>writes books>concludes project is a failurewhat was the point?
>>25197831selling books obviously
>>25197837that's genius groovy g
>live>diewhat was the point?
>>25197879selling books obviously
I know nothing about this guy and his philosophy because I made a vow not to read any 20th century philosophy. Why is he so popular with trannies though?
>>25197884you haven't evn started the greeks chud, don't delude yourself into thinking it's by your own choice when in reality it's just iq filter
>>25198358Buzzwords after buzzwords, I see. You’re giving me the run down of how you faggots act. But not why you act like this.
>>25198380There wasn't a single buzzword, you Buffon it just shows you don't even know basic things about classic philosophy let alone 20th century one
>>25198396NTA but you still need to answer his question. and I've read multiple works of philosophy from the Greeks to the scholastics to the early moderns to the Enlightenment and beyond. spit it out.
>>25198414this book is refutation to ever totalizing Hegelian dielectics, it postulates differences as the core axiom and ses all of history as proliferation of multiplicities.> “Destiny never consists in step-by-step deterministic relations between presents which succeed one another according to the order of a represented time. Rather, it implies between successive presents non-localisable connections, actions at a distance, systems of replay, resonance and echoes, objective chances, signs, signals, and roles which transcend spatial locations and temporal successions.”
>>25198425so essentially it postulates a world of plurality, where everything is simply subjective and interpretive. sounds very much like a continental reiteration of Rorty, if I'm going to be frank. I guess pre-contemporary echoes can be found in Leibniz, who was a contemporary of Spinoza which happened to be a big influence on Deleuze. though I'd wager Spinoza was far more reductionist, ever so, and was compelled to reduce existence to one particular substance, as opposed to Leibniz who emphasized more of free will approach to the plurality of interacting substances. But it does make sense why certain folks of a certain predisposition would be drawn to such a thing as it simply postulates that the identity of particulars is all there is, with no unifying Platonic essence into which anything can rest upon.
>>25198432yep, it's not like I don't wanna talk but these psueds who haven't even read plato come shitting on modern philosophers like they know anything about philosophy and here is a quote relevant to your commentary from same book.> “The time is coming when it will hardly be possible to write a book of philosophy as it has been done for so long: "Ah! the old style.... " The search for new means of philosophical expression was begun by Nietzsche and must be pursued today in relation to the renewal of certain other arts, such as the theater or the cinema. In this context, we can now raise the question of the utilization of the history of philosophy. It seems to us that the history of philosophy should play a role roughly analogous to that of collage in painting.”
>>25198436>It seems to us that the history of philosophy should play a role roughly analogous to that of collage in paintingThis is why I always held the notion that Deleuze wanted to treat philosophy as similar to art, if in nothing else, craft; the formation of concepts comparative with the spark of an idea for a movie, or a novel and using the history of philosophy as a tool for this endeavour. I haven’t read this book in full. And part of me is reluctant to, seeing as how post structuralism isn’t my forte and I find it daunting. Though I can imagine he’s talking about the approach taken in ASZ. Which is less systematic as it is poetic, managing to merge art and philosophy itself, anything in the book that strictly hones in on this idea of it being a sort of craft? Or am I just off my rocker?
>>25197884they likely haven’t even read him. they’re notorious for their larping, get with it. >>25197883yeah but, why though?
>>25197831lol you didnt read this book.what sections did you gloss?
>>25198515What makes you think that?
>>25198545answer the question cunt
>>25197831failure was the point, it seems
>>25198481i haven't read D+R, but have you read A Thousand Plateaus? a philosophy of practice, or craft, is exactly how i read it: a sort of metacraft that lets you think about how to disassemble and link up practices that seem fixed and separate.
>>25198586Don’t feel like it
>>25198614cuz you didnt read it lol bitch
>>25198704I know, I’m not OP that’s why lol. What in the book proves that OP didn’t read it? Where is he wrong?
>>25198592This is the same thing I've got from A Thousand Plateaus. It's not a book that tries to promote a rigid theory over the "truth", but rather an exercise on creativity over multiple possibilities of truth. It reads like an instruction guide on hypothetical future philosophies.One of the best books I've ever read btw
>>25197831greatest book in the history of homo sapiens
>>25198432kill yourself
you will never be able to de escalate deleuze or nietzsche no matter how much were tried
>>25197884I think its mostly 1000 plateaus and not difference and repetition thats popular in the trans community. But regardless, you can imagine a philosophy concerned with showing how there's a fabric of constant becoming, difference, fluidity, etc. underlying any rigid identity is appealing to someone thats trying to escape those rigid identities.
>>25199452except there aren't any. trannies literally mistook uses of deleuze in obvious manners and are the outcome of to have read deleuze without enough iq to have pulled difference and repetition off
>>25197831I don't think there is a single living person who knows what he was talking about.
trannies to have consumed tech would have been an actual obvious manner in which they'd failed to have used difference and repetition for example
>>25197831>>concludes project is a failureWhy?
>>25198358You sound like a tranny pseud. Kys. Deleuze was a retarded who spouted schizobabble because he couldn’t form an original concept.
>>25199616a retarded frog*Fuck the French.
>>25198432> with no unifying Platonic essence into which anything can rest uponUtter nonsense
OP herehe was, a lot like Lyotard was doing in one of his school lectures, trying to show that you can synthesize genuine difference, and then he concludes that difference in itself cannot be thought as long as we accept the constraints of representation. in practical terms this means that philosophy cannot produce novelty because it's matter will always be effectively repetitive and identical to itself. i guess the later Deleuze changes his view with stuff like What is Philosophy?
>>25199744its*like take chapter 3, which is considered the book's high point. it might seem kind of basic but the idea is stuff like the cogito or the table of categories is always an image of thought, so with every production of a new image of thought you still have the scheme of the image of thought undergirding it
>>25199744>>25199750"use" is uset. wittgenstein
the pipeline is literally nietzsche to deleuze to wittgenstein and end of thoughts. it's that simple. thought is over and what remains is to put it to computers and go evolve substrates
>>25199879And yet Deleuze condemned Wittgenstein. Complete fucking retard.
>>25199887irrelevant. they peaked the ends of neuronal thought and given time would have come to the same conclusions. both wittgenstein and deleuze would have agreed to have "found new weapons" would have been all
wittgenstein went to war and didn't do away with rules until later in life whereas nietzsche never did yet did away with them from his get go. it's always the opposite genius men to crawl to the same ends
>>25199235he clearly didnt read it
>>25200371i read some of it. i know you guys are obsessed with the "then you did not finish the book" meme, but you do not actually need to read the whole book
>>25200371Did you?
>>25200377see.No one reads this book.Some of us have read some of it.op is a fraud peddling snake memes.
>>25200439>>25199744is basically lifted straight from the book except the practical terms which is my own analysis
>>25200460nothing really repeats tho, Frodo
