/lit/ - Literature

>>16388046

>semantics

The French’s love for their language reach its limits. Can we stop considering French philosophy now? What value has come from it?

>>16388046
No, he is the final level of philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas are only of historical interest once you've rear D&R

>>16388073
dayum
surely the Platonists, Aristotelian-Thomists and Hegelians had something to say about Deleuze?

like even if they were wrong in their critique of him, what did they say?

>>16388053
agree the french are useless faggots

>>16388053
>what value has come from French philosophy

>>16388665
It will be awhile before I get around to it but I'll let you know when I do.

>>16388712
>Nick Land
In the trash it goes.

>>16388046
QRD or fuck off.

>>16388046
>>16389157
Zizek and Badiou destroyed him

>>16389588
>>16389157
Zizek didnt even read Deleuze and very clearly shows in that book that he doesnt understand his concepts

>>16389588
>Badiou
>Destroying anyone

>>16389848
So I shouldn't bother reading it when I'm done d&r?

He didnt refute them his philosophy is simply different, its about exploring the virtual plane of conceptual creation and elaborating the conditions for actual experience

>>16388053
He's literally asking you for arguments.
Also Deleuze is by far one of the least 'rhetorical' of his generation.

>>16390079
Admitting this, the "Platonist, Aristotelian, Hegelian" do think their ontologies are true, and by implication, that competing ones are wrong. Surely they have arguments against Deleuze's?

>>16390103
I dont think so because their philosophies do not compete in the same plane

>>16390079
this, Deleuze literally called people who think philosophers refute each other "idiots"

>>16390063
You should read AO and Thousand Plateaus after d&r to get the whole narrative and also find the biases D&G do with their french leftismo.
After that you can read whatever you like

>>16390998
Oof. I read AO first (hoping D&R will clear some things up and am looking forward to ATP).

>>16390622
Is there one of those midwit curves for this? Put Deleuze in the middle.

>>16388046
He did bring a new perspective, but it wasn't helpful nor answered anything

>>16391508
Have you read Nietzsche & Philosophy? That's the usual starting point.

>>16391522
Chomsky said the same thing. He called debates infantile.

>>16391628
I think everyone knows Chomsky is in the lower midwit category.

>>16390063
Zizek is usually a fun read, including with Organs without Bodies. But he missed a lot of crucial things about Deleuze. Same with Badiou and his disciples. They do say some interesting things about Deleuze, even important criticisms, but they ultimately miss the mark.

>>16391621
No, I was hoping to shortcut it for now because I heard D&R was the cumulation of his previous writtings on other philosophers. Been watching some lectures to help supplement as well. Always open to reading more though.

>>16388053
>Deleuze
>love of language

>>16391647
There are certain books that are more accessible than others and should be prioritized. Coldness & Cruelty (also known as Masochism) is one of Deleuze's better books. As usual you have to rush past the psychobabble (that Deleuze himself denounced eventually), but most of it is solid.

"What is Philosophy?" is a very late book by D&G, but also has a lot of value, especially the early chapters.

The essay/interview collections (there are about 4 or 5 of them) are also very useful as you don't have to read them cover to cover, you can just read articles related to what you're currently studying and they're usually clearer than Deleuze's books.

>>16391633
What I'm curious about is who you think is top tier.

>>16389189
anyone?

>>16391682
Thanks anon, I appreciate the assistance.

>>16391748
It's hard to summarize D&R, I'd say it's even easier to summarize Deleuze's overall philosophy than it is to do so for that particular book.

But if I had to I'd say that it's an attempt to create a classical metaphysical system (like that of Spinoza or Leibniz) based on the concepts of difference and repetition thought together (as repetition with variation so to speak) in which the world is made entirely of relations (objects themselves as well) in a process of perpetual becoming and reconfiguration. The world of such relations is virtual (real without being actual, ideal without being abstract) and is far richer than the actualized world that we experience empirically. Repetition with variation is the natural form of repetition, rather than the identical repetition desired by science (in order to confirm validity in the lab) and identity is itself a consequence of difference rather than difference being a consequence of identity as in most classical philosophy.

>>16392499
This is very helpful, thanks

>>16388046
I've heard he kind of bastardized Nietzsche. How true is that? I'll get around to reading him myself eventually, but I'm curious about your take.

>>16393566
Nietzsche was his main influence, but he was a leftist like most of the French poststructuralists of the time. Maybe there's some truth to that since Deleuze created his own versions of philosophers (by shifting focus to some of their less important ideas for example) in an attempt to speak through them and he did that for Nietzsche too. He called it a form of buggery, giving the philosopher a monstrous child that nonetheless said everything the philosopher said. Still, you'll get to understand Nietzsche a lot better if you read Deleuze despite this.

>>16393566
all philosophy is bastardization

>>16389157
>>16390063

it might be worth reading but I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to speak against Deleuze / Deluze and Guattari then I wouldn't really bother with Zizek because he is good at making strawmen.

However, one thing that really annoys me is this idea that the BwO is the only great concept created by Deleuze / D&G. When actually, the plane of immanence is a much heftier concept that spans over a number of texts. A great way to understand the plane of immanence is in Deleuze's text on Spinoza (practical philosophy) where he organises a dictionary of terms, which you can bring together to make concepts out of Spinoza.

>>16388046
He is not trying to “BTFO” Plato, Aristotle or even Hegel in “Difference and Repetition”. Deleuze was too smart to treat philosophy as something where you pick “allies” (Spinoza, Bergson, Nietzsche) and “enemies” (Plato, Aristotle, Hegel). When he called Kant his “enemy”, that remark was obviously tongue-in-cheek

>>16393566
He is the best reader of Nietzsche along with Heidegger, Derrida etc.