The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game
In Difference and Repetition1 Deleuze sets out to critique the regime of representation and common sense by developing a new conception of difference and repetition in which difference and repetition become liberated from the coherence and continuity of a self or I.2 Difference in itself mean...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.jffp.org/ojs/jffp/article/view/1073 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850150223442083840 |
|---|---|
| author | Brecht Govaerts |
| author_facet | Brecht Govaerts |
| author_sort | Brecht Govaerts |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
In Difference and Repetition1 Deleuze sets out to critique the regime of representation and common sense by developing a new conception of difference and repetition in which difference and repetition become liberated from the coherence and continuity of a self or I.2 Difference in itself means that difference has become independent not only from representation, but also from an enduring or coherent self. Difference in itself and repetition in itself are the becoming different and the repetition of a fractured or dissolved self, which Deleuze relates to both a larval subject3 and to a simulacrum.4 In Difference and Repetition Deleuze defines both the concepts of larval subject and simulacrum through the multiplicities and differential relations of the realm of the virtual.5 However, they are not the same. A simulacrum defines a condition in which an entity has become transformed into pure appearance in which nothing appears. A simulacrum is no longer an entity, but only the illusion of an entity.6 This is distinct from the larval subject because the larval subject is an embryonic entity, an entity in the process of formation.7 Through an analysis of the conceptual relation and distinction between larval subject and simulacrum in the first part of the essay, I will reinterpret Deleuze as a philosopher of indifference and the impossibility of repetition, which is a critique on the common idea that Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition is a philosophy of pure difference and pure repetition. Also, I will argue that Deleuze did not just develop a transcendental empiricism (a metaphysics of process), but a philosophy of the universal in itself (which is the collapse of metaphysics). The universal in itself emerges when experience collapses and when the self-determination of entities has become impossible.
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7da0c080027b4b8e81457cfee3eb815d |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2155-1162 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | University Library System, University of Pittsburgh |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy |
| spelling | doaj-art-7da0c080027b4b8e81457cfee3eb815d2025-08-20T02:26:37ZengUniversity Library System, University of PittsburghJournal of French and Francophone Philosophy2155-11622024-11-01321/210.5195/jffp.2024.1073The Divine Game Versus the Demonic GameBrecht Govaerts0Independent Researcher In Difference and Repetition1 Deleuze sets out to critique the regime of representation and common sense by developing a new conception of difference and repetition in which difference and repetition become liberated from the coherence and continuity of a self or I.2 Difference in itself means that difference has become independent not only from representation, but also from an enduring or coherent self. Difference in itself and repetition in itself are the becoming different and the repetition of a fractured or dissolved self, which Deleuze relates to both a larval subject3 and to a simulacrum.4 In Difference and Repetition Deleuze defines both the concepts of larval subject and simulacrum through the multiplicities and differential relations of the realm of the virtual.5 However, they are not the same. A simulacrum defines a condition in which an entity has become transformed into pure appearance in which nothing appears. A simulacrum is no longer an entity, but only the illusion of an entity.6 This is distinct from the larval subject because the larval subject is an embryonic entity, an entity in the process of formation.7 Through an analysis of the conceptual relation and distinction between larval subject and simulacrum in the first part of the essay, I will reinterpret Deleuze as a philosopher of indifference and the impossibility of repetition, which is a critique on the common idea that Deleuze’s Difference and Repetition is a philosophy of pure difference and pure repetition. Also, I will argue that Deleuze did not just develop a transcendental empiricism (a metaphysics of process), but a philosophy of the universal in itself (which is the collapse of metaphysics). The universal in itself emerges when experience collapses and when the self-determination of entities has become impossible. http://www.jffp.org/ojs/jffp/article/view/1073DeleuzeKierkegaardKant |
| spellingShingle | Brecht Govaerts The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy Deleuze Kierkegaard Kant |
| title | The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game |
| title_full | The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game |
| title_fullStr | The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game |
| title_short | The Divine Game Versus the Demonic Game |
| title_sort | divine game versus the demonic game |
| topic | Deleuze Kierkegaard Kant |
| url | http://www.jffp.org/ojs/jffp/article/view/1073 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT brechtgovaerts thedivinegameversusthedemonicgame AT brechtgovaerts divinegameversusthedemonicgame |