/lit/ - Literature

>>17526876
Damn, Spinoza got excommunicated at age 23. I'm 30 and I haven't done shit with my life.

>>9627149
Well Nietzsche tried to think interpretation and evaluation outside of subjectivity in that they are a part of typology. Everything is subjective, as they say, but those subject-object combinations are facts (certain people tend to think a certain way). Basically in each "individual" a certain drive comes to dominate and use the intellect as a tool, endlessly producing theories and images (of course things are more complicated than this, it's a play and conflict of drives even if one dominates). Nietzsche thinks this in terms of forces (the 19th century bit being that it was fashionable at the time, maybe it still is, to think of nature as being fundamentally made of forces while objects were secondary). So forces make up a human body (obviously with matter that they influence), human bodies make up an institution created on the basis of dominant forces and which is then influenced by said forces and all this composes a higher force (society, community, etc.) so you get pre-individual (ontological) force > institutional force > political force. This basically gets us to micropolitics, that is to say that in fact politics was already present as pre-individual.

Nonetheless, while this approach is very fruitful, as all of poststructuralist French philosophy shows, there is a bit of a gap in my opinion: the natural force cannot be thought of as the origin of a drive on its own. For example, what if the drive is merely an after effect of various interactions of fundamental forces rather than being representative of a particular force as such? I'm mostly interested in this because Deleuze tries to solve such problems, especially in Difference & Repetition which is a very difficult work. He tries to paint the ontological picture of various pre-individual singularities that all have their own becoming (they differentiate themselves from others and change constantly without losing their eternal essence). While I like how this explains the psyche, it nonetheless moves from, to put it naively, the becoming of various brain regions (of course it's more complicated than that, but this is just to illustrate) to fundamental natural forces, a sort of platonic Idea without precise representation (not "Justice", "Truth", etc. but something more fundamental).

Hopefully you understand what I'm getting at. I tried to be as clear as possible, but most of the time authors fail to illustrate their entire plane of immanence (every concept they know and connect) which is a big part of why communication tends to fail.