/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17683930]

>tfw ontotheology is a more accurate explanation for how contemporary society functions rather than Debord, Kaczynski, Baudrillard, et al.

[Anonymous No.17684987]

>>17683930
try to use different pic tomorrow, ok?

[Anonymous No.17684999]

>>17684987
does his superiority cause you consternation?

[Anonymous No.17685073]

[Anonymous No.17685848]

by accurate you really mean 'convincing'

[Anonymous No.17685864]

>>17685848
>Based

[Anonymous No.17686191]

>>17684987
Begone Derritard, this is a Deleuze tread now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YXNofxbUz0&list=PLiR8NqajHNPbaX2rBoA2z6IPGpU0IPlS2&index=23

[Anonymous No.17686209]

>>17686191
Why do people say Deleuze and Derrida are incompatible? Also weren't they literally friends?

[Anonymous No.17686248]

>>17686209
Derrida is stuck in critiquing representation. Whereas Deleuze goes and looks at the ground of representation.
To be a Derridean is to deconstruct everything.
To be a Deleuzian is to answer every problem with a creation of some kind.

[Anonymous No.17686266]

>>17686248
>Whereas Deleuze goes and looks at the ground of representation.
Nope
Deleuze’s critique of representation is on the basis of processual metaphysics rather than a static representativity, representation is removed entirely by Deleuze and replaced my machinic functionings. He constantly critiques representation in favor of process

[Anonymous No.17686288]

>>17686266
Yes but he wants to have a way of thinking that is beyond representation. What Derrida does is only to find the semiotic presuppositions within discursive thought. But Deleuze doesn't focus on the semiotic contents of various representations, no he instead focusses on the external context and event in which they arise. It's all about the problem which forces you to speak for Deleuze. Whereas for Derrida it's all about how you are saying is arbitrarily defined by networks of words.
That's why one of them uses the deconstruction, whereas the other is based and affirms concept creation instead.

[Anonymous No.17686301]

>>17686288
Lol dude you have no idea what Deleuze is talking about, representations don’t arise in events for the guy. That’s fundamentally the opposite of his use of the Event. Logic of Sense explains in depth the event. You talk like you watched someone else explain Deleuze instead of actually reading his books. He also doesn’t go beyond representation, looking at their map vs tracing idea in ATP demonstrates the necessity of representation within a process-based thought. You’re using a ton of words incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.17686569]

>>17686301
sorry for that misuse of terminology I'm pretty new to Deleuze lol. I was going off of Diffrep and how the Idea for Deleuze is not our concept and thoughts(representation) but that which begs us into making concepts aka the problematic. And this is obviously a different way of looking at things than Derridas linguistic operations where signs are in this endless loop of deferral.
And if what I said is wrong, so could you please elucidate to me, how the conclusions/lessons of their respective projects aren't completely different. As I said Derridas aim is to disarm other metaphysicians, to open up a discussion about our prepositions and deconstruct them. Whereas Deleuze is explicitly wrote in WiP how he hates discussion and sees it as something philosophy should not concern itself with, affirming instead a methodology of pure concept creation.

[Anonymous No.17687231]

>>17686248
>>17686266
>>17686288
>>17686301
>>17686569
have sex

[Anonymous No.17687541]

>>17687231
If I could, I wouldnt be here, okay

[Anonymous No.17688524]

>>17686191
That phlegm is great.

[Anonymous No.17689353]

>>17683930
No, it's stupid. Deriddas whole philosophy is stupid. Ok not everything is binary, we have "Zombie" between life and death, we "have" transretards like you between women and men. What's the middle term between something and nothing? Beind and non-being? Half-being? Lmao

[Anonymous No.17689367]

>>17686569
All good homie, if you’re into Deleuze his books on other philosophers and his essays are the best way to get into him. The Kafka book he wrote with Guattari is great too.
Deleuze’s idea of creativity is a bit more than just affirming creative actions, he wants people to create at a very high level of thought. He’s not about celebrating mediocrity, but more about pushing things in far new directions. His way of looking at creativity necessarily involves a lot of hard work. It’s one of the reasons his prose can be so difficult.

[Anonymous No.17690092]

>>17686248
>Derrida is stuck in critiquing representation.
Absolutely not the case. This is made abundantly clear in Derrida's later writings (see the analogy between transcendental empiricism and possible/impossible aporias, for example). Derrida may actually have the advantage over Deleuze in this regard, in that he maintains (albeit implicitly) the human specificity of representation. In either case, don't be one of those cringe "based Deleuzians" who's identity is predicated on how "based" Deleuze is compared to all the other post-structuralists, especially Derrida.

[Anonymous No.17690135]

>>17689353
int b "being" = becoming;
int n nonbeing = <ERROR: indeterminate form>;
//set B(being) is parent set of M(monad)

[Anonymous No.17690181]

>>17683930
>ontotheology

what.

[Anonymous No.17691255]

>>17686248
Based retard

[Anonymous No.17691528]

>>17689353
>Trying to disprove derrida by showing that binaries have gradations between them
Yeah that's gonna be an oof from me chief

[Anonymous No.17691675]

>>17689353
Duh Derrida's point is it's not binaries and the things you are describing are the 'undecidables', you BTFO yourself retard

[Anonymous No.17691681]

>>17686569
>Derrida
>linguistic

retard

[Anonymous No.17691687]

>>17686288
>semiotic presuppositions within discursive thought.
Retard no he's the one saying semiotics isn't limited to linguistics like Saussure suggested. He's looking at the basis of representation in general which is metaphysics of presence

[Anonymous No.17692047]

ITT retards

[Anonymous No.17692063]

>>17686248
Derrida is critiquing the grounds of the 'grounds' retard