/lit/ - Literature

>>15052145
retard

>>15052162
Please help anon, I want to understand him so bad. He's the only philosopher I have interest in reading

>>15052145
Just keep reading. Reference LoS. Reference his monographs. Watch and read Deleuze material online. Once you understand the master then you will be pbuh.

>>15052280
Its a simple answer. The repetition is either the two similar things or the two drops of water. You didn't answer because you don't know the answer or because you want me to find on my own?

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/heraclitus-said-you-cannot-step-into-the-same-377647

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-explain-in-a-very-simple-way-the-saying-No-man-ever-steps-into-the-same-river-twice

https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-phrase-you-cant-step-in-the-same-river-twice-mean

https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-we-step-into-the-same-river-twice-And-why-can-the-same-river-flow-endlessly-continuously-without-it-being-recognized-as-a-different-river

>>15052280
This.
I'm curently reading D&R. Didn't quite understood the repition aspect of it either at first, but it got more clearer along the way.

>>15052311
I know what it means. Two things are never the same. Two drops of water are never the same. It applies to both, yet one is an instance of repetition and the other is of generality. I wan't to know each one.

>>15052330
If it got much clearer, why can't you answer which of the two is repetition and which is generality?
I'm starting to think people here on /lit/ merely pretend to understand him by adopting his lexicon, because no one seems to be able to clarify the meaning of literally the first paragraph of the text. Either that or you want me to find on my own, and if so that's fine but please say that, otherwise I will start to doubt /lit/s grasp of Deleuze

>>15052331
he spends a good portion of that big book talking about repetition, and if you keep reading you will see why repetition can bring about things which generality cannot

>>15052363
In the first paragraph of the first chapter Deleuze implies the formula "two things are as alike as two drops of water" confuses repetition and generality.
Is "two things are alike" the generality and "two drops of water" the repetition or the other way around?

>>15052331
two drops of water as abstract entities are generalities. two drops of water dripping in succession from the ceiling of a cave is repetition. a million water water droplets /in general/ do nothing, a million water droplets /in repetition/ can build a stalagmite. repetition implies a temporal element of intensive change that generalities do not.

>>15052411
that is very helpful, thanks

>>15052352
To fully grasp his notion of Repition you need to first understand concepts that he develops later in the book, which i'm not comfortable explaining in my 2nd language.

>>15052423
also this, at about 2/3rds of the way through the book he actually defines what he means by difference, but he does this on purpose. you just have to commit with Deleuze because he will put you through some shit

>>15052411
would it be fair to associate generality with space and repetition with time?

>>15052391
Vice-reversa

>>15052495
but to say "two things are alike" means they resemble each other, and resemblance is one of the orders of the general.
And according to >>15052411 two drops of water can be considered repetition if considered concretely and in temporal succession. How would you argue for it being the inverse?

>>15052476
I think both can imply space and time. it might be better to say: generality is about representation where repetition is about behavior. he explains it better in the second and third paragraphs

The individual drops of water are generalities - they are what Whitehead would call an 'occasion'. There is a human insistence by dint of perception that we speak of processes as things, or entities - we assign to these a static quality as we ascribe a name to it which is a generality.

>>15052476
This assumes that space and time are not always concomitant, which they are. To ascribe generality is to prioritise space over time - we speak of a process as an object, which is static, insisting on its consistency through time subjectively experienced (duration) so as not to violate our empirical perception of the process, which likely appears to us as an object. Here Kant is correct about spatiality being somehow 'coded in' to human perception. It seems much more sensible to call this constantly flowing body of the water "The River Danube" than it does to insist on an appellation which more accurately reflects its constantly changing essence.

>>15052145
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY HAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA

>>15052545
well but a drop of water is consistent through time as it moves through space, I don't see problems with ascribing static qualities to it

>>15052640
Ceteris paribus is a lie

>>15052741
ce·te·ris pa·ri·bus
with other conditions remaining the same

Are you saying that as the drop of water moves in space and time it will not remain a static entity on a molecular level due to other conditions altering it? agree, this is an empirical fact, however I don't see the problem of ascribing static qualities to it for example that it has circular shape", is made of water, is visible to human vision, etc.

>>15052790
not him but what do you mean by problem? Deleuze explains how generalities works, he's not saying one's true and the other is false, he is simply distinguishing them as concepts

>>15052811
I guess I don't see why these small changes phenomena go through should be accounted for or considered relevant in a philosophical system.

>>15052145
>try to read Deluze
The first mistake

>>15052311
If any of these answers don't involve occasionalism I'm going to burn Quora to the ground.

>>15053084
>The first mistake
why, anon?