/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21771183]

>does a genealogy of thoght
>collaterally does a genealogy of being
>states that philosophy fuses with ontology
>but needs to ground the link between aesthetics and the thought of aesthetics (intensity with ontology)
>genius Idea!: being and becoming are co-implicated
>entire genealogy dynamited from the inside
No wonder he jumped from that building in 1995 (it was first published in English in late 1994 lmao).

[Anonymousn No.21771202]

Explain what you mean by 'dynamited from the inside'. Where's the undermining contradiction? Maybe I'm a bad reader of Deleuze but I don't see it.

[Anonymous No.21771333]

>>21771183
>cringe Atheist organization
>uses photo of Deleuze with a fucking fedora as an exemplar of their gay ideology
I enjoyed him a lot more before I realized he was the fedora meme 20 years before its advent

[Anonymousn No.21771376]

So you had nothing. You just trained a neural network on a bunch of already confused /lit/ Deleuze threads and copied and pasted the results.

[Anonymous No.21771733]

>>21771202
The method of critique is genealogy. Difference and Repetition is ---on its surface--- a critique of Representation. But at the same time, it is a Critique of Thought. The outcome of the critique of thought is its genealogy: from non-conceptual difference to the genesis of thought.

The concept proper to Difference ---difference in itself--- needs to imply the three characteristics of non-conceptual difference (which is aesthetical difference = intensity): difference; disparity/distance; intensity. But once the concept of difference in itself is found, it is folded back to the Idea ---something that is a product of non-conceptual difference. Deleuze sure does a better dialectic that Hegel, but nonetheless its entire book goes like:

>lets do what kantians couldn't ever do because of the conceptual filter of intuition
>damn, we got difference prior to the concept of difference
>lets make as the concept of difference is the same as non-conceptual difference, and infuse Eidos with it so as to get individuation from within the Idea and not for conceptual derivation/partition.
>Yeah, philosophy is totally relevant now

Dude went all the way back to solve Kant just to go back to Hegel. What a waste.

tl;dr: Take everything DR says about Repetition and The Eternal Return and throw it to the trash.

[Anonymous No.21771743]

>>21771733
>just to get back to Hegel
ftfm

[Anonymous No.21771782]

>>21771333
I feel like derailing this thread ABOUT HIS FUCKING FINGERNAILS WTF IS IT WITH THESE FR*NCH PEOPLE?

[Anonymous No.21772455]

>>21771782
>He kept his fingernails untrimmed because, as he once explained, he lacked "normal protective fingerprints", and therefore could not "touch an object, particularly a piece of cloth, with the pads of my fingers without sharp pain".

[Anonymous No.21772509]

>>21771733
Are you saying that the concept of difference is ungrounded because it is grounded in non-conceptual difference? Or that the ground of difference is indeterminable in itself?
Why do you dislike how Deleuze takes up repetition? You seem to understand Deleuze well.

[Anonymous No.21772510]

>>21772455
No wonder he was so out of touch with reality

[Anonymous No.21772709]

>>21772509
>Are you saying that the concept of difference is ungrounded because it is grounded in non-conceptual difference? Or that the ground of difference is indeterminable in itself?
I'm saying that Deleuze's went as far as to a sensibility that had nothing to do with organization, but with matter as potency ---something that is in fact the case, even for the greek philosophers. But, i doing a synthetic series from anorganic matter to emergent subjectivity and to empirical subjectivity he had to posit a 'mode' in which difference can be said IN time. Repetition is the correlate of subjectivity ---be that empirical or transcendental--- and the concept of difference in itself (which is genetic) does not require a subjection to time (which is generated).

The 'unground' Deleuze's talk about in DR is pretty much grounded insofar you don't abandon Repetition and The Eternal Return. It only looks unground from the point of view of traditional philosophy (Hegel and Aristotle, and in some sort Kant, in the case of Deleuze's account on DR).

[Anonymous No.21772748]

>>21772709
Deleuze's image of thought is still Dogmatic ---and imo there is no escape from dogmatism in a philosophy that do not compromise itself to the superation of the subject. And I mean a real superation, not an undermining of how culture conditions subjectivity. Science can do that, explicitly in the element of science that Deleuze didn't criticized in his elaboration on the 'dogmatic image of thought': the fact that science based consequences are not related to scientists bias and/or redditor weltanschauung, but on pure experimentation. The same that Deleuze says about Art(works) is true for Scientific Experimentations: its consequences are more important that its antropic pressupossitions. Thats a differential-feedback-feedforward that does not require subjectivity to be determined, but only as a secondary part.

[Anonymous No.21773336]

>>21771733
much of my thesis was on this topic but in different language due to mainly using the lanugage of WiP rather than DR but yeah it is essentially a tragic philosophy since it betrays itself the moment it opens its mouth - which is why I would think the true correlate of philosophical 'truth' would have to be learned ignorance a la socrates or cusa for deleuze. in that sense you are right that the genealogy dynamites from the inside but that is an intrinsic characteristic of philosophy, it was always only a temporary bypass from ignorance to wisdom (love of wisdom, somewhere in the middle) which should destroy itself upon its completion (possession of wisdom would make one not a philosopher anymore, for you don't merely desire but actually now have wisdom)

[Anonymous No.21773764]

>>21773336
>genealogy dynamites from the inside but that is an intrinsic characteristic of philosophy
That's my point about DR. The thing is, I believe it is possible for tought to not take a supone position to obliteration. Let me put it on transcendental nietzscheanism (the system of DR):
>any account of thought must be the suicidal charcoal ---ritual gift--- of a totally (and conceptually) different thougth
That is, literally and pace Hegel, dialectics.

But what if thought isn't determined by philosophy? Postmodern theory at its best looked for an alternative to subject oriented thought (OOO doesn't count since it deletion of subjectivity consist in the objectualization of subjectivity).

Postmodernity sounds like a joke to philosophical and scientific standards; but there is a clear line inside plato, kant and deleuze aesthetics that can make the very ground for a transcendental aesthetics that can cope with the philosophical neurosis: THOUGHT IS NOT TIED TO THE OCCIDENTAL GEOTRAUMATIC ACCOUNT OF BEIG: Reality is not determined by Philosophy's intrisic wars. And, as a corolary: SCIENSCE IS NOT AN ENEMY OF THOUGHT, NOR OF CREATIVE AND POST-CULTURE THOUGHT.

[Anonymous No.21773767]

>>21771183
Action heros always leap off the building as it explodes.

[Anonymous No.21773768]

>I MUST devote my LIFE to THINKING and TALKING about what some French POOF talked about in a cafe in 1968
Tiresome, how haven't you clowns graduated to desert mysticism yet.

[Anonymous No.21773814]

Deleuze is closer to someone like Hegel than Badiou. You need to implode your system to absurdity in order to grasp contradiction and dialectics. The biggest contribution of Deleuze to this , is his notion of the Virtual. Old conceptions of ontology are dead after Hegel anyway.

[Anonymous No.21773827]

>>21773768
come back when you have read deleuze... if you can read at all.

>the biggest contribution of Deleuze to this , is his notion of the Virtual
I surely believe Deleuze's revivification of virtualism, pace Bergson, was truly a movement towards the unification of two different ways to consider philosophy. But a problem arise, I believe, when you consider the possibility of a genealogy of the virtual shows that not only greek philosophy, and proto-philosophy is rgounded on myth (not Homer, but Egypt; then that that was before Egypt; and so on), but that all philosophy is in fact myth, Non mythological philosophy is sencondary philosophy: phylosophy is science and empirical science is philosophy. Fuck, I'm so drunk; I'm sorry ---Id like to give a better and more clear account of the intrinsic probles of Deleuze's account of philosophy and its critique of the dogmatic image...

[Anonymous No.21773832]

>>21772748

Wrong, read Anti-Oedipus, subject formation occupies a central position to D&G, it was ultimately their idea first before it was Foucaults. It was further elaborated on Socities of Control. Subject is a big tent lie we tell ourselves in bourgeois society and that was a well accepted Marxist/Althusser position, D&G further elaborated what space occupies the abolition of subject formation in capitalism. i.e. schizofrenia. You have to be high IQ to get Deleuze, because he can't be pigeonholed easily.

>>21773764

Science doesn't matter one bit to what Deleuze is doing , science and philosophy the way you describe it almost post-conceptual, that is not what Deleuze is about.

[Anonymous No.21773835]

>>21773832

meant to say pre-conceptual*, Deleuze is not some an irrationalist when it comes to the merit of ideas.

[Anonymous No.21773837]

>>21773832
>Wrong, read Anti-Oedipus, subject formation occupies a central position to D&G, it was ultimately their idea first before it was Foucaults.
WRONG.
A subject formation structure is Guattari's objective. Deleuze's account of structure is eidetic, from 195X to 199X.

>Science doesn't matter one bit to what Deleuze is doing
You haven't read Deleuze. 50% of Deleuze's own philosophy is Empiricism ---not scientism, but science grounded metaphysics.

Based on your post, I'd say you only know the superficial level of AO, which is a book grounded on social-actual behaviour dynamics. Anti-Oedipus has nothing to do ---at all with Deleuze's philosophy.

tl;dr: read a book nigger. Landian down syndrome virgins make fun of you ---and correlatively about people like me--- because you illiterate mongrels can't construct a consistent account based on intensive materialism.

[Anonymous No.21773843]

>>21773827

A thesis also accepted by Kojeve and something that Deleuze would not disagree with.

>Philosophy exists to make us sad.

meme quote I know, but that it is at the heart of what he wants to get across, philosophy first and foremost is the praxis of the sage. Not debating about arcane bullshit. Deleuze offers the best defence of philosophy in this way.

[Anonymous No.21773847]

>>21773835
define Ideas in deleuzian sense and argue about how my post is wrong about it. Deleuze's Ideas are a vestige of Husserl problematics on Transcendental empiricsm ---Eidos is not a thing on the genealogy of thought before the need to ground (eidetic) dialectics relation to virtuality ---in order to link 'question' to a 'problem' that has a being before the ''''''''event''''''' of the question.

[Anonymous No.21773849]

>>21773843
>A thesis also accepted by Kojeve and something that Deleuze would not disagree with.
You have not read Deleuze at all if you thing something like this. Quit larping.

[Anonymous No.21773854]

>>21773837

>You haven't read Deleuze. 50% of Deleuze's own philosophy is Empiricism ---not scientism, but science grounded metaphysics.

wtf is this, you think philosophy is some kind rpg game where you pick classes and run with that? This is total nonsense, and you are re-iterating my point and misconstruing it so you can make Deleuze like his is some kind of grand metaphysician. There is nothing pre-conceptual in Deleuze, science is just another mythology on top just like philosophy is. Its you who doesn't realize the deeper affinities beatween Deleuze , Guattari and Foucault. Social dynamism, subject formation all of these are related to philosophy.

You need to go back to Canguilhem if you want a real genealogy of how this strand of thought got formed. All this scince stuff is completely irrelevant because Deleuze is not a traditional empiricist either, its the Virtual that is his important contribution and that is not something temporaly pre-conceptual. It happens at the same time.

[Anonymous No.21773857]

Just read Lord of the Rings. Tolkien solved all these metaphilosophastical/methodeulogical problems.

[Anonymous No.21773868]

>>21773854
>you think philosophy is some kind rpg game where you pick classes and run with that?
I do believe that's discourse, I wouldn't say that's metaphysics but, to be easy on people I wouldn't argue that metaphysics is discourse.

>you are re-iterating my point and misconstruing it so you can make Deleuze like his is some kind of grand metaphysician
From DR ---cfr preface--- to WIP ---'I'm a pure metaphysician'; 'everything I've written is vitalist', 'life is abstract'--- Deleuze's work is metaphysics. For Deleuze, phylosophy is 2 things, concept creation on its positive side; metaphysics on its duration. If you thing my sumary of Deleuze's philosophy lacks a moment, that of a negative affirmation ---which is what you supose other people might recognize--- the proble is yours.

I'd recommend you to read DR; and before that, to learn how to read; and then to go back to your youtube tier accounts on CE [AO-ATP],

intellectual nigger

[Anonymous No.21773879]

>>21773847

Deleuze collapses the two in order to avoid precicely what you describe. Why would Deleuze try to link the two like in phenomenology after his commitment to sense and affect? Rather he goes back the ontological argument to show how asburd it is, and in order to think materially.

"What it means to be something and not something else (identity) can only be given in time, as an identity over time. As Deleuze shows in the beginning of the second chapter of Difference of Repetition, the very notion of identity is predicated upon being repeated as the same." (Roffe)

If something only occurs only once, nothing can be said about its identity or difference, since both are variable subscription both epistemologically and ontologically speaking. Without having a point of reference, it might be, that something changes in the next moment or not. Thus being synchronic for Deleuze thats what hinges on his notion of the Virtual. All that other phenomenological baggage Deleuze attacks is because he is not some realist cuck with commitment to some correspondance to ideality and fact. He is a "transcedental empiricist". So your big take down of him is very weak and depends on you doing arbitrary comparisons with other metaphysical systems

[Anonymous No.21773901]

>>21773868

>I do believe that's discourse, I wouldn't say that's metaphysics but, to be easy on people I wouldn't argue that metaphysics is discourse.

People who think that metaphysics matter beyond discourse are the unhappy consciosuness that Hegel describes. You hinge your bets on the ontological argument , when Deleuze in fact wants to show you the reverse, actuallity undermining abstract conceptualism. If you think that Deleuze was some crypto-Kantian then he woudn't have engaged in bwo discource with Guattari anyway. He would have re-iterated Kant and be done with it, so you are wrong also about Deleuzes commitments. Secondly Deleuze's commitment in trying to overcome the bifurcation of rationalism and empiricism is a strategic position , also related to his politics. So before you label it dismisively as "discource" you should read a writter charitably and be more humble in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.21773920]

>>21773767

That is actually the best description of Deleuze's philosophy I've ever seen lmao. Underated post.

[Anonymous No.21773959]

>>21773920
MENDOZA!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.21774456]

>>21771183
Had anyone fused philosophy with ornithology?

[Anonymous No.21774813]

>>21773854
>you think philosophy is some kind rpg game where you pick classes and run with that?
Philosophy as being "take a bunch of base concepts, build connections, see where it goes" is very Deleuzean.

[Anonymous No.21774862]

>>21771733
>and throw it to the trash.

...or out of the window.

[Anonymous No.21774883]

>>21774456
Yes but my work is unpublished

[Anonymous No.21774885]

>>21771183

Defecooze has been subsumed by the Gnostics.

[Anonymous No.21775216]

>>21773879
>Thus being synchronic for Deleuze thats what hinges on his notion of the Virtual
What hinges the notion of the Virtual is the determination it does to actualization, not its synchronicity with something. Easily Deleuze could have stopped at individuation and virtuality would not have changed in the slightest, since it hinges with actualization, but its ' itself' is linked non-representational intensities.

>He is a "transcedental empiricist". So your big take down of him is very weak and depends on you doing arbitrary comparisons with other metaphysical systems
What I said is based on the fact that DR is a work of transcendental empiricism... and that if transcendental empiricism is something, its not what the system of DR exposes, but the genealogy of the object that starts at the very first time synthesis and doesn't need repetition in order to be completed: representation is not an object; the object is given to the understanding by imagination; and imagination does not form the object by repetition but by asymetric communication ---I still can't see how you don't get that repetition isn't needed at all in the genealogical account; it only makes sense in the domain of representation... there is no need to fold it back or perplex it through the three passive synthesis...

>>21773901
>So before you label it dismisively as "discource" you should read a writter charitably and be more humble in my opinion
You pseuds will never understand Deleuze if you keep repeating what he said and didn't actually do... Do you thing being prone to a prior philosopher or respectable figure makes you better at understanding them, or to be able to communicate with them? My aggressiveness to Deleuze isn't grounded in opposition or hostility, but in the clarity of what he didn't want to do even if he had to in order to complete what is virtualy implied in DR.

[Anonymous No.21775306]

>>21775216
I will go as far as to say that what Deleuze forgot ---and in fact didn't want to say--- is that before the 'transcendental exercise of imagination' there is a 'transcendental exercise of perception'. And I'm aware he knew he could have added perception as a faculty, but he didn't because all of his 3 passive synthesis take place IN the matter of an organic-kantian-subject that is still in its virtual form.
Transcendental perception goes all the way down to 'prime οὺσία' as potential. Moreover, Deleuze's short encounter with Atomism (a half of a paragrpah) does the account about intensity ---in its differential complex form (difference-distance-intensity--- as a superation of atomism, using the same arguments of pregnated οὺσία as potentially/morphogenetic in itself.

...Well, at least he does in some way that with Guattari, but they didn't add either a transcendental perception prior to subjectivation synthesis. And again, both of them knew that scientific research on perception made it uncapturable in the domain of representation. Also, both of them were reported to have read Simondon's exposition on perception ---which basically takes perception out of organicity and put it back as a correlate of meta-stable matter (or morphogenetic matter to Deleuze's standards).

[Anonymous No.21776285]

>>21775216
I thought the syntheses of time brought representation and sense together, because this asymetric synthesis is repetition? Like in Kant.

[Anonymous No.21776295]

>>21776285
sorry I meant
>asymetric communication

[Anonymous No.21776308]

This thread gave me cancer. Bunch of pedantic homosexuals.

[Anonymous No.21777443]

>>21771733
>tl;dr: Take everything DR says about Repetition and The Eternal Return and throw it to the trash.

I never understood his claims about the eternal return as Nietzsche specifically claims it's the return of the same. I would understand if Deleuze claimed he was going against Nietzsche here but instead he argues that Zarathustra supports this reading when it clearly doesn't.

[Anonymous No.21777785]

>>21777443
For Deleuze, Nietzsche's idea was to end with a book about Zarathustra's death, thus liberating time from the eternal return on a flat time of the new; the eternal return would by its side become the eternal return of the new. Deleuze's Eidetic needs cursed his philosophy in the same way the Altmer are cursed in the Kirkbridean account (which is basically why the altmer are hegelians; which is also funny because it is the at the same time the story about how and why Nick Land following Deleuze's errors went from nietzscheanism directly to a full jewish lover hegelian protestant incel identitarianism).

[Anonymous No.21778303]

>>21777785
What is the Brass Tower if not a racial bwo-hypernet making a leap from a noetic self-help chatroom into a full blown singularity of the Padomaic* champion.
>*Eternal Return of the New

[Anonymous No.21778445]

OP's a hegelian poltroon playing out the altmeric signatures.
>reduce Deleuze
>secure the thalmorite hegemony
learn to see things with the eyes of Padhome, novitiate.

[Anonymous No.21778710]

>>21778445
>>21778303
You guys don't get what is at stake here: the non-returning truth of a lorkhanite philosophy: the true account of univocity: anuic and padomayc overdeterminations still predicate the modes starting from a given being. The eternal divergence of the new is the lorkhanic way in which matter is itself pregnated with the infinite divergent outcomes of its becoming.

[Anonymous No.21778715]

>>21778710
>anuic and padomayc overdeterminations still predicate the modes starting from a given being
Also; you shouldn't follow Kirkbride's own account on his work, for it is too human (and cringe, since his account is grounded on drug-processed hinduism).

[Anonymous No.21779156]

>>21778710
It can be read as 'lmao truth so randum' but the more knowledgeable way is to approach the truth as being unique (and hidden from the profane eyes) every moment of the Time, as She is His daughter.

Anuic ontological reactionaries try to totalize, to capture the truth – 'Hegel moment', symbolic hierarchies of recognition, economics, all that – in order to objectify and control, i.e. to prolong their non-essential duration. Shor is forever new. Real steps on the real road. While the thalmorites build symbolic pyramids and then try to seduce others into playing their schemes. (As with the cloakers-of-the-storm and Talos nonsense.) Viking man.. you forgot your roots... of the Tree.
>(Northman 2022, by Bob EGG)
Deleuze leaping out of the burning building of logos is refutation (in the last instance) of the glassed groydism called philosophy or intellectual endeavour. The invisible mystical factor: It guides through faith and intuition: which means Shor (if He real).

[Anonymous No.21779182]

>>21779156
I love Deleuze but it is true that jumping off is the ultimate pissmer copying mechanism against the fact that the origin is always fake and so its the Idea.

[Anonymous No.21779248]

>>21779182
He jumped into the oblivion gate-window of the possible which transformed him into the BWO, which he developed while being in human form. In a way, even now he's amongus.

[Anonymous No.21779855]

>>21771183
Difference overcomes difference through difference

[Anonymous No.21779879]

>>21773764
>but there is a clear line inside plato, kant and deleuze aesthetics that can make the very ground for a transcendental aesthetics that can cope with the philosophical neurosis: THOUGHT IS NOT TIED TO THE OCCIDENTAL GEOTRAUMATIC ACCOUNT OF BEIG: Reality is not determined by Philosophy's intrisic wars. And, as a corolary: SCIENSCE IS NOT AN ENEMY OF THOUGHT, NOR OF CREATIVE AND POST-CULTURE THOUGHT.
already solved by Grant's transcendental materialism

[Anonymous No.21779949]

>>21771202
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.21780053]

>>21778303
Is this you?
https://community.fandom.com/wiki/User:Aramithius

[Anonymous No.21780105]

You guys made me spend hours learning about elder scrolls lore to get what the fuck you're on about
fuck you all

[Anonymous No.21780895]

I want more schizoposts to read, go!
The sunk cost fallacy won't let me let this go

[Anonymous No.21781087]

>>21777785
I know it says 'remove man from the Pattern of Possibility', but the idea that 'the idea of man can be forgotten, and thereby never again repeated' suggests that the Thalmor really wanted to annihilate mankind from the very Virtual, not just from the Possible.