/lit/ - Literature

I am already fairly familiar with Marx, but want to go deeper into philosophy. I intend to start with Spinoza, and then read Deleuze’s book on Spinoza, and then move onto Nietzsche. What after that? Is there a better way?

>>20022393

>>17237405
> when you realize that our pony-loving neighbors over in /mlp/ get 10x the traffic of /lit/

>>16811805
what's the most /lit/ way to kys? asking for a friend

How much background do I need in other writers and which writers and their works do I need to have background in

>>15561553
I remember laughing my ass off at this thing like 3 weeks ago, and now im fucking sick of it. The meta-ironic meme cycle has accelerated to nauseating frequency. I feel like I'm going to be thrown off the surface of it.

Schopenhauer's a strange fork in the history of western philosophy. He completely dissociated himself from the institutions, published his own books, and lead a private and solitary existence. It's extremely rare for this kind of thinker to have such a profound impact on thought.

Schopey's work wasn't that influential in itself. He wasn't popular until he was like 70, he never taught a class again after the infamous Hegel incident. Few philosophers today or really give him any direct attention to him too, in regards to metaphysics, logic, epistemology.. the "core" of philosophy. But, there is one disciple of Schopenhauer's who does. Nietzsche.

Nietzsche was a huge Schopenhauer fanboy when he was younger. Have you ever read his essay "Schopenhauer as Educator" - 70 pages about that man, he wrote it when he was like 27. And it was an influence he would take to the grave. The Will to Power was his most mature and profound idea - and its metaphysics its distinctly Schopenhauerian.

All of Nietzsche's philosophy, in its profound challenges to epistemology, logic, and metaphysics can be traced back to Schopey. And Schopey was a profoundly Kantian thinker. To Schopenhauer, Kant was infallible.

Even to this day Nietzsche is a profoundly important thinker to philosophy. His thought is so deeply ingrained into both German philosophy (through the Frankfurt school), French philosophy (through Bataille and Deleuze), and now slowly creeping into Anglo philosophy, especially as Americans remember their Kantian roots viz-a-via Peirce, all of those Anglos who grew up idolizing french celebrity thinkers, and the burgeoning discourse around accelerationism.

Nietzsche finds his way into any question philosophers still pose to this day, because he's just that important relevant still. Nihilism is still an open question.

So the question was Schopenhauer unfairly sidelined? He wasn't. He's still alive in a certain way. He is alive in the only way he ever could have been. His philosophy was always destined to be underground. He was dark, he was personal, he was reductive, he was too sure of himself. It's made for a special kind of thinker who is sensitive, aloof, extremely self-reflective.

What can I read that will critique the type of people who write stuff like this?

"rather than the repeated and the repeater, the object and the subject, we must distinguish two forms of repetition. In every case repetition is difference without a concept. But in one case, the difference is taken to be only external to the concept; it is a difference between objects represented by the same concept, falling into the indifference of space and time. In the other case, the difference is internal to the Idea: it unfolds as pure movement, creative of a dynamic space and time which corresponds to the Idea. The first repetition is repetition of the Same, explained by the identity of the concept or representation: the second includes difference, and includes itself in the alterity of the Idea, in the heterogeneity of an ‘a-presentation’ ."

>>14853740
Deleuze's point is not to "discard" western philosophy, but to explain that its project has revealed itself to be empty of content. The entirety of western philosophy is a theory of nihilism. Descartes' doubt of everything, Hume's skepticism, Kant's criticality, Hegel's pure negativity. How can you begin with Socrates, whose entire mode of thought is to dialectically negate all, and expect to end up with anything but nothing? Deleuze takes this as a challenge for philosophy to become a thinking of positive content, a thinking of invention.

>>14817873
okay. How did you observe this thing? How did you observe this object falling towards the earth for which to call gravity? You're telling me photons reflected off of it, they went into your eyes, an image was formed that you experienced, you then thought about it, and then constructed a theory out of it? And this is what you call an "observation?" And it's somehow without experience?

But Marx says explicitly that you have to go out and do something about capitalism. Solving a problem is literally the exact opposite of coping with it.

Liberalism runs aground as soon as you realize it produces horrific results for most people. Here's my test for if liberalism works: I do no consent to the governance I am under. Oh, it didn't work. No one should have special privileges under the law? Oh no, too bad the law is made up of real people who are corrupt. That no one is special under the law is absolutely not the case, the lawyer army of the upper classes makes them either exempt or high resistant to the law, or they just work together.

Liberalism is literally just one immense lie. It promises these but does not deliver. Yes, I want these things, but whatever the rulers are doing to bring it about is not working for most of us. Do you understand? To affirm it would just be willful slavery to those who it benefits.

im gonna larp as a schizo deleuzian in a literary discussion at my university.
post the summary of difference & repetition.

I have a suspicion that him an Guitari roamed the streets during those hot Parisian summers on the 60s getting into all sorts of trouble

what is a philosopher but a researcher of being. hmm?

Those who still care and are good will write. Those who aren't good will teach. Else, you lose interest. Don't worry, there's a lot of other stuff out there. Lots of other parts of humanity to explore.

If you really think about it:
Spinoza is based and cringe at the same time.

Whats his deal?

>>13868645
of control

Which book should i start with for this fag?

>>13663258

Side comment: his obscurantist style (which is only really bad in Anti-Oedipus and maybe C&S) is supposed to show you how complex this shit gets and how connections must interweave if the philosophy is taken seriously. Clarity is not just speech but how definition does - or doesn't - work when talking about interconnected thoughts in the modern world.

Is there revolutionary potential in 4chan?

Does anyone know a good place to start with reading Deleuze and subsequent further reading?

I haven't been delving into philosophy too long, but I have a surface understanding of the main great philosophers and a kink for Nietzsche. I was thinking about starting with "Spinoza: Practical Philosophy" since it was recommended somewhere online as a starter, but I'm pretty clueless when it comes to making the best choice for delving into the works of Deleuze.

Are there any experienced connaiseursseurs who don't mind showing me the way?

We live in a society of control