/lit/ - Literature

bump

>Parnet says, let’s move on to W, and Deleuze says, there’s nothing in W, and Parnet says, yes, there’s Wittgenstein. She knows he’s nothing for Deleuze, but it’s only a word. Deleuze says, he doesn’t like to talk about that… It’s a philosophical catastrophe. It’s the very type of a “school”, a regression of all philosophy, a massive regression. Deleuze considers the Wittgenstein matter to be quite sad. They imposed <ils ont foutu> a system of terror in which, under the pretext of doing something new, it’s poverty introduced as grandeur. Deleuze says there isn’t a word to express this kind of danger, but that this danger is one that recurs, that it’s not the first time that it has arrived. It’s serious especially since he considers the Wittgensteinians to be nasty <méchants> and destructive <ils cassent tout>. So in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy, Deleuze says, they are assassins of philosophy, and because of that, one must remain very vigilant. <Deleuze laughs>

Was the big D right about Witty?

>tfw if deleuze was alive today he would have wrote about how tao lin transversed the BwO
makes you think

>Art is not communicative, art is not reflexive. Art, science, philosophy are neither contemplative, neither reflexive, nor communicative. They are creative, that's all.

is he right?

so today in my philosophy class my prof made a mentioning of deleuze saying god forbid that anyone has read him then started ripping on him saying shir like how english and orher humanities departments take thinkers that the philosophy department has disregarded then some more shit. also she is a woman and studies hegel. what do you make of this? she was ripping on our lad

>Parnet says, let’s move on to W, and Deleuze says, there’s nothing in W, and Parnet says, yes, there’s Wittgenstein. She knows he’s nothing for Deleuze, but it’s only a word. Deleuze says, he doesn’t like to talk about that… It’s a philosophical catastrophe. It’s the very type of a “school”, a regression of all philosophy, a massive regression. Deleuze considers the Wittgenstein matter to be quite sad. They imposed <ils ont foutu> a system of terror in which, under the pretext of doing something new, it’s poverty introduced as grandeur. Deleuze says there isn’t a word to express this kind of danger, but that this danger is one that recurs, that it’s not the first time that it has arrived. It’s serious especially since he considers the Wittgensteinians to be nasty <méchants> and destructive <ils cassent tout>. So in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy, Deleuze says, they are assassins of philosophy, and because of that, one must remain very vigilant. <Deleuze laughs>
witty btfo by the big D

>Parnet says, let’s move on to W, and Deleuze says, there’s nothing in W, and Parnet says, yes, there’s Wittgenstein. She knows he’s nothing for Deleuze, but it’s only a word. Deleuze says, he doesn’t like to talk about that… It’s a philosophical catastrophe. It’s the very type of a “school”, a regression of all philosophy, a massive regression. Deleuze considers the Wittgenstein matter to be quite sad. They imposed <ils ont foutu> a system of terror in which, under the pretext of doing something new, it’s poverty introduced as grandeur. Deleuze says there isn’t a word to express this kind of danger, but that this danger is one that recurs, that it’s not the first time that it has arrived. It’s serious especially since he considers the Wittgensteinians to be nasty <méchants> and destructive <ils cassent tout>. So in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy, Deleuze says, they are assassins of philosophy, and because of that, one must remain very vigilant. <Deleuze laughs>
is deleuze right?

>His personal philosophical genealogy: the Stoics, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, a certain Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson
>He picks up the energy of your epoch, as must be done for each epoch.
>Loves and thinks the cinema, the American novel, singular popular movements, Bacon’s painting
>The peasant from the Black Forest does not impress him. He is a manof the imperial metropolis, a man of the bestial power of capitalism, a man of invisible subtractions, also, and of the finest of contemporary capillarities.
>Being for him is not at at all a question, and moreover he doas not in any way consecrate philosophy toquestioning, any more than todebates
>Parnet says, let’s move on to W, and Deleuze says, there’s nothing in W, and Parnet says, yes, there’s Wittgenstein. She knows he’s nothing for Deleuze, but it’s only a word. Deleuze says, he doesn’t like to talk about that… It’s a philosophical catastrophe. It’s the very type of a “school”, a regression of all philosophy, a massive regression. Deleuze considers the Wittgenstein matter to be quite sad. They imposed <ils ont foutu> a system of terror in which, under the pretext of doing something new, it’s poverty introduced as grandeur. Deleuze says there isn’t a word to express this kind of danger, but that this danger is one that recurs, that it’s not the first time that it has arrived. It’s serious especially since he considers the Wittgensteinians to be nasty <méchants> and destructive <ils cassent tout>. So in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy, Deleuze says, they are assassins of philosophy, and because of that, one must remain very vigilant. <Deleuze laughs>
>Hostile towards Plato, Hegel, amd Freud
Is Deleuze the most based twentieth century philosopher?

Why should anyone read Deleuze why is he worth reading?

i understand deleuze's beef with freud but what is his beef with kant and hegel? he called kant his enemy.

Had their lives taken a different path, I believe that their names would be there with Edison, Einstein, and Hawking. Like Saccheri before them, they had found something abhorrent to the nature of straight lines. They studied it. The logical equations they derived are part of their work.

Do you think Deleuze and Guattari ever did the deed?

Why didn't Deleuze like Heidegger and Wittgenstein?

who is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and why is it deleuze?

Is deleuze the greatest philosopher of the 20th century? also what is your favorite work by him?

>Anglo-American lit is superior to French lit because French lit is stuck to hierarchies
agree or disagree with him?

>Yet, what remains of souls once they are no longer attached to particularities, what keeps them from melting into a whole? What remains is precisely their ‘originality’, that is, a sound that each oneproduces, like a ritornello at the limit of language, but that it produces only when it takes to the open road (or to the open sea) with its body, when it leads its life without seeking salvation, when it embarks upon its incarnate voyage, without any particular aim, and then encounters other voyagers, whom it recognizes by their sound.
This sounds and all but what do real deleizians look like from the outside? Is it possible to effectively use his philosophy?

>My favorite philosopher is Deleuze
What type of person do you imagine?