/lit/ - Literature

>>14731945
Begone with ye goblin, get ye gone
Make your feeble despotic tracings elsewhere

a

>>14731912
Have you considered Professor Justin Murphy's "Based Deleuze," online course, e-book and video lecture series?

>>14732888
good shit nice digits

>>14732888
lol, I'd seen that before but had completely forgotten. Is it really a good analysis? I only know him from posting the most deliberately inflammatory yet arguable takes on recent news on twitter and getting cancelled over and over. It's a pretty good bit

Yes
Yes
Yes
Keep reading

>>14733085
I thought the answer might be something like that

>>14733077
Don't forget the memes about his wife having a miscarriage or something. This shit is weird even by D&G's standards.

>>14733101
And his ketamine livestream

>>14731912
Great, now there's another faggot out in the world ready to pontificate about the "Body Without Organs" or "difference!!!1!" probably without ever having cracked open the first critique. Why don't you go ask your crit lit professor

>>14733163
She said she's busy dilating

I said what do you mean! What's dilating?? and she said read Deleuze and find out. But I said that's why I came to her in the first place, because I don't understand deleuze. She started stretching out her inside out dick pussy right infront of me.

>>14733170
>She said she's busy dilating
Kek.

>>14731912
It's just a fancy way of saying language and culture have no structure and nothing is interconnected. "Lines of flight" is a sociological term that means migration vectors. As in immigrants just going everywhere willy nilly. The lines are the paths of human lives. There is no society. Nothing means anything. Eat the Netflix and watch the bugburgers, goy.

>>14731912
>As someone with some experience in graph theory
You're too smart to be reading D&G's pseudointellectual gibberish.

>>14733163
Dude you're gonna be wishing you had organs by the time I'm through with you. You bet there's gonna be a difference, they'll be showing it with before and after pictures in the police report. I'm gonna throttle ya, I really am. I'm going to take grip of you, and I'm going to be pulverizing and decimating your face with such ferociousness and such exuberance, and I will disassemble you with such efficacy that frankly you'll heal in a matter days just from how impressed you'll be

>>14731912
It's been ages since I read them so I'll try to speak plainly rather than using their terminology.

1. Yes, D&G focus on the contingency and the "playfulness" of connections, like with the wasp and the orchid (the orchid mimics the image of the wasp on its petals in order to attract it into its reproductive cycle). As a side note, Deleuze was also big on the idea of relations going all the way down (an object being made of relations and relations between relations, but the objects that those relations are between are also made of relations and so on to infinity, with thresholds causing qualitative changes so that it can actually function as an apparently closed system of regular persistent objects). Pic related is how they illustrate it in ATP. Also the focus on relations means that they are in some sense the place of action more than anything else even if they connect all kinds of things into assemblages (rhythms, images, spaces, bodily flows, words, gestures, etc.). It's like looking at musical notes on the basis of the melody that connects them and gives them their meaning rather than as individual instances. It's also why D&G had a certain fascination for metallic music in the sense of focusing on distortions, as one would work undulations in order to make a sword out of raw material.

2. I'm not entirely sure that you're asking the right questions here. Deleuze iirc quotes Bergson at one point in saying something along the lines of the fact that the microcosm of interiority that mystics refer to is similar to the macrocosm that forms the world in that they are both open rather than closed. It's a bit like Russell's example (although someone might've said it before him) that if you make a list of all the things in the universe, that list must also be included on the list which causes it to become a new list which must also be added to the list and so on to infinity.

Also, for Deleuze space or rather spacializing (or whatever the right word might be) tends to be the result of of other interactions (intensities, temporalizations that is to say rhythms and different processes going on at different speeds interacting with one another).

Iirc Deleuze described a line of flight in an interview as when a boiler or something similar is under pressure and a single beam breaks through in a straight line, like when you see a leak and you try to plug it and then another one pops up and so on. Lines of flight basically boil down to following such a beam of light that ran away erratically and connecting new multiplicities to it and forming new assemblages on your own terms and thus changing the meaning of the old ones and dragging them along in some sense. Hence them quoting the Black Panther activist George Jackson: "I may take flight, but all the while I am fleeing, I will be looking for a weapon".

(continued in next post)

>>14733236
(continued)

3. For what it's worth, D&G preferred the term metaphysics over ontology because ontology tends to indicate preformed identities and their exploration, for example a political ontology typically seeks which political objects are crucial and which are less significant (do masses or great men or institutions move history?). The terms metaphysics and ontology have rather contingent meanings, metaphysics historically just meant "the books that came after The Physics in Aristotle's work". In any case, intensities can be a bit hard to pin down, but they refer to an internal logic of relations that lead to extension. So a table has certain internal relations with their own rhythms, speeds, whatever else that allows it to occupy an external space. Basically if you cut a table in half you will not cut its temperature in half even though you will half its volume if you separate the parts. They are related to qualia of course, but it's difficult to draw a precise line because qualia can mean different things in different philosophical models. Intensities are related to concepts, events and so on in the obvious way of forming an assemblage so that meaning is always material to some extent (in "What is Philosophy?" D&G talk at length about all the things that take place whenever we think or talk, how we are constantly actualizing relations between affects, concepts and past experiences even as we believe ourselves to just rationally explore ideas). But there are more important ways in which intensities are related to phenomena, namely in how they connect to one another beyond being filtered through the representation that forms our experience. For example in masochism where sexual arousal caused by periods of abstinence, advocated in both Sacher-Masoch and in De Sade, but for very different reasons, are connected directly to pain and change its meaning (without pain being confused for pleasure).

Of course intensities are also hard to pin down because they "take place" between thresholds (like the freezing and boiling point of water), hence pic related. God is a lobster because he has to pinch certain thresholds in which life can persist. There's also the double bind that Gregory Bateson talked about ("you must love me freely" - an impossible task) and the geology of morals in the sense of strata and capacities. In order to be moral (although for D&G it's probably a bit of an outdated term) one must connect to an intensity that gives meaning to an assemblage, such as the feeling of kinship. Basically, in typical D&G fashion everything they say means a great deal of things and that's basically the point, that's the rhizomatic approach.

>>14733283
*meant to say "sexual arousal... is connected directly to pain". My sentences tend to get too convoluted when talking about D&G.

In any case, are you familiar with the old copy-pasta of helpful links that was circulating around here a while back? I should post it in case there are people new to this anyway.

>>14733236
>>14733283
Meaningless babble.

>>14733209
Don't overestimate me, that's just standard discrete math stuff. It feels like it's making sense to me so far so maybe I'm just the pseud for the job
>>14733236
>Deleuze described a line of flight in an interview as when a boiler or something similar is under pressure and a single beam breaks through in a straight line, like when you see a leak and you try to plug it and then another one pops up and so on
This is a really helpful analogy, thank you. This is entire post is great and far more than I was expecting
As for the connectedness, that was exactly the understanding I kept arriving at but it seemed like it contradicted the point they made about the finitude of multiplicities. Looking at it as something like the Menger sponge is helpful in finding an analogy for it retaining finite dimension and finite volume while still being fractal

>>14733310
Postmodernism is a mind virus. It hollows out the prefrontal cortex and leaves the victim raving about recursive abstractions with no referent.

>>14733310
What's your favorite philosopher?

>>14733291
And here it is. Sorry if it's out of date, had to pull it from the archive.

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

A longer introduction, but possibly my favorite:
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/

/lit/ isn't dead yet. Thank you quality posters

>>14733320
I don't have one but I've found Bill Nye and Carl Sagan's insight on the subject to be particularly profound and cutting. Whose yours, pleb?

>>14733283
>"you must love me freely"

Kek, I just realized how weird this sounds. I meant to say something along the lines of "you must love me of your own free will", which is an impossible request because you're forced into it (you "must") yet it has to take place as if you're not.

>>14733353
Is this bait?

>>14733353
I prefer Stephen Hawking's idea that philosophy is dead and that philosophy remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?

>>14733319
>and leaves the victim raving about recursive abstractions with no referent.
By the same token then you must be one of those morons who thinks of pure mathematics in a similar way then, right? Before I get
>but pure math can lead to applied uses
Highly abstract philosophies are often incorporated into or developed along side new areas of ethical thought or, in D+G's case, new therapeutic frameworks. Of course this is all contingent on the internal consistency and rigor of the theories themselves, but being highly abstract does not in the slightest imply inconsistency. If you've read and identified their work and determined it to either be flawed or incoherent, by all means let me hear your reasoning, it's early and I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, if you really care about nothing other than practical applicability, then you're essentially only interested in ethics and politics and no one wants to hear your take on anything beyond that

>>14733320
>>14733353
^ Not me.

>>14733361
Yes. By a butthurt obscurantist-lover.

Watch this (abahadabra in anglo subs):

https://mega.nz/#F!hmxg2ADT!BFrsqqEwFHCzIOKnWtJBUA

>>14733413
*alephbeth

>>14733380
Mathematics is clear and unambiguous. Philosophy can be too, if all terminology is rigorously defined, and conclusions follow logically from stated axioms. French charlatans like D&G, by contrast, merely spew out a tissue of unintelligible nonsense and call it a day. They are not philosophers.

>>14733319
At this point I'm more inclined to think that the anons always entering such threads just to dismiss them are the ones suffering from recursive abstractions.

In any case, a problem with any approach can be that it isn't abstract enough rather than too abstract. That is to say it does not incorporate enough from reality when creating its concepts. Ironically, D&G always advocated a pragmatic approach to these things so that you never look at a concept in isolation, but always find its meaning in what it is connected to. This might not sound like much, but you have to consider that every theoretical approach is tempted to fall back on a single dimension of reality in order to explain everything else, some familiar formula (or familial in the case of psychoanalysis). Even Nietzsche, for all his influence on Deleuze, still relied on some more or less fixed identities in order to make his concepts function (for example a certain reliance on the bodily organs in terms of perspectivism/will to power). For D&G it was a matter not just of the body without organs, but also of a much greater freedom of possible meanings to any set of phenomena. A transversality (Guattari's term) that connects all kinds of means and effects (a runner's high has something in common with a cocaine high even if they will never be the same thing).

>>14733404
Okay. So what's your favorite philosopher?

>>14733426
The issue is incompleteness and paradox -- hence analytic autism and continental schizophrenia.

Perhaps philosophy is over. As a grand unified system. This is the pomo condition nay? You scrape for an answer in some system and receive naught but contradictions and circular answers as logic inexorably compels you to. You either become so autistic that you lose sight of everything else but your God, fashioned in the image of your ego which you have gifted to the other in your "egoless" state, or you go crazy like Land or Nietzsche and embrace the chaos of living existentially like a body without organs.

But what's the point? You should get high and eat taco bell. Don't forget to vote for Trump!

>>14733426
First of all, once again, show me. Prove to me that you're qualified to make that dismissal by walking me through some kind of demonstration that it is unintelligible nonsense, that it is not communicating a coherent statement about which questions can be meaningfully answered. If you've just read snippets that were confusing out of context or read other people you trust say that they're pure obscurantists, there are plenty of other threads you can go play in, this one's not for you
Secondly, the question is not about the clarity of communication. While that is a worthwhile quality to critique, it's distinct from the validity of the assertions, or even more importantly whether or not a coherent assertion is being made at all. This does leave a region of ambiguity where a coherent assertion could be obscured to the point that no given reader could decipher it, but for the sake of discussion just demonstrate to me that it can not reasonably be divined

>>14733426
>Mathematics is clear and unambiguous. Philosophy can be too, if all terminology is rigorously defined, and conclusions follow logically from stated axioms.

I dunno about that, philosophy was pretty much always about annoying the other person by nitpicking at their definition until they force you to drink hemlock.

>>14733426
Also, mathematics is absolutely clear and unambiguous---once you've put in the CONSIDERABLE effort to understand it. To anyone unfamiliar with the logic, terminology, syntax, concepts, history, etc, it might as well be complete nonsense. You need to demonstrate that's not the case in your opinion of D&G

>>14733426
>spew out a tissue

>>14733489
Dawkins

>>14733489
Guenon

>>14733489
Megan Boyle

>>14733518
Nonsense. Mathematics is built from the ground up via explicit definitions. There is no ambiguity.

>>14733489
Zizek

>>14733489
Roger Scruton

>>14733489
That's like asking "what's your favorite scientist?". Utterly immaterial. In any case, D&G are not even philosophers.

>>14733527
>>14733541
>>14733546
>>14733548
Not philosophers.

>>14733489
Alain de Botton

>>14733547
wew

>>14733558
Okay. So what are some of your favorite philosophers then?

>>14733547
Dodo brain

>>14733565
Megan Boyle

>>14733565
Philosophy is a collaborative enterprise. If you are 'fangirling' individual contributors, you're not doing it right.

>>14732888
Frick off justin

>>14733558
Not an argument

Top 50 Most-Cited Contemporary Philosophers in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

1. Lewis, David K. (267)
2. Quine, W.V.O. (191)
3. Putnam, Hilary (168)
4. Rawls, John (146)
5. Davidson, Donald (142)
6. Kripke, Saul (139)
7. Williams, Bernard (133)
8. Nozick, Robert (126)
9. Nussbaum, Martha (121)
10. Williamson, Timothy (116)
11. Jackson, Frank (113)
11. Nagel, Thomas (113)
13. Searle, John R. (111)
13. Van Fraassen, Bas (111)
15. Armstrong, David M. (106)
16. Dummett, Michael (104)
16. Fodor, Jerry (104)
16. Harman, Gilbert (104)
19. Chisholm, Roderick (103)
19. Dennett, Daniel C. (103)
21. Chalmers, David J. (101)
21. Strawson, P.F. (101)
23. Stalnaker, Robert (96)
24. Scanlon, T.M. (92)
25. Dworkin, Ronald (91)
26. Pettit, Philip (90)
27. Fine, Kit (89)
27. Sober, Elliott (89)
27. Van Inwagen, Peter (89)
30. Popper, Karl (88)
31. Parfit, Derek (87)
32. Kitcher, Philip (86)
33. Bennett, Jonathan (83)
33. Raz, Joseph (83)
35. Hawthorne, John (82)
35. McDowell, John (82)
37. Geach, P.T. (81)
38. Hintikka, Jaakko (80)
39. Adams, Robert (79)
39. Hacking, Ian (79)
41. Goldman, Alvin I. (78)
42. Goodman, Nelson (76)
43. Mackie, John (74)
43. Plantinga, Alvin (74)
45. Dretske, Fred (73)
45. Smith, Michael (73)
45. Taylor, Charles (73)
48. Alston, William (72)
48. Anscombe, G.E.M. (72)
50. Wright, Crispin (71)

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-295-most-cited-contemporary-authors.html

>>14733585
Okay. What are some of your favorite contributions and who made them?

>>14731912
Are they the biggest pseuds of all time?

>>14733630
> 7. Williams, Bernard (133)
> A. W. Moore, citing Bernard Williams's criteria for a great thinker, ranks Deleuze among the "greatest philosophers".

Checkmate atheists.

my beautiful thread...

>>14733639
shove it up yer ass you dingledonger

>>14733633
Clarification of the nature of the quantum state by the contributors in "The Wave Function: Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics".

>>14733639
it was nice while it lasted

>>14733310
>I don't understand it therefore it doesn't mean anything

>>14733485
Thank you for posting the meme I made.

>>14734099
It's good

>>14734104

guys is this a rhizome
im thinking mayby

>>14733630
Most cited living philosophers with public Google Scholar pages.

1. John Searle (Berkeley) (83,755)
2. Jerry Fodor (Emeritus, Rutgers) (58,051)
3. Daniel Dennett (Tufts) (57,842)
4. Will Kymlicka (Queen's, Canada) (37,191)
5. Hubert Dreyfus (Emeritus, Berkeley) (30,733)
6. Saul Kripke (CUNY Grad Center) (21,892)
7. David Chalmers (NYU & ANU) (20,517)
8. Andy Clark (Edinburgh) (20,444)
9. Paul Thagard (Waterloo) (19,791)
10. Barry Smith (SUNY-Buffalo) (19,133)
11. Jaegwon Kim (Emeritus, Brown) (18,329)
12. Elliott Sober (Wisconsin) (17,122)
13. Philip Pettit (Princeton & ANU) (16,174)
14. Bas van Fraassen (San Francisco State; Emeritus, Princeton) (15,243)
15. Barbara Partee (Emerita, U Mass-Amherst) (14,311)
16. Larry Laudan (Texas) (11,846)
17. Frank Jackson (Emeritus, ANU) (11,465)
18. Ned Block (NYU) (10,972)
19. Timothy Williamson (Oxford) (10,705)
20. Stephen Stich (Rutgers) (10,636)
21. Shaun Gallagher (Memphis) (10,545)
22. John Worrall (LSE) (8,991)
23. Kim Sterelny (ANU & Victoria U) (8,230)
24. Peter Carruthers (Maryland) (7,990)
25. Ernest Sosa (Rutgers) (7,984)
26. Kent Bach (Emeritus, San Francisco State) (7,964)
27. Alva Noe (Berkeley) (7,886)
28. Cristina Bicchieri (Penn) (7,838)
29. Andrew Feenberg (Simon Fraser) (7,693)
30. D.C. Phillips (Emeritus, Stanford) (7,416)
31. Sven Ove Hansson (Royal Institute of Technology) (7,374)
32. J. Baird Callicott (North Texas) (7,306)
33. Brian Skyrms (UC Irvine & Stanford) (7,084)
34. Christine Korsgaard (Harvard) (6,933)
35. Shaun Nichols (Arizona) (6,519)
36. Luciano Floridi (Oxford) (6,438)
37. Sahotra Sarkar (Texas) (5,941)
38. Julian Savulescu (Oxford) (5,937)
39. Robert May (UC Davis) (5,853)
40. Joshua Knobe (Yale) (5,430)
41. Ernest LePore (Rutgers) (5,368)
42. Owen Flanagan (Duke) (5,072)
43. James Woodward (Pitt) (4,972)
44. Gerald Dworkin (Emeritus, UC Davis) (4,846)
45. Steven Best (Texas-El Paso) (4,720)
46. Paul Boghossian (NYU) (4,581)
47. John Dupre (Exeter) (4,558)
48. David Papineau (King's, London & CUNY) (4,551)
49. Jason Stanley (Yale) (4,536)
50. Rohit Parikh (CUNY) (4,529)

>>14733426
>muh rigorous definitions

Read Wittgenstein

Can somebody explain what the War Machine is?

>>14734220
"Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity. A philosophical work consists essentially of elucidations. Philosophy does not result in 'philosophical propositions', but rather in the clarification of propositions. Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries." -- Wittgenstein, Tractatus 4.112

>>14734329
the clarification of thought is not its rigorous definition.

>>14733170
>She started stretching out her inside out dick pussy right infront of me.
The inside out. The outside in. Truly the way of living that isn't fascist.

>>14734325
Honestly it's tougher than it might seem to define. It's connected to nomadism, something like nomads moving in their territory, tied to it (because they're constantly on the move, but do so still within their territory), having a certain understanding of how space is partitioned and thus how property works, someone declaring a plot of land to be his own would either mean something different than the standard sedentary understanding that we have of it traditionally.

At the same time the war machine is a bit more than nomadism. It has to do with the fact that each one of us, no matter how invalid, could become revolutionaries under certain circumstances because it's a matter of how one organizes and behaves in a group rather than who's more capable of fighting. States of course try to capture something of this in their armies, which have their own particular understandings of space, partitioning, nomadism (even if just temporary), group organization and so on.

>>14733170
>she said read Deleuze and find out

Ironically, obsessions with identities of all kinds (including gender) is pretty anti-Deleuzian. His stance is pretty much "chill brah, stop trying to contain and limit things by classifying them".

so, deleuze was a reader of spinoza.
is there an analogy in the notion of a 'becoming-animal' and that of a 'mode', or a change in modality?

>>14733547
>t. read the Wikipedia page for axiom once

>>14733332
wew anon thank you

bump

>>14735406
That's an odd question. To some extent it's like that I guess, but I don't really see the point in comparing the two.

>>14731912
>everything contained "within" a rhizome is constituted solely its very relations and dependent on that context?
more or less. remember that rhizome is a map, which means its merely a way to model the differences.
>What, then, is its relationship to the "plane/grid of consistency"?
a line of flight is the _SHORTEST DISTANCE_ between two concepts, a way to escape the common treaded path. you can conceptualize this as breaking from the assemblage-routine. the plane of conistency is merely a map of resistances between concepts. it shows how freely desire can flow in each point. think elevation and logistical processes.
> Is it the set of all lines of flight between all multiplicities?
no.
>Or is the plane just the spatial medium we might imagine these lines of flight stretching across?
As far as I understand it, the plane is an attempt to make difference (which is noumenal) legible through mapping out its effects.
>what is "intensity" within the context of ATP? [...] (a literally felt "intensity" surrounding a concept, event, whatever)
You are on the right track, but intensity is basically what difference is measured in (?). This doesn't sound exactly right. I personally think of desire as vectors, and vectors have a direction and magnitude (intensity). the differences between the magnitudes are what conjure forth the world. it is not only phenomenological, this intensity, but the ontological basis of the world.

>>14735491
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY&feature=youtu.be&t=3959
not that anon, but also reccing this talk

>>14736884
i think much of deleuze is just a remapping of spinoza's major concepts. i'm interested in finding the 'translations', the analogies, the disanalogies, and the departures.
for instance, i read the 'plane of consistency' as a near equivalent of 'subastance', but as a means of unloading the metaphysical baggage the latter term carries

don't do it