Thanks a lot!

Haha~by contrast, the week flew by for me! Before I knew it, it was time to record this vid. Enjoy!

@@absurdbeing2219 I forgot to comment this yesterday, but could you explain to me how Calculus fits into all of this (especially on how it relates to the leibnizian critique of organic representation contra Hegels) because, as a sophomore in high school, I haven’t taken calculus yet.

@@immanuel_0697 Honestly, I'm not much of a mathematician (I _have_ studied calculus at school, but so long ago it is now almost like I've never studied it!), but this is how I understand it. Calculus is the study of infinitesimals in which dx represents an infinitesimally small change in x. There are two branches of calculus: differentiation and integration. The former gives us the instantaneous rate of change; i.e. change at a single point on a continuous function; i.e. the rate of change as your interval sizes approach zero. This is the derivative and is represented by the symbol dy/dx. Integration is the summation of these infinitesimals, represented by the area under the curve. I see this fitting into Deleuze’s metaphysics in two ways; one negative, one positive. First, calculus can be seen as a tool for eliminating difference. As a representation of reality, it can make us think of change (becoming) as secondary, or a modification, if you like, to something fundamentally definite (being; i.e. Leibniz’s monads). This is how we looked at it in this video. However, later in the book, Deleuze will use certain elements of calculus to show how Ideas (which are virtual multiplicities, comparable to a continuous function) condense around singularities to become actualised (comparable to getting a specific value for dy/dx), all while preserving, or even prioritising, change/indetermination/virtuality. Organic representation is eliminating difference through a "finite" mediation, which I understand to be mediation that cashes out in a "harmonious organism" or some kind of totalised One. On the other hand, _orgiastic_ representation eliminates difference through appeal to the infinite. This is the technique adopted by both Hegel and Leibniz, although in opposite directions; large for the former (the Absolute), small for the latter (monads), and neither of which refer to an actual existent (which would make them finite). Instead, both are abstract concepts. Hope that helps. By the way, amazing you're tackling Deleuze at high school! I'm sure I'll be the one asking you questions in a few years!

@@absurdbeing2219 Your explanation of Differential and Integral calculus makes sense (and it’s relation to Leibniz), but I’m not sure if I’m understanding Deleuzes interpretation of it. Is it that each individual point on a continuous function are the singularites which only exist secondarily as actualizations of the function? And if so would that mean that continuous functions are analogous to difference in-itself and its many points constitute real repetition for-itself? Also thanks for the compliment. I’m glad that I’ve gotten into philosophy as early as I did; it has turned my life for the better. Nevertheless, because of your video series I’ll probably be able to get into works like Anti-oedipus or Fanged Noumena a lot quicker than without them; which I’m infinitely grateful for.

@@immanuel_0697 Good for you. Glad I am able to help in some small way. You've got the basic idea, I think. Though don't try to read too much into my comment It is a very crude, heavily simplified outline to give you an idea of how calculus relates to Deleuzian metaphysics. In particular, repetition and the notion of singularities are starting to get a little misrepresented here. Don't worry about understanding all of that at this early stage though. We're still in the first chapter! We'll be coming to a much more detailed exposition of this in the second half of _D&R._

I suppose the abolishing of identity in the return can be seen in the original concept. When we are faced with the eternal return and we rejoice and accept the return of everything, we wouldn’t remember the acceptance on the second pass through until we’re faced with the eternal return again. So if I’m an old man and discover the eternal return, accept it and then say I’m reincarnated into the same life, I’m not going to remember the acceptance until I’m an old man again and therefore return to life without identifying that I’ve already returned. Let’s get rid of reincarnation. Let’s just say that this video has made me ponder the eternal return and I rejoice in it. But then I’m going to turn off this video and forget about it, allowing the thought to enter the unconscious. At the point in returning to me daily life the eternal return is forgotten and the content of life cycles back into habit until I come to the thought again. The contents of my life day to day are essentially different yet they repeat (go to work every week, eat food everyday, drink water, etc etc). We are eternally returning to things in life through the differentiation of pure time.

Thanks Kyle. Glad to have your input. I totally agree that Deleuze is _deliberately_ taking liberties with Nietzsche... and I also agree that that's totally fine.

@@absurdbeing2219 thanks again for this series. Really looking forward to it

Hey Jack. That's a great point. I didn't read Watsuji's negation of negation as resulting in a totality either, but that was because I think he has to be understood as making a phenomenological claim there, not a metaphysical one (although he did mis-apply it to Buddhist metaphysics resulting in the whole Absolute emptiness debacle). Deleuze, on the other hand, is talking metaphysics (regarding opposition); i.e. the way reason attempts to understand reality itself. Negation, I think, can only arise from a specific perspective; i.e. a level 'above' metaphysical bedrock. That is funny Deleuze recommended reading the book backwards. Actually though, the conclusion in _D&R_ is one of the better summaries I have ever read in a philosophy text. Still, I can't imagine starting with it... I am so glad that my vids are helping to keep you in the game. And, of course, I really appreciate your always supportive and thoughtful comments.

Yeah, that is the one thing you do need for this.

Not uniqueness because even uniqueness derives its meaning only from a comparison/opposition to something else. And no comments are naive here, so don't worry about that!

Hi Jake. Thanks. Totally fine to ask that. I am 100% atheist. So, I pick my religious authors carefully. If I believe the philosopher's ideas rely too much on theology, I won't read them. Levinas was worth reading for his quite unique (positive) take on other people. I also read Kierkegaard because he has so many interesting existential insights. It is, of course, true that both philosophers ultimately ground their philosophies in the divine, but I felt that they have solid ideas that can be picked up and 'secularised,' as it were.

@@absurdbeing2219 Thank you for the response! I know you're busy, and probably inundated with requests, but I'd love to see more of your work on Japanese philosophy. It's really unique, and fascinating; and, moreover, not something most English philchannels give attention to.

@@jakek.403 Thanks for the interesting question, and thanks for the feedback about the Japanese philosophy series. I suspect that is one of my less popular playlists, but nice to hear you enjoy it. I do have a couple more Japanese philosophers in mind, but yeah, given that making these videos is just what I do in my free time, it is tough to fulfil requests.