0

if i'm not mistaken, deleuze says you only know about "apple" because you know apple is not an orange, is not a tea, is not justice, is not rock,... so by differentiating "apple" from everything else, you understand its identity


i know what "3" is, if deleuze is right then i know what this number is because i have compared this number with "4", "5", "6","7",...
to me this is impossible because this requires infinite calculation and comparison

how would deleuze respond to this counter-argument? (if that is his argument) if that's not his argument then can you explain how can we know about "3"?

3
  • reminds me of apoha not read difference and repeitition.
    – andrós
    Commented May 18 at 20:05
  • i didn't see much on deleuze and dharmakirti, so i assume this is a misreading?
    – andrós
    Commented May 18 at 21:21
  • While I don't fully understand it myself, i feel like you're seeing difference as a naming convention. Deleuze sees pure difference as a sort of generative force. It is from pure difference that becoming itself happens
    – edelex
    Commented May 20 at 7:59

1 Answer 1

0

If that is what Deleuze really claims, then Deleuze is an idiot. Suppose you lived in a world in which the only object you encountered was an apple; would you not know it because you could not compare it with, tea, justice, rocks etc?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .