/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16576656]

What the fuck are these dudes talking about

[Anonymous No.16576782]

>>16576656

It’s just a bunch of crap. Gobbledygook. Claptrap. Hullabaloo. Don’t fall for the analytic philosophy meme like the other young contingents on this board. It’s merely, and I can’t emphasize merely enough, mental masturbation for effete, fragile intellectual types, most of whom could not summarize their own ideas in a concise way, much less the same way twice (“hurr ideas presuppose a substructure beneath an ontologically consistent metaphysical plane in which Lacan’s taint is merely a subconscious metaphor for diarrhea running his teleologically inconspicuous but ultimately real let AND THAT’S WHY YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT HIS WORK)”. It’s a collective exercise in how much conviction a small group of individuals can apply to their esoteric Marxposting and ultra-obfuscated quasi-ideological shitposting under the guise of true academic, philosophical rigor in an effort to convince other smarmy, fart-sniffing retards that actually, what they’re doing is extremely important and edging on the fringes of what’s possible with cognition and multisyllabic, spontaneous word generation.

Deleusze especially was a faggot, but frankly you could pick up almost any book written by a French guy in the 20th century and be confident in the fact that it’s a veritable trash heap of terrible ideas and borderline schizophrenic, mildly-coherent-at-best verbal frolicking. The written equivalent of sloshing around one’s balls in one’s own mouth. It’s also “too deep for you to understand.”

I’ll take a number 2 with a Baja blast and 3 cool ranch locos tacos, hold the cool baby

[Anonymous No.16576787]

Philosophy really ended with kant didn't it

[Anonymous No.16576800]

nothing worth talking about

[Anonymous No.16576822]

>>16576656

It’s just a bunch of crap. Gobbledygook. Claptrap. Hullabaloo. Don’t fall for the analytic philosophy meme like the other young contingents on this board. It’s merely, and I can’t emphasize merely enough, mental masturbation for effete, fragile intellectual types, most of whom could not summarize their own ideas in a concise way, much less the same way twice (“hurr ideas presuppose a substructure beneath an ontologically consistent infra-realist plane in which Lacan’s taint is merely a subconscious metaphor for diarrhea running down his teleologically incalcetrant leg AND THAT’S WHY YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT DERRIDA)”. It’s a collective exercise in how much conviction a small group of individuals can apply to their esoteric Marxposting and ultra-obfuscated quasi-ideological shitposting under the guise of true academic, philosophical rigor in effort to convince other smarmy, fart-sniffing retards that actually, what they’re doing is extremely important and edging on the fringes of what’s possible with cognition and multisyllabic, spontaneous word generation.

Deleusze especially was a faggot, but frankly you could pick up almost any book written by a French guy in the 20th century and be confident in the fact that it’s a veritable trash heap of terrible, borderline schizophrenic, mildly-coherent-at-best verbal frolicking. The written equivalent of sloshing around one’s balls in one’s own mouth. It’s also “too deep for you to understand.”

yes I’ll take a number 2 with a Baja blast and 3 cool ranch locos tacos, hold the cool

[Anonymous No.16576843]

>>16576656
You have to at least read Kant to get it. If you did and you can't figure it out, then its either bunk or you were filtered.

[Anonymous No.16576858]

>>16576822
baste

[Anonymous No.16576903]

>>16576822

I meant to type continental but I was busy eating a churo with my other hand

[Anonymous No.16576987]

>>16576843
>reading kant
Disgusting

[Anonymous No.16577419]

>>16576656
The different ways that notions are experienced and connected to one another.

[Anonymous No.16577753]

>>16576656
It's fun to read. That's about it. I would hardly call it philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16577812]

>>16576822
You didn't like difference and repittion either?

[Anonymous No.16579008]

>>16576656
It's a big pile of shite

[Anonymous No.16579565]

>>16576822
unfathomably based

[Anonymous No.16579579]

>>16576656
new horizons of philosophical posibilities.

[Anonymous No.16579849]

>>16576822
never seen someone taken down this hard. Deloser will not recover.

[Anonymous No.16580332]

>>16576656
Their project is a fairly typical metaphysical one. They're trying to create a vocabulary and set of concepts they can use to talk about everything there is. Their problem with the history of metaphysics is that it has focused on understanding things insofar as they are static (in terms of essences, for instance). This is the way of thinking they call "arborescent," which is likely a reference to Porphyry's tree. Deleuze and Guattari want us to be able to understand things both in their tendency towards stasis *and* their tendency towards change, and they want to argue that the tendency towards change is primary.

The most important "plateau" of the book is the 3rd, The Geology of Morals. Here they introduce the basic concepts of their metaphysics, including concept of "stratification" which is the process whereby things become solid or static. They think this happens on the physical-geological level, the chemical-biological level, and the socio-techno-linguistic level.

The rest of the book is mostly using these concepts to understand various phenomena in their tendencies to change and to stay the same: the subject, language, the home, the state, the body, etc.

That's probably an oversimplified explanation, but it's the clearest I've got so far. Good luck anon