[ 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: 116 KB, 659x870, foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5928944 No.5928944 [Reply] [Original]

What should I have read beforehand before I start Anti-Oedipus?

>> No.5928961

>>5928944
Freud

>> No.5929908

It didn't make much sense to me until after I read Difference and Repetition. I used a secondary source along with that and it helped knowing Nietzsche.

>> No.5929960

Sophocles and Hegel

>> No.5929972

Go with Deleuze's early works on other philosophers. Spinoza: Practical Philosophy and Nietzsche and Philosophy in particular. Then read Difference and Repetition.

Some Freud of course wouldn't hurt either.

>> No.5930190

nothing can prepare you for the utter butt-fuckery that Deleuze and Guattari write in that book. They made it intentionally pedantic

>> No.5930243

http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/08/how-to-begin-reading-deleuze.html

Knowing at least Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Freud is already a huge boost.

>> No.5930659

You don't.

>> No.5930670

shit i had no idea foucault once looked like that

>> No.5930679

>>5930670
>bald from the cradle to the grave

>> No.5930710

>>5928944
isnt fuckolt black?

>> No.5931104

>>5930190
>intentionally pedantic
factual

>> No.5931125

>>5930710
Are you retarded?

>> No.5931127
File: 47 KB, 657x879, 142000227877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5931127

Shit man he really makes you think

>> No.5931159

So can someone give a really simple explanation of what the hell Deleuze is really on about?

>> No.5932579

>>5928944
you'll want an introduction that explains what the book is trying to do
oddly it isn't trying to explain things in a way that is "normal" to grasp so jumping in isn't a good call

>> No.5932585

>>5931159
We allow the system to dictate who we are

>> No.5932875

>>5931159
Desiring machines within us (conflicting, multiple), power, Becoming, nomadic thought, rhizomatic theory, world composed of infinite modalities in infinite chain, Hegel sucks, discovering what your body is capable of, overcoming limitations ("deterritorialization") of thought, concepts, identities.

>> No.5933683

>>5928944
At first I thought that was Lovecraft

>> No.5933730

>>5932875
>explanation
>lists concepts either coined or re-imagined by deleuze with no context

>> No.5933742

>>5933730
Give me a summary of Einstein. GO!

>> No.5933750

>>5930670
Was a total qt in his youth.

>> No.5933754

>>5933742
>:|||
entirely different

>> No.5933755

>>5933742

It appears Sir Isaac Newton overlooked some things.

done

>> No.5933788

>>5933754
How so? Deleuze was influenced by Bergson-Einstein debate. Einstein has Reinman's concept of multiplicities while Bergson tries to move beyond by thinking time independent of space (duration as indivisible multiplicity).

>>5933755
It appears the major figures of philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel) overlooked some things (Heraclites, Don Scotus, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Jung, Simondon).

>> No.5933801

>>5933742
STATIC UNIVERSE STATIC UNIVERSE STATIC UNIVERSE

a total idiot pleb whom you should disreard

>> No.5933814

>>5928944
been spendin most our lives livin in the gangsta'sparadise

>> No.5933821

>>5928944
power and the money, money and the power, minute after minute, hour after hour, everybody's running but half of them aint lookin, what's goin on in de kitchen but I aint know what's cookin

>> No.5933888

>>5933788
on the one hand we're talking about a guy whose work has literally been produced in 'for dummy' forms, youtube explanations/breakdowns, etc.. He's already been pruned for mass consumption.
on the other hand we're talking about a guy who intentionally obscured his meanings through references to unpopular, at least for his day, philosophers and redefined or invented terms. If you read early Deleuze you'll see how clear his writing is compared to what we get later. To ask someone to provide some kind of explanation, at least of one central idea/concept, is not unreasonable. However, for most readers of Deleuze, it is not doable.

>> No.5933941

>>5933788

I enjoyed your post.

Could you say more about multiplicities?

>> No.5933947

>>5933888

>intentionally obscured his meanings

I don't understand this. Why do you think he intentionally obscured his meanings over just having eclectic interests and trying his esoteric best to put them into language?

>> No.5933982

>>5933947
Because he showed an ability to convey his interests clearly in his Masochism book, his writings on Melville and Kafka, and in essays on literature in general. There is a noticeable and unnecessary change in his writing style towards the obscure throughout his career. It is probably supposed to be 'part of the meaning'; never fully pinning his ideas down, in some sense but it makes for truly awful reads (even if the ideas are of some interest).

>> No.5934084

>>5933941
1/2: Bergson

Bergson speaks of two multiplicities, one spatial and another temporal.
Spatial one is the classic one: there are multiple things that are juxtaposed to one another, set aside in some imaginary or actual space. You think of a set of multiple material bodies or objects as separated form each other: the law of impenetrability of matter, in other words, one object can't be positioned where some other object already is. In this same way you usually think about time: a sequence of moments or states that are positioned next to each other on an imaginary line. This not only reduces time to something spatial but also views time from the outside, since this image of time is not you being inside the line and having a feeling of its constant movement forward but looking at it from the outside. Bergson also says that space ultimately depends on the notion of number. When you say that two material things can't penetrate each other this is based on there being *two* things. When you count anything you move from *one* thing to the next, in abrupt steps. This is why he says that science as something that puts emphasis on quantity and measure can't think pure time - that which happens between intervals and states, the movement itself. If you speed up time of the whole universe, all scientific formulas still work perfectly fine (since all constants are relative to each other) yet our experience is probably going to be different (or so Bergson thinks).
For Bergson time has to do with duration. Things in time endure and are not merely a collection of states separated from each other. This means that temporal objects penetrate each other contrary to the law of impenetrability of matter. When you look at something supposedly static your perception changes each moment because it accumulates what came before. Through time that something changes, it is a "becoming" rather than an already produced thing. If you experienced only each moment in itself, without the previous ones enduring, and thus penetrating the current one, then your experience would be completely destroyed and created at each moment. Now think of the movement of your arm. As an outside viewer you can divide the movement either into a set of positions (mechanistic approach) or an order of those positions (holistic approach). But viewing from the inside the movement is indivisible, it is one simple act without any pause (of time itself), yet heterogeneous since each moment is also different. This is Bergson's repeating example of duration or indivisible multiplicity. Another example is causality. If effect is fully contained in its cause (no creatio ex nihilo) then, without thinking time, you have to condense the whole universe into one single and fixed moment. But there's a void between cause and effect and that void is the movement of time.
In short: usually we only think about the intervals i.e. separated states. But there's also stuff happening between the intervals.

>> No.5934098

>>5933941
>>5934084
2/2: Reimann

Reimann on the other hand, a mathematician before Bergson, distinguished between continuous multiplicities (e.g. an interval [1-2]) and discrete one (e.g a set {1,2}). Continuous ones sound a lot like Bergon's duration yet they are still quantitative, spatial, and divisible. They can only be thought in space (imaginary or not) where you juxtapose one number to another (e.g. 1.3 liter next to 1) or where you contain one number in another (e.g. 0.7 meter inside 1).

I recommend reading the second chapter of Bergson's Time and Free Will (it's pretty short and clear) and Duration and Simultaneity (relates to Einstein). Here's a collection of his writings that contains both:
http://libgen.org/book/index.php?md5=AA91DCC060A5FB78653BF02161491AB2

I've also read somewhere that Deleuze moves beyond Bergson's strict insistence on continuity when he starts reading Nietzsche i.e. Deleuze thinks discontinuity is not necessarily trapped in old spatial reductions. I'm not that far yet though so I don't know what Deleuze had in mind here.

>> No.5934197

Deleuze doesn't talk about Bergson's Two Sources of Morality and Religion. But I suggest that book.

>> No.5934212

>>5934084
>But there's also stuff happening between the intervals.
And this is because the internal is never short enough for no change to occur within it? Or am I misunderstanding.

>> No.5934217

>>5934212
The second is also a question.

>> No.5934374

>>5934212
That expression "there's stuff happening between the intervals" is a bit misleading. What I wanted to emphasize is that there has to be movement between them if you want to think about time without reducing it to space. The movement is what makes them alive rather than just being museum pieces placed next to each other. The problem with Zeno's movement paradoxes is just this: he completely ignores that time is not this state and then that state, but the flow inbetween. Or more radically: the states don't exist at all, there's just the flow. We think in terms of states because it's practical, but we can never make them totally unchanging. Ultimately a state is just a slowed down flow.
What is more important for Bergson though is that each moment endures or penetrates into the next so you can't separate them from each other. Like when you visit some unknown city for the first time: your impression of it changes and grows richer through time because all impressions accumulate and are contained in subsequent ones, yet each new impression is also different from the previous ones. You can't make new impressions totally independent from the previous ones, but you also can't reduce them to the previous ones. So there's a difference without separation or clear distinction. Since these impression are inseparable from each other, penetrate each other, and are different from each other, they together are one big multiplicity whose difference is internal.

>> No.5934394

Drop it and read Baudrillard instead, because Delueze was a stinking fraud and not a philosopher.

>> No.5934486

>>5934374
Thank you for clarifications. What exactly did Deleuze add to this? I've recognized his focus on 'becoming' and get the feeling this was somewhat central to his work on cinema