And hence - so long as you accept the Nieschtean dictum (many do - and many don't - and many haven't even heard of it - a fact which he conceals) - then the idea of Man requires reconceptualising of all the old categories. All identitiesДЄre only simulated, produced as an optical вЂeffectвЂ™ by the more profoundДeleuze is showing himself here as a Nieztschean here: when he writes 'Man did not survive God' he means that the idea of Man did not survive the 'death' of the idea of God. Nor did the identity of the subject survive that of substance.

Of the discovery of all the forces that act under the representation of the But modern thought is born of the failure of representation, of the loss of identities, and The primacy of identity, however conceived, defines the world of representation. I can't say that I agree wholly with Deleuze on this last point. Subordination to the identical is maintained. For difference implies the negative,ДЄnd allows itself to lead to contradiction, only to the extent that its Deleuze relates this to:ДЄll these signs may be attributed to a generalized anti-Hegelianism:Дifference and repetition have taken the place of the identical and the That is three notions of difference mentioned and none of which we relates even tangentially to the calculus! (By the way, it's most likely that the difference and repetition in the novel, refers to the Roman Nouveau of Robbe Grillet, a most singularly anti-novel form of novel). Repetition, a power which also inhabits the unconscious, language and art. Techniques the discovery in a variety of fields of a power peculiar to Repetition, not only in its most abstract reflections but also in its effective Philosophy of ontological Difference the structuralist project, based uponДЄ distribution of differential characters within a space of coexistence theД¬ontemporary novelist's art which revolves around difference and Noted: Heidegger's more and more pronounced orientation towards a The subject dealt with here is manifestly in the air. Right in the opening page of Repetition & Difference Deleuze writes: It seems a peculiarly etiolated view of difference. See : Vincent Descombes, Modern french philosophy ( Translation of ' Le mГЄme et l'autre : 45 ans de philosophie franГ§aise'.) ( ) Of Philosophy, section entitled ' Difference in itself'. Difference is no longer an empirical relation but becomes a transcendental principle that constitutes the sufficient reason of empirical diversity (for example, it is the difference of electrical potential between cloud and ground that constitutes the sufficient reason of the phenomenon of lightning).ДЄlso, in Internet Encycl. Deleuze inverts this priority: identity persists, but is now a something produced by a prior relation between differentials (dx rather than not-x). Normally, difference is conceived of as an empirical relation between two terms which each has a prior identity of its own (вЂњx is different from yвЂќ). вЂњDifference in itselfвЂќ is difference that is freed from identities seen as metaphysically primary.

From Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy : apparently, the ' infitesimal' approach to ' difference' aims at freeing ' difference' from ' negation'and from its dependancy relatively to 'identity' ( traditionnaly supposed to be prior to difference).Д¬hapters 1 and 2, to find a differential genetic principle, Deleuze works through the history of philosophy to isolate the concepts of вЂњdifference in itselfвЂќ and вЂњrepetition for itselfвЂќ that the assumptions of previous philosophies had prevented from being formulated.

Just making sure I don't make any mistakes that are repeated on wikipedia. Deleuze argues that difference should fundamentally be theДЄccording to this overview, on wikipedia, it seems that 'difference' (dx) contributes to a 'derivative' (dy/dx) of a 'curve' (y = f(x)) that the latter has as a limit (exists 'just outside'). Outside the curve itself that is, by describing a virtual tangent A derivative, dy/dx,Дetermines the structure of a curve while nonetheless existing just

And (before I read anything) whether emphasizing difference means eliminating or involving the limit of things.Дeleuze proposes (citing Leibniz) that difference is better understood I'm interested in reading it because of 'difference'. What is the philosophical significance of Deleuze's Difference and Repetition today? What do contemporary philosophers think of it? I'm interested in reading it, and I have read little philosophy for some time, so don't want to get carried away (which is why I ask).

Infinitesimals gamee meme