/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19286723]

What do I read after him? Is he the end? The exit level?

[Anonymous No.19286781]

Maybe you can start reading literature.

[Anonymous No.19286959]

>>19286781
That is literature you retard, important written works are considered literature

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19286961]

>>19286959
>important written works
Than why are you reading this guy?

[Anonymous No.19286965]

>>19286723
He is indeed the end (the 2nd ending). The true ending comes from doing the unthinkable, bridging the incommensurable yet inexplicable gap between him and Hegel (the other end). This is the end of philosophy and it will happen in your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.19286966]

>>19286961
Based Butters?

[Anonymous No.19286970]

Nope, try again.

[Anonymous No.19287016]

>>19286970
Deleuze is Spinoza resurrected to complete the Spinozist system

[Anonymous No.19287026]

>>19286961
Rhizomes on suicide watch.

[Anonymous No.19287057]

>>19286961
Good point, dyke

[Anonymous No.19287852]

>>19287016
I remember someone saying he was Plato reincarnated

[Anonymous No.19287874]

>>19286959
>patent applications are literature
>diplomatic cables are literature
>advertising campaigns are literature but only if they are successful?
>supreme court opinions are literature
>constitutions are literature
>receipts and land deeds are literature
You must live in a wonderland to be honest. An infinite supply of literature.

[Anonymous No.19287891]

>>19286965
Step closer.

[Anonymous No.19287894]

>>19287874
From some website
>Literature is a term used to describe written and sometimes spoken material. Derived from the Latin word literature meaning "writing formed with letters," literature most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry, drama, fiction, nonfiction, and in some instances, journalism, and song.

[Anonymous No.19287898]

>>19286965
I think just mixing their ideas and making them your own is the end

[Anonymous No.19287938]

>>19286965
NB: Some will argue that he's a false ending in that he is only an elaboration on the kind of difference Hegel considers in the Philosophy of Nature when he is discussing ganglia cells and plant life (a fascinating section where Hegel sounds exactly like Deleuze in acknowledging the existence of 'rhizomatic' (not Hegel's words) multiplicities defined by external, inorganic relations) but necessarily subsumes under the larger movement of the dialectic, demonstrating that Spinoza/Deleuze's radical difference is incomplete by pointing at their limits (dialectic of finitude and infinity - cf: Greater Logic). He acknowledges that there are systems that are defined by a lack of a central subject internal to them and are capable of an infinite series of relations (e.g. plants - cross-polination, mycorrhizal networks etc.)Nevertheless, Hegel will say that such radical multiplicity does not on its own disprove the notion of a unified subject, insofar as that, if we are going to look at plant life, they can only enter assemblages because of the light, while external to them, unifies them all, where all plants and their systems of multiplicity are inherently unified by their relation to light, which organises their movement. On this view, Hegel is the true end and Deleuze fails to move beyond Hegel (to his own chagrin).
But it leaves open the question of Deleuze and the fascicle. An elaborate and successful doctoral dissertation on this topic would be would generate a lot of discussion and mark a turning point in philosophy

[Anonymous No.19287954]

>>19287894
Its a meaningless word because everyone uses it as a signifier of quality rather than of content.
I just want to see someone defend the notion of "it was important so its literature". At least it should be more entertaining than the usual /lit/ nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19288086]

>>19287938
Never truer words have been spoken
/thread

[Anonymous No.19288094]

>>19286723
Guattari's solo work (which is better btw)

[Anonymous No.19288321]

>>19286723
Frater Anselm.

[Anonymous No.19288442]

>>19286723
William James, Whitehead, Merleau-Ponty, Marx

[Anonymous No.19288452]

>>19288442
you read all of them before Deleuze

[Anonymous No.19289012]

bump

[Anonymous No.19289093]

>>19286961
hahahaha based Butters

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.19289142]

It really depends on what you want, for example Guattari has his own work, Deleuze would have told you that laruelle is extremely important and you should read him, there’s all manner of people who apply him (whether they’re shit or not, they still continue the lines of logic.) so for example, brassier and negarstani. Then there’s like others have said, reading the major influences over him so you can see what’s going in to him, so reading Spinoza, Nietzsche, even Whitehead. Not to mention the various influences from non-scholarly literary sources/arts. I believe Deleuze himself would tell you that seeing his model as the final doesn’t make sense at all.

>>19288321
Kek

[Anonymous No.19289150]

>>19286723
Klossowski and Carmelo Bene

[Anonymous No.19289183]

Well now that you have been completely brainwashed into a nonsensical and arrogant philosophy your next task will be unlearning Deleuze. Depending on how stupid you are this could take anywhere from a year to eternity.

[Anonymous No.19289222]

Read "Esoteric Deleuze" by Ramey and "Portrait Oratoire De Gilles Deleuze Aux Yeux Jaunes" by Jaegle. Deleuze is basically an occultist but never says it straight out because he's a petty manipulator who wants to destroy rational discourse.

[Anonymous No.19289333]

Heidegger is the real end

Deleuze and other frenchoids at this time are just playing with muddled mistranslations of Heidegger and Kojevean Hegelianisms

[Anonymous No.19289474]

>>19287938
>>19286965
Seconding. This becomes obvious if you read Zizek's on Deleuze. Adrian Johnston is also pretty good. I found an inexhaustible number of papers by googling keywords.

[Anonymous No.19289495]

He only disliked Wittgenstein because ol' Witty ended philosophy well before he did.

[Anonymous No.19290325]

[Anonymous No.19291335]

bump

[Anonymous No.19291342]

>>19286723
>What do I read after him?
Guenon (PBUH)
>Is he the end? The exit level?
Deleuze is mid-wit tranny-core level

[Anonymous No.19291702]

>>19289222
Deleuze explicitly accepts what he calls the order of Baphomet (though he is referring to Klossowski here) in his essay on Klossowski. He isn't really an occultist in the traditional sense of a Hermeticist or Kabbalist since those schools are far too dialectically oriented and Deleuze completely does away with any semblance of the Absolute. I do think that Deleuze fits into some form of left-hand occultism though, his entire stance seems to be that of inverting the traditional structures of the Mind. That being said, I don't think there's a very good argument for saying that Deleuze as consciously an occultist of any sort (neither of the books you mention give good evidence of this) he really is his own thing entirely. I can see where you might be able to point to guys like Bataille or even Lacan being close to LHP occultism but Deleuze to me only contains a few coincidental similarities that never extend to his core positions.

[Anonymous No.19292455]

bump

[Anonymous No.19292483]

>>19292455
>>19291335
retard

[Anonymous No.19292513]

>>19292455
Stop bumping my thread you faggot, I want it to die

[Anonymous No.19292564]

>>19286961
Unsurprised a retarded anarkiddie reads shit books

[Anonymous No.19293282]

>>19291702
I think you are right but he comes from a milieu of occultists and Nick Land brings that out well.

[Anonymous No.19293606]

>>19286723
I really need to get myself a turtleneck

I study art in an art-school after all.

[Anonymous No.19293624]

>>19292513
bump

[Anonymous No.19293667]

>>19293624
bump

[Anonymous No.19293834]

>>19293667
Bump.

[Anonymous No.19293838]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJgQZkVRxk&list=PLBNAhOTc16q85BCND4wiV53CT7cKIu-qq

[Anonymous No.19293858]

I would rather die than read Hegel or Deleuze. I will never read them. I hope their useless ideas are forgotten forever and will do my part in ignoring them.

[Anonymous No.19293892]

You go back to Bataille and join us in transforming /lit/ into an esoteric nihilist board with sovereign characteristics

[Anonymous No.19293898]

>>19286723
Now you go back & read Plato

[Anonymous No.19293919]

https://www.zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/viewFile/241/241
https://www.zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/viewFile/934/939

enjoy

[Anonymous No.19293928]

https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3251023
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01250532
https://sci-hub.se/10.1080/10402130220127852
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.33280/2310-3817-2019-7-1-340-362
https://philarchive.org/archive/PEZBIT
https://www.lacan.com/zizbenbrother.html
https://www.lacan.com/zizplato.htm
https://cadelllast.com/2020/09/07/repetition-to-drive-chapter-7-the-limits-of-hegel-part-6/

[Anonymous No.19294011]

>>19287938

Zizek tries to do it in Organs Without Bodies but it's kinda gay, he just admonishes Deleuze for not falling in line with his shitty reading of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19294077]

>>19286961
wtf a good post by butterfly

[Anonymous No.19294418]

>>19293892
Bataille has so much latent Hegelianism in him its frankly revolting. Deleuze is a far more liberating thinker and isn't a stinky nihilistic life denier like Bataille (builds a whole system on something as retarded as the idea of "excess energy" xdd). Not denying the existence of excess in the way he delineates it, but it's not some profound ontological key to everything like he seems to think.

[Anonymous No.19294577]

>>19287938
Deleuze sounds like Lenin sometimes.

[Anonymous No.19294909]

>>19294418
>it's not some profound ontological key to everything like he seems to think.
He said, using his surplus energy to argue with strangers about philosophy