/lit/ - Literature

>>15783089
>Deleuze
Anyone who reads those garbage texts of his with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity, by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial.

>>15245042
Yes. Nick Land is just Kaczynski made incomprehensible via Deluezian obscarantism, and Moldbug is watered down accelerationism. All are incorrect about techno-determined history -- history is the record of the will of the elite, and that will is determined by a gene-environment interaction. A changing environment changes the will but so does a changed gene pool. All three practically ignore the existence of genetics, except to fearmonger about gene modification, which has the potential to create utopia.

>>14878893
The fact that you don't know proves you have to go back
>>>/reddit/
>>14878918
Yes. I read one paragraph of 1000 plateaus and realized that there is nothing of value in the work nor will I ever read it. I am very well read in philosophy, especially the works of Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger. Delueze is not a philosopher, he is a meaningless phrase generator that can't write and can't think. In the future people will look back on him and Derrida as the epitome of postmodern "philosophy" and they will snicker and wonder how our academies degenerated so much. Meanwhile they will study now-unknown blogs as exemplars of the philosopher of our time.

Which philosophy does the 21st century most embody?