/lit/ - Literature

sounds like kant or schiller i guess

u fat fuck

Deleuze, in a derivative sense

>>16978860
The second paragraph implies Plato or Parmenides or the Bible but the first paragraph has them in the wrong order. It's beautiful because it's good not the other way around.

>>16978860
Socrates holds beauty as a virtue in and of itself but beauty is not the only virtue.

>>16978870
Kant does not privilege the beautiful over the good but the good over the beautiful. What is beautiful is an aesthetic and subjective judgement. Schiller seeks that which is good and beautiful in one, but wouldn't hold that the beautiful is morally justified either.

>>16978877
No, it's the correct order. I am looking for someone who privileges the beautiful over the good. The second sentence can be read the other way around too, although I meant that the moral justification follows as an implication.

>>16978872
What does that mean?

>>16978916
With Deleuze identities become metaphysically secondary. With some hermeneutical trickery this results in the passions (feelings, motivations, drives, instinct) dominating Thought, almost in the Humean sense. Insofar as ethics is an exponent of rational thought (as in Kant), in Deleuze it becomes the progeny of the domain of aesthetics (more generally what he calls "representation"). The philosopher becomes equivalent to the artist in that they don't so much access 'truth', as create it, like an artist paints on a canvas.

>>16978860
Most people in general believe that. You don't need a rigorous philosophy for what is essentially common sense. Look at the way I just used that guy as a doormat and had his daddy suckin' wieners. He would have never been able to do that to me. That is the benefit of being a very well groomed and aesthetic individual.

>>16979123

>>16978860
read kant critique of judgement and critique of practical reason OP

>>16979160
If at my age, he did even 1/10th of what I had done he wouldn't have had any female admirers. He would have had his teeth smashed down his throat and left in the street to die.

>>16978860
What do you mean by beautiful? In some sense Nietzsche is the closest, but also the farthest from it.
Some of the aesthetic philosophers and poets would be very close, but if you really want to sense it the myths are the answer.

>>16979055
Deleuze is the perfection of ugliness in philosophy.

>>16978860
Bella Poarch
Now do our job jannies

>>16978907
this is kinda boring no offense

>>16978860
joey bada$$ in mr robot "if you like it, then its beautiful"

>>16978860
>pic
fucking kek

>>16978860

Finally some good fucking philosophy

>>16979178
"Lookin good ladies" and then walk away

>>16978860
Me! :)

>>16979203
How so? I think he's bretty based desu

>>16979055
This sounds retarded

>>16979055
Wasn't Deleuze a leftist? This sounds very Will to Power fascist-esque. How does this work within his political beliefs?

>>16980220
Retard don't peterson post at me, I'm the one who petersonposts around here

>>16980237
He is/was, but he's heavily inspired by Nietzsche, so only a leftist in a very limited sense. His whole philosophy is centered around a will-to-power-esque differential ontology.
>How does this work within his political beliefs?
Ignore all the psychoanalytic retardation borne from his collaboration with Guattari and he's actually very philosophically sensible.

>>16980237
>>16980272
Sorry, I forgot to actually address your question. The point is that while Deleuze calls himself a Marxist, he explicitly intends to upend Marx. His idea of fascism is something like the embrace of homogenization by the subject. Deleuze is a tried and true Nietzschean. If you want to call Nietzsche a fascist, we'd be dealing with two different ideas of fascism, of which Deleuze would be an exponent of. Deleuze, insofar as he's concerned with the upending of the egalitarian morality in its fascism-as-modern-leftists-conceive-it aspects, is a fascist.

>>16980237
>he hasn't read Based Deleuze

>>16980312
>taking deleuze seriously
>aesthetics thread
>OP asks for no nietzsche
>here's discount pedoneetch

>>16980651
Deleuze isn't Nietzsche thooooough..... They're like...... Different people....... I think...

>>16980660
>the tripfag is retarded even when pointing out its obvious mistakes
Who could have seen this coming?

>>16980690
imagine being filtered by a shitposting tripfag

This sounds like GE Moore. Moore believed that beauty was objective as well as the end goal of the good. Read Principia Ethica.

>>16978860
How could a part of the good be privileged over the good itself, or do you not believe beauty to be any good?

>>16980700
>reddit unconsciously ironic memeing
Just stop ruining threads.

>>16980700
There's nothing to be filtered by. Sieve harder, tripfaggot.

>>16980734
Why would I respond to shitposting with anything but shitposting

>>16978860
Sneed

>>16980312
>>16979055
Why are Deleuzians incapable of using normal people language?

>>16980839
I'm not a deleuzian but it's hard to talk about him without using the sort of language he uses. Being radically inventive with regard to concepts and language is sorta his literary gimmick. I can try reiterate if there's anything you wanna grasp at. Just don't take it as gospel

>>16978907
a wrist man once said that truth is beauty, and beauty is truth

>>16980700
What are the chances?

>>16980895
what

>>16980752
>lust provoking image
Anon, you might have a problem if any female provokes lust in you.

Her hands are massive

>>16981162
>Her hands are massive
>Her

Amazing how incompetent /lit/ is that no one can answer the question from the OP

>>16978860
The claim that morality is objective makes absolutely no sense. Its like saying blue is objective, or smell is objective.

>>16978860
if my bussy starts dripping, it's good

>>16980913
Lol

>>16981442
I literally answered the question retard:
>>16980713

>>16978860
true evil comes from the corruption of the beautiful. It is the motivation for vanquishing it. all that is beautiful is good, in itself.

>>16978860
In a way, Blessed John Duns Scotus.

Many philosophers have said that beauty is an exterior manifestation of the Good within; but if your'e looking for philosophers who value beauty apart and above the Good, you may find what you are looking for in Decadent or Aesthete art-criticism.

>>16979123
>common sense
is just convention, doesn't mean anything, you fucking retard.

>>16978860
i want to cum on her lips

>>16978860
The Beautiful and The Good are the same thing
Goodness is convertible with Beauty
read Marsilio Ficino and Pseudo-Dionysius (Classics of Western Spirituality print)
see >>16955673 for Ficino guide

>>16979055
oh hey doubtposter, how was butterfly's funeral?
Regarding Deleuze and aestethics - you actually see a similar thing with Neoplatonic Christianity but without flipping the classic intellect>appetitve subordination
and considering MacIntyre's devastating critiques of Deleuzean Ethics, I'd say that the best way to save him is to Neoplatonise him - he actually likes Neoplatonism if you read his book on Spinoza but for some dumb reason he assumes his Spinozist antecedent as true and then just through the Plotinian baby out with the bathwater - but yes Neoplatonising him would mean largely replacing most of his Spinozism with someone like >>16983529
To illustrate;
Spontaneity is basically banished from the world by the Greek rationalists, to what Dodd’s calls “the sublunary world” yet free will remains perfectly intact. Why is this so? It is precisely because, as it was for the medievals too, that this universal order is the best possible, true freedom being then constituted by an assent to its sublime Logos, supposed "spontaneity" is nothing more than an attempted interference with it. A key Dionysian insight to take in tandem is that this transcendent Logos, The Good, is beauty-itself - “a light that flashes onto everything the beauty-causing impartations of its own well-spring ray” that gathers all things to revert upon it as their object of desire. The beautiful and the object to be “free to” collapse into an ineffable singularity. Freedom is thus in relation to that sublime wellspring from which one can confront and draw from for the outpouring of a purer creativity, as opposed to one that is not lost in trying to project out schemes by its own individualistic artifices.
Sacrality involves representing the gesture, constituted by religio, as compelled by divinity. Aesthetics involves discerning the intentions of the centre - such intentions being constituted by cosmological recursion and revelation - through the attention of others on the scene i.e. unfolding philosophical and exegetical corpus/priesthood and rituals they administer. In this sense, knowledge depends upon aesthetics, and only aesthetic oscillation can dissolve those desires into the manifold forms of attention directed towards God. Naturally, all disciplines should be reintegrated into theology, to desecularise all other disciplines as a consequence of our abolition of the distinction between art and anagogic reverence.
Sorry for the essay, you just got me going ~

>>16983554
probably publish this in something larger
like a blogpost or something

>>16978860
Sorry kid,

>>16983554
Interesting reply but I lack a third of the context to fully understand.
>Naturally, all disciplines should be reintegrated into theology, to desecularise all other disciplines as a consequence of our abolition of the distinction between art and anagogic reverence.
This is based though, if I understand you correctly. The Nietzschean detachment of Good from Being opens the floodgates for concern with and study of Good well and truly for its own sake.

>>16983664
yes, but its independent of Nietzsche - yet you could definitely use Nietzsche against himself as you have tacitly done just then to detach Good from Being and thus return to a kind of Platonic Idealism

>>16982962
G.E. Moore is not a serious person

>>16983131
>>16983529
this is not answering the question

>>16983554
Deleuzians = pseuds

>>16983604
Into the trash it goes.

>>16978860
I’m not sure but wasn’t Wilde an aestheticalist?

>>16984170
>G.E. Moore is not a serious person
True, but he's still the one that OP is looking for.

>>16985048
The Apollonian and his moral hierarchies fears the true nature of beauty

>>16986488

>>16978860
You stupid or something? Get a job

>>16985071
Many a gay too full of themselves share that tendency

>>16984170
>GE Moore is not a serious person
Nobody who is a serious person would say what OP said. OP's views are not serious.

>>16986712

>>16981061
yeah imagine being heterosexual in 2020