Is this supposed to be meaningless babble on purpose?
>>7751373
git gud
>meaningless
>>7752548
>meaning/unmeaning dichotomy
you need to have a good grasp on physics to understand shit like quantum mechanics well
as to d&g it's the same, just replace physics to philosophy (and literature to some extent). it's not like u r gonna understand any of it going dry without the proper background.
I WARNED YOU ABOUT FRENCH PEOPLE BRO
I TOLD YOU DOG
background in anthropology (up to the structural and post-structural movement), philosophy, turn-of-the-century literature and art, and psychoanalysis up to lacan is pretty much necessary.
>>7752790
I don't understand this. I don't go to STEM autists saying their engineering papers are incomplete messes of pseudo-science, and yet they all feel very comfortable to mock humanities people saying stuff like Heidegger, Post- Structuralism or Adorno are just ramblings from lunatics and frauds.
>>7752799
>Reply
of course you should also have the proper background in marxist economic theory
>>7752823
How much would you have to study to fully understand mid-60s physics papers?
>>7752799
But Lacan is a hack, there's nothing to study. And this book is at times pure gibberish, as most of his work. It makes so little sense, that people with PhD's in physics wrote about this book making no sense at all. But I guess there's no way you'll admit to him not making sense, since that would be sacrilege. He sounds smart, so he must be!
>>7751373
what are deez fools even sayn
>>7753354
Why does he use so much terms imported in bulk from natural sciences then? He's a philosopher, he doesn't know shit about maths or physics. Same for Lacan.
>>7753411
That's words' games, mate. That's fine. I guess you're thinking of Lacan's topology. Plus, the import of such terms doesn't say a lot about their use and conceptualisation in their new field, "don't judge the book on the cover" etc.
And, all in all, Lacan isn't just borromean nodes and topology. You could see a lot of his work without diving into these things.
As for Deleuze (or Guattari for what it matters), as he said, philosopher's job is to create concepts. You may not agree with him, but you may also give it a try and see how it works.
>>7753332
Try reading Deleuze's book on cinema. It's even worse than any of the 'writings' by Lacan.
>>7752790
>you need to have a good grasp on physics to understand shit like quantum mechanics well
Actually, you'd be fine as long as you have the required mathematical background but I get what you mean.
>>7752808
Scientific papers are written in extremely clear, standardized language that cannot be misinterpreted, and are jam-packed with references backing up any claims that they make use of. Post-modern philosophers/social theorists write ambiguously, frequently contradict themselves, individually make up their own meanings for pre-existing words (sometimes half a dozen theorists supposedly working in the same field will use the same word to mean wildly different things, and without any of them bothering to make this clear), provide references and explanations only sporadically (and often they couldn't even if they had wanted to because they are just pulling baseless ideas out of their asses), and prefer wordplay and flashy expressions over clarity.
guattari was interviewed in the paris review and he described his process as saying stupid shit and sending it to deleuze trying to see if he'd stumbled onto something
>>7753332
>Lagan is a hack
No shit. Deleuze thinks the same thing. Deleuze is extremely critical of psychoanalysis.
>>7753478
>That's words' games, mate
??? this seems very dismissive when in fact D&G were very interested in modern science and used several cases to help illustrate points in the writing. 'just word games' misses the point entirely..
I didn't find it particularly difficult to grasp. And I'm not one of those I started with the Greeks and have read the entirety of the Western canon faggots.
If you're really having trouble I've heard good things about "A User's Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari" by Brian Massumi
There's probably a pdf file of it out there somewhere.
>>7753588
Though, there's a difference between "not agreeing with Lacan" and "thinking he's a hack"... Deleuze and Guattari are in an internal criticism position
>>7753623
All in all, they were not interested in sciences to "prove" points (and you could fairly well see that Deleuze's interest isn't some "falsification" theory, or the epistemological status of the truth), but as you say more to "illustrate", or to discover other fields and other ways of discoursing. I don't think "words games" is a dismissive thing, I see it as a way of giving back complexity to the world, if you see what I mean (so it isn't an equivalent of "saying anything that comes to my mind" if you want it to be an interesting "game")
How much academic street cred do i need to incur before I write one of these things? I want to be the next super tricky meme leftist and have sex with qts and lecture part time at the newschool or the EGS or some such shit lol
>>7753571
biochemistry papers will read like complete nonsense b/c it will include endless technical words with no definitions that assume you have studied chem/bio. it will seem easy but you won't actually really understand it, and especially not any of the implications
>>7753795
Biochemistry papers can use technical words without providing definitions not only because the presuppose education, but also because the language is standardized. "Glycosylation" means the same thing no matter who uses it -- there's never any ambiguity. When a post-modern theorist writes "symbolic," it can mean any number of things depending on who the author is. We are talking about a class of intellectuals who say thinks like “Clear prose indicates the absence of thought” and “In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep–they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.”
>>7753978
good to hear that you acknowledge that each field presupposes some work and education.
