[ 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: 106 KB, 700x622, 13009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14479105 No.14479105 [Reply] [Original]

Reading Deleuze, I do not understand half of the stuff. Is that okay? Will it get better one day? Or am I just too stupid?

>> No.14479115

he is hard to understand and is more of an endgame philosopher to consume

>> No.14479134

>>14479105
No, you just plain stupid, everyone on this board already read and easily understand him. Except you, didn't you consider leaving this board please?

>> No.14479152

Yes it's okay not to understand everything. Are you reading A thousand plateaus? Just read where you find a concept interesting and then dwell on it. How Do You Make Yourself a Body Without Organs is one of my favorites.

>> No.14479157

Read Deleuze chronologically. Also use secondary texts. I felt like you at eighteen but after some work now in my late twenties I can understand the majority of what he says. Personally I think Logic of Sense is his best work.

>> No.14479166

He's a terrible writer. The actual philosophy underlying his stylistic nonsense is mediocre, if you know anything about philosophy. He's worth reading but only if you are actually responsible about it and give an honest account of what he is saying and why it matters. Nearly all of his followers latter day followers are just Discord zoomers pretending to like some of the catchier buzzword shit like BwO. Literal Wikipedia/Stanford Encyclopedia "scholars."

>> No.14479229

>>14479105

Git gud pleb. Go un-ironically start with the greeks and do Deleuze after German Idealism

>> No.14479404
File: 52 KB, 581x400, Michel_Foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14479404

>>14479229
>he believes in linear progression

>> No.14479421
File: 357 KB, 959x533, 3459035f-829d-4b3e-9e7a-10bd004188de.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14479421

>>14479404
based rhizome brain anon

>> No.14479613

>>14479105
Don’t start with his work with Guattari or anything from the late sixties/early 70s. Actually don’t read him at all unless you have a good background in Hume or Nietzsche or Spinoza (etc.), then read the relevant monograph. Until then try some of his shorter essays, the more transparent ones are easy to find.
>>14479166
Not true. He’s one of the best writers to have come out of postwar France when he wants to be, and he has a growing band legitimate body of scholarship attached to him. Your impression is only correct in the context of /lit/