/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14332939]

why does Deleuze hate Hegel?

[Anonymous No.14332952]

identity. bro have u even read d&r

[Anonymous No.14332954]

>>14332939
Hegel would literally laught at the thought of an Amerimutt having the audacity to pass judgement on him and his works.

[Anonymous No.14332955]

>>14332939
because seven ate nine

[Anonymous No.14332976]

>>14332939
Jelly of his wizard powers.

[Anonymous No.14332983]

>>14332954

[Anonymous No.14333009]

>>14332954
>Deleuze
>Amerimutt

[Anonymous No.14333019]

>>14332952
no i have not i have read AO and Deleuze's Kant book and some of Deleuze's Nietzsche book and ATP, how is d&r? does he go in depth on hegel?

[Anonymous No.14333088]

Hegelianism can feel oppressive and claustrophobic due to the impression of it is a rigid, closed, totalizing, panlogist, etc. system with nothing outside of it. The way I understand it is Deleuze sought a radical open-endedness to the world which is why he tried to think of pure difference.

[Anonymous No.14333227]

>>14333088
>nothing outside of it
I thought the dialectic embraces the outside

[Anonymous No.14333232]

>>14332939
He didn't like someone else being more of an incoherent schizo than him.

[Anonymous No.14333238]

>>14332983
Hegel disliked America because he didn't consider it a real nation.

[Anonymous No.14333246]

>>14333238
>citation neede

[Anonymous No.14333303]

>>14333238
Based

[Anonymous No.14333325]

>>14333009
Isnt he?

[Anonymous No.14333335]

>>14333238
literally me

[Anonymous No.14333349]

>>14332952
>identity.
please elaborate!!
bro have u even read d&r
no!!!

[Anonymous No.14333350]

>>14333238
Wrong, he had great expectations for it

[Anonymous No.14333672]

>>14333238
very true

[Anonymous No.14334988]

>>14333325
Does "Gilles Deleuze" sound american to you?

[Anonymous No.14335083]

>>14332939
Because Deleuze is a subhuman materialist whose intellectual capacity isnt high enough to take in the work of an enlightened sage from the Pleroma

[Anonymous No.14335236]

>>14332954
based retard

[Anonymous No.14335252]

>>14333019
no he doesn't but his generally problem with philosophers is that they only talk of difference in service of identity. I'm Hegel-illiterate but afaik he tries to achieve exact opposite of what Deleuze does in Difference and Repetition.

[Anonymous No.14335254]

>>14332939
Not literature, subhuman

[Anonymous No.14335260]

>>14334988
Does "Guy Fieri" sound American to you?

[Anonymous No.14335267]

>>14335254
>writing
>not literature
>doesn't even know the conditions of possibility of literature
>has probably not read foucault either
Its ok brainlet you can keep thinking you 'know' what 'real literature' is without any reflection. have fun, swine.

[Anonymous No.14335282]

>>14335267
Posting about le wizard Hegel and discussing ideas unrelated to books — Deleuze's hate for hegel — is not literature.

[Anonymous No.14335283]

>>14333227
It does. But there are plenty of philosophers who reject Hegel for thinking the productive encounter with the outside, which, as they see it, is merely a process of appropriation, wherein the inside maintains itself against the outside by excluding what it can not instrumentalize from it. They're wrong of course, since the Absolute is, before anything else, self-transformatory, and integrates new information according to the logic inherent to that information.
One other angle of attack is the claim that Hegel announced the end of history, with absolute idealism as the final philosophy, and, this plainly not being the case, the integrity of his entire reasoning process is called into question. But here again, what these critics were really taking issue with wasn't Hegel's work, but their own demented projection of what he might have meant by a few quotes they read out of context somewhere. Hegel did not speak about the future of philosophy as a philosopher because philosophy, in his understanding, could only be the description of spirit in its past-ness, but it's clear that he didn't think history was just finished, since the horizon toward the possibility of that future can be found everywhere in his writings and lectures (in the unresolved contradictions of his lectures on law, the ultimately irresolvable well of fantasy which enters into the world through art, and, for that matter, at the very end of the phenomenology "From the chalice of this realm of spirits - foams forth for it its infinity.") In a way every great philosophy must consider itself to be the last philosophy, and then simply let the future run its course, but that the future must come Hegels clearly knew.

[Anonymous No.14335292]

>>14332939
Hegel is basically the reason we have Nazi's arguing with Communists
Deleuze has a politics of the tesseract
Hegel believes there is only stuff and not antistuff
Deleuze believes is only stuff
Hegel thinks identity exists and is different
Deleuze thinks difference exists and is identifiable
Hegel is a normie
Deleuze is an Alex Grey painting

[Anonymous No.14335293]

>>14335283
All nonsense. You're wrong and Hegel was wrong, cope retard.

[Anonymous No.14335295]

>>14333246
It's in the preface for the one book.

[Anonymous No.14335302]

Hegel is basically the reason we have Nazi's arguing with Communists
Deleuze has a politics of the tesseract
Hegel believes there is only stuff and antistuff
Deleuze believes there is only stuff
Hegel thinks identity exists and is different
Deleuze thinks difference exists and is identifiable
Hegel is a normie
Deleuze is an Alex Grey painting

[Anonymous No.14335307]

>>14333088
>panlogist

cringe

[Anonymous No.14335330]

>If you want to love you must serve, if you want freedom you must die.

[Anonymous No.14335338]

Every love is an exercise in depersonalization on a body without organs yet to be formed, and it is at the highest point of this depersonalization that someone can be named, receives his or her family name or first name, acquires the most intense discernibility in the instantaneous apprehension of the multiplicities belonging to him or her, and to which he or she belongs.

[Anonymous No.14335344]

>Every love is an exercise in depersonalization on a body without organs yet to be formed, and it is at the highest point of this depersonalization that someone can be named, receives his or her family name or first name, acquires the most intense discernibility in the instantaneous apprehension of the multiplicities belonging to him or her, and to which he or she belongs.

[Anonymous No.14335391]

>>14335330
Far from being a totalitarian, Hegel was the first thinker of a modern Christianity - the traditionalists rejected modernity, the progressives rejected Christianity. Fascism is absolutism. It seeks to maintain itself perfectly, only becoming more of itself. There is precisely no room for spiritual death and rebirth, or for surrender under truth for the ideologue - he must serve an icon, a static, false image of perfection which can neither grow nor change with him.

[Anonymous No.14335405]

>>14335391
>Far from being a totalitarian, Hegel was the first thinker of a modern Christianity
fucking lol

[Anonymous No.14335407]

>>14335405
based

[Anonymous No.14335709]

>>14335252
shut the fuck up moron. hegel didnt care about identity what so ever, the dialectic marks the transition of focus from being to becoming in modern western philosophy, which is arguably halfway there to establishing an ontology of difference. you dont need to read hegel to understand deleuze tho

[Anonymous No.14335853]

>>14335283
>reject Hegel for thinking the productive encounter with the outside, which, as they see it, is merely a process of appropriation
>One other angle of attack is the claim that Hegel announced the end of history
Ok thank you, keep seeing these and the more Hegel I read the more confused at these takes I become. Ty for some prespective

[Anonymous No.14335893]

>>14334988
Actually, Giles DeLuze, or as you may know it as you may know it by the Europeanized "Gilles Deleuze", was a an African king, known for his feud with the great African emperor Jaqueese Laquan. Laquan taught us the three stages of niggahood: the imaginary - dat shit the white man be pushin, the the symbolic - the subliminal manipulation of the white man, and the real - real niggas like us. DeLuze was likewise, uhhh *smacks lips* influenced by the Rhizome, a type of plant native to Africa. DeLuze was trying to tell us to rediscover our roots.

[Anonymous No.14335949]

>>14335893
>>>/b/ not funny didn't laugh

[Anonymous No.14336153]

>>14335893
Based
>>14335949
Cringe

[Anonymous No.14336161]

>>14332939
Do you also hate Hegel?
THEN VOTE HERE: https://linkto.run/p/BDMXJ69A

[Anonymous No.14336175]

>>14335260

[Anonymous No.14336390]

>>14332939

Disclaimer: Deleuze is pretty cool, takes a shit in Derrida's mouth any time, any place. Anti-Oedipus is what every Frenchman wants to write, but refrains lest he blasphemes against Marx. Maybe Deleuze was suicided?

THAT BEING SAID, nowhere is the French perversity inherent to both Catholicism and "postmodernism" more obvious than in the latter's fear of Logic, and in turn fear of Reason which subsumes it, which is strikingly awkward given their alleged goal of deconstruction and such; the rebuke of tyranny's content and especially of its form would be best done by "gnosticism", that is to say radical sobriety in Rational rejection of the, or of this, world. Whereas the French do the polar opposite, veritably Augustinian diary entries that make one wish Hitler had won if only to burn them.

[Anonymous No.14336445]

>>14336390
>the rebuke of tyranny's content and especially of its form would be best done by "gnosticism"
could you expand on why you think this?

[Anonymous No.14336477]

>>14332939
Read Zizek’s Deleuze critique to truly understand Deleuze’s relationship with Hegel

[Anonymous No.14336546]

>>14333238
didnt read huh

[Anonymous No.14336600]

>>14336445

The curiosities of tyranny are not curiosities at all. That a tyrant claims he is the enemy of another tyrant, that his tyranny is only provisional, that his ends justify his tyranny, that he is the good tyrant, that his tyranny is protection against something worse, etc., these are not the exceptions but the foundations of tyranny. The less you acknowledge THE Archon, the more you trivialize tyranny as "an absence" of whatever, the more vulnerable you are to falling for the tyrant's aforementioned "tricks", which are actually not tricks at all but the straightest, and only, road to tyranny.

[Anonymous No.14336634]

>>14336477
Organs without bodies is one of zizek’s worst, you can really see the limits of his framework when his only real answer to Deleuze is “no u”

[Anonymous No.14336663]

>>14336600
>The less you acknowledge THE Archon, the more you trivialize tyranny
ok so you're saying that gnosticism is the ideal counteraction to tyranny because it acknowledges the Archon?

[Anonymous No.14336697]

>>14333238
baste

[Anonymous No.14336718]

>>14332954
Deleuze is a spiritual amerimutt

[Anonymous No.14336720]

>>14332939
Hegel, the magician.

[Anonymous No.14336810]

>>14336634
That book is his worst, I agree but it isn’t his only critique of Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14336888]

>>14336663

I don't think "gnosticism" is anything more than a pejorative term, hence the quote marks, but yes.

[Anonymous No.14336966]

>>14336888
do you mean that gnosticism is a pejorative that overlies a valuable system of thought or that gnosticism is not a valuable system of thought and as such its invocation is pejorative?

[Anonymous No.14337027]

>>14336966

The term is pejorative, used to mock Philosophy proper.

[Anonymous No.14337125]

>>14332939
too brainlet for hegel

[Anonymous No.14337173]

This thread was moved to >>>/his/7713553