/lit/ - Literature

>>18751967
Isn’t Deleuze the Deleuze + Hegel synthesis?

>>18751997
How?
Deleuze is not very fond of Hegel, at all.

>>18751967
Why don't you start reading philosophers that aren't Deleuze and Hegel? Don't be such an abandon. Go investigate. There's a lot that's being slept on because /lit/ in particular and people in general only read what's popular. Break new ground. Until one of you can say "I just read someone nobody on /lit/ reads and I can say it's amazing" you guys are just chasing trends and lack the investigative spirit of good philosophers. Don't you know Deleuze and Hegel were both scholarly and went out of their way to investigate other philosophers' ideas? Be like them.

>>18751967
>Jung and Deleuze
The closest thing would be his developments of schizoanalysis I would think, and that's a criticism of psychoanalysis.
Have you ever read Deleuze?

>>18751967
Acid Horizon is doing Hillman Deleuze synthesis stuff and Hillman is a Jungian

>>18752052
Fuck you, nigger. I'll read what I want to read and more.

>>18752052
Great advice anon, I'll see what I can do. Just wanted to see if /lit/ had a say on something I was pondering about, Hegel, Deleuze, and Jung aren't the only authors I care about and I'm trying to broaden those horizons. Take care. I'm a feeble tyro wading the fields.

>>18752057
No, I'm a poseur. Which is expected. I'll get to it eventually.

>>18752063
Neat.

>>18751967
vibrant materialism

yawn, Deleuze is old hat. Read Laruelle already.

>>18752360
>Laruelle

>>18752387
Brainmogged.

>>18751967
Read Deleuze, then read Hegel, then realize how stupid your post is.
There is at least 2 reasons why there can't be a Deleuze-Hegel synthesis:
1. Early Deleuzianism is a post-kantianism contrarian to Hegelianism (and also Heideggerianism); yet is still kantian (transcendental), even if not idealist (because it is material-sensible-empirical).
2. Late Deleuzoguattarianism is outside everything supossed by Hegel. (Thats the reason people can say thar Deleuzianism is anti-marxist, because its outside and contrarian to anything supposed by hegel-influenced marxism: concepts, categories, space, time, etc)

>>18752499
And there is no need to say that Deleuze always concieved Hegel as a charlatan (just as any sane person should think about idealists, in general, and religious people, in particular).

>>18752499
Stupid indeed, right you are. I wanted to see if a mutant, an abomination of both Hegelian and Deleuzoguattarian philosophy was made, intertwined, merged, but sadly that doesn't seem to exist because their contradicting/negating natures are too strong to make any sense of, I suppose (unless a purely psychotic person steps in and constructs a stable and or logical duality of both and proves me utterly wrong then I'm in awe). I've got an itch for bizarre readings and if there's no such thing then I'll walk away, no further questions asked. Same goes for that Jung and Deleuze fusion.

Many such cases for /lit/, I'd like to imagine. Got to stick to quirky and obscurantist writers to show off how refined and remarkable their taste is, but not actually reading any of their picked authors' works.

>>18752612
>Stupid indeed, right you are. I wanted to see if a mutant, an abomination of both Hegelian and Deleuzoguattarian philosophy was made, intertwined, merged, but sadly that doesn't seem to exist because their contradicting/negating natures are too strong to make any sense of
You can still read Bataille to have a grasp of how it could be. Just as Deleuze, Bataille was deeply influenced by Nietzsche, but he also was deeply influenced by Hegel, and most of the aberrancy of his theories are effects of melting down bot conceptual apparatuses.

>>18751967
this is the most retarded thread currently up. Just stop OP, go back to doing something more in your league of intelectual practice like watching youtube videos or playing videogames

>>18752735
Roger, I'm on it.

>>18751967
Why would you want to synthesize philosophy and judaic schizophrenia

>>18752740
Don't take that other anon's bullshit dude. You might have asked a sort of silly question but your heart's in the right place. You like the bizarre for the beauty that haunts it and I like that. The other anon is just a typical 4chan posturer.

>>18751967
>>18752051
Deleuze is Hegelian, unironically. If you would have read Hegel he'd be the first to come to mind reading Difference and Repetition, and passages of Thousand Plateaus. It's all Hegel, really. Many - if not all - Hegelian wouldn't agree with this, but the similarities and the continuity is uncanny, most though won't have read Deleuze, actually, or even cared to put in the effort to go beyond his vocabulary.

That is also the reason why a Jung 'synthesis' wouldn't work.

Also, neither of the two are word salad. It's all pretty well thought out. You get that if you'd study the texts instead of reading them for and through the prose alone.

>>18752813
>Deleuze is Hegelian
>literally makes fun of Hegel in What is Philosophy? and takes shots at him in the Nietzsche book
Hegel fans are the biggest try hards on /lit/, not even a Hegelian would agree with you

>>18752741
For fun. There goes your reply.

>>18752782
Now there's an archetype of a /lit/ poster I'd like to see more often. Where's the conundrum in posting something that's different? Albeit dumb (this can't be more asinine than people posting about Stirner shitting in the woods or in general, Lolita anything, right?), absolutely, I was curious in seeing if /lit/ would deliver and tell me about the existence of a whole Gesamtausgabe, in which an autist explains (attempts to is more correct), for instance how, despite their differences, they're all are one in the same.

>>18752813
>Deleuze is Hegelian, unironically.
Hegel's ghastly, rotten undying hands have touched everything by now, haven't they? Can't unsee what I've seen from now on.

>Also, neither of the two are word salad. It's all pretty well thought out. You get that if you'd study the texts instead of reading them for and through the prose alone.
For the common /lit/ layman, anything written by the two is considered uncanny valley. If a person were to be on the contrary position of a 'common /lit/ layman' then they'd have no issue, I'm sure of it, as demonstrated by you, the poster. I am shamefully on the side of the unenlightened, as it would be a big commitment to enter the realm of the aforementioned duo's (trio?) oeuvre, not to mention the ginormous tower of prerequisite reading in order to acknowledge a word of what is being said by the two. Perhaps Deleuze less, Hegel more so - or, on the same plane they'd be of difficulty and what the users of /lit/ have been spouting were a total lie, fabrications of what is real.

It's all fun and games, if I make no sense then let this thread be a continuation of the "Schizophrenic book" threads instead if such a salvage is realistic and attainable.