Anti-Oedipus.To summarise, Dolce & Gabbana discard Freuds Oedipalised interpretation of desire, suggesting instead a "positive" model inspired by Nietzsche.Probably will be one of the hardest things you'll read, and it also requires a lot of background knowledge. Regardless, it should be worth your time.If that sounds like too much, just stick with Nietzsche (Zarathustra especially covers desire nicely)
i recommend their Kafka book to any anons who have read a decent bit of Kafka. it inspired an effortpost i made recently in a thread about The Castle. something their Kafka book made me appreciate about d+g is that they're not obsessed with 'critique' in the same way a lot of contemporary online pop-leftists seem to be. Kafka's not complaining about early-20thC capitalist society, he's not comparing it against some happier ideal society. instead he's alert to the new creative possibilities and desires that early-20thC capitalist society has generated, and he takes them further than that society is able to itself. that's my rough reading of how d+g interpret him. constructing a machinic line of flight is very different from simply representing things as bad.
>>24944457>hardest thing evar!!!Lol. D&G is pretty good. But pretty much entry level lefty pomo garbo. Ofc, if you don't know the continental philosophy milieu you may be somewhat filtered by references. But Capitalism and Schizophrenia are designed to be at least allegedly somewhat poppy. And Guattari is pretty clear in his wotks albeit crazy in ideas. Deleuze himself is a clear philosopher if you know philosophy. And perhaps less interesting than his fans claim. Unless you are committed to le science atheism metaphysics. Ultimately, you'd be better served reading Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Heidegger, Kojeve, Strauss, Bataille, Blanchot, Klossowski, Derrida, Agamben, etc.>freud is bad mmmkHave you read him yet? Or Saussure and Clastres? Levi-Strauss and Mauss? I guarantee you're missing out if you have only read Deleuze as critique and gone no further...>zarathustraLove it but honestly can be deceptively filtering itself.>kafkaFag and chomo.>logic of senseProlly D's clearest. But also clearly reveals his flaws. He never escaped his Oedipus. Smthn like Chaosmosis is far more true and beautiful and good. But have you even read Lacan yet???>what is the hardest and bestest philosopher???Ferdinand Ulrich
>>24944457>discard Freuds Oedipalised interpretation of desire, suggesting instead a "positive" model inspired by Nietzsche.And from sentence one, this is nonsense
I’m reading AO with zero background knowledge. As intended.
>>24944457Go ahead and throw freud in the trash.>a master isn't human>a slave is human>once the epitome paradox is assimilated there is just an advanced animal with no identity.
