/lit/ - Literature

>>20556972
>And here comes the flip flop:
No, I think he's a libertine libertarian, 100%.
>You need to make up your mind.
I don't see how what I said is contradictory. Or neoconservative. I prefer Marxism to what we have now.
>Deleuze is an Aristotelian, anon.
In what meaningful sense, especially when it comes to ethics?
>The family is an agent of stasis, and arrests revolution (of ANY kind in ANY domain) by channeling desire into cyclical loops that produce stability.
I agree. But Deleuze thought that the forces of desire could overcome capitalism (which still requires *some* kind of order to be in place in order to function). The problem is you're looking back with a presentist mindset, where you see flaws that Deleuze himself wasn't capable of seeing.
>Why the fuck would that benefit capitalism?
The point is that it doesn't until you can replace the nuclear family with other institutions. Capitalism still requires structure.
>and Deleuze didn't like capitalism... and they aren't using Deleuze as a handbook...
He was a product of leftist groupthink being pumped out by critical theorists, the kind of people who wondered why the Marxist revolution hadn't arrived yet and blamed traditional institutions for it. But they're absolutely using Deleuze as a toolkit. Hell, it seems like you're one of those quirky poststructuralist right-wingers, so maybe this article might be up your alley: https://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/09/why_the_israeli.html
>And, of course, LGBT isn't a real thing, it's just WHACKY postmodern neomarxist CRAZINESS
This attempt to pigeonhole me as a Peterson fan is getting old. There's nothing Marxist about the insanity happening today. If anything, it's more Kojevian. An endless cycle of managing social wealth by alternating between neoliberal and New Deal policies.
>You totally accept that when some genderspecial says that they are "demi-queer" that their ideas are totally legitimate, they just need to be bullied for them.
They're not legitimate, and they need to feel inner shame for it. Society has lost the art of sublimation and higher purpose.
>It's not that they're sad wrecks abused by Jewish capitalism, no they're just malicious and WHACKY, wanting to act out their desires (implying that they actually desire to get assfucked).
It's a little bit of both. Where do our desires come from? Turns out we're quite malleable, AND our desires are infinite in their capacity to grow.
>So, again: why bother having an opinion on these authors when you've never read anything by them.
Just because my reading is more true to the author's intentions doesn't mean I haven't read them. I actually appreciate your reading of him. It is a great illustration of how even subversive forces can be subverted by redirecting them at themselves. But your constant attempts to put words in my mouth is dishonest and getting old.

>>20556972
>And here comes the flip flop:
No, I think he's a libertine libertarian, 100%.
>You need to make up your mind.
I don't see how what I said is contradictory.
>Deleuze is an Aristotelian, anon.
In what meaningful sense, especially when it comes to ethics?
>The family is an agent of stasis, and arrests revolution (of ANY kind in ANY domain) by channeling desire into cyclical loops that produce stability.
I agree. But Deleuze thought that the forces of desire could overcome capitalism (which still requires *some* kind of order to be in place in order to function). The problem is you're looking back with a presentist mindset, where you see flaws that Deleuze himself wasn't capable of seeing. I actually appreciate your reading of him. It is a great illustration of how even subversive forces can be subverted by redirecting them at themselves.
>Why the fuck would that benefit capitalism?
The point is that it doesn't once you can replace the nuclear family with other institutions.
>and Deleuze didn't like capitalism... and they aren't using Deleuze as a handbook... Hm... It's almost like this has already been said.
He was a product of leftist groupthink being pumped out by critical theorists, the kind of people who wondered why the Marxist revolution hadn't arrived yet and blamed traditional institutions for it. But they're absolutely using Deleuze as a toolkit. Hell, it seems like you're one of those quirky poststructuralist right-wingers, so maybe this article might be up your alley: https://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2006/09/why_the_israeli.html
>And, of course, LGBT isn't a real thing, it's just WHACKY postmodern neomarxist CRAZINESS and we can never actually pin it down so there's no point in trying to do anything, we can just stand by smugly and tut-tut while doing nothing.
This attempt to pigeonhole me as a Peterson fan is getting old. There's nothing Marxist about the insanity happening today. If anything, it's more Kojevian. An endless cycle of managing social wealth by alternating between neoliberal and New Deal policies.
>You totally accept that when some genderspecial says that they are "demi-queer" that their ideas are totally legitimate, they just need to be bullied for them.
They're not legitimate, and they need to feel inner shame for it. Society has lost the art of sublimation and higher purpose.
>It's not that they're sad wrecks abused by Jewish capitalism, no they're just malicious and WHACKY, wanting to act out their desires (implying that they actually desire to get assfucked).
It's a little bit of both. Where do our desires come from? Turns out we're quite malleable, AND our desires are infinite in their capacity to grow.
>So, again: why bother having an opinion on these authors when you've never read anything by them.
Just because my reading is more true to the author's intentions doesn't mean I haven't read them. And your constant attempts to put words in my mouth is getting old.

>>20546437
>muh Trump
>muh Constitution
>muh revolutionary fantasies
ngmi

By siphoning away the Dionysian elements of life, liberalism offers us a slow path towards death, one of amusement, consumption, and mediocrity. But at least it also chastens the flame on the wicker, buying us time to come up with a better, life-affirming political solution in the future. In lieu of religion, this advantage alone makes modern liberalism superior to whatever Schmitt has to offer—the desire to pull back the curtain, expose the gaping chasm in the heart of Western society, and then crash the ship with no survivors. How do we go beyond Schmitt, Burnham, Francis, and company to defeat the plague of modernity? Must we return to the ancients? Divine revelation? If so, how do we bring about a metapolitical change? I'd like to see these questions answered. Those conversations would be far more productive than another dissection of the Cathedral or a nostalgic longing for any of three failed modernist ideologies (capitalism, communism, third positionism... all liberal humanisms when examined at their roots).

3/3