I can't tell if this is supposed to be a very elaborate troll or if these guys are actually retarded.
>>7637489
Don't make a thread then.
It's ok not to understand things. Maybe after reading some more philosophy, anon.
>>7637489
I understand it's hard to think
>tfw you used to hate post-structuralists now you think Deleuze and guattari are based
D & G are fascinating as fuck, if not all that practical
>>7637520
Great thanks for absolutely nothing.
go read Kant or something then, fag
>>7637489
frenchfags taking acid and thinking they stumbled on some transcendental truth. they prattle on about it for hours but it makes no sense to anyone though it occasionally seemss they are into something
>>7638274
>IDF confirmed patrician
probably both and neither
why do people think that the stakes for philosophical texts are higher than literally anything else, you're not going to change anything you do based on one any more than you would an xbox game or television commercial
>>7638279
the french are the worst
>>7638319
idiot
I have a soft spot for Deleuze and Guatarri. I imagine it's because I'm a schizophrenic who used to take a lot of acid and studied philosophy at uni.
If you want to read something more straightforwardly philosphical by Deleuze then I'd recommend his monographs on Nietzsche and Spinoza et al and maybe pick up Difference and Repetition afterward. These books really flesh out his ontology and what he was trying to accomplish philosophically. My personal favorite by him, however, is The Logic of Sense. If you're a fan of Lewis Carroll and more comfortable with analytic concerns (i.e., philosophy of language) then The Logic of Sense might be up your alley too.
As far as Guatarri goes, I've only read Chaosmosis but I highly recommend it if you're interested in mental health and the possibility of a more humane and philosophical approach to helping people overcome their issues.
As far as Capitalism and Schizophrenia goes, I would say "trolling" isn't a bad descriptions. I prefer to think of it as a game tho. A lot of it is deliberately obscure or obtuse and requires a lot of heavy background to make sense of but it is a fun read once you "get" it. You should at the very least be familiar with Marx and Freud and Lacan to understand what exactly is historic about the work otherwise it will all seem like postmodern wankery.
>>7638279
>transcendental truth
So you didn't read it then
>>7638274
lol. le this
>>7637489
It's a very very good (if intentionally dense and misleading) text about the nature of conformity and social conditioning, but even I made it all the way through and I'm still not exactly sure what an 'anti-oedipus' is.
>>7640140
It is bringing Oedipus to its auto-critique. Dissolving the binds of representation through itself.
huh
Apocalypse du Désir.
>>7638279
>>7638379
>his monographs on Nietzsche
Probably the worst Nietzsche scholar in history. The only reason to read his stuff on N is to laugh at it.
>>7640323
>>7640323
>no, only my interpretation of Nietzsche is the correct one.
>>7640461
It's less incorrect than D's. And I'm not even talking about correctness of interpretation, he fails even in accurate reading.
>>7637489
Why do you think they are retarded?
>>7637520
> Post-structuralism
> A group with any sort of coherent ideas instead of merely a label for an intellectual period of history, combining opposing and contrasting movements
m8...
also derrida is very practical in speech and writing : ^ )
>>7640470
>fails even in accurate reading
>>7640485
Wow great argument fagtron, you sure showed me with those hot greentexts.
>>7640323
>he can't into heterodoxy
HELLO
>>7638332
I'm french and can confirm.
It's a source of endress embarrassment to see US academia still so fully trapped in this obsolete bullshit.
Capitalism and Schizophrenia is really not meant to be the first thing you read from Deleuze. It's kind of a performance of the ideas he laid out in his earlier works, especially the second volume
>>7640323
>>7640365
>>7640389
>>7640461
>>7640470
>>7640471
>>7640485
>>7640513
>>7640526
>>7640535
Could we please have an actual discussion? Deleuze never wanted his interpretation to be correct, it was to create a monstrous child for that philosopher. Where did he go wrong specifically with Nietzsche? And by wrong I don't mean incorrect, but rather where exactly did he deviate? It is indeed an interesting idea to contrast Nietzsche's actual (as close as possible, obviously) notions of Force, Will to Power, Interpretation, Evaluation, Eternal Return, Affirmation and so on with Deleuze's creative version. Surely that's more interesting than shitflinging.
>>7637489
I am not well read in D&G at the moment, but from what I can tell you have to understand Freud's Oedipus Complex and Lacan's influence on psychoanalysis at the time. From the little I've read, Lacan wasn't directly attacked in Anti-Oedipus, but he was dismissed in the second volume, A Thousand Plateaus, as being just as dependent on Oedipus despite having dislodged the concept from it's birth in the nuclear family. Mommy and daddy turned into mother-figure and father-figure. Obviously, Marx is involved as well since desire is related, in the D&G model, to production so Capitalism and Schizophrenia is trying to bridge the gap in a different way than the Freudo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School. Still, according to interviews and articles I've read, D&G considered Nietzsche to be the main influence on the work. This is already visible from Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy where he criticizes Freud as being too reliant on reactive mechanisms and giving no credit to active ones. To this day, I still do not truly understand if the unconscious in psychoanalysis gives any possibility of resistance because the patients are fully presented as victims of themselves. With psychotics this is understandable it seems, you can't really tell someone to get over their illness and neurosis has it's difficult moments (ticks for instance which can be so severe that they make Zizek seem like a statue by comparison) which seem to leave no room for active change, but nonetheless the point of "active" forces or drives is not to "get over" something, but to overcome it in a creative manner as far as I can tell or, at least, to appreciate the body's role in the process rather than the mind's.
As I said, I'm not yet well read in either Deleuze, Guattari or their works together, so please correct me if I misunderstood something and let's get a discussion going rather than throw insults.
>>7638273
kek! I love you.
>>7638379
>Taking Marx, Feud, AND Lacan seriously
>>7641154
> Marx
His insights into Capitalism are studied to this day and taken seriously. You don't have to be a communist to study and take Marx seriously.
> Freud
Some of his texts are studied and taken seriously in psychology today. The others are studied and taken seriously in psychoanalysis.
> Lacan
He is studied and taken seriously in Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis. Even if you disagree with his model, his contributions to Semiotics are still considered important.
You don't have to agree with everything an author says. Even Deleuze considered Freud a genius until the end and was heavily influenced by him, despite attacking what most consider to be his main concept, the Oedipus Complex.
good thread
>>7642969
thanks
>>7638379
>I have a soft spot for Deleuze and Guatarri. I imagine it's because I'm a schizophrenic who used to take a lot of acid and studied philosophy at uni.
OH, WELL HOWWW CONVENIENT
>>7643551
I heard Guattari used to take acid while working at Le Bord or whatever it was called, that insane asylum or whatever it was. The point was that if doctors took drugs they could understand the patients better.
