[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 75 KB, 666x369, gilles-deleuze-υστερόγραφο-για-τις-κοινωνίες-του-ελέγχου.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10464775 No.10464775 [Reply] [Original]

>i'm a metaphysician in the sense that i think "Being" is that which is always "a problem" (at issue) for that which conceptually determines being (the human)
>also every concept is an irreducibly historical multiplicity, and to do philosophy is to attend to the perpetual becoming of the concept-essence, not substance metaphysics
>there can never be a stable concept in the platonic sense of a 'real' essence or universal, duh, because every concept is actually a multiplicity define by *difference*~
>but i don't like phenomenology guys!! i don't like that heidegger fella and i'm certainly not saying what derrida is saying

Why not just admit you're doing phenomenology

Foucault does this too, just fucking admit it's phenomenology you fucking French dickhead

>> No.10464786

>>10464775
brainlet

>> No.10464803

>>10464786
>brainlet
only brainlets use this word

>> No.10464818

>>10464775
>Why not just admit you're doing phenomenology
Because he is a metaphysician, as he clearly stated

>> No.10464832

Read Heraclitus, you dumb faggot.

>> No.10464844

>>10464832
Please, I am not looking to talk to passersby who don't know anything about contemporary philosophy

>> No.10464859

Oops, I also meant to reply disparagingly to this person, who is also mentally handicapped:
>>10464818

>> No.10464897

>>10464775
>>there can never be a stable concept in the platonic sense of a 'real' essence or universal, duh, because every concept
circle

>> No.10465052
File: 88 KB, 716x717, 1513738194618.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10465052

>>10464775
Phenomenology works with phenomena and within the limits of something like a Kantian framework, not speculating about Being, at best formulating some borderline mystical notions of the transcendental.

For Deleuze the noumenon, with what science tells us about "it" (assemblage theory-type criticisms included), is a valid starting point because the need for a practical philosophy takes us through it.

Just because Deleuze has some things in common with phenomenology (quite a few in fact since Merleau-Ponty is an important influence which is rarely mentioned by D&G) doesn't mean that it's the same thing. In this sense Lacan is closer to phenomenology than Deleuze as long as we don't just mean "pertaining to phenomena" when we say phenomenology but rather respect some Husserlian or Heideggerian guidelines (although Heidegger and M-P were a bit more flexible since they did a lot of commentary on speculative philosophers like Bergson or Nietzsche).

>> No.10465393

>>10465052
What did Deleuze say and do and think about that was not Phenomenological? What is there besides Phenomenology?

>> No.10465657

B-but Anon, phenomenology is Hegelian and negative and I like to affirm myself, because otherwise I'm not special, and then that means my boyfriend can't fuck your girlfriend! And if you disagree with me you're a poopy head and your local priest touched your anus!

>> No.10465698

>>10464803
I don’t trust brainlets, brainlet