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?