# help with understanding Deleuze's argument on "difference first, identity second"

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"?

• reminds me of apoha not read difference and repeitition. Commented May 18 at 20:05
• i didn't see much on deleuze and dharmakirti, so i assume this is a misreading? 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 Commented May 20 at 7:59
• See this Sartre question. Its seemingly different but actually closely related. [And no, unlike the omniscients whove so far deigned to answer, I dont think Deleuze is an "idiot" talking "nonsense" though he is hard to read] Commented Jun 20 at 16:40