Awesome! Great to have you on board.

Awesome. Yeah, it is super difficult. Great to have you along.

Thanks Joey! Good to have you onboard.

Good to have you onboard!

Thanks Robin. That's music to my ears. Hopefully you'll find this series helpful.

Thanks Kevin. Good to have you onboard.

Welcome aboard!

Where would we be without the KZfaq algorithm? Hope you enjoy the rest of the series.

Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment. Glad I could help make Deleuze a little more accessible!

They do say it's a virtue. I'll try to make it worth the wait!

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.'

Thanks!

(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.

Good to have you along. I hope the videos help bring _D&R_ 'into' your scope.

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.

Welcome!

There's plenty of Freudian acknowledgement and discussion coming as we move through the first half of _D&R._

I reply to this in your other comment for this video.

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.

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.

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.

I found Anti-Oedipus much more difficult.

@@absurdbeing2219 perhaps , you should learn french . I do not know

Yes. I agree. And when he's good, he's great!

He sure isn't what you'd call pleasant reading. I've got my fingers crossed (but maybe not my breath held).