Nonsensical gibberish. Masturbatory metaphysics.
>>25295251no, he's cool, a real one, perhaps the realest. i will defend him to the death. very few get art, writing and the creative process as keenly as deleuze does.
>>25295251He called his whole project a failure and jumped out of a building head first.
>>25295264yours is an ignoble will.
>metaphysicsLol newfag
>>25295251his book on spinoza is good.
>>25295251In a sense, I agree
Attuning to complexity while remaining reflexive leads to a further understanding that the illusion of structured research being objective or distinct is an idealistic reality. Instead. It helps with having more honest forms of relation, community, and care. Perchance.
>uhh... ontology>THIS IS OBSCURANTIST MASTURBATORY GIBBERISH IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!!!! WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO MEAN??? IS IT POLITICAL???? I DONT GET IT!!!!!!
>>25295454For (You)
>>25295457are you fitting in yet, fatty
>>25295581For (You)
>>25295279I mean.....did he not do either of those things?
It would be a great accomplishment for me if I ever decided to read Deleuze and understood him
>>25295264>He called his whole project a failureWhere did he write that?
>>25295264I generally don't trust philosophers who do this, Weininger being a major exception to this rule.
>>25295802Witt never outright called his project a failure, but he radically turned from Tractatus, and all those who lauded it.
>>25295802he killed himself because his lungs were so bad he couldn't even write anymore
>>25295263What’s this from?
>>25295802Philosophers also suffer from mental illness and low self-esteem. You should, in all philosophical pursuit, take every argument charitably and ignore what the author may or not assess later. Althusser murdered his wife and wrote he didn't understand anything he read, despite clearly being erudite to any reader. Sartre, too, confessed he had self-created a persona for fame to promote existentialism, yet that is not enough to even disregard his early work or see its argumentation as invalid.Other figures include Wittgenstein, who suffered from depression, Weininger and Mainlander who kysed themselves, Kierkegaard, Mill, apparently, and Comte, who attempted suicide.
>>25295966Those are decidedly Chinese characteristics
>>25295966does that mean i can be a cool philosopher if im lonely and hate myself and constantly self doubt?
>>25295994It doesn’t, but it means you can be the best (You) that (You) can be
>>25295906a thousand plateaus, plateau 14
>>25295251My issue with Deleuze and the era of post-war French philosophy is that they're so obviously engaged in motivated reasoning.Deleuze's entire project is shaped by a rejection of hierarchy and a desire to concoct some kind of metaphysics which allows for an alternative to German idealism, Descartes, and Plato. But why? Because Deleuze likely views the Nazis who killed his brother as the end result of a philosophy which allows for hierarchy on a metaphysical level. This is where the idea of the rhizomatic comes in as opposed to the arborescent. But is it actually convincing? I think not. When you read Deleuze, you find him struggling to avoid notions of hierarchy like transcendence in a way that's clearly intentional and not at all the conclusion of following one's reason.Deleuze himself even preempts this at a meta-level by considering fascism as a kind of pole of attraction which thoughts are doomed to fall into without extreme care. In other words, unless you philosophize with the explicit goal of being anti-fascist, then your reasoning will make you into a fascist. After all this, one starts to wonder, perhaps the case against fascism is overstated? Perhaps the inevitability of fascism suggests a kind of dialectic whose coming into being was preordained?
>>25296059>starts by accusing Deluze of motivated reasoning to reach antifascist conclusions>ends by using motivated reasoning to reach fascist conclusionsLooks like you’ve read his Wikipedia page at least. Checking the early life section, where we?
Still waiting for the source for "He called his whole project a failure" from >>25295264(to clarify, I'm actually really curious to know in what context he said/wrote that, if he actually did)
>>25296224Suggesting that fascism has its role in the dialectic process isn't necessarily a fascist conclusion any more than communists arguing for the necessity of a capitalist mode of production are themselves capitalist. I'm also not designing an entire philosophy around a single goal. Everything in Deleuze is like this.Plane of immanence (antihierarchy) over transcendence (hierarchy)The rhizomatic (antihierarchy) over the arborescent (hierarchy)Smooth space (antihierarchy) over striated space (hierarchy)>Checking the early life section, where we?Is it that ridiculous to think the philosophic environment of continental europe would be sculpted by WW2?
>>25295251
>>25296395Preferring anti-hierarchy over hierarchy is a hierarchy and self-refuting.
>>25295966Massive cope
>>25295251Unironically to like Deleuze you must live with a deep, deep sense of inadequacy, even deeper than the one you need to like Sartre. You must be an inadequatemaxxer. Then it all clicks. Then you go "Oh, of course I must aspire to be a deterritorialized desiring machine with no organs!".
>>25295966I don't know, man. There are cases and cases. But knowledge and truth aren't neutral things that people just discover. They are biased proposals on how understand the world and there are very, very few philosophers who aren't self-serving to a fault, specially among the french and jews. You must always be aware of why these people want to convince you of certain things. Do you think Sartre would have come up with Existence Precedes Essence if he hadn't been hideous? Do you think he would have still concluded that despite the Death of God there's still this objective correct way of behaving called Good Faith and it just happens that acting in good faith means you should be a communist, just like himself? Do you think Deleuze and Guattari would have come up with the body without (female) organs if they hadn't been repressed trannies? Of course not.
>>25297487I am inadequate promax but I don't understand a single word he says
>>25297501>o you think Deleuze and Guattari would have come up with the body without (female) organs if they hadn't been repressed trannies? Of course not.lmfao, Deleuze is probably the most "normal" and "traditional" one of all 3
>>25297608Deleuze is so weird, man, because indeed comes off as such a normal old guy, but he was so mind broken by fascism he came up with the most mentally ill neurodivergent shit imaginable because he came to see any sort of social cohesion as fascism. We're talking about a man who wanted to replace value judgements entirely. He didn't even know what he wanted to replace them with, only that they needed to go. I genuinely would love to see what would happen if a whole country tried to go full Deleuzian.
>>25297623I understand your distaste of motivated reasoning, especially against Fascism, it produces a really ridiculous type of complex. Its why I wont read one of those women philosophers around that time that wrote about the banality of evil, and why I wont touch anything by Camus. But Deleuze unlike the others obsessed with Fascism also just genuinely seems to have a goal beyond that and before that, as suggested by his works before AO.
>>25297623Starts with the Greeks. Frogs are generally weird
>>25297655>Frogs are generally weird20th Century Philosophy is quite literally the end of Philosophy and therefore the most valuable. Greek Philosophy is the least valuable and stupid besides Plato establishing some foundation of how to think through Philosophical problems. I dont care much for Aristotle, the level of retard you have to be ro rationalize the existence of slaves as deserving it considering how arbitrary the power to conquer and enslave a people are is just hilarious. Incredibly stupid person, he also pushed us towards that foolish idea that logic is a be all end all
>>25297688I'm tired boss, I don't even want to do this..butOkay. Please..just read the books>inb4 I h-have r-rea—Shh shush. Just..read it..That is all.I wish you good luck :).Algis Uždavinys is a good author.
>>25295251He's genuinely fun to read. At a literary level. A Thousand Plateaus is funny and engaging and simply an excellent piece of writing.
>>25297631The thing with Deleuze is that he has some good insights at a descriptive level. Rhizomes, fluid processes, seeing people as synthetizes or even the body without organs, etc. All good stuff. They make for a perfectly workable framework to perceive the world. But he gets prescriptive about everything. It's not enough to acknowledge that indeed the anus can be reorganized as a flowerpot. No. You MUST deterritorialize your anus. Or else fascism wins. I don't like that sort of philosophers. I can't stand it when a philosopher takes for granted that the reader is on his side and he presents his ideas with a "this is why we lost" or "this is how we win" tone. The Frankfurt school was the same. I guess that actually explains why some people develop parasocial relationships specifically with these philosophers.
>>25297631>>25297623>>25297501>>25297487>>25296059>his philosophy is just a defence mechanism against his anxieties around fascism you're reading deleuze in exactly the kind of boring psychological manner he hated - shutting down from the start any possibility that maybe he really did uncover something in courtly love and chivalric novels, maybe he did connect to something real in metallurgists and the steppe, and maybe his passion for such things gave him positive active insight into the specific functioning of desire and creativity, not just negative reactive knowledge designed to ward off 'hierarchy' in the abstract. everything then becomes trapped in deleuze the subject and his anxieties, it's the psychoanalytic interpretive circle with no exit. >>25297608no one talks about the ascetic deleuze, the guy who's always recommending caution and restraint and sobriety, a kind of cold cruelty in your mastery over your own organs (the body without organs is 'a Metropolis that has to be managed with a whip').
>>25295818Cigarettes are basically candy to the French
>>25295966Same anon, but I actually have thought about it but I think its a waste of time to dwell on such pedantries.
>>25297882>you're reading deleuze in exactly the kind of boring psychological manner he hatedLeftist intellectuals always give so much weight to the insights they gain from their inadequacies. It's exhausting. It's a never ending whine to be accommodated. It's perfectly fine to pathologize Deleuze as a freak, or at the very least as someone with freak ideas, and be skeptical of the motivations behind those ideas. If Deleuze wanted to be taken seriously he should have confronted his anxieties over fascism, even if his project remained in the end anti-fascist. Otherwise everything he says is warped by thoughtless reactionarism.
>>25297938HAHAHA are you really calling Gilles a reactionary? Are you seriously implying Gilles Deleuze was a right winger? Let me guess, I bet you're one of those imbeciles who say National Socialists were leftists too? I thought as much. You have no clue what you're talking about if you call Gilles a reactionary. No 20th Century philosopher was as concerned with giving to the people tools of emancipation against reactionarism as Deleuze. He dedicated his life to fight against the right wing, against the fascist everyone carries inside at a molecular level.
>>25295251>>25295251All the talk around Deleuze made me want to check him out so I'm trying to read The Fold, since Rick Owens personally recommended it to me, and I can't make sense of anything.>The Baroque refers not to an essence but rather to an operative function, to a trait. It endlessly produces folds. It does not invent things: there are all kinds of folds coming from the East, Greek, Roman, Romanesque, Gothic, Classical folds. ... Yet the Baroque trait twists and turns its folds, pushing them to infinity, fold over fold, one upon the other. The Baroque fold unfurls all the way to infinity. First, the Baroque differentiates its folds in two ways, by moving along two infinities, as if infinity were composed of two stages or floors: the pleats of matter, and the folds in the soul. Below, matter is amassed according to a first type of fold, and then organized according to a second type, to the extent its part constitutes organs that are 'differently folded and more or less developed. Above, the soul sings of the glory of God inasmuch as it follows its own folds, but without succeeding in entirely developing them, since 'this communication stretches out indefinitely. [...] Clearly the two levels are connected (this being why continuity rises up into the soul). There are souls down below, sensitive, animal; and there even exists a lower level in the souls. The pleats of matter surround and envelop them. When we learn that souls cannot be furnished with windows opening onto the outside, we must first, at the very least, include souls upstairs, reasonable ones, who have ascended to the other level ('elevation'). It is the upper floor that has no windows. It is a dark room or chamber decorated only with a stretched canvas 'diversified by folds,' as if it were a living dermis. Placed on the opaque canvas, these folds, cords, or springs represent an innate form of knowledge, but when solicited by matter they move into action. Matter triggers 'vibrations or oscillations' at the lower extremity of the cords, through the intermediary of 'some little openings' that exist on the lower level. Leibniz constructs a great Baroque montage that moves between the lower floor, pierced with windows, and the upper floor, blind and closed, but on the other hand resonating as if it were a musical salon translating the visible movements below into sounds up above.This is how it starts and I'm already lost. What does the soul have to do with it? What does he mean by soul? Would it be so hard to explain himself? When I heard he was hard I assumed he was going to be hard in the way Heidegger is hard, in the sense he talks about unintuitive things and must come up with his own language to do so, but Heidegger takes the time to explain all his concepts and then it's all perfectly clear. This is gibberish.This part in particularly gets me KEK:>Clearly the two levels are connected (this being why continuity rises up into the soul).In what world is that clear?
>>25298588He doesn't care to be perfectly understood. Deleuze's own interpretation of prior philosophers was idiosyncratic. You're meant to read this through, think about it, read it again, read some other stuff, notice the patterns that emerge, and from that you glean a general impression of his philosophy. But then you adapt it and do something interesting with it.
>>25298588After some googling turns out the soul is a Leibniz's concept and Deleuze is using it in that sense. The writing could be clearer, but I think can get through this.
>>25298588Skip the entire first part
>>25298588damn that's some dopey ass shit
>>25298588Baroque has a specific meaning that he assumes the reader knows.It means maximalist detail that becomes minimalist by being so dense, hence from a distance the details fold and becomes one detail.Folding is what happens when you mix two colors and get one color.
>>25298973i feel bad for any baroque era mfs that needed glasses cuz they wouldn't even know what they're looking at
>>25297688>slave doesn't comprehend how some would rather die than be enslaved and are therefore unenslaveable
>>25297688aristotle also had some really dumb ideas about finance like hating on interest bearing loans which set western civilization back by centuries at the least maybe worse. if u could go back in time and zap one mf most would say hitler but maybe aristotle instead. we could be on mars already.
>>25295966>who kysed themselvesThat's a way to describe somebody murdered by feds, not themselves.
