/lit/ - Literature

>>17529330
With "Nietzsche & Philosophy" (1960). There's also "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in "Negotiations" (1990) which spoonfeeds you what to expect from his texts, just gloss over the psychobabble if you have to, Deleuze moved away from that eventually. Let me see if I can find that old pasta with secondary authors and a bibliography.

>>16312753
They were drinking together while writing their books, unironically based.

>the most basic task of philosophy is to impede stupidity
Is Big D right?

>>15918956
>The double effect principle would say that if you aim even indirectly at killing the burglar, you are committing murder.
No it wouldn't. Murder is the intentional UNJUSTIFIED killing of another human being. Killing someone attacking your home is perfectly justified and really expected for anyone to do. You really don't understand Catholic theology from what I'm getting. You should actually read it on Aquinas' page on SEP or something.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/


> It is not merely that pleasure shouldn't be the main aim, it shouldn't be an aim at all, period.
Again, no. That's unrealistic and impossible just from a physiological standpoint. The point is to focus on your spouse during the sexual act and not on the pleasure that results from it. Again, you should read JPII's Love and Responsibility or even just the Catechism's teaching on this because just like above, you have set up a strawman that isn't real and are attacking it, when that's not even the actual argument anyone is making in regards to sex. I think only St. Augustine though the pleasure of the sexual act was a sin and the Church doesn't hold that view because the pleasure of sex certainly is a part of the bonding/unitive process (also part of the procreative since of course male orgasms causes the releasing of semen into the woman's womb and female orgasms actually help stimulate the the cervix muscles to loosen and allow the semen to fertilize her eggs). But to focus solely on the pleasure resulting from sex is effectively another avenue for committing the sin of lust, even if you are married under the Church.
>"sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive [between spouses] purposes"

CCC 2351
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm


It's really clear you don't actually know what you are talking about and you are too prideful admit you are wrong. Or maybe you think Catholic theology on sexuality is the same as that of some more hardline Protestants or something, which is wrong frankly.

>>15918589
Unironically yes. Reading's for fags.

>>14733426
>Mathematics is clear and unambiguous. Philosophy can be too, if all terminology is rigorously defined, and conclusions follow logically from stated axioms.

I dunno about that, philosophy was pretty much always about annoying the other person by nitpicking at their definition until they force you to drink hemlock.

>>12674080
I know this isn't the most interesting example, but basically a square circle. Although the idiom exists obviously and you can feel like you dreamt of one (like when Dante describes waking up from a dream with a very vivid feeling yet unable to recall the details), but you cannot afaik construct one on paper or in real life.

>>12286935
>common sense and false sense.

Meant to say common sense and good sense, the two concepts Deleuze used.

>>12033146
Here's a quote from "Proust & Signs" in which Deleuze explains this a bit while not being a Neoplatonist himself:

"Certain Neoplatonists used a profound word to designate the original state that precedes any development, any deployment, any “explication”: complication, which envelops the many in the One and affirms the unity of the multiple. Eternity did not seem to them the absence of change, nor even the extension of a limitless existence, but the complicated state of time itself (uno ictu mutationes tuas complectitur). The Word, omnia complicans, and containing all essences, was defined as the supreme complication, the complication of contraries, the unstable opposition. From this they derived the notion of an essentially expressive universe, organized according to degrees of immanent complications and following an order of descending explications."

>Unlike D&G who approach the problem from non-psychosis
I wouldn't say that exactly, D&G were inspired by Antonin Artaud (who came up with the concept of Body without Organs) and Raymond Roussel, not to mention Nietzsche (as in they were concerned with a detailed anaysis of Nietzsche's breakdown). Not being psychotic doesn't mean psychosis isn't included in the point of view. If anything, other approaches (such as psychoanalysis) risk reterritorializing psychosis onto familiar (or rather familial) ground and thus losing its "genetic" (as in genesis, the birth of a particular thought/affect, rather than genes and DNA) component.

>The applied therapeutic principles of Reich has allowed what looks like it will be a complete remission from psychotic illness in me.
Let's hope it lasts, these things have a way of sneaking up on you. In some ways D&G's motto would be "whatever works as long as it lasts" so congrats!

>Orgone therapy purports to cure cancer
I doubt it would be kept a secret or dismissed if it truly worked.

>Schizoanalysis was a huge flop as you know.
The term certainly was, D&G realized that it sounded like they were glorifying schizophrenia so they abandoned it, but as a practice it's not all that different from a more creative or less rigid CBT style analysis.

>I think it is important to base any philosophy of mind and body in medicine, regardless of the natures of matter and mind. Everything should be supported by clinical observations.
Well D&G did explicitly say that they wanted a truly materialist psychiatry (as opposed to Freud who relied too much on symbols and signifiers and representations). But the clinic, whether biological (neurological etc.) or psychiatric, does not escape interpretation since every single phenomenon in this world can be interpreted in a variety of ways even if it's just the trivial difference between a scientific and a comical interpretation. It doesn't warrant relativism as some might think, just caution.

>they seem to love how edgy they are.
They were being creative and the epoch allowed them that stylistic freedom.
(to be cont)

>btfo hegel
>btfo freud
>btfo kant
>btfo plato
what can this man not do? is deleuze /ourlad/?

>>11686425
> Troll thread that could've ended instantly with a simple answer like "Deleuze wasn't that well known until recently because he was translated later compared to Foucault and Derrida so Peterson probably never really heard of him" instead goes on for 100+ posts while some faggot spams a thousand Deleuze threads and the mods don't do anything.

Perfect.

>>11371897
Like you'd know anything about deterritorialization given that you post the exact same thing every time like a paranoiac stuck in his own very narrow assemblage.

>>10903559
Once you get into D&G, the text on Kafka is very important (despite being short and possiblt seeming to be a sidejob) because it dispells some myths about their concepts. Unlike in their other texts, they state clearly for example that becoming-animal isn't some secret solution to everything and has its limits so that deterritorializations and lines of flight should not be seen as goals in themselves as if one had to run away their entire life. They also mention that blockages, despite being in general rather neurotic and causing problems, can nonetheless be useful (or maybe even positive) in the greater context of a rhizome where they can be disconnected and reconnected to other things. Also they make the interesting point (for me at least since I don't know that much about etymology and classical languages) that stereo (as in both stereotype and stereo speakers) can be understood both as a 3D block or as a [block]age.


>>10903721
Just to continue on the dice throw and ER idea, Deleuze wrote a later article you can find in Essays: Critical and Clinical, called The Mystery of Ariadne according to Nietzsche . It was written in 63 and revised in 92 which is interesting. It explains the affirmation of affirmation, which is presented rather mystically in Nietzsche and Philosophy, as being a matter of connection: first you have a given then you affirm it (aka you connect it to something sustaining it) and this very link starts to have meaning, like a life of its own. D was always tempted by this ontology of relations (he even mentions the one Bertrand Russell developed despite it being quite different than his own). As such, this back and forth starts to matter (Dionysos needs Ariadne precisely because the back and forth, the relation, is itself a becoming). And all of this is related to the dice throw and ER as a selective ethical principle.

Basically the main question, of the virtual and how it's related to the ER, is difficult because there are so many possible becomings rather than mere pre-established entities following their destiny (even a non-liniar one). I don't have a precise answer, but it does have to do with this logic of difference & repetition as differentiation/differenciation (virtual/actual) and consolidation (habit and synthesis). As such, as D&G explain at length, even disjunctive syntheses can become conjunctive (bringing together things that don't go together, as artists do in their collages) and giving them a certain necessity. Masochism for example bringa together pleasure and pain without the two becoming fused or confused, but at the same time transforming both for as long as the bond between them lasts.

>>10876363
>>10876352

What does he mean by images? Because intuitively we think of images as being images of something and thus an image in the ordinary sense would be the image of an image of an image, if that makes any sense.

I do like Bergson, for the little I've read of him, but even Deleuze, a total weirdo, admitted that Bergson was a weirdo who attracted all kinds of new ages folk to his side (for what that's worth).