/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15379288]

So I was listening to this YouTuber describe Deleuzian thought and it seemed rad as fuck.

Basically an amped up heidegger but instead of the gay waiting around to let being show itself Deleuze thinks Being is a blood-thirsty horror that wants to tear us to pieces, in response to which we should go balls-to-the-wall in charting "lines of flight" as "nomadic warmachines" through "newly deterritorialized zones". It all seemed pretty Heraclitean as well, which is what I'm after.

Is this true? The way the dude described Deleuze got me jonesing to read him but idk anything about him and as a layman he seems like pretty elite stuff

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15379353]

>>15379288
>Basically an amped up heidegger but instead of the gay waiting around to let being show itself Deleuze thinks Being is a blood-thirsty horror that wants to tear us to pieces, in response to which we should go balls-to-the-wall in charting "lines of flight" as "nomadic warmachines" through "newly deterritorialized zones". It all seemed pretty Heraclitean as well, which is what I'm after.
>Is this true?
No. That book is horrible but I wouldn't recommend against reading it for you to see for yourself. You're doing the cognitive labor of two or three books just to be able to entertain this idea of non-representational ideation. A potent thought experiment if it could be called that, but this is one where it's better to have just read the Wikipedia page or seen any of the dozens of video essays on the topic rather than to have wasted time actually reading it.

[Anonymous No.15379389]

>>15379288
>Basically an amped up heidegger but instead of the gay waiting around to let being show itself Deleuze thinks Being is a blood-thirsty horror that wants to tear us to pieces

This is 20th century French philosophy in a nutshell. Watered down German philosophy with some trademark french sensualism and vapid aestheticism sprinkled on top.

[Anonymous No.15379397]

>>15379353
god please shut up you’re so dumb

[Anonymous No.15379423]

>>15379397
You're allowed to not like things.

[Anonymous No.15379425]

>>15379389
>This is 20th century French philosophy in a nutshell. Watered down German philosophy with some trademark french sensualism and vapid aestheticism sprinkled on top.
It is the perfect combination. Enough german depth to make it seem profound, enough french appeal to make it drop panties.

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15379438]

>>15379397
Just my opinion that if you're using visual metaphors to sell the legitimacy of ~non-representation~, there's something wrong with your thesis. :p

[Anonymous No.15380801]

>>15379288
What was the video?

[Anonymous No.15380807]

>>15379288
That's an idiosyncratic reading at best. I suggest you read an authoritative summary before jumping into it.

[Anonymous No.15382145]

>>15379288
imagine thinking deleuze is the less gay option

[Anonymous No.15382249]

>>15379288
>not liking the readable critique of pure reason
>lmao

[Anonymous No.15383068]

>>15379438
Why? Seriously, explain your thinking, because I bet you can’t.

[Anonymous No.15383097]

>nomadic war-machines
>newly deterritorialized zones
>being

[Anonymous No.15383124]

>>15383097
Retard

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15383131]

>>15383068
>systems of metaphysics are all more alike than they are different
>that's because they're all bullshit!
My point is that if in the expression of non-representational cognition you find it necessary to "represent" essential facts with the signifying characteristics of sensory language, you're not making a good case for yourself. It becomes more of a commentary on the intrinsically semiotic and mnemonic nature of language engendering different forms of thought than what could be possible without it, of which Deleuze provides no example.

[Anonymous No.15383383]

>>15379389
So should I just read German philosophy and watch porn ?

[Anonymous No.15383894]

>>15383131
>doesn’t know what a metaphor is

[Anonymous No.15383909]

>>15379353
>it's better to have just read the Wikipedia page or seen any of the dozens of video essays on the topic rather than to have wasted time actually reading it.
Could you do me a favor and never breathe again?

[Anonymous No.15384031]

>>15379288
>Being is a blood-thirsty horror that wants to tear us to pieces

[Anonymous No.15384270]

>>15383131
You're missing the point of Deleuze's ontology. It's an ontology and a logic of sense. There is nothing "behind" the sense, or "behind" the signs. He's indebted to Hyppolite's understanding of Hegel for this. Your dismissal shows nothing other than a lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to try.

[Anonymous No.15384306]

>>15384270
Is Bladee a Deleuzian?

>OPEN SYMBOLS (PLAY) BE IN YOUR MIND
[Chorus]
In your mind
Be in your mind
You should be in your mind
Be in your mind
Be inyourmind
Be in yourmind
You should be in your mind
Gotthe chalice
Take the challenge
I'm not special
Just be in your mind
Be in your mind
Be in your mind
Just to be in your mind
You should be in your mind
Got the chalice (Be in your mind)
Take the challenge (Be in your mind)
I'm not special
I'm not special (I'm not special)

[Anonymous No.15384327]

>>15379438
>>15383131
>>15379353
Is Being representational? No, it's autopoietic.

[Anonymous No.15384453]

>>15379353
>A potent thought experiment if it could be called that, but this is one where it's better to have just read the Wikipedia page or seen any of the dozens of video essays on the topic rather than to have wasted time actually reading it.
This isn't unique to Deleuze, it's probably true of almost all philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15384497]

>>15383131
>My point is that if in the expression of non-representational cognition you find it necessary to "represent" essential facts
could u point out where Deleuze does this :)

[Anonymous No.15384545]

>>15379288
>Is this true?

No it isn’t, your description is beyond retarded. Frankly, I think are just to stupid to read either Deleuze or Heidegger, you will necessarily end up misunderstanding them in the most grotesque way imaginable.

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15384547]

>>15384270
>Your dismissal shows nothing other than a lack of understanding, and an unwillingness to try.
I'll take your word for it that I misunderstood, navigating his prose is a task unto itself. But still, so what? There's nothing about this line of thinking that is constructive. Explain to me what I'm supposedly missing out on in not liking this book.
>>15383894
>a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else
>>15383909
: *
>>15384497
Probably, but I don't really feel like searching through it to find any arbitrary metaphor to reference. It isn't an indictment of his arguments, I think it just shows that they're presented in bad faith.

[Anonymous No.15384680]

>>15384547
Your objection to the rhizome as a representation is as ridiculous as saying that Kant’s noumenon can’t exist because we can describe it’s qualities, just completely unintelligible, shut up

[Anonymous No.15384706]

>>15383131
>It becomes more of a commentary on the intrinsically semiotic and mnemonic nature of language engendering different forms of thought
You know there were tons of people doing this in France at this time, right? He actively resisted this approach

[Anonymous No.15384715]

>>15380801
the YouTuber was Joeldavis. i think he's an Aussie

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15384828]

>>15384680
>saying that Kant’s noumenon can’t exist because we can describe it’s qualities
"no"

[Anonymous No.15384890]

>>15384547
>metaphor is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else
filtered

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15384933]

>>15384890

[Anonymous No.15384945]

>>15384933
You build houses on sand, anon.

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15384972]

>>15384945
I'm not claiming to have built anything, I'm just saying that Deleuze hasn't either.

[Anonymous No.15384997]

i have vowed to never read delueze, purely because everyone that does apparently turns into a discord tranny. i fear the same will happen to me if i did so

[Anonymous No.15385295]

>>15384972
He's built more than you >:3

[Anonymous No.15385867]

>>15379353
>idea of non-representational ideation
Oh look, another faggot pretending that he read the book but in reality just watched Q's video on it

[Anonymous No.15386129]

>>15385867
okay I just watched this Q video and he critiques D&R for giving visual representations like the rhizome, but the rhizome wasn't part of Deleuze's system till like 20 years after the book was published lol. at least he isn't lying when he says he hasn't read it.

[Anonymous No.15386175]

>>15384453
Based.

[None !SWEEZYguAc No.15386185]

>>15385867
I read like half of it before I tapped out. :0

[Anonymous No.15386280]

>>15384997
Good, delve into Heidegger, contemporary Hegelians or whatever instead.

Deleuze is set for tranny co-opting. Ideas like deterritorialisation, BwO and becoming-woman are poisoning people's brains.

Judith Butler is much more wholesome than Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.15386309]

>>15384828
‘No’, what?

[Anonymous No.15386383]

>>15384715
but... I asked for the video...

[Anonymous No.15386850]

>>15379389

[Anonymous No.15386884]

>>15383131
get a load of this retard

[Anonymous No.15388460]

>>15379389
lol cuz descartes doesn't exist, and say derrida looks in any way similar to deleuze, also ofcourse rousseau should've been english all along etc etc.

>>15379288
i've read a lot by him

logic of sense is the GOMAD next to whatever your SS is here, don't go straight into difference & rep, look around the biblio for earlier & later work outside of the 70s

there's still nobody whosoever in the world who kinda really gets the 70s work, much work to be done

[Anonymous No.15388483]

also