"I don't paint things. I only paint the difference between things."
Henri Matisse

It reminds me of Deleuze's inversion of identity and difference. I find his philosophy incredulous, but interesting:

'Traditionally, difference is seen as derivative from identity: e.g., to say that "X is different from Y" assumes some X and Y with at least relatively stable identities. To the contrary, Deleuze claims that all identities are effects of difference. Identities are not logically or metaphysically prior to difference, Deleuze argues, "given that there exist differences of nature between things of the same genus." That is, not only are no two things ever the same, the categories we use to identify individuals in the first place derive from differences. Apparent identities such as "X" are composed of endless series of differences, where "X" = "the difference between x and x'", and "x" = "the difference between...", and so forth. Difference goes all the way down.'

[Excerpted from Wikipedia]


@ish said…
its quite an interesting philosophy............
its clear tht individual differences exist between evry single 1 of us,,,,,,,,,,nd Deleuze jst made it more clear
Qasim Aziz said…
Interesting,Deleuze was always a follower of Bergson.It clearly shows in his work how much influence Bergson had on him,although Bergson was lamented by analytic philosophers of his time.

I would like to add something interesting here ,Schopenheur also worked on 'Differenciation',being a kantian he accepted time and space as intuitions.From that premesis he argues that for a thing to be different from another thing ;for anything to be different from anything thing else,it can be different either in time or space or time-space.

From that he took a giant leap towards eastern religious philosophies and argues that since difference can only exist in time and space.So,anything beyond time-space can only be 'ONE INDIVISIBLE' something.(he doesn't call it god and leaves the question open)

But i have to say this argument is based on Kantian premesis,and once we accept Kantian premesis we have to accept Schopenheur's argument
Awais said…
Interesting information.

'...for anything to be different from anything thing else,it can be different either in time or space or time-space...'

But does this not ignore the 'intrinsic' differences of the two objects... two objects can also be different because their nature (composition and properties) is different.

Plus, for Kant time and space are human intuitions, and do not exist in the noumena... something which is seriously doubtful. Russell's criticism in History of Western Philosophy regarding this aspect is pretty convincing for me.
Qasim Aziz said…
Personally,i regard Kant as a very important philosopher but there is no way i can accept his concept of 'Noumenon'.
I would rather accept an idea of 'Things as they are' rather than 'Things in-themselves'.

"The reasons for which 'this' world has been characterized as 'apparent' are the very reasons which indicate its reality; any other kind of reality is absolutely indemonstrable. "

from Nietzsche's Twilight of the

"It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off. "

from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human.

"Even great spirits have only their five fingers breadth of experience - just beyond it their thinking ceases and their endless empty space and stupidity begins."

from Nietzsche's Daybreak
Qasim Aziz said…
Isn't it the case that we recognise the intrinsic difference between things in terms of time-space?
I may be wrong here but how do we recognise the intrinsic difference between things?
Qasim Aziz said…
If two things ,A and B are identical in time and space then they are the same thing,No?