/lit/ - Literature

If you are referring to C&S it is mad fun and hilarious to read. D&G were probably drunk and laughing their asses off writing it.
People like Derrida just have sticks up their asses though.

If you are referring to C&S it is mad fun and hilarious to read. D&G were probably drunk and laughing their asses off writing it.
People like Derrida just have sticks up their asses though. He took up too much from the insectoid Germans.

To filter plebs, why else

>>15337878
Sometimes. Sometimes it is important since a lot of concepts are very particular.

To trick laymen into thinking their ideas are original.

>>15337878
Overcompensation due to inferiority complex/penis envy of science (it’s successful brother)

>obfuscate
>deleuze and guatarri
huh? It's crystal clear to me. Are you not capable of thinking abstractly? Oedipus is a set of axioms about the unconscious mind, but they're really just a set of myths enforced by psychoanalysis. Same thing as Capitalism's axioms about social codes and production. Not that hard.

>>15337878
>c&s: topology larping

>>15337878
That's mostly just French philosophers

>>15337878
They are midwits who want to seem smart like Analytics but since they never had an original thought in their life. It's why they do critical theory because they can't make original ideas they can't only criticize things. They don't have any actual applicable ideas or plans. Ask them and they will tell you that themselves. They rewrite ideas which have been written already in obscure texts that seem smart to the cameras and the low iq public who can't decipher it but since it seems smart they take them on their word. These people become popular not because people understand them and think these are worthwhile works but because it becomes a social thing where people can't say they don't like them because then they seem like they are dumb so everyone is just saying they love Deleuze Derrida and thinkers like them not because they actually understand the works and think they are works of great substance but because if they don't then they lose social credibility and any chance at a wife or career. Searle said it best when quoting Foucault "Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot' (hence "terroriste")" If you say it's without substance they say you just don't understand it but no one will ever will understand it. That's the whole point. If I invent a language but never tell you what it means than you could never actually critique what it is I write but even after I post this the acolytes will come out and say "it does have substance and i know it but i can't tell you it but trust me it's there and you're a dumb fuck for not getting it even though I can't tell you what it is. The best indicator for me is the fact that they have no applicable ideas and they tell you they don't. That right tells you everything you need to know. If you have a super obscure political belief system but you can't tell me any possible way AT ALL that this could come to fruition then you have nothing at all. A socialist could tell you how to bring about socialism either by reform or revolution and a reformist could go down the list of the policies that could be passed by congress to bring about change but these philosopher retards have nothing of the sort. That tells you everything you need to know there.

>>15338090
>Anime reaction pic
drink bat piss and choke on it

>>15338117
what are you gonna do other than seethe like a little toddler?

>>15337956
>mad fun and hilarious to read

>>15337878
It's a problem with academia. It's not really the philosopher's issue, but it is their intention. Academics have to make sure they describe their ideas incredibly precisely, and this often makes the texts unclear. This is because one word could leave some ambiguity. Any non autist would see what they're meaning to say in these situations, but researchers and the like tend to latch on to places like this to draw out problems and shirt all over the ideas. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's just bored academics with no direction in life. Either way, no text is really that hard to understand with a dictionary, plus you will find they all tend to use the same words, and you'll learn the weird jargon too eventually. It's not that hard, just different.

>>15338116
>Analytics
>original thought
>literally a system of tautologies
Uh-oh.

>>15338116
>typing up all this crap to cope for your brainletism

>>15338166
I've been through this before with Analytics you can go through actual ideas like with Metaethics you can go over things like Animal Ethics and with Politics you can go actual things like actual policy to create the society for your ideas. There is not a single thing like that you can bring up for your retarded circlejerk clan.

>>15338159
this.

>>15338181
So then answer the questions in the post.

nooooooooooo you can't do metaphysics that rearranges my conception of the unconscious noooooo!!! It's too heckin obscurerino where's the autistic symbols????

>>15338193
>Ted was tossed in jail while accomplishing nothing and his fanboys circlejerk on an anime porn website, and also do nothing
Just another part of the system's trick. Why aren't you doing an anti-tech revolution right now if he isn't just a psy-op to pacify you?

>>15338201
here, i'll bite. Some chucklefuck wrote a thesis on Deleuze and Guatarri's work and then went on to start a billion dollar business

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5730762/buzzfeeds-founder-used-to-write-marxist-theory-and-it-explains

>critical theory says that in the future people will need to have their identities manufactured for them by media
>that's exactly what happened

>>15338276
Woah it's not like Bernays was saying that in 1928 or anything

To give an honest answer, some level of "obfuscation" is necessary in philosophy in order to distinguish the concepts it's talking about from how they are understood in an everyday framework. If I make the simple statement, "A mind can represent objects to itself," do you actually know what I am trying to communicate? Sure, everyone might have their own private understanding of it that makes it seem perfectly obvious, but the whole point of philosophy is to try and make private understandings explicable and analyzable in a public setting. So, in order for the above statement to really mean anything, what do I mean by "mind"? The nous of Greeks? A universal consciousness that individuals partially reflect? A point-of-view that expands itself through encounters with an Outside? The emergent self-regulation of a nervous system? And so on. To explain any one of these viewpoints in detail is to rewrite the sentence in a more convoluted way. "The occipital lobe, upon receiving sensory input from the optical nerve, works in tandem with the amygdala to assign an objective form to the stimuli so that it may enter the conscious understanding of the prefrontal cortex AS a coherent object capable of being analyzed." I doubt you'd call that obfuscation since it's easy to imagine things in a physical way, but the fact of the matter is that the second sentence is an obscuring of the first, deliberately making the first sentence more difficult as it reframes it in a way where vague terms like "mind" and "objects" receive a specific context.

If anything, I think it's more dishonest to write philosophy in a simple style because what it discusses is so fundamental and easy to overlook. I do believe philosophical ideas are simple in and of themselves, but it takes a real effort to undo prior understandings and elaborate the consequences of these ideas, hence a more convoluted style.

(Please ignore any mistakes in my understanding of neurology)

>>15337878
anyone else want more diagramms or pictures cause texts sucks in showing visual relations??

>>15338319
I prefer to bring it to even simpler terms so we can see how devoid of substance it is. Try that again but by doing it with political philosophy instead of something that is already complicated for people.

>>15338319
That is the opposite of obfuscation though. Everybody agrees that it's a lot easier to understand what Kant is saying than Hegel. This is either because Hegel is just way more complex, or subtle, or what have you, or because Hegel is not writing in a clear manner.

>>15338348
So anything that can be explained in simple terms is devoid of substance? Complexity is in itself a virtue? Not really sure what point you're trying to make.

>>15338292
no actually marx said it in 1844 when he described capitalism's alienating and totalizing nature and how money determines who is considered right by the public

>>15338391
Marx was an analytic

>>15338389
No I'm saying try to do what you did there but with political philosophy. Obfuscate political philosophy in a way that makes sense.

>>15338401
he wrote speculative philosophy.

>>15338421
Every thing he said was wrote in simple language and could be understood by everyone.

>>15337878
You are just stupid.

>>15338376
Yes, I think that Kant is inherently easier to understand than Hegel. While Kant proposed conditions for understanding and categories of thought that were immutable, Hegel's whole approach is that concepts fundamentally undermine themselves into new concepts. Thus, while reading a book of philosophy, the mind constantly transforms itself, making a stable understanding undesirable and impossible until certain historical conditions have been met. Hegel's philosophy moves against itself creating self-referential vortexes, while Kant's is more of an axiomatic structure that he gradually elaborates. The is a self-consistent reason for Hegel's difficulty and Kant's relative ease.

>>15338412
I think since the political is inherently a matter of being a "public" understanding, the situation is flipped. It's in a politician's interest to obfuscate through simple statements as if they had no philosophical content. So you could say something like, "In a democracy the citizen has the right to vote," but then "citizen" is subject to a host of qualifications that come to define the basic political unit of a society. In America, that would be someone above 18 who has not been convicted of a felony and can prove residence within a territory controlled by the US. So, despite the universalizing claim of the "obvious" statement about democracy, when analyzing the context in which it is spoken, we find certain philosophical values smuggled in.

I'm not all that well read in political philosophy so forgive me if you had something more specific in mind.

>>15338412
But political philosophy is consistenly the most simplified and clearest. All the notorious “obscurantists” are usually metaphysicians, or ontologists (if you accept these two can be separated)

>>15338578
what you just said describing Hegel is much more coherent than anything he said himself about his philosophy

>>15338728
His prefaces are usually very clear and to the point, often clarifying the whole enterprise.
>It is custo~ary to preface a work With an explanation of the author~s aim, why he wrote the book, and the relationship in which he believes it to stand to other earlier or contemporary treatises on the same subject. In the case of a philosophical work, however, such an explanation seems not only superfluous but, in view of the nature of the subject-matter, even inappro- priate and misleading. For whatever might appropriately be said about philosophy in a preface-say a historical statement ofthe main drift and the point ofview, the general content and results, a string of random assertions and assurances about truth-none of this can be accepted as the way in which to expound philosophical truth. Also, since philosophy moves essentially in the element of universality, which includes within itself the particular, it might seem that here more than in any of the other sciences the subject-matter itself, and even in its complete nature, were expressed in the aim and the final results,
the executionbeing by contrast really the unessential factor. On the other hand, in the ordinary view of anatomy, for instance (say, the knowledge of the parts of the body regarded as inani- mate), we are quite sure thatwe do not as yet possess the sub- ject-matter itself, the content of this science, but must in addi- tion exert ourselves to know the particulars. Further, in the case ofsuch an aggregate ofinformation, which has no right to bear the name ofScience, an opening talk about aim and other such generalities is usually conducted in the same historical and un- comprehending way in which the content itself (these nerves, muscles, etc.) is spoken of. In the case of philosophy, on the other hand, this would give rise to the incongruity that along with the employment of such a method its inability to grasp the truth would also be demonstrated.

>>15338116
analytics are the "everyone's dumb but me :)" of philosophy

>>15337878
>Why do philosophers needlessly obfuscate their texts so much?
>Almost as if it was intentional.
I did the same thing in university to up my word count. I used a perl script to insert buzz words into my required social justice foundation classes.
i know things like womens studies gender studies, xxx studies are bullshit bc even i didnt know what the fuck i was writing but was able to string sentences together in coherent manner.

>>15338750
I have read this preface before and it is much harder to understand than your paragraph

>>15338433
analytic doesn't mean plain language philosophy retard. try reading Process and Philosophy by Whitehead (literally the author of one of the founding documents of Anglo analytic philosophy) and you'll realize the error of your thought

>>15338780
How is it hard?

>>15338784
>Whitehead
>an Analytic
You are being disingenuous. He has more in common with Hegel than he does with Russell or Wittgenstein.

>>15338216
lol based and /thread

>>15337878
No one will buy a 50 page book.

>>15338784
We are talking about Continentals and their whole school is based on a certain writing style different to analytics. Marx was writing clear and simple in the analytical writing style. No obfuscation at all.

>>15338680
That's my point. You can only obscure if it can't be decoded. You can't do that with political philosophy because then everyone can see through you.

>>15338348
hurr what do you mean we need to communicate concepts and modes of perception that can't be reduced to sterile propositions in unorthodox ways what do you mean my understanding of the material will only evolve as I immerse myself in the tradition like any other technical field hurr

I can't believe how fucking stupid some of you niggers are

>>15337878
Isn't it part of French literary culture to write texts that are difficult to understand and then call people midwits for not understanding you?

>>15338784
>Whitehead (literally the author of one of the founding documents of Anglo analytic philosophy)
who literally disavowed analytic philosophy for being too autistic

If you can't state it simply and clearly with essentially no room for differing interpretation what you have to say is garbage and lacks substance. ignore it and move on to something actually worthwhile. You only have so many days on this earth. Did you ever actually genuinely want to know, was there inside of you a real feeling of longing for enlightenment? how sad then to waste your time on stuff like this.

>>15339046
To add to this. Are you telling me all of these couldn't write a single book where they didn't obfuscate? Not even one for fun? It would show all the analytics how wrong they are when they could beat them at their own game.

because they're based and redpilled. truth is obscure.

>>15339046
>nooo semantic uncertainty nooo truth is supposed to be clear, immediately digestible, and unambiguous noooo

Retard

>>15337878
in french academia you're not taken seriously if you express ideas clearly. american and english academics get infected by this overtime and begin writing prose that reads like badly translated french

>>15337878
philsophers must keep their wisdom from falling into the wrong hands. that's why it appears they have a vexing and ridiculous lack of writing ability.

BECOMING IMPERCEPTIBLE

LITERALLY
>>15337998
THIS

>>15338826
It doesn't actually justify what it's saying. It makes a claim for philosophy, being that which aims at the universal, being something which ought not invoke justifications and clarifications as to how it relates to other historical treatments of the same subject, for fear that this would somehow 'demote' it to an 'aggregate science' that merely catalogues particular details of happenstance. But there is not reason to, in a preface of all things, reject the idea that you might want to explain how your treatment of the subject was inspired by, relates to, or further develops ideas as elucidated by others. Maybe I want to know, in the words of the author, if you were willing to acknowledge that much of your work was a response to Kant's treatises, it would not dishonor a work like the Phenomonology to put such a statement in it, nor would it be a mark against it's projected purity. But to reject doing this, and to not only do so, but to put elaborate justifications in place for not doing so, instead claiming the reason for doing so in part is a matter of respect, that you are simply refusing to claim that you are 'refuting' past works, is something that smacks of a certain amount of both hubris and dishonesty.

>>15338107
Just a small but very hyped subset of French philosophers who were proeminent in the decades 60 to 80 mostly. The French philosophical tradition from Descartes to Bergson mostly uses clear language, and so does a good deal of the philosophical tradition after. Ironically the guys in the OP and a few other took their language habits from the germans.

>>15338401
He's pretty much a Hegelian.

>>15338868
Continental philosophy is not a school, it's a wrap-up term made up by early analytics to include all modern Western philosophy that isn't analytic. It's really just a slightly more passive-aggressive and disigenuous way to say "non-analytic".
Continentals themselves don't call themselves continentals (and sometimes they're not from continental Europe, see Oakenshott or later Whitehead), they call themselves, depending on their methods and beliefs, phenomenologist, existentialists, etc., or they refer to their nationality.

>>15337878
There are some cases where such "needless obfuscation" is intentional. But in most cases is just that the reader (you) doesn't have the needed proficiency to understand what he refers to as "obscure" or "intentionally obscure". See for example the Sokal case.
"You're supposed to take a philosophical text and understand it without any special conceptual and lingustic requirements". If a chemist takes a philosophical text that studies things with cetain complexity that require certain precission he won't understand shit. In the same way, if any dude takes a physics paper without any knowledge of the specific language os the scientific field, he won't understand shit.
It's a pretty classic and antiintelectual habit to claim "if i don't understand anything, there's nothing to understand, this is just nonsense".

>>15339046
>If you can't state it simply and clearly with essentially no room for differing interpretation
That applies to almost nothing outside of very practical statements, and even not all of them. Differing interpretation are a huge issue even business law.

>>15337878
See here:
>>>15343158

>>15337998
/thread

>>15337878
Because they must consider all sides equally. John Stuart Mill is guilty of this.

>>15338233
Ted bombed executives and lobbyists. His brother led to him getting caught. Though desu that while change cant come without bloodshed, I don't think it was the proper for that.

>>15339046
This is why my book will only be a single page in length.

because they're based

>>15338107
Aristotle is legitimately harder to read than Deleuze & Guattari.

>>15343052
still physics can give a summary of concrete insights, concrete discoveries, concrete examples of progress, consensus, etc. so it's completely different. your field is garbage.

>>15338296
I had terrible reading comprehension in my teens. This makes me feel very insecure.

>>15343052
The key difference here is that even in complicated sub-areas of physics, e.g. string theory, you can still tell people to go read Polchinski and GSW and they'll be able to at least be prepared to understand the frontiers of research, even though it's difficult. Meanwhile people don't even agree on what some of the more difficult philosophers are saying.

>>15344250
There are controversies in both fields, but ultimately the obscurity of Derrida, Deleuze and co (not that they even belong to the same school btw) are vastly overestimated. There are obscurantist followers of Derrida and many dumb readers who perpetuate the myth but he's not really that impenetrable.

Anon here >>15344096 is right to say that some books of Aristotle are just as hard.

>>15337956
Based, Deleuze's classes always makes me laugh

>>15343176
That guy is a "misunderstood genius" posturing faggot.

>>15338090
Pls write a blog on D&G and shill it on here too thnx

>>15338090
Thats not the problem in those works. But rather the solutions they put forward with their metaphysical takes on a universal history and psychology, which i would take for wrong and fallacious aswell.
Problem lies in there, the solutions and takes they put forward are very abstract, Deleuze himself acknowledges this, and this helps creating a barrier of defence for his work, any attack put forward will be deflected by his fans coming with another interpretation some of them just plainly saying that he just wants to create a hypersense (aka lying about how the world works in order to shape things that way).

The axioms they put forward are if not even more obscure and loose than the ones he attacks, and what did Deleuze say when asked to explain these axioms better? He just laughed off and sayed the book was for teenagers to make the ideas for themselves and do their own personal discoveries.

When i was reading their books and i would often join groups of collective readers to ask my questions, everytime i would put their views on desire and desiring production into question everyone would shrug, pretend that it wasnt important or come with super different interpretations.

>>15338401
>>15338433
I share a board with you people

>>15344154
Why are you talking against something about what you're clearly ignorant?

>>15343296
The proper what?

>>15337878
no one can prove you wrong if they don't care enough to figure out what you're saying

>>15337878
Set this next to the complete childishness that pervades programmer culture I just don’t care.

>>15345385
pure dishonesty. watch him deny that physicists agree that atoms exist. garbage field, garbage people.

>>15337956
ATP is the philosophy book purely composed of jokes that Wittgenstein was talking about.

>>15337878
>Almost as if it was intentional
hey, you got it, good job

>Almost as if it was intentional.

It is.

Modern academia flourishes and thrives on differentiation. The more that the people are indicating different sorts of terms and ideas using pre-driven ideas and methods in their mathematics/philosophy, the more that the entirety of sciences and humanities makes money.

The entire system is corrupt because of this didactic methodology.

>>15338090
To try to pin down Oedepus as ONE thing is to misunderstand what muliplicities are and how they function. D&G aren't Freud - this isn't exclusively an exploration of the human mind (and in extention, the biological). D&G are much more akin to a reintepretation of Hume - these effects are simply the results of the habits of reality. The earth itself becomes oedepalized in a very real sense.

>>15345084
Argue against it retard

>>15338728
Hegel writes as if everyone knows what he's talking about. The problem is that very few know what he's talking about.

>>15338107
Germans are the worst offenders

>>15337878
The only two philosophers that have a legitimate reason for their text being hard to read are Heidegger and Derrida.
Everyone else is simply trying to filter plebs

>>15343012
>>15348209
Besides Kant and Hegel, the Germans are good writers. You're just a bunch of retarded Frenchmen. Also, in the case of Kant, I don't think it was intentional. He was just not a good writer.

>>15348252
Are you alright there? Kant was one of the best writers in terms of clarity and simplicity. The man literally edited and released a second edition of his critique and later wrote a shortened book -which is the prolegomena- that explains in betters words his previous critique.
Now with Hegel I have to agree with you, it's often not understandable, for his use of language is not traditional or ordinary. But for people who are interested in original prose and want to inquire further into Idealism, it's not a bad choice.

>>15344250
You're vastly overestimating the coherence of quantum mechanics. Of course it makes sense when explained to the layman since the writers aren't going to confuse you with the unsolved contradictions you're not ready for. But experts themselves still can't agree which interpretation of QM to accept. Not to shit on the field, but it finds itself in the same position as philosophy: several mutually exclusive theories explain "reality" according to self-consistent principals, yet none is robust enough to be accepted as the single theory.

>>15345057
>and what did Deleuze say when asked to explain these axioms better?
Not sure what axioms you're referring to. D&G avoid setting down hard rules in favor of describing the functioning of abstract concepts
> When i was reading their books and i would often join groups of collective readers to ask my questions, everytime i would put their views on desire and desiring production into question everyone would shrug, pretend that it wasnt important or come with super different interpretations.
Bring up some of your reservations and we'll take a crack at it

>>15348445
>Bring up some of your reservations and we'll take a crack at it
Not the previous anon, but i very well do have my own questions aswell with their takes, specially in anti-oedipus.
First thing that i have a lot of doubts about is their new way of representing desire as something "positive", instead of "lack", and linked to "desiring production", which even foucault disagreed very much after the book being published and even today with modern psychologists . The other problem that comes from this, is when they try to link these notion of desire with the history they know of the world, on which they then claim that desires and flows get recoded and instead of leading back to desiring-production or the"body of the earth" they get decoded to some other symbol or machine, so this all seems like some pseudo hippie claim that we ought to reach some universal form of desire through some form of "ego-loss" and creation of "lines of flight" in order to avoid "inner fascism", which if i take it seriously it seems that there is no better way than to do it by continuing capitalism and its schizophernia affects on people.
I mean, even if i take all these notions of desire and their history for granted, i cant come to any other conclusion that humans themselves love to make "inner fascism" and even the repression that comes with it. Why even bother creating lines-of-flight?

typed up a whole fucken answer to the first part and lost it. i'll start with the second then

>>15348819
>this all seems like some pseudo hippie claim that we ought to reach some universal form of desire through some form of "ego-loss" and creation of "lines of flight" in order to avoid "inner fascism"
Recall that D&G say that desire is inherently revolutionizing (i.e. deterritorializing)--being that desire will always effect a change within the world, it is inherently opposed to a "universal form." However, desire does exist "in itself" as the plane of consistency. While desire continually dissolves forms, the complete dissolution of forms is the space where bodies are created: not just physical entities but also bodies of politics, language, culture, and so on. While humanity could try to will a complete freeing of desire, this would in the end be anti-human. An example of this in Anti-Oedipus is the despot who has to balance the war machine with the shaman: were he to remove all obstacles to the war machine's desire, it would exterminate the society that produced it, thus leading to its own eradication. D&G recognize the necessity of coding desires, their criticisms of it being moreso when coding is used to repress the individual or falls into the self-feedback loop of capitalism's axiomatic.

>creation of "lines of flight" in order to avoid "inner fascism", which if i take it seriously it seems that there is no better way than to do it by continuing capitalism and its schizophernia affects on people.
That is how many have read it, Nick Land of course being the arch example. D&G themselves were quite disquieted people were reading it like this, which in part led them to write ATP to temper some of the harsher interpretations. There, they make it explicit that uncontrolled deterritorializing (seen in processes like drug addiction and suicide) is dangerous. One shouldn't have a specific goal prejudged when embarking on a line of flight, yet one should also recognize when to stop since the point to discover a creative reterritorialization, even if that one be temporary too.

>>15338193
Are you limited your internet time to an hour a day like Papa Ted recommends?

>>15337878
Those people aren't philosophers.

>>15339046
Brainlet autist clinging to delusions of clarity. Define enlightenment without leaning on some ambiguous “drrrr Muh Trooth.”

>>15349316
>“drrrr Muh Trooth.”
always a bad sign to be mocking the concept of truth

>>15349218
>D&G recognize the necessity of coding desires, their criticisms of it being moreso when coding is used to repress the individual or falls into the self-feedback loop of capitalism's axiomatic.
But how do you do that when in this philosophical realm you almost dissolve any concept of a atomized individual? How can you achieve such a thing when desires like to be coded and more often than not run and clash with eachother? I mean even when i look at Guattari's personal life i get more dubious on how "liberating" that really is. I'd like to make myself clear that im a "left leaning" person myself, but seeing Guattari's iron fisted spergouts claiming to abolish families, monogamy and parenthood do make me anxious, specially when he dismisses anyone who disagree as simply being "neurotic", like i can respect other people for living the lifes that they like but forcing me to remove those things for the sake of "liberating" desires? I cant help but think that my personal life would be 100x times worse like that. And when i look and how he even behaved around his mates enforcing this stuff i do really question if this is not just another form of "inner fascism" masked as liberation.
Seeing their social political intentions sided with their works make wonder if we are not falling into a sort of "Tabula rasa" of just how much we can recode our lives.

>>15348445
It's not really controversial at all except among "philosophers of physics" who can't do physics, or people who don't like quantum mechanics and desperately want things to be classical.

>>15349496
On the other hand Deleuze had a pretty normal domestic life raising a daughter, so it really goes both ways. I don't think your question has an answer within the schema of C&S besides it warning against taking its writings as an exact prescription. I do think someone, Guattari as the prime example, could follow AO and live a terrible life. Is this a deficiency of the work? Yes and no. Ultimately, its ethics are Nietzschean: discover only that which affirms you, follow a law if you think it will increase your power. Just because a person could abuse the teaching does not invalidate it. Ultimately, I think if you really twisted Deleuze's arm, he'd say yes of course be decent to other people and don't cause harm, yes just like every other philosopher has written; but the purpose is to open a new avenue to get there, one not filled with transcendental concepts you're forced to acccept.

>Seeing their social political intentions sided with their works make wonder if we are not falling into a sort of "Tabula rasa" of just how much we can recode our lives.
They'd never go so far as tabula rasa because the subject generates itself, so it is intrinsically bound up with itself as a historical entity. While D&G would argue against immutable "laws" of human nature, this does not mean that "the subject" is an empty space that the world fills in. The ego is created by the organization of larval selfs within the body, so any "consciousness" will always have some specificity to the body that created it.

>>15338116
based

>>15338116
>If you have a super obscure political belief system but you can't tell me any possible way AT ALL that this could come to fruition then you have nothing at all. A socialist could tell you how to bring about socialism either by reform or revolution and a reformist could go down the list of the policies that could be passed by congress to bring about change but these philosopher retards have nothing of the sort.
At the end of the day most "critical theorists" are just basic left-liberals politically mate. That's not really what critical theory is about.

>>15338090
shut thr fuck up anime poster

>>15338296
lmaooooo is that real?

>>15349242
You're right, Deleuze is the only philosopher in that pic.

>>15349231
He gives the impression of being a good guy, but I am not so certain that he is far beyond scientific materialism in his conscious beliefs, and this "human goodness" has rather more seemed like the growth of old age. The necessity of things like philosophy, religion, and the presence of the beautiful in life also seem to find no rooted structure in his beliefs, other than what human nature can do; "this tree is beautiful" and so forth. That it is not merely an ability to find happiness which modern technology affronts, that is the cause of this desire for revolution (rather likely fostered by a liberal anglo-analytic spirit which sees happiness as a self-sufficient good), but a foregrounded pre-symbolic(Platonic, and as it were Medieval; pre-enlightenment) belief in value, and direct recognition of a moral-meaning-of-the-world. That is for us, Christian, Hero-worship, Art, Poetry, Custom and Ceremony, Compassion and Redemption, presence of the awareness of the mystical in life, Truth and so forth.

It is so greatly a mistake, that Ted was not able to introduce an as it were scientific ability of knowledge into his work: what is found in Aristotle quite well, that man is a social animal for example, as stated custom and ceremony, a shared history of a nation, a religious yearning and the like. But this seems to me the fate of the inability to connect down to action, to a root-essence of the world, and as a result merely to produce a series of perceptions and a series of what one can do, if he wants something, with ones good-willed intelligence. "You can be happy, if you remove industrial technology from your life" so good perceptions and good possibility's go unused unbased on the soil of a true morality.


This seems to me his problem, and the particular "ideological" details of this post are unnecessary for the recognition of that.

>>15349231
>>15350856
And again to make clear a point I don't think I did other than in brackets, this problem commonly relates back down to a liberal individualism, in contrast to a Platonic necessity, a necessity of the good and the true, and of the beautiful and so forth. And this is why the philosophy of modern leftism so overly not necessarily obfuscates, but complicates presuppositions which are clearly wrong with some sense of otherly-necessity. Their arguing is impeccable if you fail to see the unreasonably and unfounded propositions throughout their work. And so the only value in these Frankfurt types is found throughout their work, like the sense of a secret conservatism found in Adorno's work, but never in the work on the whole, or its ends at all.

>>15349231
>>15350856
>>15350900
Part of what I have said here has been dishonest, in that I have not thought long and hard enough about everything. But it suffices today, in rounding off a coherent truth to Mr. Kaczynski.

>>15350856
>The necessity of things like philosophy, religion... find no rooted structure in his beliefs
>That is not merely an ability to find happiness... that is the cause of this desire for revolution... but a foregrounded pre-symbolic belief in value
>scientific ability of knowledge
>This is why the philosophy of modern leftism...complicates presuppositions which are clearly wrong with some sense of otherly-necessity
Am I having a stroke?

>>15350958
Am I retarded? I could explain those sentences if you want.

>>15350973
I mean they just don't make semantic sense. I understand what you're getting but like half this wall of text is really garbled.

>>15338193
posting the king of butthurt

yeah, dont do that

To make it more interesting and treat philosophy like an art form rather than some lifeless analytical thing

>>15348252
>Besides Kant and Hegel
And Husserl and Heidegger and Nietzsche is often ambiguous though in is case that's intentional. Only four to five writers but their legacy is massive. By contrast the "obscurantist" French philosophers are latecomers from the latter half of the 20th century. Obscure writing comparatively makes up a much bigger part of German philosophy, than of French philosophy.

>>15350991
>>The necessity of things like philosophy, religion... find no rooted structure in his beliefs
I feel like this one makes perfect sense.

>>That is not merely an ability to find happiness... that is the cause of this desire for revolution... but a foregrounded pre-symbolic belief in value
I mean to say here, well what I mean to say he subsumes a few other points. It can be viewed in the sense of a liberal-individualism contrasting with a traditional sense of the value of hierarchy(Plato), it can also be viewed as a true and because of this again traditional belief in meaning, which must be pre-symbolic(like Plato's forms) and that finds this meaning as its own thing I suppose you could say in the symbolic(this goes back to Maistre as it does Jung as it does Heidegger, which is why it is found in Dugin: Heidegger was bringing back a medieval belief in meaning, uprooting theological ideas and terms where the whole of life was foregrounded, into his own ideas on Being and philosophy), contrasting with modern relativism in all forms including secular humanism and scientific materialism. It is just my writing that put the syntax as "pre-symbolic belief in value" rather than "belief in pre-symbolic value", and it can be understood either way. This particular greentext sentence can be understood furthermore intersecting in different ways but I'm sure you get the point. That what he is fighting for, what in his mind has been destroyed by technology but can be safely laid to the name "modernity" for other same threats, is not alone happiness or to be free from technology, but the good in which we love that comes before the reason to feel a sense of danger at all.

>>scientific ability of knowledge
To further develop an understanding and content of his philosophy, where there is in it remnants of the eternal which shall always be valued, just as there must be some non-contextual and eternally valued character in any great work; what is found throughout Plato and marks him as who he is in the place of history, in the contextual character of much of Kaczynski's work there is no flesh with there to apply it. That is, as I have seen so far, truly genius explanations in our world. That do not go down to a root-essence of the world, which is not an explanation but a presence.

>>This is why the philosophy of modern leftism...complicates presuppositions which are clearly wrong with some sense of otherly-necessity
They don't give an actual reason for the presuppositions throughout their work. Commonly anyhow, there are exceptions.


I think that does it, but I am tired.

>>15351262
You could call Husserl obscure, but Nietzsche and Heidegger are not obscure. They may be complex but they are not obscure.

>>15351294
The point is the same accusations leveled at Deleuze or Derrida could be leveled at Nietzsche or Heidegger. If you accuse Deleuze of writing ambiguously for keks or to filter pleb or generally as a rhetorical and/or creative device you could say the same about Nietzsche. And if you accuse Derrida of being hard to grasp and dwelling too much in language and neologisms you could say the same about Heidegger, which not incidentally is the biggest direct influence on Derrida.
I don't think there is really anything wrong about these thinkers, French or German, but it's difficult to blame the former and not the latter when the former took up from the latter.
If you want good clear writing with a Nietzschean vibe try La Rochefoucauld, Pascal or even De Retz. If you want hermeneutics and phenomenology in relatively plain language there is Bergson, Gadamer, Alain and many others.

But for better or worse those are not the most discussed here and in most part of academia, instead the attention is focused on Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Deleuze, Derrida and Husserl. If obscurantism there is, it is all over the place.

>>15351314
>Deleuze writes like a retard
>Nietzsche didn't write for 12 year olds
Wow I can see the similarity.

I don't mean to be rude but I think it can be safely said the obscurantism of the postmodernists is very different from the obscurantism of men like Heidegger or Nietzsche or Kant, or even Hegel: considering the latter used purposefully systematic language as well as difficult. The difficulty of Deleuze's works/writing cannot be called systematic, but rather hopes more than anything to be a philosophical point itself- and in this can be considered to have more poetic means and ends than philosophical, at least in the respect of the meaning of the language in his work.

You should be less relativistic.

>>15351361
>I don't mean to be rude but I think it can be safely said the obscurantism of the postmodernists is very different from the obscurantism of men like Heidegger
My point is precisely that it is not such an easy claim, or rather, than even if it is a different obscurantism it is still obscurantism.

And again I don't consider Heidegger or Deleuze to have been obscurantists, but both are often accused of being so and none of the accusations strikes me as really more fair than the other.
I grant your point about Deleuze striving to be more poetic and unsystematic, but this is itself a very nietzschean attempt. I'd say the obscurantism of Deleuze is inherited from Nietzsche while the obscurantism of Derrida is inherited from Heidegger, so that it doesn't really make sense to talk about a "postmodernist obscurantism" when it's really various offspring of earlier obscurantisms. You could also wonder how much of Heidegger's style of writing and thought comes from Nietzsche and Husserl.

I'm not being relativistic at all here, I'm just pointing out lines of influences. It's not a relative claim to say Deleuze (and Foucault to an even greater extent) took from Nietzsche, and that Derrida owes a lot to Heidegger (who himself owes a lot to Nietzsche). None of this is incidental, and while I can grant you that Deleuze is les clear than Nietzsche, Derrida, for instance, doesn't strike me as that much less clear than Heidegger.

>>15337878
Lazy readers/thinkers want to cruise by without getting challenged. Philosophy shouldn't be washed down to the percieved capability of the general public or its common use of language. It needs to use it for the sake of what it wants to bring across. Also they likely are embedded in a tradition responding to and using concepts from a wide variety of philosophers. It's not strange to feel incapable of reading it. It means putting the effort in without expecting to get spoonfed. Cutting edge stuff is more likely than not just not going to be easy. Remember people had a hard time getting Kant when he released the first critique, making him write the Prolegamena.

It's hard to believe that a century ago people got filtered so hard by Hegel they started declaring the virtues of "clarity and rigor." Yeah real convenient, turns out they came right back to Hegel anyway. To go even further analytic philosophy tries to be the "handmaiden" of science, not like it pays much attention to it anyway. Hawking declared philosophy to be dead, but really let's just say he was talking about that of the English speaking world. For all of its talk of clarity it hasn't garnered much attention and respect for all its simplicity, universities continue to reduce departments little by little. You'll be lucky to run into someone even aware of a single philosopher from an Anglo country. Meanwhile on the continent such as in France philosophy is more respected and there is more pride in it. Also the public is more aware of it.

Moral of the story: don't take pride in being filtered.

>>15351510
good post. clarity is sterility, who would have thought (any philosopher worth their salt would have, but leave it to angloids to take a century to learn it the hard way)

>>15351443
>or rather, than even if it is a different obscurantism it is still obscurantism.
That makes a large difference, even so, I am tired and I get your point. But I must rest.

>>15351443
>And again I don't consider Heidegger or Deleuze to have been obscurantists
Come now, they literally said academics can't understand the book, and it was written principally for people between 15 and 25 because they skip over any bit they don't understand and can just sort of understand and incorporate the symbolic meaning of it. I think it is obvious that it would have to be obscurantist because of this. Whereas merely "skipping over" any bit one doesn't understand in Nietzsche and especially in Heidegger wouldn't work so well. I should also say that Nietzsche's obscurantism seems more like a very conscious poetry, rather than obscurity trying to challenge or such.

Anyhow I do agree with you that it is wrong on a technical level to speak of "blanket postmodernist obscurantism", however really it does remain true. Do you think we will ever get a clear understanding of body without organs? No, of course not. It's not meant to have a clear definition. However Heidegger, even when difficult to understand, the difficulty as it were almost is so as some understood necessity, it falls within a reason, a belief, some structure and so forth. And that is a much smaller amount, in contrast to the majority of his work which does have a specific meaning.

>>15351546
>clarity is sterility
Literal retard aren't you? You want to have a nice /aesthetic/ popfrock frollocking don't you? No care for truth, no care to find something, or even a whim of depth, just coomer "absorb" consuumor.

Quite literally degenerate.

>>15337878
It's really not that bad and that it was ever deliberate seems like a ridiculous suspicion to me.

>>15337878
Deleuze admitted to being intentionally obtuse in his works. His reason? I imagine it has a lot to do with the culture of philosophy post Kant/Hegel specifically. If you write to be understood, you are apparently not a good philosopher.

>>15338117
anime website

>>15351556
>Come now, they literally said academics can't understand the book, and it was written principally for people between 15 and 25
Not sure something that can be understood by teenagers should be considered obscure. And in any case this doesn't apply to all of Deleuze's bibliography. The man wrote commentaries on Spinoza, he wasn't only a memetic writer of philosophical YA.
Skipping over could actually works with some of Nietzsche's book, though not all of them (again, same with Deleuze himself). So the parallel between the two stands in that respect.

I'm not sure about the poetical nature of Nietzsche quite frankly, except in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. His other works are either like epigrams which is a different things (though also a thing not to be read systematically and where style matters a lot). The notion of challenging the reader with you writing is extremely Nietzschean however (more generally the idea that writing is not just exposition of ideas and system, but a play with words that affects the reader sensibility).

>Do you think we will ever get a clear understanding of body without organs?
On this count I can't say, I haven't read enough about it. But can we ever get a clear understanding of what is Being according to Heidegger? What characterize Being in Heidegger is precisely that i doesn't not appear, but is that through which things appears. It's ungraspable by definition (though not in the same sense as body without organs I guess). If Deleuze borders on nonsensical poetry Heidegger borders, at time, on inscrutable mysticism. Different quality of the unspeakable, but unspeakable nonetheless. And for both writers that unspeakability is very much the point.
I can agree to set apart, say, Hegel and Kant from Heidegger, Deleuze and even Nietzsche. I feel like with the former there's an attempt at communicating something difficult, and obscurity is unintended, while with the latter obscurity plays a role either as stimulant or as natural conclusion from talking about something that can't be conceived. So it's not a German vs French or even postmodernists vs non-postmodernist thing (you could as well frame the argument by saying postmodernism starts with Nietzsche and includes Heidegger).

My beef with the postodernist label is how vague and a posteriori it is. Many philosophers are lumped under it when it's really more a school of literary analysi that sprang from Derrida while borrowing terms from iirc Lyotard. Foucault and Deleuze have very little to do with it however commonly they associated with it. Simply put, I don't believe obscurity is some characteristic trait of the French thinkers of that era, all the more so than some Catholic-inspired schools of phenomenology and epistemology were still active at the time. As evidenced by my others posts it's more of a genealogical matter (it propagates along lines of philosophical influence), and ultimatelty it's a case by case thing.

>>15338090
>reposts an easy to digest summary
>ayyy ya retarrrds ya dun evn get it
Suck my cock you dumb cunt

>>15338117

I often ponder what it would be like to excrete while suspended in such a way.

>>15351900
Only one way to find out

>>15337878
Most academia is larp

Philosophers are not obfuscating. They're so used in thinking and discussing in their own topic-specific lingo, that when it comes to translating it to something supposed to be read by a larger audience, they're too lazy to rewrite it into something anyone can understand.

There's that, then there's the turbo autism where they butcher the English language by trying to cram as much as possible into every sentence tens of semi-colons.