Fucking pseud.
>>23624445>t. filtered /pol/tardKek
>>23624447I'm not a /pol/tard
Deleuze is prolly best among pomos: the only with courage to attempt metaphysics and ontology. That said, his terminology is rather retarded and insular. And like most of the cutting edge today, both analytic and continental, he has little to say which is better stated than superior works by the greeks and romans and medievals and germs (peaks of philosophy)
>>23624445yep
>>23625601You deserve violent, slow, and painful death
>>23624447cmon anon, while /pol/shits are filtered by him, many many many are filtereed by him in general, so its not fair to assume that op is
>>23624445he, derrida, bauldrillard and like 1/3 of Butler are unironically the only pomos worth any reading. the rest are either pseuds (lyotard), pseuds coming up with theories already done better by none pomo writers (focults history anylisis is just a shitter version of marxism) and/or interesting but not really worth it because nobody has done anything with their ideas that is worth while (lacan)
>>23626182What 1/3 of Butler is worth anything? Isn't it all gender ideology?
>>23626182YWNBAW
>>23626252wojaks really are 50/50 if they are gonna be the funniest thing youve seen all day or an unpleasant to look at mess posted by a smug schizo
>>23624447Seems to me like the whole /pol/, Nick Land, Yarvin, Thiel, etc. crowd would be big fans of Deleuze and Derrida, or Nietzsche for that matter.When /pol/ groups release "strategy" guidelines they refer specifically to "deconstructing narratives," and everything is presented in a highly POMO fashion. In particular they are huge on POMO assaults on science and history as being mere "power relations."I don't think the modern right is really all that opposed to POMO. They ARE POMO, right down to everything being ironic (this was a POMO thing originally too). E.g., stupid names like the "Goyim Defense League," (a real group doing IRL rallies).That leftist traditional POMOs can only see their right wing counterparts as retards who couldn't have possibly "gotten" their heros actually seems to just show they they themselves have bought into an overarching traditionalist meta narrative of POMO as inheritly supporting a key set of sacrosanct principles. But the Unironically Ironic Nazi Frog is doing their schtick better than they are, using all the same tricks employed by earlier POMO identity movements.
>>23625601This is fair. The entire idea that ontology somehow reduces freedom, or for Deleuze that freedom would somehow be enhanced if we "create" ontology, is packed with (IMHO bad) assumptions that go entirely unchallenged.For most of the history of philosophy freedom was something like "the self-determining capacity to actualize the Good." In the modern period with guys like Locke it became more defined in terms of potency, freedom as "the ability to choose anything."Assuming that ontology and metaphysics might negatively impact freedom needs to beg the question on whether we "create" versus "discover" metaphysics and ontology. If metaphysics really is more something that must be "discovered" (entirely plausible) then the POMO path is just a path into self-deluding ignorance. But then ignorance is a barrier to freedom.The fact is that, quite plausibly, being able to "think anything" isn't freedom if it keeps one from the good. Someone who does something they would rather not have done out of ignorance is less than fully free. Plotinus uses Oedipus for this example. The one thing he most wants to avoid is killing his father, yet he does it anyhow because his actions are determined by a truth that lies outside his awareness.But in POMOs reflexive freedom over the self is virtually denigrated (it certainly is in Nietzsche). I would say that at the very least it is not clear if they are correct here, and yet they take these assumptions for granted.
>>23626237>Isn't it all gender ideology?You could ask the same question about any traditionalist text concerning sex and gender.
>>23624445Familiarize yourself with the canon
