/lit/ - Literature

>>12673597
Fine, I'll give you a detailed answer just so the thread can 404 without further replies as always because I never learn.

If I had to say just one thing that I like about Deleuze I'd probably go with the influence Nietzsche had on him including in terms of making you question everything about your own thoughts and feelings and how they connect to one another and come about. That whole "pre-individual" thing about differentiation where every thought carries a certain weight and you can no longer allow yourself "half-wills" (I'll do this one last time, starting tomorrow I'll do things differently, etc.) that get people addicted to quitting so to speak (probably the most common form of neurosis).

To give a more detailed essay style answer, I also like that Deleuze was genuine in his naive interest in philosophy even if he's terrible at explaining himself (and often just assumes that the reader has all the required knowledge and gets what he's pointing at). You can see in his courses (gonna post the links pasta if I can find it) that he can in fact spoonfeed and isn't just posturing despite his difficult style.

Off the top of my head to name some stuff I like about him:

>his interest in weird ideas from Spinoza and Leibniz
>the whole critique of identity in metaphysics and politics, especially relevant today
>his whole metaphysics of virtuality and becoming and chaos theory
>le epic wolf anus shitposting with Guattari
>he was /lit/ af in the authors he chooses to quote, stuff like learning to stutter in your own language
>the focus on relations rather than objects, on new creative connections and the whole concept of assemblages and machinic desire works really well with today's psychology (embodied cognition and all that)
>his take on communication and why it fails most of the time
>the sciency stuff about thresholds and non-liniar causality (even though Deleuze is complete shit at explaining it, but deleuzians do a better job)
>his entire theory of desire and history as the history of desire and flows (basically his work with Guattari)
>formulas like "it's not too abstract, it's not abstract enough!" get my peepee wet

I know the way he frames things makes him look divorced from reality ("out of this world" as a critic of his titled his book), but a lot of the stuff that he says is far more empirical than what most other philosophers come up with and definitely more convincing than psychoanalysis (not that that's saying much...). Even the early stuff with Guattari has plenty of great ideas and concepts in it despite the style that's pretty much the precursor to Internet trolling. D did say that he and G laughed a lot and often got drunk while brainstorming.