/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11573756]

the greatest philosopher of all time

[Anonymous No.11573766]

>>11573756
Too leftist. Try rationality and reason. Try Culture of Critique

[Anonymous No.11573776]

You don't think there will ever be someone who surpasses him?

[Anonymous No.11573786]

Singlehandedly solved metaphysics without the handwaving mystic wittenstein bullshit. He is the Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle of Post-Modernism. I am deleuzeanal and the future is deleuzean.

[Anonymous No.11573791]

deleuzional

[Anonymous No.11573806]

>>11573766
Ewwww...eww.... culture of critique is pseudo shit tier and shouldn't be mentioned in proximity with deleuze

[Anonymous No.11573807]

I read his two books about cinema a while ago, definitely among my most defiant readings

[Anonymous No.11573882]

Me and Nick land are among the few individuals to fully understand the implications of Deleuzean thought and achieve the BwO. It is no coincidence that we both went insane soon after. Six visits to the psych ward later after deterritorializing myself with hardcore psychedelics, I have now returned to the fold of Platonism. The ethics of difference, it would seem, end only in a padded cell or a coffin. For my mother's sake, I now adhere to virtue ethics. Kinda miss fucking bipolar scene sluts but then again that's probably how I ended up with HPV. I only hope my future wife can forgive me my immature philosophical infatuation.

[Anonymous No.11573885]

>>11573776
peterson

[Anonymous No.11573896]

>>11573786
>Singlehandedly solved metaphysics without the handwaving mystic wittenstein bullshit
think you'll find late witty did that just fine

[Anonymous No.11573899]

>>11573766
>implying deleuze is not hyper-rational
Isshiggidigg.

[Anonymous No.11573909]

>>11573885
Going back to discredited jungism from the past is the opposite of surpassing.

[Anonymous No.11573915]

>>11573882
i like this pasta. novels with this aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.11573917]

>>11573896
Read Logic of Sense. And Pure Immanence. He has some insights into things even late Witty didn't quite grok...

[Anonymous No.11573927]

>>11573915
Fanged Noumena
Cyclonopedia
CCRU: Collected Writings
Foucault's Pendulum
Valis
The Divine Invasion
The Transmigration of Timothy Archer
A Scanner Darkly
Maze of Death
Ubik

[Anonymous No.11574102]

Does anyone have that meme that says "when you skim through anti-oedipus and decide to stop taking your anti-psychotics" and is accompanied by a picture of Tetsuo from Akira saying "Take my medicine and end up shriveled up like those kids?"?

[Anonymous No.11574939]

>>11574102
How high are you, kid?

[Anonymous No.11574981]

>>11574102

[Anonymous No.11575021]

In all honesty, it's Buddha

[Anonymous No.11575041]

>>11573756
>Deloser
>good
read Lacan faggot

[Anonymous No.11575050]

>>11575041
*schniff*

*rubs nose*

[Anonymous No.11575072]

>>11573756
What he doing with Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.11575180]

>>11575050
Badiou, Lacan, and Zizek are all compatible.
>>11575072
The cat?

[Anonymous No.11575198]

do you think his cat was called Anti-Oedipuss?

[Anonymous No.11575223]

Is Deleuze unironically worth reading?

[Anonymous No.11575232]

>>11575223
Yes. Deleuze is p god tier. Even if you disagree with him at times at least his philosophy is well argued and crafted. Dude was wicked smart

[Anonymous No.11575236]

>>11575232
Can I jump straight from Nietzsche to Deleuze or will I be lost?

[Anonymous No.11575248]

>>11575236
Probably. If you have any experience with Lacan or Freud, I'd suggest Anti-Oedipus

Otherwise read 1000 Plateaus

Repetition and Difference is also really good but a bit more dense

If you know some Leibniz or Spinoza, then Repetition and Difference is easier. His books on individual philosophers are p good

Maybe his Nietzsche book would be a good fit for you

[Anonymous No.11575264]

>>11573756
*philosophical labourer. See Nietzsche.
Unironically gonna be Plato lbr.

[Anonymous No.11575973]

>>11573786

>I am deleuzeanal

We've got a fucking James Joyce over here!

[Anonymous No.11575998]

>>11573756
Doesn't look like a picture of Martin Heidegger

[Anonymous No.11576019]

>>11573756
If read Deleuze makes you think it is ok to have these nails, no, thank you.

[Anonymous No.11576022]

>>11576019
Holy fuck, I didn't notice that. That's fucking disgusting. How can I take his ideas seriously now?

[Anonymous No.11576516]

>>11576019
If he cut his nails would he die?

[Anonymous No.11576845]

>>11573756
>he doesn't recognize the true genius behind anti-oedipus
TOP JEJ

[Anonymous No.11576867]

>>11576019
>he grew his nails long because of a skin disease which left his fingertips painful to the touch

[Anonymous No.11576873]

>>11573776
what about mark fisher
i mean, not surpassing him but being as great

[Anonymous No.11577911]

>>11574981
Thank you anon...now someone explain

[Anonymous No.11577974]

>>11577911
it's a commentary on the nature of desire and technology: that is, capitalism. tetsuo can't (or won't) regulate his desires, which massively exceed him. where does this ultimately take him? into becoming a gigantic monstrosity.

so one question to ask is, is this what it means to be a BwO? partly yes, partly no. the idea of deleuze's thought isn't to become monstrous, but it does mean getting around whatever internal despotism exists within the subject that prevents them from becoming what they are. for land, who is a related but slightly different figure, the social aspect of this means cybernetic capitalism. but it's also what makes tetsuo (and this film in general) an interesting one: land is a visionary, but his visions are also very dark. land's own intellectual career is kind of tetsuo-like in this way: he really does provide a good description of what would happen if you really did try to deterritorialize yourself to the extreme. hence his fetishism of capital.

tetsuo represents a danger more than an exemplary case of deleuzian thought. but akira is a complex film and can be looked at in a lot of different ways. but it's because of the question and idea of limits: what are, where are, the limits? they can't be transcendentally imposed or deduced - all of this would be negativity. but what happens in the absence of this? people go wild, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not, and sometimes both.

[Anonymous No.11578001]

>>11577974
to put it another way, i might even say that in a sense Uncle Gilles is a little bit like galadriel, and land fails galadriel's test in the most unbelievably interesting way possible.

[Anonymous No.11578038]

>>11577911
im reading cinema right now and he only mentioned anime by proxy, that Eisenstein was influenced by the framing of mangos.
also what he has to say about the out field and wholes and whatnot is exactly what i have been thinking about for a long time.
>tfw at least as smart as deleuze

[Anonymous No.11578084]

>>11577974
>getting around whatever internal despotism exists within the subject that prevents them from becoming what they are
What are Deleuze’s ideas of becoming aimed at: is it some kind of Heidiggerian fulfilment of potential or just existentialism?
Also Akira ends very spiritually, depicting a kind of Hindu cyclical apocalypse. Does Deleuze agree with this conception? I read he was a materialist atheist.

Also I agree Land is interesting in the way insane people are. I have yet to read him but I look forward to it. Anything I should watch out for?

[Anonymous No.11578138]

>>11576845
Chaosmosis is dope. What should I read next?

[Anonymous No.11578141]

>>11578084
'fulfilment of potential' isn't a bad way of describing it, although he would mean this in a sense very different from how heidegger means it. for deleuze the key figure is spinoza. the BwO, the plane of immanence and so on are ways of being/becoming spinoza's panpsychic god by way of bergson and nietzsche. so it is in a sense existential, but he's very much interested in getting around anything that derives from hegel, lacan, plato and so on. *joy* is the idea. but it is of a very particular kind. so to call him a materialist atheist is really to do him a disservice: spinoza's god *is* Nature. which means that Nature as such is something other than just being materialist-atheist.

and land isn't insane. he *went* insane, inasmuch as he was going for extreme schizoanalysis. or maybe, like so many interesting thinkers do, he just has a slightly different psychic arrangement than the rest of us. again, look at nietzsche. he had brain cancer, and went mad later in life. he was also the most interesting writer ever.

anyways, if you're reading land, there's a good collection of stuff at r/theoryfiction. or track down a copy of the acclerationist reader, it will put his work in a historical perspective that you might find helpful if you're starting out.

[Anonymous No.11578198]

>>11578141
Thanks for the responses. Spinoza it is then, I’ll read him before starting with D&G. Although if joy is the idea I don’t see why he doesn’t advocate common religion or spirituality (or even just German idealism as a way to circumvent the disinclination towards institutional theism).

[Anonymous No.11578212]

>>11578198
well, for me at least, i find that the thing i want to read the most after having spent years and years thinking about land is religion, even if neither deleuze nor land reference that stuff very much.

german idealism is indeed a very workable bridge between. hegel is no joke, and i do think there is a lot of interesting correspondence between hegel and acceleration. and it is in a way sort of a place where you can learn all of your various problems or questions with religion (lacan really is a genius).

as for starting with spinoza before D&G, go nuts. i didn't, personally, and i didn't find AO or ATP all that hard to understand without having done so. i suspect many only find themselves reading AO after having been exposed to lacan already by way of zizek, and then maybe if they're interested going ahead into deleuze and other stuff. but who knows?

anyways, it's all fascinating reading, however you do it. so good luck then. and if you find any interesting stuff come back and share it with /lit/, the land threads are usually pretty gnarly. cheers.

[Anonymous No.11578417]

>>11578212
Cheers anon, hope to see you around in those land threads

[Anonymous No.11578421]

Any suggestions on books to read to help me understand Difference and Repetition? I didn't have much trouble with Capitalism and Schizophrenia, but D&R is easily the hardest book I've ever read.

Already read Nietzsche and Philosophy (as well as every book N has written) and I'm about to read Spinoza's Ethics. Another anon mentioned Leibniz being central and I figure the Monadology would be a good start, but what else?

WHY IS D&R SO FUCKING DIFFICULT? GOD DAMN

[Anonymous No.11578556]

>>11578421
Try watching John David Ebert’s videos on it

[Anonymous No.11578637]

>>11577974
Lands truly significant realization is much more simple and banal. His conceptualization of non-human entities (for him mostly capitalism) as agents within the human inhabited space is incomplete and leads him to deityfy one of them without grasping the multitude of giant creatures walking amongst us.

[Anonymous No.11578672]

>>11573766
>too leftist
>provided the framework that would accidentally become the alt-right and nrx
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Almost like you never read Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.11578888]

>>11578421
Try reading this bad boy to help.

[Anonymous No.11578895]

>>11578637
Capitalism as egregore.

[Anonymous No.11578990]

>>11573786
>solved metaphysics
>solved
Do you really think that? Maybe we can say that he has given one of the best metaphysical analyses to date, but it would be negligent to assume that he has ""solved"" the nigh unsolvable.

[Anonymous No.11579199]

>>11578637
>the multitude of giant creatures walking amongst us

what giant creatures are you referring to? metaphysical concepts? something else?

[Anonymous No.11579208]

>>11578895
today i learned a new word, thanks anon

>>11578888
and a new book too

my cup runneth over gents

[Anonymous No.11579493]

>>11578990
Metaphysics is only unsolvable when analysed incorrectly. Deleuze provides the solution to the problems of traditional metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.11579707]

>>11578421
Read everything Deleuze wrote up to D&R. Also read his courses on Leibniz for the only proper simple explanation of the dx/dy stuff he keeps bringing up but never properly explains. tl;dr it's a relation independent of its terms, but it's interesting how he got to its independence.

DeLanda helps a lot with the science stuff (singularities, multiplicities, virtual etc.) and it also helps to read some interviews and essays from the collections. Also there's like 3 or 4 English books alone that explain D&R.

Have a pasta:

A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

For compilation books, start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts.

As for books written by Deleuze, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro as well). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/


A decent bibliography:
https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

If you're in the mood for a light read pick up Francois Dosse's Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari: Intersecting Lives for their biographies.

[Anonymous No.11579721]

>>11573791
Underridated post

[Anonymous No.11579726]

>>11578421
Also, if you're into Leibniz, DO NOT start with Deleuze's book on Leibniz. It's his last published book and it's Deleuze's equivalent of being on speed, crack and meth at the same time.

[Anonymous No.11579747]

>>11573882
hi everyone im new!!!! *holds up rhizome* my name is giles but u can call me T3H B0dY W1tH0uT 0RgANs. as you can see im very nomadic!!!! thats why i came here 2 meet nomadic people like me _... I'm 50 years old (im young for my age tho!!) i like to read spinoza (im neovitalist if you dont like it deal w/it) he is our favorite author!! bcuz its SOOOO panenhenic. he is deleuzian 2 of course but i want 2 meet more deleuzian people =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lol…neways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!!!
NOMADISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- me bein deleuzian again _^ hehe…toodles!!!!!

love and rhizomes,

T3H B0dY W1tH0uT 0RgANs

[Anonymous No.11579833]

>>11575041
>read Lacan faggot

I found that famous lack Lacan talks about. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.11581032]

>>11579726
I thought Pure immanence was his final work...

[Anonymous No.11581628]

>>11579747
based

[Anonymous No.11581635]

>>11573806
>Ewwww...eww....

[Anonymous No.11581697]

>>11575041
>read Lacan
lmao

[Anonymous No.11581829]

>>11573766
>too leftist
>try reason
If your reason for condemning an intellectual is on the basis of the political leanings of his thought, you left reason behind some time ago, or never knew it at all.

[Anonymous No.11581831]

>>11581032
The book Pure Immanence was just a compilation of older essays + the last one he published which gave the book its name.

[Anonymous No.11581835]

>>11573756
I am only familiar with Deluze by name. Please, give me a short summary. Place him in the context of his time and philosophy as a whole, and give me a run-down of his thought in general. I'm sure I'm not the only anon who would benefit.

[Anonymous No.11582146]

>>11581835
M8, you're asking us to sum up a 2000+ ages work in a post, for free.
Let's say out of the great post-structuralists, Deleuze was the only one who didn't want to abandon ontology. Read a short intro, I believe the Todd May one to be very accessible. Deleuze is very complex, there's a reason the guy had to create a good part of his vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.11582182]

>>11576516
It would be extremely painful

[Anonymous No.11582196]

yes, cats and animals in general are the best illustration of what any real philosophy should be.

[Anonymous No.11582210]

>>11582182
He's a big guy

[Anonymous No.11582305]

>>11582210
For (you)

[Anonymous No.11582335]

Does anyone have any content of Deleuze on Spinoza? I could find but they were all in french.

[Anonymous No.11582404]

>>11582335
https://monoskop.org/images/d/d8/Deleuze_Gilles_Spinoza_Practical_Philosophy.pdf

[Anonymous No.11582760]

>>11582146
Oh please dude. I don't need you to explain all of philosophy, only his fucking work in context. William Barret could do it in 20 fucking pages, and I'm not even asking for that level of depth. Whatever tho, make a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge claim and then puss out on the explanation.

[Anonymous No.11582956]

I have very little patience for continental philosophy. I'd like to pretend that wasn't the case, that I was as equally open to the ideas of Sartre, Derrida, Baudrillard and Deleuze as I am to the ideas of Wittgenstein, Putnam, Quine and Davidson, in the spirit of intellectual openness and alethic responsibility. But the fact is after reading about 10 pages of any of the former group's work I end up thinking "Shit, I'm getting nothing out of this", stop and start reading something else.

[Anonymous No.11583046]

>>11582335
His courses on webdeleuze.com

Look up Practical Philosophy and Expressionism in Philosophy on libgen. Those are Deleuze's two books on Spinoza.

>>11582956
Start with Nietzsche & Philosophy. Once you get why the pluralistic differential ontology (or whatever you want to call it) is important for interpretation and evaluation in philosophy and in everyday life, you'll be able to read most of Deleuze and get a lot out of it (especially his work with Guattari).

>>11581835
>>11582760
Pic related is something I found on here, although the extreme nominalism thing can be a bit misleading.

If you want details check the summary videos in the pasta (here >>11579707).

Basically, Deleuze was a classical metaphyisician unlike most of his generation (poststructuralists). He spent a long time around left Nietzscheans and wrote some influential texts on the matter. He emphasized a metaphysics of pure relations independent of their terms (aka pure difference) which have their own becoming through repetition with variation. He was initially close to psychoanalysis and distanced himself from it in time, culminating with a critical text written with Guattari called Anti-Oedipus which was nonetheless very much an attempt to compromise with Lacan and get them on their side. The second volume, A Thousand Plateaus clarifies a great deal on what D&G want instead of psychoanalysis (pragmatic fluid assemblages where language is only one component among others rather than the main focus). While Deleuze's own work can be quite abstract, his work with Guattari is much more practical even though it's still very difficult to read due to their rhizomatic style of fluid connections between concepts (made possible by said philosophy of relations).

See the pasta above for details on how to start and what to watch / read.

[Anonymous No.11583501]

>>11575072
Kek. Took me a few days, but I got the joke.

[Anonymous No.11583568]

>>11581697
THE ERECTILE ORGAN

[Anonymous No.11583798]

>>11583568
Is imaginary ;)

[Anonymous No.11584256]

>>11582404
>>11583046
thank you very much

[Anonymous No.11584733]

>>11578672
Whut?

[Anonymous No.11585316]

>>11583046

What are infra-empiricism and type a theory of time?

[Anonymous No.11585353]

>>11583046
How can he be an anti-representationalist without collapsing in Rortyism? Does he not take his metaphysics, for example, as a correct representation of the world?

[Anonymous No.11585355]

>>11585353
Continental philosophers don't appreciate these kinds of questions, bro.

[Anonymous No.11585688]

>>11583046
Yes. Trolling gets results.

[Anonymous No.11585868]

>>11585353
he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.11585982]

>>11573756
wasnt he a fag? probably a numale atheist

[Anonymous No.11586093]

>>11585353
He is the metaphysics of anti-metaphysics. The metametaphysic.

[Anonymous No.11586146]

>>11575223

It is not an easy read, not as convoluted as Kant, but will still take a while to digest.

[Anonymous No.11586334]

>>11575223
yep, he's still got the belt right now

[Anonymous No.11586411]

Deleuze was a hack. Should have been charged with jargon abuse

[Anonymous No.11586425]

>>11576873
K-Punk is great. He's very scattered but very smart and fun to read. He also didn't write in post-structuralist gibberish, which is rare for a member of CCRU.

[Anonymous No.11586429]

I think OP is in need of a neck massage

[Anonymous No.11586673]

>>11573756
Why are continental threads filled with larping. Why is it this cringey

[Anonymous No.11586716]

musically deleuzian ting rasclaat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y6IbLbypWo

[Anonymous No.11587105]

>>11573766
Kill yourself faggot

[Anonymous No.11587106]

>>11585982
He was married and had two kids. If he was gay, he was good at hiding it.

>>11585316
Infra afaik refers to several things at once here: both experience beyond images and a focus on the relations between objects, both amounting to the same thing for Deleuze. Hume, Russell and Whitehead all had their own theories about relations which vaguely fall under this category, but for Deleuze the relations were not the regular observable ones (the cat is on the table) but rather the type that for example quantum mechanics tries to understand.

>>11585353
The term does not refer to how his philosophy represents the world, but rather taking representations as a starting point (as Descartes does with the candle wax for example). Deleuze was against it because objects are already composites so you can't go beyond them if you allow them to dictate your entire ontology.

[Anonymous No.11587114]

>>11587106
Actually I should have given an example like "Paul is taller than Peter" to give you a better idea of relations. The cat one is a different category usually.

[Anonymous No.11587156]

>>11573786
And it will seem that way until the next swinging dick on the sidewalk publishes his first work 60 years from now that autistically and meticulously (say that five times fast) deconstructs his work on a line by line basis. Not to mention ontology is unsolvable, almost by definition

[Anonymous No.11587160]

>>11587156
>starting sentences with And and Not
ouch

[Anonymous No.11587539]

>>11573882
>Kinda miss fucking bipolar scene sluts
same, anon. same.

[Anonymous No.11587923]

>>11587156
> Not to mention ontology is unsolvable, almost by definition

It's more a matter of getting as close as possible, at least in Deleuze's case. Still, if he is right, we haven't even come close to a science that can understand pure difference. Still, given that it's based on fluctuations and undulations and stuff like that, maybe we are getting quite close since sound plays a great importance, not just as a model. These days sound is a weapon as well as a promising cure (sound is used to destroy bacteria now, although not in a medical way yet).

[Anonymous No.11588544]

>>11582196
Not sure if sarcasm.

[Anonymous No.11588561]

>>11584733
Read Deleuze

[Anonymous No.11588567]

>>11588561
Why alt-right and NRx?

[Anonymous No.11588598]

>>11578141
Poor axiom II

[Anonymous No.11588612]

>>11586673
Because contentinal "philosophy" survives on propaganda.

[Anonymous No.11588676]

>>11588612
Name a good philosopher.

[Anonymous No.11589278]

>>11588567
It's just a dumb meme, D&G were leftists and only butthurt Maoists and alt-trolls claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11589280]

Yer a wizard, lil deleuzean

http://razorsmile.org/archive/deleuzeandsorcery.pdf

[Anonymous No.11589642]

Hot take: Badiou killed Deleuze

[Anonymous No.11590021]

>>11588598
>E1: AXIOM. 2. That which cannot be conceived through anything else must be conceived through itself.

checks out i guess

[Anonymous No.11590035]

>>11589642
hotter take: capitalism killed deleuze and badiou just announced it

[Anonymous No.11590896]

нe тoнeм

[Anonymous No.11590922]

>>11590896
Tы oхyeл? Moжeт ты eщё и oп этoгo тpeдa? Baм oднoгo пoлyмёpтвoгo нa cocaкe мaлo?

[Anonymous No.11590935]

>>11590922
хeх
пoйдy бaмпaнy тoт yютный тpeдик :3

[Anonymous No.11590971]

пoшeл cпaть, вceм cлaдких cнoв, oбнял

[Anonymous No.11591008]

>>11573756
Dave Cohen

[Anonymous No.11592518]

bump

[Anonymous No.11592531]

>>11573756
Kitties make pretty good philosophers, because they are so chill

[Anonymous No.11593381]

>>11590971
>>11590935
>>11590922
>>11590896
Deleuze was not Russian.

[Anonymous No.11593402]

>>11588676
Me.

[Anonymous No.11593473]

*blocks your path*

[Anonymous No.11593506]

>>11593381
He knew Russian language.

[Anonymous No.11593688]

>>11579747
holy kek that picture

[Anonymous No.11593719]

>>11586146
I'm reading the CPR and I find it infinitely clearer than Différence et Répétition. Sometimes I wonder if he's really saying anything at all. Maybe I chose the wrong book of his to start with.
Has anyone read his book on Kant?

[Anonymous No.11593732]

>>11593719
Yep. You're absolutely right. I dont know how anon got that idea

[Anonymous No.11593797]

>>11583046
>He emphasized a metaphysics of pure relations independent of their terms
Stupid. A body and the ground matter as well as their relation through gravitational attraction and eight stories of air.

[Anonymous No.11593956]

>>11593797
A body and the ground are made of relations as well. Deleuze was only inspired by the Anglo tradition of relation ontology, he didn't believe that starting from representation (already constituted objects) was the right idea.

>>11593473
Kek. Wouldn't it count as not blocking your path in Deleuze's case?

[Anonymous No.11594610]

>>11592531
Deleuze didn't really like pets sadly. Or maybe he didn't like the fact that people treated them in a silly manner. Seeing poodles and chihuahuas and the like makes me understand how he feels.

[Anonymous No.11595884]

deleze is the most overrated thinker. nothing but a meme.

[Anonymous No.11595890]

>>11595884
deLOSE
the LOSE

[Anonymous No.11596253]

>>11593506
Did he? I'm genuinely curious about that.

[Anonymous No.11596314]

>>11596253
just another cultural marxist.

[Anonymous No.11596389]

>>11596314
>cultural marxist

wow, quite the adept and well thought out criticism, your understanding of the source materials just shines

10/10