Anyone here read Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari?
Let's start a post-structuralism thread.
Positives, limitations, what is trying to accomplish and can it lead us to asking better questions?
Is their criticism of Freud fair, seeing that a lot of continental philosophy still acknowledges Freudian frameworks?
>>1338854
The problem with post-structuralists is the synchronic approach (looking at 'snapshots in time') rather than taking a more historical view.
>>1338861
>The problem with post-structuralists is the synchronic approach (looking at 'snapshots in time') rather than taking a more historical view.
I mean that is a major problem that they discuss in this book. But they want to draw a line between phenomenalism (sort of what you just discussed) and structuralism. Instead of fitting everything into structures or looking at everything as a snapshot they look at events as machines, and flows and junctures. Everything being connected but not fitting under one clear structure that can be universalized or used to make a general claim.
>>1338879
Then the structuralist position would seem to parallel Nietzsche's idea of radical perspectivism - the world being 'in flux', and the structure of it being somehow imposed by the mind.
>>1338907
>They do draw a lot on Nietzsche and Kant for that matter.Nietzsche was in a sense post-structuralist.
Post structuralism was a mistake due to Deleuze's inability to understand Hegel
STEM autist here, pls help me understand Deleuze. Can you translate his main thesis into formal logic?
>>1338854
>seeing that a lot of continental philosophy still acknowledges Freudian frameworks?
Like who?
The biggest influences on continental philosophy is clearly Hegel and Heidegger.
>>1339199
I'm sorry I offended you. I didn't mean to say that Freud is the most influential. There is no doubt that freud's view of human nature, a sort of empty vessel with natural desires, continues to influence thought in many fields. The idea of exploring the unconscious and finding manifestations of the unconscious continue to pop up every now and then. Freud may not be as influential as Hegel or Marx for that matter but that doesn't mean he is not influential at all.
>>1339229
Yeah, but there are only a handful of people who subscribe to that stuff, like Deleuze.
I mean, he simply took Nietzsche's will to power and injected it full of Freudian babble, until he came out with the will to desire instead.
>>1339199
Lacanians
>>1339348
Yeah which is a group of people nobody really takes seriously.
>>1338854
>Positives, limitations, what is trying to accomplish and can it lead us to asking better questions?
Whether or not you find his ultra right-wing views sickening, Nick Land has done some amazing things with his own brand of mad, black Deleuzian philosophy. His neo-reactionary exit politics are becoming increasingly more relevant and worryingly prophetic - you only have to look at the recent shitstorm following Brexit to see that he's onto something.
>>1339413
>Nick Land
any specific recommended readings?
>>1339531
He spends most of his time blogging from china nowadays, but he wrote what is essentially the manifesto for neo-reactionary and alt-right thought (although he consciously distances himself from the latter)
http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/
http://www.xenosystems.net/
He also has a collection of writings published called fanged noumena, which are fascinating if only because you can chart the development of his thought sustained by heavy amphetamine abuse and jungle music
As someone who is a big fan of Nick Land, is poststructuralist literature worth reading? Yes, I'm very right-wing if that matters.
>>1339569
so basically a right wing version of postmodernism
>>1339599
Basically a right-wing Zizek on steroids.
>>1339588
Depends how strong you are with Heidegger and Hegel, really. The big 3 in the post-structuralist game are probably Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze, but if you've never read any of them Foucault is a very good starting point, simply by being much much easier to digest than the other two. If you're as right-wing as you claim to be, you'll probably struggle to agree with everything that's being said, however.
The Tao te Ching beat post-structuralists to the whole "all manmade concepts are a mental construct and have no objective reality besides the one we give it" thing by thousands of years
>>1339599
Actually if you read TDE he directly rejects the 'blank slate' argument which most post-modernists invoke when talking about identity
He's one of the few thinkers today who has a fairly strong conviction in human biodiversity, and thinks that post-modernists pussyfoot around the race question and accuse people like him of being racist instead of confronting it directly
>>1339656
Hence "right wing version"
>>1339683
there is no 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' postmodernism. The rhizome is just as fascistic as it is indeterminate. You're giving political dimensions to something which doesn't even have a shape, so to speak.
>>1339196
I keked, good bait
>>1339636
I mean that is more constructivism than post-structuralism, regardless when we talk about these things it's in the context of continental European thought. You want to be able to create geneology of sorts (like Nietzsche) to trace how thoughts changed over time so that you can understand why they are the way they are now. Since post-structuralists did not draw on Tao te Ching there is no sense in putting them on the same timeline I feel
>>1339729
Okay
>>1339601
This.
