Nietzsche 4/13: Deleuze

Nietzsche's Deleuze with Barbara Stiegler, John Rajchman, and Mick Taussig.

[@End-Result]

Barbara Stiegler is a delight...

[@kimfreeborn]

I believe that Nietzsche reflected on his theory of the eternal return of the same as an approximation to being. This rather strange nod to ontology is still only an approximation. It is both scientific and mythical: a mixture. An observation that cannot be observed. A great distance in time which is no more than a possibility. It is an affirmation of the present moment as a reaffirmation. What is the status of this affirmation as reaffirmation? It is required as life's own self-affirmation as Will to Power: affirming self-creation. Yet there is always a doubling that cannot be identical but only affirmation as reaffirmation: a surplus of affirmation.

[@ownagepwnagemaster]

you shot a lot of arrows stiegler but did you kill any birds

[@Kassiusday]

Loads of birds 🦢 are killed enough ... any other alternative ?? to be killed .,?

[@galek75]

Philosophical arrows are the only kind that kill when the listener actually *comprehends* them as such

[@okaytoletgo]

Steigler starts at 10:08

[@maisam50]

WHat are these lesser known texts of Nietzsche on mass media ?

[@angwantibo]

I think she's talking about some of the posthumous fragments, which is not really a coherent text. There's a text by Stiegler titled 'On the Future of Our Incorporations: Nietzsche, Media, Events' in which she assembles these fragments into a body that requires organs in order to open itself up to and to be able to incorporate the Dionysian flux. As she points out herself, this is quite a tendentious, polemic reading of Nietzsche, a political reassamblage of the posthumous fragments against the Deleuzian Nietzsche of the 60s.

[@maisam50]

@@angwantibo thanks

[@naturphilosophie1]

Stiegler’s reading of Nietzsche isn’t that controversial. It’s worth remembering that Deleuze doesn’t adopt Nietzsche without qualification. The eternal recurrence “is univocity of being, the effective realization of univocity”. Its not simply Nietzsche nor is it Spinoza without qualification. Univocity in eternal recurrence, for D, implies identity and sameness but only the same of that which is different.

[@SpaceExplorer]

not smart enough to understand please carry on

[@aedan3760]

Be patient with yourself. Read as much as you can, and watch more videos. It will click when it's ready.