Comments on: The inexhaustible wealth of appearance, information and specificity https://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-inexhaustible-wealth-of-appearance-information-and-specificity/ Conceptual meandering Thu, 06 Sep 2018 06:02:45 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 By: Monomorphic - Photography https://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-inexhaustible-wealth-of-appearance-information-and-specificity/comment-page-1/#comment-523887 Thu, 06 Sep 2018 06:02:45 +0000 http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/?p=1464#comment-523887 […] in photographs, digital as well as analog. Photography exemplifies several ways of relating to particularity through instruments and attitudes. Digital photography imposes a final alphabet and ground level of […]

]]>
By: Fri Intellektuell https://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-inexhaustible-wealth-of-appearance-information-and-specificity/comment-page-1/#comment-426683 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 19:19:36 +0000 http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/?p=1464#comment-426683 s a part of our national character : ) If you acknowledge that some people appear to be more…stupid than other people, then you acknowledge their right to be (or appear to be) comparatively stupid. Well, fair enough I think. But I don’t think everybody would agree. When reading your post, I couldn’t help substituting ”human being” for ”chair”. Not very tasteful, probably, in the light of Kant’s ideal to see human beings as ends in themselves, and not as means to other peoples’ ends. Still, philosophy should be comprehensive, so I started thinking about what happens if you talk about people in the same sense as you talk about chairs. What if we se ”human being” as an equally meaningless concept as ”chair”?]]> As a Swede, I see racists everywhere. It’s a part of our national character : )

If you acknowledge that some people appear to be more…stupid than other people, then you acknowledge their right to be (or appear to be) comparatively stupid. Well, fair enough I think. But I don’t think everybody would agree.

When reading your post, I couldn’t help substituting ”human being” for ”chair”. Not very tasteful, probably, in the light of Kant’s ideal to see human beings as ends in themselves, and not as means to other peoples’ ends. Still, philosophy should be comprehensive, so I started thinking about what happens if you talk about people in the same sense as you talk about chairs. What if we se ”human being” as an equally meaningless concept as ”chair”?

]]>
By: Johan Nystrom https://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-inexhaustible-wealth-of-appearance-information-and-specificity/comment-page-1/#comment-426506 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 03:12:43 +0000 http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/?p=1464#comment-426506 Fri Intellektuell, it’s nice to see you here again.

What I wrote here is not a summary of Deleuze’s book. It’s only one of many impressions I took from it. I am far from having digested it fully.

Also note that what I wrote about genetics and the digital world is my own speculation, not taken from Deleuze, but congruent with his thinking, it seems to me.

I was thinking on a very abstract level when I wrote this. But I absolutely think, and this is also a Nietzschean viewpoint I think, that we should see and acknowledge as many distinctions and differences as possible. This to me is ethical, since on some level it means letting things be as they are, acceptance. Distinctions and judgments also seem to be a condition for manifolds and multiplicities to flourish (in some sense).

I think the answer to the question “was Deleuze a racist” in part depends on your answer to “was Nietzsche a racist”? The answer to which is not straightforward I think. My understanding is that both thinkers promote distinction, without promoting any kind of oppression. Deleuze in particular is very clearly anti-fascist and anti-oppression.
Deleuze’s “Nietzsche and Philosophy” may be useful to shed further light on this topic.

This topic strays rather far from what I wanted to touch on in my essay but it is interesting in itself and probably worth revisiting in the future.

]]>
By: Fri Intellektuell https://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-inexhaustible-wealth-of-appearance-information-and-specificity/comment-page-1/#comment-426098 Sun, 31 Jan 2016 08:08:10 +0000 http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/?p=1464#comment-426098 s doctoral thesis, the human mind is built to see differences. Then I wonder: Was Deleuze a racist? Isn’t it racist to see difference where it is possible to see likeness instead? I guess Deleuze would say that race is only one difference among a multitude of differences that humans are constituted to perceive. Still, if you start seeing differences between people, you can’t exclude the possibility that those differences will appear to you as important, on one or another occasion.]]> I have to admit I did not manage to read more than the beginning of Difference and repetition. But for a contemporary Swedish reader, your brief summary is really interesting. ”You should not see the difference between people”, is an oft-repeaed mantra here. And according to your summary of Deleuze’s doctoral thesis, the human mind is built to see differences. Then I wonder: Was Deleuze a racist? Isn’t it racist to see difference where it is possible to see likeness instead?

I guess Deleuze would say that race is only one difference among a multitude of differences that humans are constituted to perceive. Still, if you start seeing differences between people, you can’t exclude the possibility that those differences will appear to you as important, on one or another occasion.

]]>