[ 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: 40 KB, 688x521, Er_kP_oXUAQ5NUF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17321632 No.17321632 [Reply] [Original]

For his hatred of Wittgenstein, this is a very Wittgensteinian thing for Deleuze to say
>We sometimes go on as though people can’t express themselves. In fact they’re always expressing themselves. The sorriest couples are those where the woman can’t be preoccupied or tired without the man saying “What’s wrong? Say something…,” or the man, without the woman saying … and so on. Radio and television have spread this spirit everywhere, and we’re riddled with pointless talk, insane quantities of words and images. Stupidity’s never blind or mute. So it’s not a problem of getting people to express themselves but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don’t stop people expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves; What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying. What we’re plagued by these days isn’t any blocking of communication, but pointless statements. But what we call the meaning of a statement is its point. That’s the only definition of meaning, and it comes to the same thing as a statement’s novelty. You can listen to people for hours, but what’s the point? . . . That’s why arguments are such a strain, why there’s never any point arguing. You can’t just tell someone what they’re saying is pointless. So you tell them it’s wrong. But what someone says is never wrong, the problem isn’t that some things are wrong, but that they’re stupid or irrelevant. That they’ve already been said a thousand times. The notions of relevance, necessity, the point of something, are a thousand times more significant than the notion of truth. Not as substitutes for truth, but as the measure of the truth of what I’m saying. It’s the same in mathematics: Poincaré used to say that many mathematical theories are completely irrelevant, pointless; He didn’t say they were wrong – that wouldn’t have been so bad.

>> No.17321666

Wasn't Deleuze scared of Wittgenstein?

>> No.17321692
File: 85 KB, 1023x682, 0C588A92-A6B4-46A1-8585-6FA55046BE3B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17321692

>>17321632
God he’s so based

>> No.17321695

>>17321632
Where is this quote from? Is this from the Parnet book? He makes a good point (haw haw). But it’s true now more than ever.

>> No.17321701

>>17321666
Continencucks are always scared of analytic chads.

>> No.17321702

>>17321632
Are you reffering to that phrase about "not talking about the things you cannot say something useful"? Because, if you say that this quote is something "very wittgenstenian", it is not. Deleuze doesn't share the same opinion on what must or should be expressed, he just says that "the medial landscape" axiomatizes discurse to his own purposes and that alienates interpersonal communication.

>> No.17321722

>>17321632
Deleuze loved hearing himself talk.

>> No.17321758

>>17321701
no one cares about anglo autism

>> No.17321771

>>17321758
The best analytics were Germans anyway

>> No.17321788

the chapter on linguistics in ATP is somewhat compatible with late Wittgenstein. They’re also both antirepresentationalists

>> No.17321802

>>17321632
Very accurate and true.

>> No.17321803

>>17321692
funny pic

>> No.17321815
File: 81 KB, 1200x675, 681.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17321815

>>17321632
is what makes a statement interesting really just its novelty?

>> No.17321873

>>17321815
Yes, but don't let this distract you from the fact that presenting the same information in a different way can still be novel.