/lit/ - Literature

>>11662294
I have a degree in philosophy and it was a real struggle for me. Do you at least have a background in psychology/psychoanalysis?

>>11662307
I'm a high school dropout

>>11662307
maybe its because i read land before this but i thought it was pretty clear and enjoyable

>>11662311
Start with the Greeks anon; It's not a meme in philosophy. Plato is a good starting point. Deleuze is not. Try to read the first chapter and see if you get anything out it.

>>11662325
dont listen to this guy. starting with anything you dont care about is the biggest meme

>>11662330
he might find that he cares about the greeks when he reads them, though.

>>11662330
It's really not. I mean, I suppose it's a meme if you just want psude credits. Philosophy is a dialectic, everyone is constantly responding to everyone (spare a few outliers like Spinoza, Witty). Anti-Oedipus is an explicit dialogue with Freudian theory. For instance, this line from AO:
>In a word, the opposition of the forces of attraction and repulsion produces an open series of intensive elements, all of them positive, that are never an expression of the final equilibrium of a system, but consist, rather, of an unlimited number of stationary, metastable states through which a subject passes. The Kantian theory according to which intensive quantities fill up, to varying degrees, matter that has no empty spaces, is profoundly schizoid.
If you haven't studied Kant, you obviously miss the reference. You can google this one (although trying to understand Kant through a google search easier said than done), but literally the whole book does this with Freud. They even use the same case study he does (Judge Schreber), and they don't recount it because they expect you to be familiar with it. It's a good read, you can bluster through it and still have a lot of fun – just don't expect to get to the end and "get it".

>>11662330
Try to not to love The Symposium.

>>11662382
I haven't read Kant or any of that but isn't that line basically saying something along the lines of this.
That the process of being driven one way and away from another produces what is called an, "an intensive element" which I take to mean an element of a system which is defined only in relation to itself. It isn't an element such as my foot or the limb I trip over, rather it is the fall I experience after the trip, this intensive element defined only by itself after all the relation producing it, presists.
I could do this better but basically these intensive quanities are quanta that have been sorta tacked on through self reference.

Am I right path? Pretty good for all the sedatives I've taken requardless. I've never read Kant, would I enjoy? I like to do what I just did, it's like a challenge

>>11662588
Not quite. By intensive qualities, Kant would be talking about things like heat. He contrasts this with extensive qualities, things like quantity. You can count how many rocks are on the ground, but you can't count how hot those rocks are. Extensive properties exist in a concrete way, but intensive properties are more illusive, they "fill up" the object in varying degrees, degrees which can only be determined in relation to one another. You don't know something is "hot" if you have never experienced "cool". You do know there are 3 rocks on the ground because of synthetic a priori judgements, but

>>11662632
... that's another can of worms all together. I will always recommend Kant, read the Prolegomena, it's a great read compared to the critiques.

>>11662632
but?

>>11662649
itchy trigger finger, my bad

>>11662294
holy fuck this cover looks disgusting
how did they manage to butcher it this hard
90% of YA covers look better than this

>>11662294
this has got to be bait at this point, another day, another into philosophy with fucking deleuze

deleuze is a final boss you cunts

>>11662294
a whale of a time

>>11662294
OP update us on where you give up

>>11663359
Uh not really

>>11662632
Since you seem to know quite a bit about it, maybe I should ask something. Do you think the actual infinite as Leibniz or Spinoza described it is taken for granted by Deleuze? It seems like it's there, but afaik Deleuze isn't explicit about using it in his own system. He mentions that it's a rather forgotten model, probably due to scientific progress, but his pure difference (relations all the way down so to speak) seems to rely on it. It's a really unintuitive way of thinking, but maybe there is something to it.

>>11662314
Can you really read Land before Deleuze?
I'm tempted.

>>11662294

>never read a philosophy book before

will you dildos stop memeing people into trying this bs?

>>11664271
I feel like this fag probably didn't start with the Greeks, nor would he be willing to accept that being openly homosexual was forbidden and near-impossible to be in the Middle Ages.

>>11664361
Sounds like you have never been inside a monastery

>>11664271
Holy shit.

Sometime I have to datamine English faculty websites at a shitload of universities. There has to be more where that came from.

>>11664395
There was, but I was too digusted to keep that shit on my hard drive.

>>11662294
Its excellent. Reads a bit like Nick Land (I found it via, really you should read this first). Prefer the dismantling of Freudianism to the later bits about fascism.

One thing I would say is you have to kind of relax into this. Don't try and dismantle each term like you would with a German book. Read it through, then go back and attack key terms.

Even simple(ish) stuff like "body without organs" took me a while. (Its a reworking of the university problem).

Does require some background of Freud and Marx (which I am slightly behind on). Read a bit about their lives too, fascinating

>>11662314
Glad someone else had this. Its a very similar style. Performance art really