuze was acutely aware of Plato's late dialogues, especially Plato's Sophist, but I am not certain that he addressed the crux of their thinking. In order to combat Sophists abusing the language of the Eleatics, the Athenian Stranger decisively refutes the idea that the use of "is not" refers to a nothing and instead refers to an "other" or a "difference". Put alternatively, any other ("is not") is an implied reference to an identity, an "is". I do not know how Deleuze can posit difference as the center of metaphysics without difference immediately succumbing to the identity upon a closer examination. Other people familiar with Plato and Deleuze, please chime in if you have any thoughts. But please take into consideration the context of Plato's Sophist. It is a very good and underrated Platonic dialogue!

[@Betterdangaming]

Good to see you getting sponsorships too

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you! It’s great to have support like this indeed, I appreciate you noticing!

[@ghxstinthesnow]

The best intro-level video content on Deleuze I have ever seen! I’m amazed that you break down and explain these deep concepts so concisely. Thank you for your work and I wish you all the best.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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!

[@martinfazzi1239]

I love the work you do on this channel, never stop!

[@kylerodd2342]

Thank you sir. Can’t believe your videos aren’t better known. So good

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you so much Kyle, you're the best!

[@kylerodd2342]

@ 💙💙

[@blanche1813]

always appreciate your deleuze videos. keep up the good work

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much! I appreciate it.

[@darillus1]

language is as changing and organic as the cosmos it is trying to communicate, nothing is static

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Very true, Heraclitus was right. And yet, so was Parmenides!

[@darillus1]

@@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.

[@evanblackie7510]

yet an ancient greek, once you translated it, would know exactly what you mean...

[@blyntrly]

happy new year DP

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you and happy new year, wishing you the best for 2025 :)

[@krozeder]

Thank you. I found this right when I wanted to study Deleuze

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Perfect timing!

[@krozeder]

@@deleuzephilosophy Deleuze is so interesting

[@abhinavjoshi4873]

great explanation

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you!

[@Boxuan2666]

Great explanation, thank you!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're very welcome, thanks for watching!

[@PeterIntrovert]

Great video! I am totally in love with this philosophy. I was goint to become patron a few months before already but patronite don't accept my revolut card for some reason. I need to solve that problem somehow.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Yes me too, I really believe Foucault was right. No worries about the card, I appreciate you trying!

[@comptonGANGBANG]

Thanks for this video my friend

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're welcome, thank you for watching :)

[@Diogenes-96]

Great video for a beginner like me, thank you

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're welcome, thank you for watching :)

[@macampo]

Excellent video, thank you!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you for watching!

[@StrawEgg]

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!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@the.body.without.organs]

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

[@rozo292]

Thank you.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're very welcome, thanks for watching!

[@jacoblewis9461]

Stupendous video, thanks for all the work you put in. I was wondering if you had any resources that further explain how Deleuze formulates his ethics from the logic of relations and Spinoza. I really value the practical aspects of his philosophy.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@miralupa8841]

really great !

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much!

[@NuYiDao]

Embeddings in AI where N-dimensional vectors represent concepts, are showing us in an objective way how much we think we know. We should be looking into the places apart from the clusters, to discover yet-unknown or unnamed concepts..

[@NoHylicsAllowed]

Thank you for this video! Also, this is fantastically edited. How do you make you slides/what music do you use?

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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

[@Daniel-ew5qf]

If Deleuze argues that Being is multiple and univocal, does he mean that individual beings are sort of "united under multiplicity"? But wouldn't this also be create a form of duality between the one and the many, where Beingness as the "one" gives rise to multiple "beings"? I'm a little confused on what separates those two ideas (Being as one and the many vs. Being as multiple & univocal) in 15:13. Thanks for the great video!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@Daniel-ew5qf]

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

[@deleuzephilosophy]

@@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.

[@Daniel-ew5qf]

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

[@mills8102]

​@@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 🙏

[@Lircking]

too loud music

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Sorry about that, I'm still in the process of experimenting with it :/

[@johnqwertyme9849]

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

[@jshwagner]

Appreciate the insight!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

You're welcome, appreciate the comment!

[@tyogrady866]

I’m just now reading Time and Free Will by Berson, and it feels like a lot of Deleuze’s ideas are becoming more manageable with each page. Maybe make a video on it?

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@zazenbo]

I miss my wife

[@tralx5268]

:(

[@deah22]

:(

[@KingPhilipsRideshare]

Being separated just doesn’t feel so right

[@fazliddinerkaboyev6568]

:(

[@dineshpandiyan885]

Excellent work! ❤ Can you please cite any book or reference containing the Deleuze take on Indian Philosophy - Vedantism, Buddhism, and so on??

[@exlauslegale8534]

@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.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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!

[@dineshpandiyan885]

​@@deleuzephilosophy Thank you! ❤

[@gothninja2613]

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

[@NothingYouHaventReadBefore]

I still don't exactly get it, but that's more on me than you. This video did help with some idea of a beginning. Thanks!

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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

[@numan9117]

sir, i can propose a less corporate/bland taste in music for the future porjects? A sort of less intrusive and more calmer version of it. Ty for your efforts

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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

[@z0uLess]

I cant thank you with my money, but I can thank you with words

[@deleuzephilosophy]

Thank you very much, I appreciate the kind words!

[@hintergrundfisch]

I am lost at the calculus part. Can somebody please explain what exacly is meant by differences here?

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@hintergrundfisch]

@deleuzephilosophy Nice! Thank you very much

[@Jeansjon1284]

Aren't there any guide books that serve to help us understand deleuze's works like how you framed/ represented them?

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@Jeansjon1284]

@deleuzephilosophy Much appreciated

[@stevenf5902]

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

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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

[@carlosroman2293]

Hi, I’m trying to understand Deleuze, but something bothers me with this explanation. The video says that deleuze was cncerned more about processes rather than with esence, but isn’t that what science have been doing since Newton? What’s new about Deleuze approach? Or maybe he is refering to something diferent than the explanations of science?

[@stevenf5902]

Amazing content as always DP, but please go back to your old editing style. The music seems out of place and is definitely distracting 😅

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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

[@LeonimousGrimm-eg5fl]

you drew the barking circle inside the dogs circle, but you meant it the other way around. You want to encode the proposition "Dogs are barking things," not "barking things are dogs."

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@LeonimousGrimm-eg5fl]

@@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!

[@dharmatycoon]

Surley Plato is a theory of resemblance, and if anything figures like Descartes and Kant posit theories of representation

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@tiberiustanizaki]

deleuze is the goat

[@pinethetree]

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.

[@22ChampagneSupernova]

‘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.

[@blyntrly]

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'.

[@pinethetree]

@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! :)

[@pinethetree]

@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.

[@pinethetree]

@blyntrly Out of curiosity, "Abecedaire" reminds me of the term "Abecedarian" which (among other things) is a type of poem.

[@ryan.1990]

Interesting man and his ideas are equally so; but I can't help but wonder if his fixations on schizophrenia clouded his ideas, to mention nothing of his fondness for Marxism (though he is much less insufferable than others so equally fond) His rhizome concept got me thinking about a lot of things and how we interpret them

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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!

[@rafaelcarvalho3928]

🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩🤩

[@alexwennerberg]

how does this project about representation relate to heidegger’s project of “overturning metaphysics”? seems somewhat similar to me

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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.

[@fireinthesky2333]

"Sponsor" you've only got 6k subscribers. 😢

[@gazozbanana]

The content is great, the music is shit

[@pinethetree]

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.

[@maxmontauk7281]

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.

[@pinethetree]

@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.

[@deleuzephilosophy]

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!

[@pinethetree]

@@deleuzephilosophy I completely agree with you.

[@pinethetree]

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

[@bart-v]

Deleuze: so many words to say nothing at all.

[@9605-z9l]

This is stupid