/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12533687]

How could two people be so brazen? I can't get any of thses literal "shit,fuck,pee-pee,poo-poo" gibberish. Is this the representation about how schizophrenia patient's mind work? I fully understand Nietzsche and Freud but can't even process a single word of this random reddit meme book.

[Anonymous No.12533692]

Perhaps you could consider not engaging with /lit/ memes.

[Anonymous No.12533700]

I've tried a couple of times and, honestly, I also don't get it. I think D&G are just really big for art people who want to feel like they're doing philosophy but are also afraid of anything written before their parents were born.

[Anonymous No.12534017]

bump

[Anonymous No.12534035]

They're basically saying it's not strictly generational, but holds the same structure as the frigid mother - schizophrenia inducing grandfather model as Freud. Look at the diagrams

[Anonymous No.12534221]

>>12533700
Deleuze claimed his works would be better understood by artists and musicians than philosophers, so you’re not wrong there. That said, you’re wrong to assume that people reading D&G have no experience with older philosophers, given that a lot of background reading is necessary to make “philosophical” sense of it

[Anonymous No.12534361]

>>12533687
>Is this the representation about how schizophrenia patient's mind work?
No. They have their own definition of "schizophrenia" here which has nothing to do with clinical schizophrenia.
>>12533700
>art people who want to feel like they're doing philosophy but are also afraid of anything written before their parents were born.
D&G's entire project is riffing on Spinoza, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc. There's literally no point reading this book if you don't understand the stuff that came before them.

[Anonymous No.12534374]

>>12534361
S-start with greeks? But I want to be D&Gpilled Now!!

[Anonymous No.12534382]

>>12534361
>nothing to do with clinical schizophrenia.
wrong
>There's literally no point reading this book if you don't understand the stuff that came before them.
wrong again

go fuck off back to reading state philosophers and doing ""serious"" thinking you CIA nigger

[Anonymous No.12534395]

>>12534382
How did you understand Anti Oedipus? And what is state philosophy?

[Anonymous No.12534460]

>>12533687
Make threads about Nietzsche and Freud, then.

[Anonymous No.12534619]

>>12534395
Honestly speaking my reading of A-O is fragmented as fuck. It's mostly an anti-Priest tirade about how strata is gay as fuck and how Freud is a HOMO. Schizoanalysis is related to schizos that they utilize the same thinking-system, but schizo's is not tied to anything productive. State philsophy is anyone aligned with the state in some way. It's generally something to do with retaining the status quo and reaffirming the dominant thought systems. its more useful to think who isn't a state philosopher - people looking to disrupt and rupture the current state of things. it is the evocation of the new into the world. spinoza radically rethought the notion of god, disrupting the general state-oriented orthodox lines of thought related to god. it took the concept of god, the ultimate stratifying force, that which all things flow and remapped the flows into something that's personal.

[Anonymous No.12534625]

>>12534619
something that's personalized* (in the sense of idiosyncratic.)

[Anonymous No.12536233]

>>12534382
>""serious"" thinking you CIA nigger
Everything okay at home, anon? You're throwing a tantrum and embarrassing everybody

[Anonymous No.12536262]

>>12536233
>is this retard again
Do you say this to everyone who isn't a dick mutilating tranny freak? Do you think this is a good dismissive because poor home life caused your affliction?

[Anonymous No.12536284]

>>12533687

Thousand Plateaus is near incomprehensible in comparison. Anti-Oedipus is not that hard once you get the gist of it. They repeat themselves a lot of times. Its also a very old book by philosophy standards and has not aged very well, the anti-Freud tirades were particularly irksome and banal to me.

[Anonymous No.12536337]

>>12536284
>Thousand Plateaus is near incomprehensible in comparison
really? I thought ATP was far more coherent, despite being far more nebulous in its structure. I can point to a lot more things in ATP that make sense more than the flows of piss and shit in AO. Assemblages, regimes of signs, war machines, systems of faciality, wolf packs, etc... It's less of an elaboration of a metaphysics than it is a tool kit for philosophical enquiry, particularly when it comes to things like emergence and immanence.

[Anonymous No.12536362]

i've read the first six or seven parts of this book and while i'm grasping their arguments i've yet to see them 'proven' or justified in any kind of real performance and every so often the writing seems to disappear into an unreadable minefield of jargon.

it feels rhizomatic, which is to say it feels consciously written to be inaccessible except through a kind of accumulated osmosis. nothing save for chapter introductions is laid out in simple progressive terms, which in 1968 or whatever might have seemed cool and anarchistic but really comes off more like the dumb non linear plot gimmicks of early 2000s psychological thriller movies

[Anonymous No.12536378]

>>12536284
>anti-Freud tirades were particularly irksome and banal to me.
I thought they were funny but I'm into Freud and Schopenhauer so it might seem more like bantz if you're into the style and content.

[Anonymous No.12536399]

>why he talk like with big words and metaphors and stuff? why can't he just say what he means?
people said the same thing about Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger; "I don't get it" is not a good argument.

[Anonymous No.12536400]

>>12536262
That was quite a leap there anon
Accusing every poster replying to you in different threads on an anonymous imageboard of being the same transgender CIA operative sounds a bit schizo to me

[Anonymous No.12536405]

>>12536400
shut up tranny

[Anonymous No.12536998]

>>12536405
based Molloy

honk honk

[Anonymous No.12537038]

>>12536362
I don't know why you would use a term found in D&G's second book to describe their first, your idea of the rhizome is something of a misimpression. The rhizome isn't inaccessible, in fact it has a multitude of entry points, which is kind of the point of osmosis. That's why they claim you can read ATP in whatever order you like (after reading the first chapter on the rhizome, of course), but I don't think that applies to Anti-Oedipus. It has a genealogical structure to it that is completely evaporated in the second book, which favour of a smooth plane where a field of intensities participate in emergent systems (assemblages) which give rise to all kinds of phenomena in a non-linear order.

[Anonymous No.12537080]

>>12534221
>That said, you’re wrong to assume that people reading D&G have no experience with older philosophers, given that a lot of background reading is necessary to make “philosophical” sense of it
yes. Specially those in picrel. Its what one should be familiar with before playing with G&D

[Anonymous No.12537089]

this whole board is just brainlets coping, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.12537095]

good, okay, finally, maybe one of you can help me
what is a 'discord tranny?'
and what is a 'cia nigger?'
with thanks

[Anonymous No.12537101]

>>12537038
And what is it people get out of that?

[Anonymous No.12537134]

>>12537095
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FSax_VvGvY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c0-ZC-4-E

[Anonymous No.12537148]

>>12533687
That's what happens when you're low iq

[Anonymous No.12537229]

>>12537101
Think of ATP as an exercise in short-circuiting new and previously unexplored connections between concepts.

You don't read it to learn something about the world, you read it to develop a philosophical apparatus to make sense of the world through a frame that isn't concerned solely with material process, or the cosmic consciousness of God. It's not in-between the two, its beneath both of them, generating the imbalances from an immanent field of pure potentialities.

Deleuze loves Spinoza, precisely because his philosophy reaches this zero point in which the spheres of matter and divinity exist inseparably as one.

[Anonymous No.12537257]

>>12537229
"Gudgoy loves Jew" full story at 11 LMAO

[Anonymous No.12537275]

>>12533687
A weak "psychiatrist" in the freudian tradition (read: elitist weimar-style coked out musings without a single care for evidence or practicality) teams up with a classic humanities major type guy (beta, weak dick, probably closeted gay) to draw meaningless correlations between their (shitty) understanding of the mind and psychopathology and their (shitty) understanding of social structures, especially economics.
And their attempt to explain the inconsistencies is hilarious, fans always fall back on semantic bullshit. "well the definition for schizophrenia we used isn't the same exact one from the DSM, etc etc etc" it's a technical term. It's all technical terms.
Imagine barely understanding electrical engineering and barely understanding music theory and writing a book about the principles of both. Only in the modern day academy could this book have any acclaim.

[Anonymous No.12537443]

Ok I found a pdf about this.
https://www.academia.edu/8137713/A_Readers_Guide_to_Anti-Oedipus
Will it help?

[Anonymous No.12538406]

>>12537443
Skimmed through, looks solid to me tbhqh

[Anonymous No.12538506]

>>12537443
arigato

[Anonymous No.12538779]

Obscurantist terrorists

[Anonymous No.12538850]

>it's not that simple

[Anonymous No.12540405]

>>12538850
ATP is quite possibly the funniest book ever written.

[Anonymous No.12541214]

>>12536399
i agree that they are important authors and wonderful reads, but i think in the cases of hegel, kant, and heidegger, they could have put their ideas forwards more clearly. i think for wittgenstein (and from second hand knowledge D&G), their method of writing was adopted intentionally as a positive method, rather than just as a consequence ow them notbhaving time to revise and restructure more thoroughly.

[Anonymous No.12541228]

>>12541214
Hegel wrote an Encyclopedia repeating his work in a simpler fashion to help his students (still confusing), Kant did something similar with his Prolegomena (still confusing), Heidegger wrote Being and Time about 4 or 5 times before giving up on it (still confusing). Wittgenstien was deeply upset that no one could understand TLP, so if it was a positive method he certainly regretted it. The hard pill to swallow is that Deleuze is as radical of a break of philosophy as any of these other thinkers; that's why he's so hard to read. He's the real deal.

[Anonymous No.12541283]

>>12541228
i see what youre saying, but i dont think it demonstrates that the methods werent positive or incidental as i said, just that they didnt end up how they were expected to.

the structure of the tlp is helpful for me, and i think it was intended that way even if it didnt pan out in most cases. i think your points about kant and hegel sort of prove my point, that they couldnt explain their full body of thought clearly, so they had to settle for less. heidegger is clearer though still time consuming, so i thank him for his rewrites.

what youre saying makes me excited to read D&G in the next few years- do you have any suggestions on specific freud and lacan texts/lectures/secondaries to familiarize myself?

[Anonymous No.12541292]

>>12536262
>this absolute tantrum
I think a nice nap would really help! Let's talk after

[Anonymous No.12541301]

>>12536998
Tag yourself. I'm "Full body"

[Anonymous No.12541380]

[Anonymous No.12541407]

>>12541283
http://xenopraxis.net/readings/freud_beyondthepleasureprinciple.pdf
I got most of my Lacan second hand through Zizek, but if you want to try reading Lacan the Ecrites is the best place to start.
Melanie Klein; Memoirs of My Nervous Illness; Artaud's poetry; Proust; all good background reading too.

[Anonymous No.12541422]

>>12541283
not that anon, but I don't think you need more than a passing understanding of Lacan and Freud to get the most out of him. i think the most important things you need to be familiar with, in no particular order - Proust, Focault (his general methodology & conceptualization of power), Nietzche (specifically Birth of Tragedy), Kant (D's book on him should suffice), Bergson (D's book should suffice.) and a hearty dose of open mind. I would read it in the following order

What is Philosophy?

Chapter III of Difference and Repetition. If you feel overwhelmed, you can skip from the start of Postulate 4 to the start of Postulate 5 and everything after Postulate 8 (Maybe you can substitute this with Logic of Sense, I haven't read it.)

A Thousand Plateaus. This is the real treat and D&G's masterpiece. Once you've finished this, and you want more, there's Anti-Oedepus, secondary literature, and God forbid, Difference & Repetition. Reading more primary influences in a new Deleuzean light would be p. cool as well.
>>12541380
>implying I can't evoke Oedepus at will
>>12541301
same
>>12541407
I can't overstress how important Proust is to reading Deleuze productively.

[Anonymous No.12541561]

Deleuze's thought, presented in its simplest form

[Anonymous No.12542136]

>>12541422
correct me if i'm wrong on these please:
so i have a good foundation with nietzsche, with TGS and some of genealogy of morals, so i think i shouldn't need more for D&G right?
i've read history of the prison by foucault, so i should also be good on that
i've read the critique of pure reason, but not closely, should i reread any specific sections in depth?
the stuff i definitely should read:
deleuze: bergsonism
proust: in search of lost time (not sure abt this one)
and maybe some artoud?

unrelated question, but how do you feel about derrida's glas? as a pseud who wants to love everything hegelian and french, it seems interesting, but i practically speaking have a hard time getting much of anything out of it, and i wonder if it's even possible to communicate philosophical arguments with the format (though you can obviously have real ones in individual portions) as a whole. i suppose you could apply that criticism to D&G as well though
>>12541407
don't have any questions about these recs, but thank you for the info, i'll try to put it to good use

[Anonymous No.12542325]

>>12542136
Add some Marx to that and you are ready to go

[Anonymous No.12542332]

>>12542325
any marx specifically? read the early collection of his manuscripts (minus the two short ones about hegel cause i'm a brainlet) and obviously the manifesto.

[Anonymous No.12542341]

>>12542332
Well I certainly had less of a foundation than you reading it but still got a lot out of it

[Anonymous No.12542381]

>>12542136
I mean, one can never read enough Nietzsche in my opinion. Gay Science is probably the second best Nietzsche book to read for Deleuze so you'll probably be fine. Focault & Deleuze share concepts and to some extent methodology a lot, especially in the political sphere and when dealing with power relations. I haven't read primary Kant, so I can't help you there.
I think that Bergsonism and some Proust would be very, very helpful. Swann's Way is a good entry point and not too long. I haven't read Artoud at all, so I can't tell you if you're missing something.

@ philosophy that's different
Again, I urge you to read chapter 3 of Difference and Repetition. I swear it's not that difficult of a read compared to the rest of the book, and it explains why the FUCK Deleuze is such a fucking slippery little shit who just CAN'T fucking STAND STILL and why he invents terms like "de- and reterritorialization" (what the FUCK fucking FRENCH PSEUDS). It touches on what it means to think, and how one might approach non-orthodox modes of thinking in a philosophical manner. For Derrida (I am not familiar with that particular work, but with his general style) I would also recommend a certain respect for the Trickster archetype. I honestly can't think of any good concise explorations of it. Campbell has a section on the Trickster in Masks of God: Primitive Mythology, but it's a pretty long book. There's a video essay on the subject that's very base in tone, but it provides the ABSOLUTE essentials of the Trickster archetype if you can tolerate the aesthetics. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vbuYn58BBU]. Additional reading would be myths of Anansi, my favorite trickster character.

Derrida is becoming a trickster to French academia to make a philosophical point. He irritates you to get you to break in ordinary thought.

[Anonymous No.12542541]

>>12542381
re your first para: that sounds good, thank you for the advice. though i think for me there's a point of "too much nietzsche" and that was reached when i read TGS and geneaology of morals

re second para:
i understand, i'll make a note to read chap 3 of difference and repitiion. do you mean before or after all of the background reading i'm planning on?
and in terms of derrida's methodology: i understand the point, to an extent. i certainly buy that it's a pedagogical tool, rather than pure sadism. but something about the structure of glas (compared to of grammatology) gives me doubts. i see it's to invite critique and news lines of thinking, but it ends up a new line of thinking about going and reading something else for me.

[Anonymous No.12542577]

>>12542541
I think Chapter 3 stands okay-ish as a completely standalone essay, read it whenever you feel like reading it, but preferrably before you dive too deep into D&G. I haven't read glas, but there's no shame in dropping stuff if you feel like you're getting nothing.

[Anonymous No.12542653]

>>12537095
Discord trannies are trannies with a political agenda from discord. They target 4chan as it's currently the only mainstream 3rd position media forum. cianiggers are literally low level members of the CIA who direct shill campaigns on 4chan to influence "alternative" thought. Really they're general terms to call attention to the fact there are entities who dilute real information, gaslight etc and you need to prepare yourself for the web of lies they've created. You can spot them from the signs in pic related.

[Anonymous No.12542859]

>>12542577
alright, i think ive got it. thanks anon

[Anonymous No.12542867]

>>12542859
always happy to help a fellow seeker

[Anonymous No.12542912]

>>12533687
Schizophrenia isn't real. Just an illusory surface over the body without organs. Normalcy is self-contridicting and reinforces fascist behavior. Order vs Chaos is the prevailing theme of D&G.

[Anonymous No.12543141]

>>12542912
so they are anti peterson? what's JPB's opinion of it?

[Anonymous No.12543144]

>>12542912
this is a very poor reading of AO

[Anonymous No.12543151]

>>12543141
>JPB
*Jordan B. Peterson, the author of worldwide bestseller "12Rules for Life"

[Anonymous No.12543402]

>>12533687
>Do you say this to everyone who isn't a dick mutilating tranny freak? Do you think this is a good dismissive because poor home life caused your affliction?

Reading Nietzsche, Spinoza, Hegel and Freud will give you an insight into where they are coming from, but they also cite things all over the place. But that's not why they are writing the book.

I think Difference and Repetition gives you an incite into their goal here. Anti-Oedipus is, first and foremost, a critique on psychoanalysis. At the time they wrote it, psychoanalysis had become stagnant and D and G were annoyed that something that had great potential as a tool of critique.

If you're interested in psychoanalysis this is a fantastic book.

As for the writing style, it was meant to resemble two people having a series of intense conversations, getting angry in the middle, having shared moments of clarity, getting tired at parts invigorated at others. Is that a great way to write philosophy? Maybe not.

Lastly, underlying a lot of their work is Spinoza's way of thinking about the monad. Everything is in everything so to speak. Why should philosophers only cite philosophers? And only the dozen or so philosophers that are considered important at the time you're writing? It's important to look to stem, philosophy, art and sociology to create new ideas that can stand on their own (not on the shoulders of giants so to speak) and push these fields towards new directions. In AO they apply that to psychoanalysis. They take a historical and sociological approach to show that Freud's idea of the drives (adopted heavily be Lacan) is limited by its lack of consideration of the historical and "real" context in which the analysis takes place.

Don't EVER EVER compare their work to JBP. JBP, outside of his actual field of research, has not done anything useful and his ideas are badly researched. His self-helf book might be helpful though.

[Anonymous No.12543431]

>>12543402
>monad
are you talking about leibniz, or am i missing something here?

[Anonymous No.12543550]

>>12543431
Leibniz coined the term. Spinoza wrote about God being in everything and everything being in God or some shit. Deleuze had a hard on for Spinoza. When he talks about monads will often reference Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.12543638]

>>12533687
Oh I forgot. This book isn't offered as a solution to everything. None of their work is. It's not a book you pick up and go, hmmmm I will model my whole life/work after this. Everything is horizontally connected. Everything is an assemblage. Everything needs to be D and G now. A bunch of people did that in the 80s and 90s. Maybe early 2000s.

Shit's trash. There are a bazillion ideas in this book. Most of them are internally consistent. Take the ones you like, apply them to your analysis and create something new! Have fun. Maybe that's why this appeals to artists more than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.12543651]

>>12533687
they're literally talking out of their ass. there's no scientific or logical fundament to their assumptions, just pure franco-degenerati conspiracies.

[Anonymous No.12543672]

>>12543651
>ITT someone that hasn't read Deleuze

[Anonymous No.12543689]

>>12543672
you?

[Anonymous No.12543692]

reminder that deleuze said he literally wrote this book for 15 year olds

[Anonymous No.12543700]

>>12543689
No... u

[Anonymous No.12543707]

[Anonymous No.12543709]

>>12543651
>reading a book through a materialist lens and being disappointed when get nothing substantial out of it
Speculative thought has its place.

[Anonymous No.12543712]

>>12543692

[Anonymous No.12543757]

[Anonymous No.12543763]

>>12543757
cringe

[Anonymous No.12543780]

>>12543763
ah, whatever. suck a dick.

[Anonymous No.12543790]

So all the meme posters saying "it's shit" and pretentious pseuds saying "I read them all" but no one can actually tell what it is about?

[Anonymous No.12543808]

>>12543790
>Repetition
so you want to read a philosophy book but can't even read the whole thread? The book is a critique of psychoanalysis. Read a book damn it

[Anonymous No.12543899]

>>12543757
based

[Anonymous No.12543902]

>>12537275
it's not about the principles of either. It uses concepts from both to develop new philosophical musings... why does everyone here not actually read. There are so many reasons to criticize D&G, both substance and style, why do you idiots always go for this complete meme of an argument.

[Anonymous No.12544010]

>>12543550
spinoza did espouse pantheism, but i don't think the term monad ever occurs in ethics.

[Anonymous No.12544920]

>>12543790
see >>12541561

[Anonymous No.12544923]

The one thing I want to ask is:
If schizoperenia happens when you can't fulfill your desires from outside-so they head towards you inside instead-, schizo's hallucinating is like desire's masturbation? If that's right, why most hallucinations are traumatic instead of wish fulfilling delusions like the little match girl?

[Anonymous No.12544947]

>>12544923
the schizo is an escape from people imposing an identity on you. "fuck you I'm NOT what you say I am". you could say that the schizo's hallucinations are traumatic because it is so intense. it is thinking unbound. the problem with the schizo is that his unbound thinking isn't producing anything. it is not plugged into something else, but the wheels are merely spinning.

[Anonymous No.12544952]

Didn't Zizek BTFO them?

[Anonymous No.12544953]

>>12544947
Thank you I would never acheive it without you

[Anonymous No.12544973]

>>12544952
I don't think zizek is a worthy adversary of deleuze. if you are looking for a proper btfoing of deleuze&guttari, I think land's project is an excellent start.

[Anonymous No.12545473]

>>12543141
This is a type of work that goes straight over Peterson's head.

[Anonymous No.12545479]

>>12545473
to add to that, just watch the chomsky - focault debate. i think it quasi-lines-up with the conversation Deleuze and Peterson would have.

[Anonymous No.12545938]

>>12544952
Zizek has claimed that his thoughts in recent years are almost pseudo-deleuzian, and he has a huge admiration for him:

http://www.lacan.com/zizbenbrother.html

[Anonymous No.12546607]

>>12544952
>>12545938
Zizek is heavily inspired by Deleuze, but he hates the Capitalism and Schizophrenia series, so he did btfo this book
https://books.google.ca/books/about/Organs_Without_Bodies.html?id=5gwfDAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

[Anonymous No.12546648]

>>12536262
what's even going on inside your head?

[Anonymous No.12546716]

>>12544947
>the problem with the schizo is that his unbound thinking isn't producing anything
the schizophrenic is the universal producer. it is only when the collide with the wall of Oedipus and fail to overcome that they either reterritorialize through perversions, paranoia, and neuroses, or they retreat to the body without organs (but this time the BwO as a desert (wheels spinning))

[Anonymous No.12546809]

>>12544923
desire (to a psychoanalyst) is the basis of trauma. having a desire fulfilled is horrible

[Anonymous No.12548518]

>>12536399
>wittgenstein
>unclear