/lit/ - Literature

>tfw a faggot who died from AIDs supports your Islamist revolution in Iran

>>17341694
A fitting end to Nietzsche's line.

>>17341694
I'm always baffled that otherwise intelligent people seem so impressed with such a platitudinous, simplistic view of the world as his. At best he was nothing more than a shallow idealist.

did he have good aids or bad aids?

>>17341761
a broken, aids ridden, clock is right twice a day it seems

>>17341949
There is a connection between the way we act, and the way we think. Of course a fag would say everything is about power.

>>17341994
gay paedophile aids

>>17341949
Es un hijo de la pua mas estupida que muestra seguir siendolo

>>17341694
I don't know very much about his biography but he definitely didn't even convince of power as the root of desire, he considered it to be lack. He said so in correspondence with Deleuze.
>>17341949
What is his world view?

>>17342502
This is what i thought Foucalt's understanding was.
Lack is often the root of the Desire.

>>17342515
Are you op? Because I don't see how "everyone is exclusively motivated by power" and "desire is produced by lack" are mutually suitable. I guess theoretically the formulation could be that desire is always a lack of power... but that is not supported in any of the reading I have done or the lectures I have received on the subject.

>>17341761
Foucault knew that faggotry was atrocious.

>>17341694
Enter

>>17342644
>being such a slave to your own faggotry you secretly wish for a totalitarian theocracy to free you from your own inclinations

>>17342650
If your going to LARP do it as something cool like a knight.

>>17342502
he considered it to be lack. He said so in correspondence with Deleuze.
noo, both foucault and deleuze fought against the coception of desire as something that is lacks or is repressed. Foucault even said cant find now where that he disliked deleuze, because of impression that for him desire was still linked with the lack, Foucault to Deleuze: "I cannot bear the word desire; even if you use it differently, I cannot keep myself from thinking or living that desire = lack, or that desire is repressed. Michel added, whereas myself, what I call pleasure is perhaps what you call desire; but in any case, I need another word than desire".

>>17342811
forgot to delete "cant find now where"

>>17342811
That's interesting. It was the correspondence I was thinking of, but it was not presented to me with the last sentence. I'm still not sure I agree with your interpretation, but I sort of see what you mean. Personally I think pleasure is pretty obviously different from desire, even in plain vernacular, because pleasure is what you get when you experience or obtain the object of your desire, while desire is the feeling before the obtainment.

>you're approaching this problem from subjective point of view, whereas psychoanalysis and Foucault/Deleuze conceptualize desire with appeals to unconscious determinants that constitute it. For Freud its a lack of primary libidinal relations that drives our desire, Deleuze and Foucault tried to show that those primary relations are themselves determined by wider social context. They say that lack can be only be constituted as an after effect of even more primary active production that exist in wider social life. Freud would say you want that particular woman because of your unfulilled childhood wish for your mother, Deleuze and Foucualt to some extent would say that you wanted mother in the first place because of social norms. Production determines lack.
It's all convoluted and has wider implications, but it is certain that they wanted to break away from the desire=lack equation that especially dominated Lacan's theory (the whole of Capitalism and Schizophrenia is just D&G trying to show how desire is not lack but production).

>>17342944
meant for >>17342853
and without greentext

>>17342944
>desire is not lack but production
I don’t get it.

>>17342971
I can only explain a certain aspect of it. Desire, as distinguished from basic biological need (for food, sex) in psychoanalysis is determined by representations, by our past. You want x right now, because this x corresponds to y (an primary libidinal investment into lets say your mother or oral satisfaction from drinking from breast, or pleasure arrived from discipline from your parents). This is what Deleuze calls representational logic: our past determines us. Well but frenchies have a thing for revolutions and the Newness, so both Deleuze and Foucault sense a certain kind of conservatism in this conception of desire as a lack of a former thing. They then say no no no desire is capable of being invested into new things! Then they (Deleuze most obviously) invent a theory, where desire is not different from social world itself, there are no differences between subject and object, individual and social backround. Unconscious is not individual, but general. Desire is unhinged, it can be seen as an effect of wider ontological backround that has no ups and downs lefts or rights (concept of rhizome). Experimentation and becomings ensue.

>>17342682
its all larp, every single day. ive had it, i fucking have. you try to talk to these people and they just mumble about shit strung through a cheese grater - the worst thing is this place created it, the consoomers were here all along and we're never going back

>>17343131
>durrr memeflag hurrr

>>17342944
>>17343104
>tfw reached similar conclusions on my own
am I a genius bros?

>>17343142
i didnt even post the flag, they're the very people im talking about. ancoms on twitter "dunking on chuds", groypers constantly bickering, dirtbag leftists successing sargon as the concerned leftist of the 2020s

when i was in middle school i would say school is like a prison to be edgy and badass, then in college i read foucault and realized i was right

>>17343104
>Then they (Deleuze most obviously) invent a theory, where desire is not different from social world itself, there are no differences between subject and object, individual and social backround. Unconscious is not individual, but general. Desire is unhinged, it can be seen as an effect of wider ontological backround that has no ups and downs lefts or rights (concept of rhizome). Experimentation and becomings ensue.
Is it some sort of "will to power" approach to desire then? As in, you have control over where to direct your desires instead of being determined by them?

>>17343507
close, but deleuze builds his ontology without appeal to any individuals, so there is no entity that can stoicly sublimate their desires. For deleuze very roughly speaking there two kinds of alternatives: you are either a part of repressive desires or revolutionary, since capitalism has both of these aspects. d&g themselves ofc root for revolutionary flows of desire, their aim is to show how it is possible to escape subjectivation, meaning, unity etc.

>>17343503
At 27 I have realized I was right about many things during adolescence. There is a certain strange intellectual clarity in that period of life that is nevertheless muddled behind too much ignorance, inexperience, and pride to be of any profit, which makes us vulnerable to being misguided by spooks in our early 20s.

>>17342944
Can you point this out to me in Foucault's bibliography? I understand the notion that (bio)power is productive is elaborated in D&P, and that D&G challenge the lack formula in AO, but where is this in Foucault's writing?

>>17343536
>you are either a part of repressive desires or revolutionary
Can the "revolutionary approach" really exist without its counterpart, or must it necessarily exist as a counter culture within capitalism?
It seems logical that a main culture of "repressed desires" creates a surplus of the "objects of desire" which the revolutionary minority thrives in. Without a repressed majority, the objects of desire become scarce, thus ensuing a chaos of competing desire. This chaos brings forth the need for control, which leads to totalitarianism.

>>17343660
Sorry, "this" meaning the opposition to the law of lack.

>>17343660
The notion of sexuality as produced is laid out in most detail in History of sexuality
>In short, I would like to disengage my analysis from the privileges generally accorded the economy of scarcity and the principles of rarefaction, to search instead for instances of discursive production (which also administer silences, to be sure), of the production of power (which sometimes have the function of prohibiting), of the propagation of knowledge (which often cause mistaken beliefs or systematic misconceptions to circulate); I would like to write the history of these instances and their transformations. A first survey made from this viewpoint seems to indicate that since the end of the sixteenth century, the "putting into discourse of sex," far from undergoing a process of restriction, on the contrary has been subjected to a mechanism of increasing incitement; that the techniques of power exercised over sex have not obeyed a principle of rigorous selection, but rather one of dissemination and implantation of polymorphous sexualities; and that the will to knowledge has not come to a halt in the face of a taboo that must not be lifted, but has persisted in constituting-despite many mistakes, of course-a science of sexuality
because of that, for Foucault even "unproductive sexualities" (perversions e.g.) are a product of power.
>>17343667
>Can the "revolutionary approach" really exist without its counterpart
vice versa, Deleuze and Guattari argue that until capitalism societies were fully repressed, mostly with strict hierarchy, strict subjection and symbolic roles, appeal to organic unity etc. Capitalism deteritorializes those aspects via the circulation of money (think about marx's words that under capitalism "All that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned"). Its not culture or a reaction to the repressed aspects of society. Both repressive desires and revolutionary are inherent parts of capitalist system. Deleuze just wanted to "accelerate" the latter.
>It seems logical that a main culture of "repressed desires" creates a surplus of the "objects of desire" which the revolutionary minority thrives in
again, deleuze doesnt talk about repression of desires (which is more of a freudian theme), but desire for repression. you either desire repression or revolution. either to maintain status quo or find new openings and connections in it.

>>17343669
didnt notice this,
>Psychoanalysts have been saying the same thing for some time. They have challenged the simple little machinery that comes to mind when one speaks of repression; the idea of a rebellious energy that must be throttled has appeared to them inadequate for deciphering the manner in which power and desire are joined to one another; they consider them to be linked in a more complex and primary way than through the interplay of a primitive, natural, and living energy welling up from below, and a higher order seeking to stand in its way; thus one should not think that desire is repressed, for the simple reason that the law is what constitutes both desire and the lack on which it is predicated.

>>17343889
>vice versa, Deleuze and Guattari argue that until capitalism societies were fully repressed, mostly with strict hierarchy, strict subjection and symbolic roles, appeal to organic unity etc. Capitalism deteritorializes those aspects via the circulation of money (think about marx's words that under capitalism "All that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned"). Its not culture or a reaction to the repressed aspects of society. Both repressive desires and revolutionary are inherent parts of capitalist system. Deleuze just wanted to "accelerate" the latter.
>again, deleuze doesnt talk about repression of desires (which is more of a freudian theme), but desire for repression. you either desire repression or revolution. either to maintain status quo or find new openings and connections in it.
Interesting. I think I'm getting it. Could you define what Deleuze specifically means by "repression"? In what sense were pre-capitalistic societies "fully repressed"?

>>17344059
>what Deleuze specifically means by "repression"?
I'm not sure I'm using their concepts correctly, but D&G mean something like a certain conglomeration of unrelated things that are kept strictly in the same way over a period of time, they use words like territorialization or molar formations (as opposed to molecular, pre-identity formations) to describe it. Since for D&G desire is an expression of social reality in those societies there wasnt even a possibility for revolutionary desire. If you move that set of things and reassemble them in new ways you deteritorialize them. Capitalism unleashed a power to reassemble things in new ways (for profits mainly). This creates a possibility for revolutionary desire (D&G says that pre-capitalist societies feared this revolutionary desire like the devil, since it blows wide open all strict symbolic formations).

>>17344131
cont., Deleuze mainly uses the word repression to denote those instances, where molar, symbolic formations restrict revolutionary desires

>>17344131
Ok, so pre-capitalistic societies depended on the unification of desire (hence repressed), while capitalism thrives on taking advantage of the dialectic between repression and revolution? As if it feeds off and perpetuates itself on the constant strife between the two opposing forces, ala Newtonian gravity vs inertia. Therefore, according to D&G, the only way to destabilize capitalism is to accelerate the revolutionary flows of desire.
Is that right?

>>17341694
Foucault? More like Butt-Foucault haha

>>17344299
>it feeds off and perpetuates itself on the constant strife between the two opposing forces
exactly
>the only way to destabilize capitalism is to accelerate the revolutionary flows of desire
I don't really remember there being any indications that D&G want to destabilize capitalism (would have to double check). Their main aim (at least in Anti-Edipus) is something like: "most of the theory until now thought about desire and subjectivity trough the lenses of repressive formations, lets see what kind of desire and subjectivity we can infer from revolutionary viewpoint". The book mostly has an anti-repressive sentiment and a call for experimentation, since it was written shortly after 68.

>>17341761
What does it say? I can't read this.

>>17342811
> let's reduce everything to semantics.

>>17342650
Exit (by killing yourself). There is nothing more cringe than left anarchism.

I think you guys have oversimple and overly literal definitions of power.

Anyways his work is far less about how we are all "motivated by power" (that's Nietzsche) than how modern institutions are structured to assert maximal power, and I think the argument against politics being motivated by a kind of power is non-existent.

>>17344353
>I don't really remember there being any indications that D&G want to destabilize capitalism (would have to double check). Their main aim (at least in Anti-Edipus) is something like: "most of the theory until now thought about desire and subjectivity trough the lenses of repressive formations, lets see what kind of desire and subjectivity we can infer from revolutionary viewpoint". The book mostly has an anti-repressive sentiment and a call for experimentation, since it was written shortly after 68.
I see. In any case their analysis of the dialectic behind capitalism is extremely insightful and it makes perfect sense. I had never thought of it that way.
It’s a sort of alchemy of Newtonian physics into the sphere of economics, which was already an alchemy of Empedocles’s concept of love (unity) vs strife (division) into the sphere of physics.
This is a deep rabbit hole.

>>17344558
yeah, I was reading Freud's Civilization and its Discontents today and he talks about Eros being the force that unifies individual things and Thanatos as a force of destruction and he makes the claim that culture is the conflict between those two and I thought ok how deleuzian.

>>17344613
Fuck man

>>17341694
>everything is power!
>also into sadomasochism
really makes you think

>>17343908
Interesting, thanks

>lmao everyone just stay inside because of this ... uh.. flu? yeah lol, just keep quiet and obey bro

>>17346144
Meds

>>17346188
exactly lol, foucault proven right once more. kill your fucking self anglo, but before you do, tell me how france is a country populated by 66 millions dangerous schizo conspirationists who don't take their meds? Or could it be that.... mmmh.... they practice basic common sense, skepticism and critical thinking?

I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with centuries of intellectualism, deep inquiries into the nature of society, power etc... not it's just that meds are not being taken. right? picrel proves it once more; iran and france are the only two intellectually relevant entities in the world. they also happen to be the only relevant countries with no american bases on their soil. just another schizo coincidence I guess


>the vast majority of the world thinks vaccines CANNOT be dangerous
this is the state of humanity KEK.

>>17346260
>countries with the greatest literary traditions are able to nuance their thoughts and don't fall into the tribal, sterile and manufactured pro vs antivax "debate"
you can't make this up

>>17341761
He thought it was going to be a leftist revolution cuz he’s a fucking retard