/lit/ - Literature

>>15338090
Thats not the problem in those works. But rather the solutions they put forward with their metaphysical takes on a universal history and psychology, which i would take for wrong and fallacious aswell.
Problem lies in there, the solutions and takes they put forward are very abstract, Deleuze himself acknowledges this, and this helps creating a barrier of defence for his work, any attack put forward will be deflected by his fans coming with another interpretation some of them just plainly saying that he just wants to create a hypersense (aka lying about how the world works in order to shape things that way).

The axioms they put forward are if not even more obscure and loose than the ones he attacks, and what did Deleuze say when asked to explain these axioms better? He just laughed off and sayed the book was for teenagers to make the ideas for themselves and do their own personal discoveries.

When i was reading their books and i would often join groups of collective readers to ask my questions, everytime i would put their views on desire and desiring production into question everyone would shrug, pretend that it wasnt important or come with super different interpretations.

>>15266847
>Illiterati

I don't mean to hijak your thread OP, but have any anons here read the Book of the Dead? i was wondering if it is basically just an index of spells to use in the afterlife or whether it has more on mythology and the religion of Ancient Egypt?

Read Morgenthau

>>15001704
No, the book will be about how he healed himself through the power of meat! The whole illness is real, but it's a munchenhausen-by-proxy induced by his daughter to further promote her diet.