If /lit/ heroes like Deleuze and Guattari have something interesting to say, why do they purposefully obfuscate their ideas with the way they use language?
You don't see this sort of nonsense in real subjects, like maths, physics, and engineering.
Deleuze's legacy is ever-evolving, never complete. The language is supposed to be difficult, with infinite interpretations as an advantage and inaccessibility as a disadvantage for those who lack the endurance. He expanded the term of the BwO on multiple occasions, there were autodidact Anit-Oedipus reading groups in Germany, reading and re-reading and analysing the work for about 5 years
They are creating language that gets at something normal language does not. You do see the same thing in science, you only get the dumbed down YouTube clip in plain English.
>>7814485
Yeah, these subjects stopped saying substantial things a while who. Also nice baiting with math and physics, consider this your (You).
>>7814485
>he couldn't understand D&G
>he hates them for it
sorry, m8, but it's not theirs faul that you're pleb
>>7814485
Where do you start with Deleuze?
>>7814771
He writes on so many topics, there isn't really a starting point.
The man writes on everything from masochism to Kafka to Cinema. It's just a matter of finding what interests you
>>7814485
top pleb
