/lit/ - Literature

>>17393458
>crypto-fascist

>>17393458
>tranny philosophy
Into the trash it goes.

Why didn't he want to have a discussion?

>>17393470
Because he knew he would fall to fax und logicks

>>17393470
cause then people can dispute what he's saying and demand arguments, and you're not supposed to do that. you're just supposed to uncritically marvel at his genius and profundity.

Is he the last hope of pantheism?

>>17393458
Does Deleuze reach the level of genius in your estimation?

>>17393489
Galen Strawson, David Ray Griffin, Timothy Sprigge, William Seager, David Skrbina, and other contemporary Panpsychists are better.

>>17393506
Basic gestalt?

>>17393506
Lol who?

>>17393521
>gestalt
no

>>17393522
Your ignorance only proves that you are not enlightened, cope, dilate, etc.

>>17393458
>crypto-fascist

>>17393473
>>17393474
Some plants grow in the sun, other plants grow in the shade. All plants need a gardener, especially when they are young.

>>17393470
Because there is no point. You will not convince anyone. What matters most are decisions not discussions. And philosophy as pure concept creation means making a creative decision, just like in any other worthwhile endeavor like science or art does. You don't have discussions whether or not one should make paintings in the style of impressionism or realism, you just paint and let fools seethe. You just build the atomic bomb like a chad. That is what Deleuze endorses.

>>17393628
Those plants that can't grow under the light of cold unyielding reason don't deserve to grow at all.

>>17393474
>cause then people can dispute what he's saying and demand arguments, and you're not supposed to do that. you're just supposed to uncritically marvel at his genius and profundity.

>>17393458
>crypto-fascist
Kys faggot

>>17393628
>All plants need a gardener
Obviously untrue.

>>17393766

>>17393755
As long as there is shade, there will be plants that grow in the shade.

>>17393781
Where there is growth, there is care. Care is the profession of the gardener. Sometimes the gardener is a person with a watering can. Sometimes the gardener is a rain cloud in the sky. If there were no gardener, nothing could grow.

>>17393854
Then we should extinguish the shade .

>>17393940
We would have to move constantly so that our shadow never stays in one place for too long. During the day we would do our daily work, and at night we would rest.

>>17393653
>philosophy as pure concept creation

this is just late-stage philosophy

>>17395046
>late-stage philosophy

>>17393653
you'd convince people if you actually had something of substance to say, and actual reasons for saying it dumb faggot.

is that a fedora in the back

deleuze? more like deleuzianal

>>17395100
Who convinced Napoleon through discussion? Who convinced Van Gogh? Who convinced Lenin or Hitler? Who convinced Salvador Dali or Beethoven? No great person ever did his deeds because of some faggy argument of formal logic. Only Karens have discussions.

>>17395185
If someone has an opinion that everyone likes, he will not be challenged. But if not everyone likes it, he will have to justify himself. Anyone who has to justify himself must speak the same language as everyone else.

Apostrophe en pls

To understand this sentence you have to know thé contexte (télévision, nouveau philosophe, etc)

https://youtu.be/36u1kvTAkKg

>>17395185
they all acted in reality and thus under the constraints of reality and they accomplished what they accomplished due to correctly apprehending and responding to the objective facts. the question of why is different to the question of how. napoleon didn't just say with deleuze truth doesn't exist I can do what I want and then start drawing his plans purely from his ass with no deliberation of the relevant facts.
if you want to accomplish anything at all you have to take reality seriously, because reality doesn't care about your dreams. this is why deleuze is worthless. rejecting truth and reality only works when you don't have to accomplish anything.

>>17395706
Well Deleuze does acknowledge reality. In fact for him it is always a problem that causes thought of any kind to take place.
So he is just like Napoleon in that sense, in that he responds to a problem that provokes him. But what differenciates Deleuze from any other philosopher is in fact not wanting to fix reality into a single coherent picture that can be used to judge everything eternally but to have openness for new things within philosophy and all areas of life. He doesn't reject truth, he just sees truth as the always shifting answer to an equally always shifting set of problems. Philosophers before Deleuze all were people, that if they knew it or not(some more than others obviously), desired to have a predeterminend answer for everything, a model of reality that could rule outside of the heat-of-the-moment. But that is absurd and divorces you from the creative struggle with reality. To have the conception of truth that thinkers in the past had, is to effectively divorce truth from reality, by making it this unquestionable image that doesn't partake in reality. And this is why Deleuze is kinda cool and it is sad that people only follow retarded interpretations of his thought like as if he wanted you to cut your dick off or some stupid shit.

>>17393458
>deleuze
>crypto-fascist
imagine being this retarded

>>17396416
>He doesn't reject truth, he just sees truth as the always shifting answer to an equally always shifting set of problems
that's rejecting truth in my book. especially when you use it to justify things like this.

>>17396431
Ever heard of Dumezil?

>>17393458
>become a schizophrenic communist transsexual
>based crypto-fascist

>>17396416
>But what differenciates Deleuze from any other philosopher is in fact not wanting to fix reality into a single coherent picture that can be used to judge everything eternally
>it is sad that people only follow retarded interpretations of his thought like as if he wanted you to cut your dick off or some stupid shit.
Sounds like you're trying to fix his thought into a single coherent picture that can be used to judge everything eternally.

>>17395534
>nouveau philosophe

>>17395100
cope

>>17393458
What's the context of this?

>>17393458

>Crypto-fascist

You've obviously never read a page of Deleuze

>>17397609
>This brings us back to the paradox of fascism, and the way in which fascism differs from totalitarianism. For totalitarianism is a State affair: it essentially concerns the relation between the State as a localized assemblage and the abstract machine of overcoding it effectuates. Even in the case of a military dictatorship, it is a State army, not a war machine, that takes power and elevates the State to the totalitarian stage. Totalitarianism is quintessentially conservative. Fascism, on the other hand, involves a war machine. When fascism builds itself a totalitarian State, it is not in the sense of a State army taking power, but of a war machine taking over the State. A bizarre remark by Virilio puts us on the trail: in fascism, the State is far less totalitarian than it is suicidal. There is in fascism a realized nihilism. Unlike the totalitarian State, which does its utmost to seal all possible lines of flight, fascism is constructed on an intense line of flight, which it transforms into a line of pure destruction and abolition.
fascism is deterritorialization