/lit/ - Literature

why don't you just read one of his books

Here.

>>11690497
nice let me just type out those youtube urls you bloody idiot

>>11690494
cringe

>>11690494
reading? you're on the wrong board

it's just pretentious french bs, don't waste your time

>>11690510
A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

As for the books, start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts. As for the books, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro as well). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/


A decent bibliography:
https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

>>11690488
Capitalism, through its process of production, produces an awesome schizophrenic accumulation of energy or charge, against which it brings all its vast powers of repression to bear, but which nonetheless continues to act as capitalism's limit. For capitalism constantly counteracts, constantly inhibits this inherent tendency while at the same time allowing it free rein; it continually seeks to avoid reaching its limit while simultaneously tending toward that limit. Capitalism institutes or restores all sorts of residual and artificial, imaginary, or symbolic territorialities, thereby attempting, as best it can, to recode, to rechannel persons who have been defined in terms of abstract quantities. Everything returns or recurs: States, nations, families. That is what makes the ideology of capitalism "a motley painting of everything that has ever been believed." The real is not impossible; it is simply more and more artificial. Marx termed the twofold movement of the tendency to a falling rate of profit, and the increase in the absolute quantity of surplus value, the law of the counteracted tendency. As a corollary of this law, there is the twofold movement of decoding or deterritorializing flows on the one hand, and their violent and artificial reterritorialization on the other. The more the capitalist machine deterritorializes, decoding and axiomatizing flows in order to extract surplus value from them, the more its ancillary apparatuses, such as government bureaucracies and the forces of law and order, do their utmost to reterritorialize, absorbing in the process a larger and larger share of surplus value.

>>11690530
dank ty

>>11690510
type the key words from the titles fag

>>11690510
at least you should make the effort of writing the urls you lazy sket

bump

wolf anus

>>11690497
>saving the image instead of the text which is full of links
Yeah, how about you go fuck yourself in the ass, hm?

>>11690530
Okay well. You might cease training your ass.

>>11690891
>how about you go fuck yourself in the ass, hm?
Induring /lit/ discusses Deleuze

>>11690891
>baww you are not spoonfeeding me correctly
neck yourself

>>11690488
>it's not that simple;

>>11690488
Fine cus no one else wants to
>psychoanalysis is wrong because it presupposes a lack
>lack is generated by the subconscious and not innate
>this desire-production is then subjective and can be anything, not just the oedipus complex
>capitalism is merging the desiring production with an indexed reality and the ability for the state to include and own everything in its portion of Earth
>qed, radical self-definition is creating your own desires

>>11691701
This is meaningless jibberish

>he thinks the memers have read a single word of Deleuze

>>11691707
Have you tried understanding it or did you stop when you realized it wasn't a podcast?

>>11691707
Not really, it's just approximately, 50% opposite of reality, 50% irrelevant to reality.

>>11691730
So deleuze? great

>>11691701
There is no "you" so "you" can't create your own desires. How does someone read Deleuze without getting this? Did you just jump right into AO instead of starting with Nietzsche & Philosophy despite all the advice given on here?

>>11690488
Forced meme.
He's postmodernist drivel. Absolute trash.
The French "philosophers" of the 1960s-1990s were all pseudointellectuals.

PASS

>>11691805
Meh tbqh im 2/3 way through AO and just guessed that would be it, but it's probably social strucutres hold implicit choices and categorical thinking and those categories are oppression
#deep

>>11691819
Nabokov style dismissals will never not get old. They mean nothing to me, they're non-entities.

>>11691805
Also, no you? Deleuze cites Hegel repeatedly

>>11690497
>>11690530
I need something on Anti-Oedipus specifically, a summary ideally.

>>11691872
>>11691701
This is AO entirely

>>11691857
He also calls him an imbecile. What's your point? Deleuze was the archetypal anti-Hegelian.

>>11691701
>>11691889
What do you mean by "lack"? As opposed to what? How does psychoanalysis presuppose it?

Will reading a more modern philosopher ever be as satisfying and poetic as Nietzche?

I have a lot of trouble sifting through a bunch of overly-technical, deeply academic stuff---which seems to be a commonplace for a lot of Frenchies.

>>11692011
>inb4 babby's first philosopher
no no. and i'm not just an edgy cunt either.

>>11692000
Nice trips
Plato defined desire as lacking something, and it is based on the axiomatic assumption that there is a lack that pyschoanalysis is formed
Deleuze denies and uses it as spring board to break down capitalism and rhe subconscious. There are no prototypes of the subconscious, merely desires that can be encouraged to be produced. Absolutely capitalism is the infinite delusion of desires being instantly met, he defines this as capitalism

>>11692011
Bataille, Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida are all considered "French Nietzscheans". Yeah Del and Der can get very technical but all four use very beautiful and playful language

>>11692017
>Deleuze denies and uses it as spring board to break down capitalism and rhe subconscious. There are no prototypes of the subconscious, merely desires that can be encouraged to be produced. Absolutely capitalism is the infinite delusion of desires being instantly met, he defines this as capitalism

this all makes good sense and is encouraging me to check this mofo out.

though, i'm not sure how Plato's definition of desire leads to the whole "there is a lack that psychoanalysis is formed". care to explain?

>>11692017
T b h this doesn't seem all that different to Foucault and Derrida, i.e. radical anti-naturalism and pro-self creation, but Deleuze links it to capitalism. Why?

>>11692017
he defines schizophrenia as capitalism's absolute exterior limit*

>>11692022
kewl, i'll start with bataille and deleuze. i have only gotten kind of annoyed with Derrida so far---seems like a self-loathing philosopher who would have been better suited as an artist/playwright/filmmaker.

>I encourage people to see dreams as dreams (a derrida thought, reduced)
I can see how this is Nietzchean sentiment
>but it makes me sort of frustrated when he then speaks in a distinctly academic voice with heavy citations: nothing about that seems to be living out his philosophy.

You can tell Nietzche's romanticism and expressiveness through his "exploration" of philosophy, which makes him more credible as it affirms the points he is trying to make.

>given i've never read a full derrida work

>>11690534
>the effortposting goes completely unnoticed

have a (you) anon

>>11692055
Nah m8 Derrida isn't really like that at all. Sure put him off to later if you like, no rush. And getting used to the difficult language in Deleuze will be good practice. Derrida becomes a lot easier once you figure what it is he's actually doing, and you realise that all his texts pretty much repeat the same process. The thing of his you should read is Structure Sign & Play, which is (relatively) easy and an excellent intro to his thought.

>>11690488
in a nutshell:
*throws fedora like a boomerage*
adios!

>>11692046
I haven't read Derrida, but capitalism is linked to the terminus of society in Deleuze, and my conjecture would be that he finds it necessary to show that minds are substructures in the superstructure in the flows and machines in society, and Foucault views minds as the resultants of their substances and not as part, but I could be hand waving.

>>11692034
Basically, it's the existential urge. You need food, right? So the idea is how is the mind set up to achieve that aim.
Deleuze flips it, geniusely to accompany why people can feel wealthy and dissatisfied, and asks: You're telling yourself you're hungry to get food, right? The end question is Borges Aleph, "You tell yourself you want everything at once and to acknowledge that you've had everything, right?" The acknowledgement is transcription and important to Deleuze

>>11690534
Read this with my explainations treated as ontological, it'll help a lot more than my explainations
>>11692071

>>11692065
righty-o, i'll do some reading

>>11692071
>Deleuze flips it, geniusely to accompany why people can feel wealthy and dissatisfied

How does this flip the structure and action of desire as negative relation and drive? Nothing so far seems to contradict it other than you saying so. Surely Deleuze has an actual genius reason as to why desire isn't founded on a lack.

>>11692244
Do you lack a smartphone?

>>11692244
That anon is a bit off. He's right that D&G point out that from Plato to Lacan, desire is always understood as lack and temporary satisfaction. But for Lacan, whom D&G eventually attack on this point (not in AO, they were kissing his ass there to get him on their side). For Lacan there is a fundamental non-identifiable lack in desire. For example, no matter how many women you have sex with, no matter how many material objects you acquire, desire will never be exhausted. For Lacan this is because empirical objects are not the object a (called object small a, written just a) cause of desire which is unconscious and unidentifiable. Deleuze disagrees because he sees desire as inherently productive in its plurality of assemblages and multitude of syntheses (constantly putting stuff together, even stuff that normally doesn't go together like the content of dreams). So production and excess, but without lack. A factory rather than a theater (in the sense that for Lacan the unconscious is the theater where the inexhaustible desire is constantly displaced, the parents playing a key role).

Read the Body without Organs chapter of A Thousand Plateaus, you can find it online.

>>11692071
>You're telling yourself you're hungry to get food, right?
No, I actually am hungry. Hunger isn't some self-delusion.

>>11692315
No, but you lack a brain. It's not about a specific desire, but a desire as such.

For example, take Hegel's concept of desire as consciousness. It's not an abstract "lack" that constitutes desire, so lacking does not generate desire. Desire, however, *is a lack* that exists as consciousness which lacks an object it posits outside of itself. Desire is the entire relation of what lacks, what is lacked, and the process of attempting to overcome that lack in satisfaction. Desire as such posits the entire relation of desire, constituting itself and its object of desire in one moment, which is why when desire consumes its objects and attains satisfaction it only regenerates itself by positing another object of desire.

How does Deleuze change desire such that we can conceive it without its negative aspects?

>>11692402
Real and self-production are both possibly true

>>11692441
>not anon-posting
t. hates /lit/ and its culture

Lack is produced in an absence from ourself, which creates a vacancy in self that has its own being. You do not need a lack to produce desire. What is desired in capitalism is the symbolism of the thing, this signifier is then desired, but its content is always void, so desire becomes a language so to speak, a perspective enumeration that writes itself in our machine.

Btw, to clarify how desire can be independent of lack; when having sex you desire the next thrust of sex even mid-thrust, it perpetuates itself in continuinity of a stasis of invisible movement

My take on the difference between the notions of desire in Deleuze and Lacan is this: for Lacan desire is the effect of the lack. Lack is often understood in some mythical pseudo-east philosophy sense, but Lacan understands lack as the subject being in-complete. No matter how accurately you achieve what you want to be or etc. there is always ontological uncertainty in how you are perceived or how see yourself. This is what propels the human being to live, to move in the world. If we would be complete, Lacan says, we would be something like plant, stationary. So the lacanian intepretations always try to find some uncertain element which leads to the subjects identity properly speaking. For example, commenting on Freud's paper on his patient Dora, Lacan says that Dora trough all he symptoms and slips revealed how she was confused with her own feminine identity and how identifying with certain people helped her so solve this mystery. So the desire is perpetual and always linked with subjects position relating to the symbolic order (how and do other perceive me as woman/male/this symblic position or that). Symptoms are the product of symbolic plane clashing with human animal (at the very begining of human's life the start point of the symbolic adaptation is growing up in a family).

For Deleuze on the other hand, desire isn't linked strictly with the subject, he is more interested in the structures which go beyond the subject or even certain narrow symbolic constructions (e.g. family and it's oedipal effect on the little human). In this way there is no room to talk about subject in Deleuze's work as someone above noticed. Deleuze is interested in interconnectedness of a group of different elements. Work of art is a good example. You have one brush here one element there, they individually mean nothing. But when they are together in certain positions, they create an effect, an intensity. What Deleuze calls desire is the very interworking of different elements and how they connect to other assambalges and etc. In this way Deleuze and Guatari fights psychoanalysis - "why stop at the family construction when trying to explain the behaviour or psyche of certain people? why not go on and see what kind of structures family belongs?" and so on. This way they look at how certain phenomena are linked with other social/political/historical contexts and their link.
So in conclusion: desire for lacanian/feudian psychoanalysis is a function of lack in the human being and for deleuze/guattari desire is the effect of different elements.

>>11692563
>plants
>stationary
nigga plant roots can fucking destroy concrete. Just because plants stay within the same area doesn't mean they are stationary. They move to better catch sunlight and will grow in the direction of water.

>>11692614
bad analogy, my bad

>>11692631
I'm just being a pedantic faggot, don't worry about it.

>>11690528
This is true however his abécédaire is fun to watch before you sleep.

>>11692563
The more I get into these messy back-and-forths about the nature of desire the more I start to agree with Foucault and Derrida that psychoanalysis if just more effort than it's worth.

>>11692670
Psychoanalysis has countless interesting concepts and takes on things, which is why it had such an effect on intellectuals. If you keep your distance from it as you study it, it can be quite useful. The problem is, as D&G themselves pointed out in passing, is that most psychoanalysts aren't subtle enough to appreciate the indirect, transversal, way in which the problems posed have to be approached. In fact, Freud himself was often too blunt about it, hence why phallus now means something very different than the male genital organ's presence or absence as it initially meant for Freud. A king's crown is his phallus, as Zizek says. It's funny to hear Peterson speak about phallogocentrism as an attack on penis possessing rational men when in fact it means something quite different (obscured by the arbitrary use of the words, to be fair).

>>11692670
Psychoanalysis is a mess, the concepts it offers are counter-intuitive and at first glance not worth unpacking. But if you really want to understand cultural/social phenomena without falling back into some pseudo-philosophical or biological common sense then psychoanalysis is a must. And the concept of desire is the foundation of D/G and Lacan's philosophy. It was some kind of fashion in french scene. It is kind of reviving nowaday, but I think it will pass soon, when it will become every day jargon.

>>11692701
>>11692712
Ofc, ofc, but when you get into these nitty-gritty technical problems about, say, the nature of desire, they strike me as formally similar to any classic metaphysical problem, i.e. pretty much speculation, trying to eff the ineffable, reach outside history/the text. I feel like deconstruction can give you same insights as psychoanalysis without getting bogged down in the quasi-scientific jargon.

>>11692758
>nitty-gritty technical problems
they sound like that only when you try to discuss them with someone who hasn't read anything from psychoanalysis

>they strike me as formally similar to any classic metaphysical problem
it kind of is, at least for lacan, he arrives at the concept of desire or object petit a trough pure conceptual deductions. For lacan there is no psychoanalysis without concepts. Only it is not some kind of beyond, -meta or something, but something that is lacking in the very core of being. Not meta-ontological, but pre-ontological (what he says in seminar XI).

>trying to eff the ineffable
thats what lacan does, only deconstructionists make poetry out of it. there is no deconstructionist text without this faux-poetic attempt at setting up atmosphere of "we cannot say it all, we can only circulate around the Other of the text blabla"

>>11692758
that’s not technical there is no technique involved pseud
>>11692817
psychoanalysis isn’t real outside of the minds of psychoanalysts and the people they indoctrinate

>>11692817
>Not meta-ontological, but pre-ontological
That still sets off alarm bells for me t b h
>there is no deconstructionist text without this faux-poetic attempt at setting up atmosphere of "we cannot say it all, we can only circulate around the Other of the text blabla"
Yeah but at least deconstructionists know what they're saying doesn't make (")sense(")

>>11692869
>Yeah but at least deconstructionists know what they're saying doesn't make (")sense(")
i think this is a meme and a banal picture of deconstructionism. it is not about showing how you cannot arrive at one meaning, but, on the contrary, showing at what kind of meanings you inevitably get caught up in. trying to sense what kind of statement generate meaning, where this meaning comes from, what kind position has to be sublimated and so on. and not "everything makes no sense so at least we will masturbate while producing academic literature".

>>11692906
No I meant regarding your statement about how they try to eff the ineffable that many of their conclusion are explicitly paradoxical and nonsensical, as opposed to e.g. Lacan who gives the impression that he has actually uncovered some deep truth

bump

>become a homeless fighting robot

dumb question here: which college course would i have to take to learn all this stuff? i have a few free electives and was thinking of taking philosophy or lit courses

>>11694074
its only taught at the graduate level and in upper division courses, you almost certainly would never be discussing this. Deleuze and most of the continentals are frowned upon in uni because they're bat shit crazy pedophile schizophrenics who contributed basically nothing to their field (which is a dead and useless field for parasites and stupid people).

>>11694086
thanks for the reply

>>11692959
>Lacan who gives the impression that he has actually uncovered some deep truth

>>11694074
>>11694086
>>11694132
Kek'd
Personally, I'd recommend reading them and discussing them here. The average poster on this board would embarrass the average graduate student in a discussion of the text, and we don't have professors.
Additionally, continentals are not inaccurate but they depend on the assumption that, as language move and thoughts move along, such a shape can be drawn with those movements that more closely resemble reality than just staistics etc. This is a big jump, but the firmament of thought is the self-same matter that contains the formula for gravity that moves the sun, the movement of the wind, and the heat of the sun. We are matter that contains information, continental philosophy is based on that. That being said, dear god read contemporary research about the philosophical topics you read

>>11692906
oh bollocks. there isn't "so much more to it". it's a cheap parlour trick. who do you honestly think you're fooling any more except the most gullible and naive (vulnerable) young students?

>>11690534
>For capitalism constantly counteracts, constantly inhibits this inherent tendency while at the same time allowing it free rein

stopped reading

>>11694239
ok

>>11694086
t. Codemonkey

>become a schizophrenic root vegetable

>>11692444
Could explain why there are so many fat people in the West compared to previously

>>11694132
yup, i still reccomend taking phil as electives, get logic and basic epistemology under your belt. they’re both gay nonsenze but they’ll keep you sharp and capable of defeating insipid shit pushed by media, friends, bosses/corporate culture, gf’s etc.
>>11694185
this is what i mean by “for stupid people”
>>11694647
akshually training to be a lawyer bitch

>>11692477
>You do not need a lack to produce desire
Desire is the lack itself, so I agree. As said, lack is not what causes desire, for desire constitutes its own lack. You don't first lack and then desire, you lack because you desire and desire because you lack.

>when having sex you desire the next thrust of sex even mid-thrust, it perpetuates itself in continuinity of a stasis of invisible movement

That's just considering the desire in abstraction from its actual end: you keep desiring to orgasm and that's the drive of every thrust. The satisfaction of sex is the orgasm for which every thrust is a buildup moment of a continuous negation of rising pleasure up to total consummation after which you don't desire to keep fucking because the lack has finally been negated and desire nullified in its own satisfaction.

I just don't see how you get out of it by saying something like "desire in capitalism is for the symbolism of the thing" as if this changes the negative nature at all. Yes, desire has impossible and nonexistent objects which it can and does desire, this changes nothing about the nature of desire as negative. That desire may desire something empty which ultimately it knows not what is also something that really does happen to people, and it still does not change the negative nature of desire.

>>11690497
> videos
> literature board
Why This Must Be Bait, A Treatise.pdf

I am absolutely sure I want to waste ten minutes on someone struggling to recite me four paragraphs of text.

>>11695189
I don't know if you noticed, but that pasta has instructions for book reading as well. Granted, it's not a proper reading guide, but its a start.

>>11694086
Wtf? What do you generally study in undergrad then?

>>11695316
That anon is probably from the United States of Analytic Philosophy.

In continental Europe we studied continental philosophy (Ancient, Medieval, Early Modern, Modern, Postmodern) as well as some Analytic Philosophy and each student had the option to study further whichever area he was interested in. A few went with Analytic, others with Phenomenology or even Psychoanalysis, others got into translating old texts and studied Medieval and Ancient philosophy. Some connected their studies with literature. We even studied a bit of Dante (especially his philosophical influences). Deleuze was studied along Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard and others in several courses. Ironically, Nietzsche was studied the least because he was already very popular and nobody bothered to teach him at length. Oh, and Kant was studied out the ass.

>>11695307
>I don't know if you noticed
"NO!"

>>11694910
This and sugar. Also why I want a washing machine, dishwasher, fridge, freezer, microwave etc.
>>11694919
Sighed
>>11695065
Negativity requires passivity, a response, whereas Deleuze's point is that we are an active maker of our desire

>>11690534
Was this dude a schizophrenic?

>>11695595
No. Check out the Amazon reviews for Anti-Oedipus and read the one by the guy that specialized in clinical psychology

>>11695618
link it

>>11695065
>AW virulently pontificating on the negativity of desire

>>11690534
so basically Marxism but gayer, thanks for the warning

>>11695672
>>11695672

How this is news for any one is beyond me...

I figured the Deleuze-shilling was some sort of leftist activism (for real), and how it seems to have caught on by alot of people here has sincerely confused me a a little. Since i thought people were actually well read here..

Guess retards will continue to be retards.

>>11692017
>capitalism is the infinite delusion of desires being instantly met, he defines this as capitalism

HAHAHAHAHAH

>>11695746
Clean your room Peterson

>>11695771
The limit of capitalism, I corrected the typo you illiterate

>>11695641
>>11695595
non-anon posters can drink bleach, fuck you and your reputation, stop eating /lit/'s culture for your fragile gayboy anemic pseud post-modern ego, you fucking infertile theater boys, go listen to podcasts

>>11695634
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/cr/0143105825/ref=mw_dp_cr
Surface level, but I enjoyed the take nonetheless

>>11690521
BASED!

>>11696378
That's pretty stupid though.

> Deleuze didn't work with schizos therefore he can't express his opinion (even though he worked with Guattari who was a practicing psychoanalyst who did work with schizos)
> Quoting others about schizophrenia isn't enough.
> Too much emphasis on Oedipus on a book called Anti-Oedipus

>>11690488
>I eat to shit and shit is eaten by the earth, and so the earthshit eaten is I as a process whereby shitiness as an abstraction is given to mean I ate myself.

>>11690534
Yeah, capitalism allows this, but the driver is a lack of ideology. Marxists are only against capitalism because it is truly secular, and yet negates their own ideology. Because capitalistic understanding reveals the essential evolutionary mechanics of limited resources and consumption, it is necessary for any ideology to utilize the mechanisms. Marxism, which is really just a post-Hegelian atheism, is in reality opposed most vehemently against Catholicism, but cannot make claims to altruism if it attacks the faith directly. This leaves marxists to attack personal responsibility (as individual action, called capitalism) and the institution (via a circuitous attack on Ideology in general). In short, Deleuze is another Copernican shadow, trying to create a functioning model of life as lived without God as the central organizing principle.

bump

bump

>>11691707
That's perhaps because the parlance follows not Freud, but Lacan on Freud.
>dif anon

Is there a good flowchart for Deleuze yet?