Ok anons, is there something to deleuze or am I going to waste my time and sanity reading him?
When I see anons talk about Philosophers like Hegel and Deleuze. My answer is that. Nothing they say is so necessary or even fundamental that you need to read through them, you can either get alternate ideas equally as valid and significantly more clear, or similar ideas that are far more clear. Something I often find is how blatantly "biased" the incoherent poorly written philosophers are. Hegel implies that Absolute Spirit culminates in him and the german state...just to go on to write a bunch of garbage nonsense glorifying his conservative nationalist concepts of state and the family unit.This is less of a charge of Deleuze specifically as I figure this actually comes more from Guattari, since Deleuze is ironically a family man. But their use of Schizophrenia (and inb4 some retard says, "theyre not LITERALLY talking about Schizophrenia in the book that is a response to psychoanalysis and directly brings up features of clinical Schizophrenia to ground their own concept of schizophrenia" it doesnt matter since the failure would then be in using the world schizophrenia at all in a way that could even lead to this retarded confusion) in this twisted delusional way where blah blah blah it is the ultimate creative rebel something something. I honestly forgot what their point was, but thats the gist.Basically theyre not worth reading unless you either also want to confirm your bias. Or you want to feel le cool for reading le wacky philosophers that reddit says is SO HECKIN HARD TO READ HOW COOL WOULD YOU BE AND HOW MANY UPVOTES WOULD YOU GET IF YOU COULD ANSWER A REDDIT POST ASKING ABOUT HEGEL OR DELEUZE!
>>24770999What would be a clearer alternative to deleuze?
>>24771049idk, he was a pretty weird guy, I figure that there isnt really one if you want to maintain "same ideas but clearer" but there are a loads of people who talked about the same things he did, i mean youve got focault, buadrilliard. He talked a lot about desire, so if there have been any philosophical developments on desire, look there
>>24771049there is none, as there is none for Hegel, sadly they are one of a kind and they were very creative at making a philosophy of their own (they almost reach the medieval levels of complexity, almost) what anon (>>24770999) said applies more to the likes of Heidegger or Sartre. Hegel, despite the "charlatan" and "obscure" tone he may have (just prologue to the Phenomenology of the Spirit can attest to this) made concepts and problems of the whole history of western philosophy his own (the treatment of non-being in the Logic of Science is a good example)
The Deleuzeanons make him sound worthwhile but I dunno.>>24770999Filtered: the post. I can’t even respond it’s wrong on so many levels.
>>24771049>What would be a clearer alternative to deleuze?Sub-Commandante Marcos.
>>24770999I don't totally disagree but I got a lot of forcing myself to think through Hegel. Although I did eventually find out that most of what is best in Hegel is in the scholastic and Patristic traditions (and Neoplatonism and its readings of Aristotle). Those aren't exactly easy either though, and Hegel made them easier to get.>>24771149You could certainly spend a lifetime grappling with the Logic, but I think the abstruseness of the writing gives an illusion of being more fully worked out and "complex" than it really is. This is definitely true of more "post-modern" works, which abuse jargon in the worst sort of way. It has a LOT of people publishing, but because they all want to do their own thing, because there is no real unifying "way of life," and because there is this idea of "being original" and all sorts of incentives for originality, I don't think it gets anywhere near the actual structural elegance and systematicity of high scholasticism. That's not particularly a knock on anyone (except for the abuse of jargon); high scholasticism was the result of 1,000+ years of continuous work in a culture where most contributors were very much *living* their philosophy in ascetic, contemplative communities and even writing in a specialized dead language. There isn't really anything like it today. I think it tends to be ignored precisely because this makes it so imposing. It's funny that it is ignored though when so many big figures got their ideas for that well.
>>24771678Man /lit/ really glorifies early Medieval Philosophy huh.To me, anything coming off the back of Aristotle will fundamentally entail a sort of adhoc confirmation bias to its philosophy, no I wont elaborate because whenever I make this criticism of Aristotle nobody understands, so until I care enough to read him again and formulate a better way of explaining it, thats all you get.
>>24771693Wouldn't /lit/ though? I mean, it gave us the GOAT, that alone counts for something.
>>24771678I am not unfamiliar with scholasticism and Aristotle (I even read Aristotle and st. Thomas for a few years). However, I’ve moved on, because I realised that the concept of the i or the self which is the foundation of modern philosophy is almost completely missing in ancient and medieval Philosophy. This fact doesn’t degrade scholasticism, but it shows imo that you can’t just read st. Thomas for eternity and call it a day. By doing that you will be completely out of touch with modern reality and unable to interpret what is going on in these weird times. So I figured, I have to dive into some of the postmoderns. That being said deleuze certainly sounds like a very interesting guy. I don’t necessarily want to grapple with postmodernism in it’s literary-critique-form, so deleuze seems to at least offer Philosophy.
>>24770966He realised Heidegger destroyed metaphysics so just decided to write down fiction.
>>24771049>Clear alternatives to Deleuze:The Meaning of MadnessThe Myth of Mental IllnessSteps to an Ecology of MindProgramming and Metaprogramming the Human BiocomputerThe Divided SelfSpell of the SensuousThe Case Against RealityThe Dawn of EverythingChaos: Making a New ScienceClear alternatives to Hegel:Science and SanityMaybe LogicThe Chemical Marriage of Christian Rosenkreutz
>>24772282Thanks. Would you say it’s better to grab the alternatives or try my luck with deleuze?
>>24772317You should read Difference and Repetition if interested in his metaphysics and Logic of Sense if interested in his psychology. They are clever and unique books.But also pretty exit level and not entry level if that makes sense...Capitalism and Schizophrenia is an interesting two books as well. But much less conventional style. Hence his obscurantist reputation. Can be fun once you pick up on ideas though.As the list suggests, however, many ideas were already floating around at time elsewhere and especially even moreso now. That said, he is still worth reading. For his pecuilarities of synthesis.There's a couple of good secondaries. Roffe particularly. Several popular podcasts in leftoid sphere if want to see why he is popular.Tried to list relatively comprehensible things for alternatives. Hegel bit was a joke thoGood luck and beware of troons and skitzos in the fanbase!
>>24772331Alright, thanks again.Then i will give deleuze a shot. > Good luck and beware of troons and skitzos in the fanbase!Yeah I know about these poor souls, i will keep my distance.
>>24770966No
>>24771986I could have written the same post word for word but for me it’s the German idealists. When you read GOOD modern philosophy you see that ancient/medieval thought is, not le wrong necessarily, but out of date.
>>24772510I’ve already made my rounds through Kant and Fichte, then I figured, I can skip the nineteenth century except Nietzsche and Bergson (who I’m reading at the moment). From there deleuze seems to be the next logical step.
>>24772538Good stuff. You’re further down the same road as me. I’ll probably spend about a year on Hegel + rereading earlier idealists in light of Hegel but I’ll get to Deleuze one day.
>>24772510>>24772538Also: you’re right it doesn’t render ancient and medieval philosophy wrong. I still hold st Thomas in high regard, but in order to make sense of what’s been going on since the French Revolution, one has to move on.
>>24772559Enjoy the ride.
>>24771986I don't get this. Saint Augustine and Saint Maximus have a strong sense of self. Taylor's distinction between the buffered self and porous self is helpful here, although I think he confuses things by associating the older porous view with "superstition." What is lacking is the solipsistic observer that is axiomatic to empiricism and reason as wholly discursive ratio such that it is in longer ecstatic or a point of internal transformation of the self (the buffered self in technical essence).This strikes me as a feature not a bug. Many problems stem from the buffered self and pomo corrections of it go too far in the other direction.
>>24772600Saint Augustine is certainly an outlier (don’t know enough about st maximus). The criticism of being encapsulated in a philosophical tradition that is just too far removed from where we find ourselves now, does apply to Augustine all the same.I haven’t read anything by Taylor yet, maybe someda i will.
>>24770966>We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his [Hegel's] tricks directed against us, at the end of which he [Hegel] stands, motionless, waiting for us.
>>24772600Haven't read Maximus but lots of Augustine and Plotinus. You're right that neoplatonism has a strong sense of self in the sense that the individual mind participates in a superior intellect, or rather in something beyond intellect. But this is still an otherworldly beyond and an abstraction. As much as God is in everything, God still stands apart. In German idealism, God becomes to put it crudely directly part of the human spirit, whether in Kant God is the moral lawgiver and idea of reason, both totally subjective; or in the other idealists who reject the rigid subject/object dichotomy, in Fichte God is the goal of human life individually and collectively, and a belief in freedom necessitates seeing everything as caused by God, who is not some sort of being. Or in Schelling God is the indifference point between nature and consciousness. Hegel's God is closest to Fichte's but not easy to describe, but basically a sort of self-harmonizing intersubjectivity. So you see with the exception maybe of Schelling all of these guys are bringing heaven down to earth. Also Fichte/Schelling/Hegel were all deeply influenced by Plato and, directly or indirectly, neoplatonism. One important difference is the ideal of the 'sage', someone who has achieved the union of their sensibility with reason. Very important for neoplatonists, but attacked by the idealists. Kant would say it's impossible to attain that kind of perfection or even to know whether you had attained it. Fichte thinks it's possible to be morally perfected, but he attacks the idea of contemplation and mysticism. Hegel spends much of the Phenomenology of Spirit attacking the possibility of this sort of crude identity of sensibility and duty/reason. cont'd
>>24772744I don't know where I'm going with this lol. Yes, there is a deep connection between neoplatonism and German idealism, but you can't say that the neoplatonists have achieved the "Copernican" revolution instituted by Kant, for all its comprehensiveness it's still a philosophy of asunderness, just like Spinoza. Without going into arguments pro and con, the neoplatonist ideal is no longer a living spirit. Even people who adopt it are self-consciously reacting against the dominant culture. The very arguments of the neoplatonists no longer seem intelligible to most people. Don't mean to sound harsh, it's great that you're into them and I hope you keep studying and maybe respond and teach me a thing or two, but that's my opinion.
>>24772744>>24772600Please check out https://byzantinus.net/ some time. It's an invite-only textboard dedicated to the humanities and arts, with higher standards of quality than other sites. Contributions and effortposts from both of you are very welcome.
>>24772282Essentials in this list? Thanks
>>24772850Just read Dosse's Intersecting Lives if wanna bullshit abour D&G. Of the list, pick what seems interesting. What topic does Delulu interest ya in yano?
>>24771713Pic not related?
>>24770999Start with "Nietzsche & Philosophy" by Deleuze. Then work your way through his books (you can skip and return to more dry stuff like Logic of Sense or parts of Difference & Repetition). Don't just jump into his work with Guattari. Don't skip stuff like his book on Masoch.If you need help, there are a ton of lectures on Deleuze's work on YouTube made by professors. And many more podcasts made by their students.
>>24774009As a matter of fact, this thread pissed me off enough that I'm gonna post the pasta. Some stuff might 404, it's several years old by now.A decent short summary / intro to D&G:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kgA longer introduction, but possibly my favorite:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6AA lot of the stuff here:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1Everything by Manuel DeLanda:https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delandaA bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZUMore on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqYThe Deleuze for the Desperate series:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccikThere's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.As for the books, you could start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts. Better yet, jump straight into Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro as well) since it sets up the entire framework that Deleuze will operate in. Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/A decent bibliography:https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/https://www.webdeleuze.com/
>>24774009Im surprised. Why would you suggest this to me, after I dismissed Deleuze so brazenly? Most people just predictably and shallowly call me dumb or something while calling themself smart then move on.I almost want to read your recommendation just for the pure reason that with seemingly no bias, no preconception, no judgment, fpt whatever odd reason, you pushed to encourage me to give him a chance and even gave some direction.I will say ahead of time, that I am very skeptical of other philosophers interpretations of other philosophers, especially considering that even philosophers project their bias onto philosophers whether in favour of them or against them. But its even worse for somebody like Nietzsche who I believe is only saved or considered valuable in anyway because of the ways interpretations of him magnify and glorify him, and sort of mask his worse or most flawed (not personality wise, i mean the shit he says is literally arbitrary and incoherent at times) aspects.For me, the only way to be confident in an "interpretation" is if theres an almost inherent back and forth, sort of like a dialogue, where you propose something, and you account for the challenge to that, and then address that.Anyway im just rambling at this point. Ill keep my eye out for Deleuze's Nietzsche book maybe.
>>24774019>Im surprised. Why would you suggest this to me, after I dismissed Deleuze so brazenly?That's exactly why. In any case, you should read "Letter to a Harsh Critic", in Negotiations, if you haven't already. You can find it here, it's right at the start and only a few pages long. It addresses the things you mentioned about interpretation: https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/Deleuze/Deleuze%20-%20Negotiations.pdfIn short, Deleuze's take on philosophers is Deleuze speaking through them rather than trying to give an objective reading of them. So even when he is glorying them, he is still gloryfing a fictional (but very fruitful) version of them. You could very well treat it as Deleuze himself speaking. And "Nietzsche and Philosophy" in particular, along with all his other essays and interviews on Nietzsche, are probably the clearest he's ever been on any topic, which is why they are an important starting point that puts everything else in context.
>>24774033Interesting...hmmmmmmmmmmmI dont know how to deal with that yet. Interpretation, but openly and honestly "fictional". I guess I could sort of treat it like, taking the messages from the parables as valid messages, but not taking the stories and glorifications of God or Faith itself, while ignoring the time Jesus thrashes a market, or rationalizing it as "Something the perfect human would totally do because like church is just that sacred and they deserved it anyway"Might read this after bergson
>>24774033>le woman in le mirror>le smoking cigarette>le truth is a womanThat's a male.>wouldTruth to Power and power to truth. Spread the word yon meta!
>>24774074That's Claire Parnet. Deleuze also wrote a book called Dialogues with her, if I recall correctly.
>>24770966I actually am not very fond of Deleuze and think he is a bit of a shill.
>>24774110okay, recommend me philosphers criticize deleuze because i feel the same but dont have the sophistication to outline why
Deleuze plays around with concepts. That's what makes him interesting. He's not an epic all-enompassing systems man like Hegel and Kant try to be with their hard-ons for logic. Deleuze just liked to fuck around, creatively. I like his books on Cinema and Francis Bacon.
>>24774110>think he is a bit of a shill.What does that even mean? What was he shilling?
>>24774230I watched a series youtube video of what he says on Cinema, and I think that was the only time I ever found him interesting and semi coherent
>>24774240Well, what other parts of his work are you familiar with? Because I found his work fascinating and coherent time and time again, even given the obscurantist and meandering parts.
>>24774248>Well, what other parts of his work are you familiar with?Vaguely familar with Anti Oedipus of course, but whats the point of even saying that I am, it wont be considered enough.
>>24774271>it wont be considered enough.Well, seeing as Anti-Oedipus is in many ways Deleuze's worst book, it shouldn't be surprising. He even admitted in interviews later that it was a failure and that he disagreed on certain fundamental concepts with Guattari. Their follow-up, A Thousand Plateaus, is much more coherent, even if it still has their characteristic weirdness to it. That's not to say that AO doesn't have brilliant parts, but overall it's a mess.
>>24770966>television induces brainwave states that render one precritical and suggestible >advertisements psychotically interrupt the narrative stream of consciousness of the programming>The content isn't content— the interruptions are, and they're just enticements to purchase something else.He's among a select few postwar frogs that were at least interesting. He owes (or obscures that debt) much to Hegel without overwrought Marxist posturing. The Nietzche one as anon suggested is a good entry point, then Spinoza. Or raw dog C&S.
>>24774282>Well, seeing as Anti-Oedipus is in many ways Deleuze's worst book, it shouldn't be surprising. He even admitted in interviews later that it was a failure and that he disagreed on certain fundamental concepts with Guattari.INTERESTING...INTERESTING. I love when Philosophers are able to look back and be critical of themselves, its part of why i love Wittgenstein so much, his departure from his early works is like him trying to repent to a God that doesnt exist and fix all his mistakes.I think Heidegger went through an arc like this too and its why he never finished being and time.How have I never heard of this? When I hear about all the big deleuze fanboys that talk about him on the internet, Anti Oedipus is virtually the ONLY thing I hear about him. I now have much more respect for Deleuze if he was not only able to recognize how retarded AO is, but also able to disagree with Guattari who I PERSONALLY think is responsible for like 90% of my problems with the concepts in that book.Okay im reading him for sure now after im done with Bergson. I need a closer to 21st century philosopher to read. I was planning on going Bergson, then Heidegger, then maybe like Focault and like maybe Baudrilliard, but I might have to do this out of order now.
>>24770999fpbp and checked. Deleuzefags are just pretentious pseuds.
Isn’t at least part of the point for reading D&G that they’re weird, surreal, and not straight forward which is what makes their work interesting and enjoyable?I’ve never read anything by them btw so idk
>>24774337Deleuzefags arent really that popular though i hate Hegelfags much more
>>24774328>Anti Oedipus is virtually the ONLY thing I hear about him.Well, it was a bestseller at the time and the book that made them famous, but D&G themselves admitted that it was mostly due to May 68 on the one hand and the growing sentiment against how dominant psychoanalysis was in France on the other rather than the book itself. They even tried to be charitable to Lacan in AO, to try to get him on their side and acting like it was just Freud's fault for the Oedipal direction that psychoanalysis took, even though it was clear that D&G and Lacan had opposing visions of the psyche. In A Thousand Plateaus they actually attack him (especially in the Body without Organs chapter), although not really by name. >>24774341>Isn’t at least part of the point for reading D&G that they’re weird, surreal, and not straight forward which is what makes their work interesting and enjoyable?Yes, Deleuze considered himself a philosopher of pure difference. Imagine Being as a process of perpetual differentiation, with stable identities being merely temporary, along with all the other identities that they give rise to (such as Ideal forms). This leaves a lot of room for unconventional connections. One of D&G's core concepts is that of the assemblage, which entails contingent connections between things that don't normally go together, with Proust's wasp & orchid connection being the most famous example. So of course the language and philosophy that tries to describe these things is itself going to try to escape simple classifications.
>>24774352>is itself going to try to escape simple classifications.should say conventional classifications. its all language at the end of the day, math is like the perfect example of something with "simple" classification that can get nearly infinitely complex and abstract.i hate the idea and concept of comparing and weighing the "greatness" or "lesserness" (I dont mean these words with any normative tone, or even conventional, it essenitally just means "more or less", but in a non quantitative way) of abstract concepts because theyre so arbitrary and mind dependent that theres no point. But I dont think its as if there arent schools of thought in conventional philosophy cant be as "difficult" or confusing to read as deleuze.
>>24774352>>24774282Its funny you talk up A Thousand Plateaus because funnily enough I've heard it called the more clearly random and vibes based one compared to even AO.
>>24774360It does have some moments like that, mostly because D&G had a weird sense of humor. But if you know what they're referencing, like the "grabbing the wolf by the anus" chapter mocking Freud basically, then it will seem a bit less random. To me at least, it felt much more straightforward for the most part, but there were a couple of chapters that left me scratching my head, like the one about faciality.
bump, cuz every other thread on this board is trash and the same boring shit
>>24774292His treatment on Spinoza is good, there are a few things I noticed about it that sort of stood out to me. The first is that he insinuated Spinoza would have had to rewrite the Ethics due to the way the geometric demonstration was conducted. There is an almost Descartian bias to this opinion, there isn't necessarily a route that is "too fast" when it comes to geometric demonstration, Spinoza's system incorporated scepticism in such a way that the user is allowed what we can call a corrected belief. The notion that it would have to be rewritten is something Descartes had significant issues with since he tended to view a belief as either right or wrong and if wrong then a redo is basically what he opts for almost without fail unless he just wants to go with another option. This method is similar, Spinoza wasn't necessarily a polar opposite but rather than the binary outcome being a right or wrong belief it might be safer to say Spinoza would claim there is still a wrong one but the other option is just a correction instead of right. The recirculatory nature is such that I'm doubtful Spinoza could just start differently but rather his delineation wasn't meant just to elucidate the substance alone but also to incorporate how he viewed passions and unknowns. >tldr maybe a bit bold but still a good treatment.
>>24770966In Difference and Repetition he is trying to figure out if you can synthesize not just difference in a thing, but also a thing that differs. other postmodernists have tried to do this too. iirc he concludes that you can't really do that. it's an okay book but you have to be kind of familiar, at least, with Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, and even Hegel although he does not mention Hegel directly. i guess the idea of a thing that "differs" is pretty important if you take "progress" in philosophy seriously or even just as inspiration.capitalism and schizophrenia is more of a mixed bag where... you might legitimately be wasting your time, even because the premise of the second book is just so ridiculous even if you take it at face value of them being serious intellectuals. The Groovy G copypasta is apt
>>24775416Spinoza's an interesting one, it's like he managed to combine the worst aspects of medieval philosophy with the worst aspects of early modern philosophy. No, I will not elaborate.
>>24775431>you might legitimately be wasting your time, even because the premise of the second book is just so ridiculous even if you take it at face value of them being serious intellectuals. The Groovy G copypasta is aptCould you give a brief reason why? ive always thought this but always felt too stupid and inequipped to be justified in believing this because online, so many Deleuze "professionals" that have read all his stuff seem to cling so strongly to these ideas as if theyre coherent and significant. Idk tho
>>24775431>the premise of the second book is just so ridiculous even if you take it at face valueWhat premise? To me at least, D&G's cooperation always felt like disparate ideas strung together, which is on brand with what they were trying to do.
>>24770999can you say it in english?
>>24772752I don't think you're really wrong, but there are important exceptions. It's true that all academic philosophers, regardless of what they embrace, end up teaching and practicing like post-Enlightenment thinkers. The old praxis that made ancient and medieval thought is absent from the modern academy and the incentive structure they face also forces a very different sort of philosophy to be done.That said, there are still a lot of people in religious orders who publish on this stuff, and one neat thing is how different their approaches can sometimes be. But I would imagine their were more monks than academic philosophers until at least fairly recently. As recently as Thomas Merton's heyday his monastery in Kentucky had like 250 brothers and they produced several scholars who punished for broader audiences on Sufism, Neoplatonism, etc.
>>24770999>tripsChecked.>Or you want to feel le cool for reading le wacky philosophers that reddit says is SO HECKIN HARD TO READ HOW COOL WOULD YOU BE AND HOW MANY UPVOTES WOULD YOU GET IF YOU COULD ANSWER A REDDIT POST ASKING ABOUT HEGEL OR DELEUZEI know this might be hard for the average angry /lit/poster to believe, but not everyone reads because they want anonymous internet people to think they're cool
>>24770999We read philosophers to try to answer questions, as times shift the need shifts but there’s always questions to ask.
>>24770999Philosophy is thinking about the things that are first, it has to transcend ordinary language to get behind ordinary, sensuous thinking of ‘this’ and ‘that’. The scientific language elevates the reader into a novel way of thinking and it’s a choice feel if you have the patience to engage with it. You will not understand Hegel or Aristotle by reading summaries.
>>24770999>the failure would then be in using the world schizophrenia at all in a way that could even lead to this retarded confusionread: "It's D&G's fault that I have sped-tier reading comprehension and cannot possibly comprehend schizoanalysis being unrelated to clinical schizophrenia."
>>24776061>"It's D&G's fault that I have sped-tier reading comprehension and cannot possibly comprehend schizoanalysis being unrelated to clinical schizophrenia."Remind me again, what word they use in their famous books?"Anti Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia"Lol Wittgenstein mogs you fucking losers.
>>24774085I hate to say it she's kind of cute
>>24775432Thank you
>>24775454>many obscure references in the text and the notes>wide ranging subject material, book is quite literally about like 10 different things at once>not really intelligible on first pass even with a guide, you have to read it many times>having said the above, there is little secondary material. and it's not like a Deleuze book on Spinoza where you can just read Spinoza either>>24775667it's still a good, interesting book, but take the second chapter for example. if you don't understand why they're narrating it like that or who the people are, it makes zero sense. that's the ridiculous part i have in mind. my point is just if you don't know why they're doing something you probably won't be able to fill it in with context clues because the work is incredible idiosyncratic. it doesn't help that reading it in order doesn't actually build you understanding of the text, since it's meant to be read in almost any order.
>>24775432Spinoza is frequently difficult to classify due to the implicit difference he made in having a lifestyle philosophy and solving problems. This isn't an unfair criticism since he basically used previous material and could also contribute to his contemporaries in his own time. Strauss thought Spinoza was an archetypal esoteric writer, and it's hard to argue he was wrong. >>24776136The edges of her lips appear to be or almost to be in line with the center of her pupils.
>>24776098read: "I have sped-tier reading comprehension and have not read AO."
