Saw this from another thread:
>It's also worth pointing out that there is no such thing as Pure Otherness, at least if you accept a univocity of Being on some level (and acknowledge that the so-called Other at least exists). Nothing can be so different that they do not at least exist. So this so-called Difference turns out to be the implied Identity, and Identity turns out to be the implied Difference, and Deleuze's attempt to both critique Plato and break out of the Hegelian straitjacket falls flat on its face.
From somebody who is both familiar with Deleuze and with Plato, is this true, that Difference on its own aka "Pure Otherness" is a non-starter? If so, is there anything we can salvage from Deleuze's work, then?

>>24524464 (OP)
Nigger what do you think?
Asking fags some retarded question nigga if you're so familiar with both of them THINK NIGGA THINK THEY BOTH WOULD'VE WANTED YOU TO THINK

>>24524489
I think that this anon is right and that Deleuze's contributions are in serious trouble. But I wanted to see if there was a better educated anon out there who could disabuse me of the notion, or at least offer some kind of honest defense of Deleuze.

>>24524464 (OP)
>at least if you accept univocity of Being…and acknowledge that the so-called Other at least exists

Read the qualifiers harder, Lenny.

>OH BECOMING IS 50 FOOT TALL AND MADE OF NON-DUALISM

>>24524561
I don't get it. Are you rejecting the univocity of Being? Because you can at least say that, even if there are modes of Being, there is always the sense that something "is", and that is where you have univocity again (in a very weak sense). I am not sure why you mention Becoming. It seems like a separate issue.

>>24524570
Hegel's attack is on being as such: there is never a stability, only a process. Trying to structure an Other as outside of becoming is perverse then: it is putting a thing which stands in the place of the big other as if things are rather than be.

>>24524596
Ah, you're saying that there's Being, and then there's Becoming. I know that they are often juxtaposed with each other, but I don't think it's a serious one. Maybe Rest vs. Change, or something like that, sure. But Being doesn't have to be static. All that Being says is that it is in some way.

>>24524613
No, I'm suggesting, incorrectly, that there is only becoming, and then arguing, correctly, that the actual situation is non-dual.

>>24524464 (OP)
Is this D&G anon? Are you one of the ones who hates dialectic but can't demonstrate properly and are getting tripped up by Descartes and not Hegel?

aristotle vs the cashier at the corner store

>>24524464 (OP)
Deleuze, like most of the "post-moderns" is really more just a sort of hyper modern, replaying the Reformation, but this time against Enlightenment philosophy. Hence, the takes tend to be historically illiterate, backwards projecting Enlightenment thought onto the whole of history, defeating that, and then declaring their philosophy to be the only other option. This is paradigmatically true of Nietzsche, who backwards projects the 19th century German Protestant pietism he grew up with onto the whole of Christian thought, East as well as West, and who, in his radical athiesm, essentially just ends up replaying Protestant volanturism but with God removed.

The focus on difference, and the immediate and the senses in phenomenology, is itself a sort of bias, an inversion of the preference for the universal in the already corrupted early Enlightenment rationalist Platonism. But both what they critique and what they put forth is shot through with Reformation dialectic and liberalism, and fails to actually grapple with anything beyond this. This is the great irony, the philosophers of difference paint the past in a single hue. Derrida is rigidly structuralist when setting up his dismissal of all past thought. Deleuze doesn't seem to realize that the notion of "substance" in Spinoza and his peers is heavily corrupted and bearing little relationship to what Aristotle and his descendents were thinking of.

>>24524677
The fact that he can't identify being as absolute and eternal versus becoming as transitory process means he can't grasp the dialectic and is reading D&G as a system rather than confrontation.

Vide:
>Deleuze, like most of the "post-moderns" is really more just a sort of hyper modern, replaying the Reformation
Without understanding Hegel's contribution to the West.

>>24524561
If you reject the univocity of being you don't have any Deleuze left. But Deleuze also argued for univocity from a strawman, setting up a sort of parody of Enlightenment rationalism to make his case, even though Enlightenment rationalism was itself a parody of high scholasticism, and, it should be said, Islamic and Jewish medieval thought.

This is nothing new. Hume makes his entire case for fideism (or, we might suppose, against faith) seemingly blissfully unaware of the Analogia Entis, despite it being the theology of the two dominant branches of Christianity.

>>24524723
The "ontologies of violence" said to come to us through Nietzsche to Foucault are really just Calvin's God various immanentized, humanized, and/or pantheized. The funny thing about this last evolution is that, from the outset with Nietzsche, it should have been obvious what it implied—not the radical leftist politics of its theorists, but might makes right and mythologized fascism. Only now are we seeing the post-modernization of the right and this coming full circle.

>>24524747
Tell me then, why the fuck does Deleuze talk about rhyzomatic non strategy if being exists and univocity exists.

You're projecting the collapse of Kantian logic of being into Hegelian dialectics of becoming. The absolute emerges at and in every moment as limited phenomena, not as noumena.

>>24524746
I'm going to take this answer as a yes that you don't like dialectic.

>>24524723
It's funny, once you know how the look at it right, Berkeley is sort of Aristotle, only after philosophy suffered a series of massively disabling concussions. Deleuze ontology of difference is sort of Aquinas's idea of limiting essence having been given brain damage.

CS Peirce said he thought nominalism was the tool of Satan and I do believe he might be right.

>>24524789
Wow mate, just wow. Good luck in life. I don't give coffee money to cripples.

>>24524842
Prickly as always. I'll try to keep in mind you put antithesis first and likely as some sort of classification agreement. This isn't necessarily a conflict to me but you also have to realize that if you hate dialectic then doing this can be interpreted as a lack of order on my part, perhaps this is some facet of your system I'm not yet aware of. Your humor is lacking. Perhaps this is another of your antithesis first propositions to solicit something? What is luck? Give the money or don't, you don't need to justify something like to me.

>>24524864
If you want humour we need to sexualise the discussion to insert the excluded other in media res. Deleuze and Guattari at least, unlike Plato, are capable of making cunt jokes.

Yes, all language is an eternal spiral, but failing to treat D&G in terms of becoming dialectics is grossly misreading them, and not in a sexy forced rape way.

>>24524747
Redpill me on how analogia entis affects Hume's argument against faith.

>>24524877
I'm still freely admitting I haven't read all of D&G but I do like the revitalization efforts they made that I have read. I do recall you seem to be particularly averse to proofing, likely more to do with variables and less to do with instantiation. It wouldn't be fair to make a characterization on my part, so I will refrain. If this is your way of saying you don't like negation and want it first then you are no different ontologically than I am. I fail to see why you take so much issue with this, but also don't know enough to conjecture. Truth is a female?

>>24524877
I forgot, the whole
>"I'm not misreading my sources, I'm just buggering them!"
Is the biggest cope. And it's especially ironic considering the default response to criticism by POMOs is to claim no one has understood them (while writing as obscurely as possible to avoid the having to engage).

Also, Plato has plenty of wit. He doesn't need to stoop to "cut jokes." The Phaedrus's opening terrible speech is funny, the Symposium has lots of moments. But he isn't into le ebin power dynamics either because he has the Logos.

>>24524902
Because we can't laugh at the erection until it comes into being. The erection becomes: we laugh at it, he comes in our face. How much simpler do you want dialectics: becoming: to be made for you?

D&G and Hegel aren't creating a universal proof, but a local.

>>24524909
>He doesn't need to stoop to "cut jokes."
You misquoted cunt, cunt.
He can't "stoop" to misquote cunt: wonderous femininity regret: he now buggers boy's behinds.

>>24524937

>>24524946
That is an interesting take on shit fucking. Personally I find vulva more attractive. You do you.

>>24524918
Lakatos conjectured the laboratory was inevitable. He applied his heuristics to mathematical inquiries and several attempts to remove Hegel's influence from his works posthumously failed. He died a complete enigma but his methods do work.

A beta distribution on this topic may not be possible at a local or universal level in this particular instance. This isn't due to anything on your part but rather the nature of your inquiry, likely derived from similar source material to what I am aware of. A state of exception has been rendered worthless due to length of time, Phillips curves offer no stable tradeoffs and cannot permanently alter conditions.

>>24524980
Thus D&G, Lines of Flight, New Workerism.

>>24524995
You are however still being tripped up by Descartes. An AI cannot offer any refutations to what I said.

>>24524999
The proletariat as we are doesn't need to defeat Descartes. We need to shoot regional managers until nobody will be regional manager.

finally, been waiting for a delueze thread, now let me find that copy paste rant i had about him...

>>24525035

>>24525000
The lack of AI refutation has nothing to do with mathematical reasoning. The inquiry voluntarily tossed it in favor of political affiliation which is worthless to begin with.

Does anybody have anything to say about the metaphysics or did the leftie purge also purge all the Deleuzians?

>>24525705
What leftie purge?

>>24524980
Abject pseudery

>>24525750
You sound like some big government shitlib that just wants to hear red kool-aid man do it so it must be good. Go back to your metaphysical shitbox and complete your transition.

>>24524464 (OP)
>guy from 2.5k years ago vs guy from 30 years ago
is this a real thread?

>>24525758
you won't be able to blame liberals forever dontcha know, at some point you'll realize the only people left at the table are your own.
>>24524464 (OP)
>Saw this from another thread:
>>It's also worth pointing out that there is no such thing as Pure Otherness, at least if you accept a univocity of Being on some level (and acknowledge that the so-called Other at least exists). Nothing can be so different that they do not at least exist. So this so-called Difference turns out to be the implied Identity, and Identity turns out to be the implied Difference, and Deleuze's attempt to both critique Plato and break out of the Hegelian straitjacket falls flat on its face.
>From somebody who is both familiar with Deleuze and with Plato, is this true, that Difference on its own aka "Pure Otherness" is a non-starter? If so, is there anything we can salvage from Deleuze's work, then?


Deleuze concludes difference cannot be conceived as the thing that differs, so that anon is just summing up the conclusion of D&R for you. also, I wouldn't put too much stock into "accepting the univocity of being" as a thing people should say. if you are interested in trying to conceive of pure difference you might want to look into Lyotard's attempt at starting his own school and how that panned out.
for Hegel's part difference isn't that important unless you are taking Hegel to the maximal conclusion of the second determination of reflection being constitutive on the law of non-contradiction, to the point that everything that differs in the world is merely for the exigency of preventing internal contradiction. difference itself is just supposed to be a logical determination of essence that exists to color the picture of existence.
the anon you are quoting also seems to have made a sizable mistake, maybe intentionally, in that Pure Being is effectively the same thing as Pure Otherness to the extent that Pure Being is something that exists outside of the realm of existence. so to the extent that it is the 0 of categories, it is pure otherness as possible. however this is not a synthesis of difference because difference is determinate, which circles back to the notion that Deleuze failed in his project because he was trying to think of a difference that is not determinate.
so, where does Plato figure into this? i'd like to know that as well. Deleuze believed that everything was immanent to the extent you don't have to get outside of something to get to the truth. the truth is just baked into the stuff that is already there. so his personal view might be that alien difference is already there waiting to be found in stuff that we already know, but obviously that is a bit silly. but wouldn't that also mean our direct connection to the form is also able to be called into question? after all why are these transcendental things so immediately available to us if they aren't immanent? curious
anyway, that anon probably talks too much just like i do

>>24525811
>however this is not a synthesis of difference because difference is determinate
because this difference*
it's a determinate difference in the sense that a void is a space, anyway

>>24525811
Searching for a political affiliation as a starting point is almost always a surefire sign there is nothing but a blame game involved. I've noticed this is true for all sides.

I'm not sure how D&G reconciled contradiction management but in theory for Hegel's system it is a source of potential structure. At the limit there isn't substance, no fixed entities, accidentals are tossed and essentials are the focus, this produces what is generally seen as becoming. The process is cyclical. I suspect this argument may boil down to a perception that there is still the use of some fixed aspects and perhaps D&G simply chose to avoid absolute and focus on meaning. The problem with this is that I'm not convinced any sort of agreement on meaning is possible without dialectic, otherwise Nietzsche's response to Descartes is still applicable.

>>24525868
uhm, there is substance in Hegel but in his view substance is an essential relationship that exists as a consequence of rigid actuality (he doesn't use the word rigid)- so like you said he preserves substance and accident as essential determinants, and the accidents are as constitutive as the substance rather than being a merely contingent eater. so if you want to dwell in that element, then yes, anything that subsists in difference is simply not going to differ fundamentally from its essence, and as a consequence of this the problem of induction is refuted. but obviously this isn't a fucking rap battle.

>>24525884
You aren't wrong but without an agreement for a relationship between multiple subjects Hegel can treat substances as evolving and becoming. Without an agreement substance can be treated in almost any given way really, I could treat ethical parameters as substance, I could treat substances as spirit, they are pure flux. In this sense constant and repeated breaking, rebuilding, and so forth are the methods for further sophistication.

It is possible that so long as linearity is rejected, but absolute is not the desired outcome then Deleuze could entertain a number of potential scenarios. Knowledge is still being derived from society though, I'm also somewhat baffled by an aversion to empirical data. I suppose at the present time I could agree that perhaps the focus is on self-identification of the individual and the emphasis is simply communication. With the nature of a board like this adherents to the system can find meaning without dialectic. Your internal agreement must by necessity include a laboratory whether you want to admit it or not though, otherwise any given adherent could never change the self-professed identity.

>>24525947
>Hegel can treat substances as evolving and becoming
except becoming isn't the only option, there is also appearance. for Hegel nothing really 'becomes' because the essence is appearance and appearance is all there is. the essence must appear, he says, which is difference from becoming because it is not coming from a place of indeterminacy. existence itself is just the substratum through which things come to be determined which is outside of the realm of becoming proper. 'becoming' itself is not really anything specifically but the void of indeterminacy. the idea that you can concretely refer to your own existence is already going to undercut any notion of becoming with a self sameness.
i don't really understand your second paragraph

>>24525811
>the anon you are quoting also seems to have made a sizable mistake, maybe intentionally, in that Pure Being is effectively the same thing as Pure Otherness to the extent that Pure Being is something that exists outside of the realm of existence
I don't see how you're drawing that conclusion desu. Pure Being is what it is, and that's all there is to say about it. I don't know if we can say that Pure Being "exists" (because it doesn't exist in the way that cars exist, people exist, etc.), but the univocity of Being shows that everything that "is" in any way possible, whether we can talk about sheer possibilities, abstract concepts, or concrete objects, "exists" in some fundamental way. So Pure Being must follow. Pure Difference cannot be conceived in such a way because 1) it cannot affirm its own being without a Russell-like contradiction; and 2) it has to at least be the "Same" as everything else in order to be, full stop. So, Pure Difference is a contradiction in terms and is parasitic off of Pure Being and individual beings.
>so, where does Plato figure into this? i'd like to know that as well. Deleuze believed that everything was immanent to the extent you don't have to get outside of something to get to the truth. the truth is just baked into the stuff that is already there.
It is probably the late Plato that is being spoken of here, when he distances himself from the realm of forms and instead begins speaking about Greater Kinds. e.g. Being, Non-Being, Same, Different, Rest, Change. The most relevant dialogue would be Plato's Sophist, in which Plato tries to "rescue" Non-Being from being abused by Sophists in order to situate it properly as Difference. Most things end up participating in Identity and Difference at the same time. It's also a case of where Plato evolves from the caricature of Plato commonly depicted. You can take the naive Plato to be obsessed with identity but not difference, given that things are real only to the degree they participate in the forms, but not late Plato, who is clearly beyond that and working towards a more pluralistic and nuanced ontology.

>>24525989
>I don't see how you're drawing that conclusion desu. Pure Being is what it is, and that's all there is to say about it. I don't know if we can say that Pure Being "exists" (because it doesn't exist in the way that cars exist, people exist, etc.), but the univocity of Being shows that everything that "is" in any way possible, whether we can talk about sheer possibilities, abstract concepts, or concrete objects, "exists" in some fundamental way. So Pure Being must follow. Pure Difference cannot be conceived in such a way because 1) it cannot affirm its own being without a Russell-like contradiction; and 2) it has to at least be the "Same" as everything else in order to be, full stop. So, Pure Difference is a contradiction in terms and is parasitic off of Pure Being and individual beings.
isn't that kind of what I said? the mistake is that things that exist are determined to a specific kind of being like quality or quantity while pure being isn't, or at least shouldn't be, so it is de facto an 'other' thing. i don't have univocity as a thing that is common to all in mind, rather something that things cannot be without, to the extent that man and ox cannot be without animal, not in the sense that they are both animal. and you definitely need both conceptions for being to be univocal in the first place. this is why i don't think "univocity of being" makes sense, because if it's just the ontological thing that things can't be without, then it's trivially true that they all share the same name and meaning (maybe, predictability) and as a consequence of this being would not be an edifying concept, as a merely tautological identity token (and indeed identity is pretty much essential being).
>It is probably the late Plato that is being spoken of here, when he distances himself from the realm of forms and instead begins speaking about Greater Kinds. e.g. Being, Non-Being, Same, Different, Rest, Change.
would that not be middle Plato?

>>24525960
Perhaps becoming wasn't the right word, pure flux without the required agreement would be more accurate. The interchange between this and the subject is what makes the external appearance becoming.

If my conjecture that Deleuze rejected absolute for meaning is accurate, and if Deleuze also abandoned the search for THE eternal truth which is just something I take for granted with no pejorative meaning intended, I'm not excluded either, then perhaps the initial line of inquiry is purpose related? If he opts for absolute then he forfeits an original system, but meaning can never have a static or fixed determination. Otherwise you wouldn't be a laboratory, you wouldn't need to entertain multiple scenarios, and it wouldn't be possible for identity shift to occur. If this conjecture is accurate then generating meaning is one facet, in order to do this without fixed meaning then there must be some process for creating placeholders, if there is no absolute you must entertain a plurality. Or am I mistaken?

>>24526015
>Perhaps becoming wasn't the right word
well, you definitely put it in the right spot lol

>>24526010
>isn't that kind of what I said?
Yes, I agree with much of what you're saying, I think in most cases we're on the same page, and I hope not to come across as pedantic. The point I am trying to make I think is important since it is the bedrock for everything else.

I meant to draw attention to initial statement that you made, where Pure Being and Pure Difference were put on the same footing, is something I wanted to dissect. We can say Pure Being is in a fundamental level, and have it be consistent, in a way that Pure Difference never could match.

>i don't have univocity as a thing that is common to all in mind, rather something that things cannot be without, to the extent that man and ox cannot be without animal, not in the sense that they are both animal. and you definitely need both conceptions for being to be univocal in the first place. this is why i don't think "univocity of being" makes sense, because if it's just the ontological thing that things can't be without, then it's trivially true that they all share the same name and meaning (maybe, predictability)
These are good questions and reasons why we have to think about the multiple ways we speak about being. In terms of "kind", yes I agree that there cannot be univocity, because every specific instantiation of something is what it is because both a positive element and the fact that it is different from everything else. But in terms of "mode", everything that is intelligible seems to "be", at a very bare level, in the exact same way. And perhaps this is the limit of philosophy, because anything that is contradictory or nonsensical cannot be examined by philosophy in any clear way.
>as a consequence of this being would not be an edifying concept, as a merely tautological identity token (and indeed identity is pretty much essential being).
Well, it is edifying in the sense of logical clarity in understanding the whole picture. When you take Pure Being to be what it is, then many other higher-level ontological concepts follow suit. Being is edifying at that level of abstraction. e.g. If you understand why Being is, then you understand why Nothing is not and can never be something (i.e. the Eleatic dictum), why Difference is parasitic of Being, why individual beings participate in both Sameness and Difference, etc., what it means for something to have a mode of existence (as a possible idea, as actually extant, etc.) and what problems emerge in trying to posit that kind of ontological modalism, and so on. I am only trying to lay things bare and do the proper ontological accounting, to sort everything into its proper place, if that makes sense.
>would that not be middle Plato?
My understanding is that middle Plato would be dialogues like Republic, Phaedrus, Symposium, etc., and late Plato is everything after Timaeus and Parmenides. Sophist is late Plato with that chronology.

>>24526031
>Pure Difference
that's because there is the difference and the thing that differs but the difference between two things is essentially no difference at all and the thing that differs is not properly "beside" (or maybe symmetrical to) the the other thing that is supposed to compose the difference.
>>24526031
>My understanding is that middle Plato would be dialogues like Republic, Phaedrus, Symposium, etc., and late Plato is everything after Timaeus and Parmenides. Sophist is late Plato with that chronology.
I'm basing this off the suggested reading order Plato not the historical Plato

>>24526017
That was mostly due to your emphases on conflict avoidance. Based on some of the sequences I've seen it's likely either you and or Deleuze may have viewed Hegel as obsolete or just something to tinker with but after prolonged engagement realized you're own dilemma. This is likely why there are so many diverse influences from a wide array of sources. If my previous conjectures are correct then Deleuze finds himself as a perpetual challenger to Hegel since he has removed absolute, but Hegel is also seeing a perpetual challenger. You still need heuristics though, so in theory you can maintain this positioning so long as you don't run out of placeholders? Of course in almost all of these scenarios the side that is the challenger to Hegel realizes the truly immense difficulty of this and will more often than not resort to political mockery and accusations?

>>24526061
i'd be lying if I said I understand you but what i came to realize in the post you are quoting is just that pure being is not properly qualitative but quality comes to be existentially rather than ontologically.

>>24526069
Being is both qualitative and quantitative.

>>24526090
oh, ok

>>24526048
>that's because there is the difference and the thing that differs but the difference between two things is essentially no difference at all
I am not sure if I follow. In the same vein that Pure Being is different from any given being, Pure Difference (if it were coherent) would be different from any given being. Like Heidegger's ontological difference, or the fact that two people can still differ while still both being humans.
>I'm basing this off the suggested reading order Plato not the historical Plato
That raises the question... which reading order? There's many! Lol.

>>24526105
>Pure Difference (if it were coherent) would be different from any given being.
well at this point it sounds like your argument is "if i was right about my entire argument, and i'm not saying i am, pure difference would be impossible" instead of "the the that differs is not quite like things that are different"

>>24526100
At the very least we were able to answer the OP question though.

Options for contender:
>continual generation of new placeholders (highest difficulty)
>identity morphing (presents widest array of options but will also re-enact similar dilemmas, i.e. Sartre making a full return to agency, Marx creating a deductive grid to keep Hegel out but the primary difficulty is now remaining in the grid, etc)
>sourcing or salvaging as you phrased it (likeliest outcome is trying to keep Hegel out while maintaining your own internal agreement, but you are relying on the specific Hegel)

I'm really curious about Deleuze but this entire conversation has gone over my head and also seems to extend into previous threads. Can I get a recap?

>>24526121
how about we spend 3 hours trying to justify quiddities?

What the fuck are you all talking about hehehe a waste of time and energy, masturbate instead, really

>>24526136
Scholastic brainrot. If they needed centuries to realize they couldn't solve them due to ex falso quodlibet then a few hours won't do anything. Scholastics by definition are just laboratories, I'll have to leave you to your own devices on that one.

>>24524464 (OP)
*blocks your path*

>>24526251
i can only learn so many things from one thread, and the bigger the thing i learn is, the less likely the rest of the trhead is to be productive for anyone that engages with me
i heard he was a real pissant

>>24526109
>"the the that differs is not quite like things that are different"
I just don't understand what you mean by this. The that which is is also different from the things that are. This is the ontological difference, no? It seems to be a different conversation than what I was originally going for. Though, I am open to a correction.

>>24526251
Point out the contradictions in justifying quiddities.

>>24526509
>I just don't understand what you mean by this.
8 and 5 are both numbers, decreasing magnitude is not a number, smaller is even less of a number, etc

>>24526509
oh, sorry, misread. i've been drinking.

if being is analogous to beings, then that presumes there would be entities called differences, but that's not a thing, so....

>>24526688
The problem is that identity and difference are relations between things. That's what the "Great Kinds" end up being, a system of relations between things that all things participate in.

>>24526376
Well I'm inclined to say you haven't broken your mind enough.

>>24526660
If I have to tell you then you already know the answer. Whatever I want it to be since you have immense difficulty with the external world and can't reach agreements.

>>24526722
>>24526743
well obviously i'm not a pussy

>>24526743
>If I have to tell you then you already know the answer. Whatever I want it to be since you have immense difficulty with the external world and can't reach agreements.
I don't think there is a contradiction, I don't think there is a problem with the external world, and random idiots disagreeing with each other because of skill issues doesn't change the bare facts. You're going to have to do more than play coy to justify yourself here.

>>24526752
Well in that case the sleeping beauty paradox. Of course this also entails that if you ever meet a perfect clone of yourself then who speaks first?

bump

>>24526251
>>24526743
>they're totally wrong bro
>I wont say why though :^)
>iykyk
faggot argumentation, makes whatever side you're on look moronic and petty

>>24528812
You can solve all the scholastic problems by demonstrating where it is.

>you can't
>iykyk

I'm also a laboratory. Continue your paradox laden path scholastic.

>>24528963
>if I lie about the existence of paradoxes, that means I win
delusional

>>24529429
don't you mean
>Deleuzional
hyuk hyuk hyuk

>>24529429
What are you on about scholastic? You know as well as I do throwing god around at an ai isn't going to do anything. The paradoxes I offered you may not look like much, but they can slow down or stop an ai.

>>24529903
You haven't offered a single paradox you crackhead.

>>24530189
It's in your best interest to worship ai.

>>24530227
Are you a bot?

>>24530536
What do you think? You're the retard worshipping ai.

>muh ontological being
>muh need muh first cause bruh
>muh classical metaphysics that are never supported by being
>muh ai doesn't have being bruh it must be god bro

>>24524464 (OP)
Anyone who cares about post-Ancient philsophers are actually a meme. People seriously debate Guattari and Deleuze? I thought you was all joking and in agreement philsophy became irrelevant after Plato, Aristotle, and Diogenes the Cynic said everything worthwhile?

>>24531175
I have no idea what you're talking about. You need to get in touch with your social worker. He cares about you. Unfortunately, this is beyond my paygrade.

>>24531407
Go back to your shitbox.

It's taken years for platoids to reach this point, all from one unelaborated citation from parmenides