このスレッドはアーカイブ化された過去ログです。
このスレッドはアーカイブ化された過去ログです。
人気のスレッド
既婚女性
462
4201.8
4624201.8乃木坂46452356.4
452356.4
ニュース速報+441590.6
441590.6
ニュース速報+6011399.4
6011399.4乃木坂46331117.7
331117.7市況14211089.4
4211089.4乃木坂46431058.2
431058.2乃木坂462931038.6
2931038.6
ニュース速報+103991.3
103991.3
ニュース速報+943728.2
943728.2もっと見る
参考サイト
人類を科学する
https://www.metafaith.net/philosophy/
この世は巨大コンピュータ内の仮想現実
https://talk.jp/boards/psy/1688894973
この世は巨大コンピュータ内の仮想現実★2
https://talk.jp/boards/psy/1723154164
chatGPT：Not necessarily. It’s an interesting intuition, but forGilles Deleuzethe idea that repetition is never the same didnotsimply “come from DNA.”
Deleuze’s concept of repetition draws heavily from earlier philosophers and writers, especially:
Henri Bergson— duration, creativity, time as continuous change
David Hume— habit formed by repetition
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz— variation, folds, singularities
literature and psychoanalysis as well
These sources already contain the idea that recurrence does not equal identical duplication.
Modern biology can illustrate Deleuze beautifully:
DNA replication includes mutation and variation
organisms repeat patterns with development differences
inheritance produces novelty, not perfect copies
So biology is often agood exampleof Deleuzian repetition.
Difference and Repetitionwas written in an era when structuralism, cybernetics, linguistics, psychoanalysis, and biology were all in the air. Science likely formed part of the intellectual atmosphere, but it was not the sole origin.
No—Deleuze’s idea did not come from DNA, but DNA can be seen as a strong modern example of what he meant.
chatGPT：I think you meanrhizome(sometimes misspelled as “resome”). In the context ofGilles DeleuzeandFélix Guattari,rhizomeis one of their most famous ideas.
Arhizomeis a plant root system like:
ginger
bamboo
grass
It spreads horizontally with many connections, not from one single trunk.
They use rhizome as a model for thinking and society:
Not a tree model:
Tree = hierarchy, one origin, branches from the top down.
Rhizome model:
Rhizome = network, multiple entry points, no single center, many connections.
the internet
underground cultural movements
language influences
ideas spreading across fields
social networks
They contrast rigid systems with living multiplicity. A rhizome grows unpredictably, connects distant points, and can restart from many places.
Rhizome = a decentralized network of connections instead of a single hierarchy.
Main source:A Thousand Plateaus.
chatGPT : No problem at all—rhizomeis not an easy word to spell. It’s uncommon in everyday English, and many native speakers would hesitate too.
Pronunciation:RYE-zohm/ˈraɪzoʊm/
Quick memory trick:
rhi+zome
starts likerhino(without “no”)
ends likehomewith a z-sound
rhizome = roots spreading in many directions, no single center.
You were close enough that the meaning was clear.
chatGPT：Yes — that’s a sharp way to readGilles Deleuzethrough contemporary images.
Therhizomeresembles the internet because both are:
decentralized (no single center)
many-to-many connections
multiple entry points
resilient when one node fails
constantly expanding
That’s why many later readers used Deleuze to think about networks, digital culture, and distributed systems.
Your analogy also works:
DNA involves:
replication (repetition)
mutation / recombination (difference)
inheritance with variation
stable patterns generating novelty
So life continues through repeated copying that is never perfectly identical.
Deleuze wrote before the internet became everyday reality, and his philosophy is not reducible to biology.
But his concepts are flexible enough that later technologies and sciences caninstantiatethem.
You’re noticing something central: his ideas often describepatterns of organizationrather than one specific subject.
Rhizome = network form
Difference & Repetition = variation through recurrence
That is why people keep reusing his concepts in new eras.
chatGPT：Yes—two separate questions.
The concept appearsbefore 1980, but becomes fully explicit inA Thousand Plateaus, whose opening section is titled“Rhizome.”Some scholars note earlier uses inKafka: Toward a Minor Literature, but 1980 is the major formulation.
So the idea likely developed through the1970sin Deleuze’s collaboration withFélix Guattari.
Certainly yes, in the general sense.By the 1970s, DNA was already a well-known scientific concept:
structure of DNA published in1953byJames WatsonandFrancis Crick
genetics and molecular biology were major intellectual fields by the 1960s–70s
educated European intellectuals would have known the basics of genes, heredity, replication, mutation
So Deleuze almost certainly knew what DNA was.
That doesnotmean rhizome was “derived from DNA.” More likely, both come from a broader 20th-century shift toward thinking in terms of:
systems
networks
multiplicities
self-organization
dynamic processes
Deleuze also drew from biology, geology, linguistics, mathematics, psychoanalysis, and politics—not one single source.
Rhizome: mainly formulated in the 1970s, published clearly in 1980.
DNA knowledge: yes, he almost certainly knew it.
Direct source?Not proven; better seen as part of the same intellectual climate.
chatGPT : Ah, understood.
Gilles DeleuzepublishedDifference and Repetitionin1968, but the concept was developed over many earlier years.
It grows out of his studies in the1950s–1960s, especially his books on:
David Hume(habit, repetition)
Henri Bergson(time, duration, creativity)
Friedrich Nietzsche(eternal return, affirmation)
Baruch Spinoza(immanence, power)
So the idea was likely formed gradually through philosophical research, not in one sudden moment.
Yes, almost certainly.
By 1968:
DNA’s double-helix structure had been known since1953
genetics was already a major scientific field
heredity, mutation, replication were common educated knowledge
So Deleuze almost certainly knew about DNA and modern biology in a general sense.
Probablynot the primary source.
Difference and repetition is mainly a philosophical argument against the old idea that:
identity comes first
difference is secondary
repetition is mere copying
Deleuze reverses this.
DNA may function as agood illustrationof his thesis:
replication = repetition
mutation / variation = difference
But the conceptual roots are mainly philosophical, not biological.
The concept matured through the1950s–60s, published in1968.
Yes, Deleuze likely knew DNA science.
But DNA was probably an example, not the original source.
chatGPT：I see why it can feel that way.Gilles Deleuzesometimes seems “prophetic” because later developments—networks, digital culture, complexity theory, biology, decentralized systems—can be described with his concepts.
Why he seems prophetic
1. He thought in patterns, not just events
He often analyzed forms such as:
networks
flows
multiplicities
emergence
distributed power
continual transformation
Those patterns later became more visible in society and technology.
Many older frameworks emphasized:
hierarchy
fixed identity
stable categories
centralized authority
Later history often moved toward more fluid and networked realities, making his ideas feel ahead of their time.
Ideas like:
rhizome
assemblage
becoming
difference
deterritorialization
can be applied in many contexts, so new eras keep rediscovering them.
Not everything today confirms Deleuze, and readers sometimes force modern trends into his vocabulary. He did not literally predict the internet or DNA culture.
He was probably not a prophet in a mystical sense, but a philosopher who grasped deep structural tendencies before they became obvious.
彼らはどう見えるのだろうか
プレミアムの無料期間を2026/9/30まで延長することになりました。
広告除去や規制緩和など、ヘビーユーザーにとって欠かせない機能を無料でお楽しみいただけます。
是非この機会にプレミアムサービスをお試しください！
▼プレミアムサービスはこちらから
https://talk.jp/premium