/s p e c u l a t i v e r e a l i s m g e n e r a l/
How do you guys feel about the hippest philosophy to grace the web since Reign The Conquerer, (aside from Time Cube, Icycalm, and REI), i. e., Speculative Realism? Truly it seems Foucault was right -- this will be a Deleuzean century...
Personally, I've read Deleuze in the past and found him intriguing in his philosophical works but somewhat unintelligible in Capitalism & Schizophrenia. Nevertheless, as a schizophrenic, I have felt drawn to his works and they have resonated deeply within me. Definitely both a scientific and psychedelic outlook which I can appreciate and enjoy.
Following that, I famialirized myself with Guatarri and Lacan (already somewhat proficient in Freud from a course on psychoanalysis); Ironically, however, I am currently with a Jungian therapist -- kek.
Anyway, I have since moved on to De Landa and Land and am now attempting to re-read Capitalism & Schizophrenia. But what should I read next? Brassier? I've tried Negarestani but I guess he's never gonna come out with a new book...
Is the Horror of Philosophy a meme trilogy? I heard it was namedropped by the True Detective anti-natalist guy.
Is it realistic to hope to learn about non-analytic or analytic/continental fusions in college? Where would I apply?
Finally, how do I become a full BwO? I feel somewhat cancerous. My mind accumulates too many toxins. Too many atypical antipsychotics. Not enough psychedelic medicine. I wish I could write in the spirit of Deleuze but I fear it would take me decades to get read up on the subject matter enough to comment on it. This would be cool if I could be a NEET forever but my parents want me to be a wageslave. Guess I'll just work all day and buy pretty books but always be too tired to read them.
brb, killin myself, fampai
>>7841903
>REI
You mean that tripfag autist who types in all caps?
>>7841903
Have you heard about a Journal called: "Collapse"? It is meant to be bretty good at collecting Speculative Realism and OOO related essays and works.
Your pretty late to the Deluze game anyway; Zizek is busy rubbing his dirty Slav balls over undialectical heretics and Pomo nihilists.
He did a very good essay on OOO
>http://mariborchan.si/text/articles/slavoj-zizek/objects-objects-everywhere/
this is thé most autistic thread I've seen in a while
![tumblr_o0oz3bgnll1usthx4o1_r2_500[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/2db8CyU.gif "tumblr_o0oz3bgnll1usthx4o1_r2_500[1].gif")
>>7841927
>Your pretty late to the Deluze game anyway; Zizek is busy rubbing his dirty Slav balls over undialectical heretics and Pomo nihilists.
Are you speaking generally or implying Zizek is shitting on Deleuzians? Because I thought everyone dismissed his critique of Deleuze in OwB as laughably shallow.implying that's not all of zizek's critiques
will check out the essay tho thnx famson
>>7841903
>Is it realistic to hope to learn about non-analytic or analytic/continental fusions in college? Where would I apply?
undergrad or grad, for one?
unrealistic to learn about? definitely not. I'm an undergrad who goes to a middle tier US state uni and we've got a resident deleuzian/foucaultian as well as both continental and analytic people who touch on specreal.
unrealistic to make moves in the art/literary/philosophy world and get a job doing that? you tell me palpls
Can someone explain to me a simplified form of what speculative realism actually is, and what it hopes to accomplish or encompass?
>>7841966
Speculative Realism is a wide umbrella term that applies to many realist movements (understood here as physicalism/materialism as opposed to idealism) which take a speculative turn toward imagining a world which is. in a sense, beyond human comprehension, Typically, it is more open to analytic and scientific thought than most forms of postmodern continentalism.
>>7841903
I think that there is no reason to accept the principle of non-contradiction
>>7841903
>a full BwO
What's that?
>>7842006
>guise the number of my fingers is both even and not even!!!!!!!!!! i am younger than 50 and i am not younger than 50!!!!!!!
Die in a fire you insufferable, contrarian arse
>>7842064
A Body without Organs
>>7841956
Just speaking generally; I think people are beginning to turn on the full on Pomo Materialists like Deluze and Baudrillard and trying to revive Hegel and Dialectics (Which Deluze hated [his own words]) and a dialectic heavy reading of Marx and Lacan.
I'm currently reading Kristeva who is pretty good if you like Deluze; she has a far more structuralist framework but deals with similar concepts i.e Intertextuality instead of Muh Rhizomes and "The Semiotic" which rehabilitates Lacan's mirror stage but blends it with an Anti-Oedipal reaction as we move through The Symbolic.
>>7841903
>I am currently with a Jungian therapist
deconstruct that shit during seminars. flaunt your knowledge and embarrass his/her ass.
>Finally, how do I become a full BwO?
full bodies are different from their brethren counterparts (the empty and cancerous body) due to its ability to create philosophical concepts that can be applied to social reality. make sure you understand the hermetic concept of All is One (this is the Plane of Immanence D&G talk about), where nothing is Other. Become animal or cyborg or zero (become Other). See how 1 & 0 are not separate but of the same binary source. With 1s and 0s, you can compute programs.
>Is it realistic to hope to learn about non-analytic or analytic/continental fusions in college?
No. philosophy degrees are worthless (unfortunately). no reason to run yourself up into debt for something like that.
>>7841903
>schizophrenic dating a Jungian therapist
pretty /lit/ life to be honest
>>7842141
>reading Kristeva
black sun.
>>7842167
Whats wrong with it lad?
>>7841903
OP i'm afraid your post is way to intelligent and well-grounded for /lit/ to handle. It actually seems like you've read Deleuze and similar authors!
>>7841978
Can you explain to me a simplified form of what speculative realism actually is, and what it hopes to accomplish or encompass?
shoo, sophists
>>7842198
Speculative Realism doesn't really exists; its a philosophical "movement" and random, different philosophers get defined as speculative realists (they often hate the fact that they have been defined as such).
Basically it can be viewed as an attempt to find a "Materialist i.e Realist, Scientific" Metaphysics; it is usually a reaction against Kant and Hegel by privileging the Object over the Subject or denying the Subject / Object dichotomy exists.
>>7842203
>>7841903
>But what should I read next?
12 Keys of Basil Valentine or The Book of Lambspring. Tao Te Ching, too (if you haven't).
>>7842224
Why'd they get started? What's wrong with the subject/object dichotomy?
>>7842229
I'm not asking you to prove it in a lab, I'm just asking you to use reason and to speak intelligibly... I am not an autist, but I do get a certain tingle when propositions are ordered in an easily digestible way. No I don't play minecraft anymore...
>>7841903
Read Chaosophy by Felix Guattari. It's a nice collection of essays and interviews. Easy to understand as well.
>>7842279
I posted an essay by Zizek earlier that provides a fairly easy read into the problem; he is anti Specreal but provides a fairly good look into it; in particular this passage reads the problem fairly well:
>In his deployment of the ontology of immanence/withdrawal, Bryant begins by asserting the primacy of ontology over epistemology, and rejecting the modern subjectivist notion according to which, before we proceed to analyze the structure of reality, we should critically reflect upon our cognitive apparatus (how is our cognition possible in the first place, what is its scope and limitation?). Following Roy Bhaskar, Bryant turns around the transcendental question: How does reality have to be structured so that our cognition of reality is possible? The answer is provided by the basic premise of ooo: “It is necessary to staunchly defend the autonomy of objects or substances, refusing any reduction of objects to their relations, whether these relations be relations to humans or other objects.”4 This is why there is no place for subject in Bryant’s edifice: subject is precisely a nonsubstantial entity fully reducible to its relations to other entities.
>From the Hegelian–Lacanian standpoint, the tension between the epistemological and ontological dimensions is resolved in a totally different way: the object is inaccessible, any attempt to seize it ends up in antinomies, and so on; we reach the object in itself not by somehow seeing through these epistemological distortions but by transposing epistemological obstacles into the thing itself. Quentin Meillassoux does the same with regard to the experience of facticity and/or absolute contingency: he transposes what appear to be transcendental partisans of finitude as the limitation of our knowledge (the insight that we can be totally wrong about our knowledge, that reality in itself can be totally different from our notion of it) into the most basic positive ontological property of reality itself—the absolute “is simply the capacity-to-be-other as such, as theorized by the agnostic. The absolute is the possible transition, devoid of reason, of my state toward any other state whatsoever. But this possibility is no longer a ‘possibility of ignorance,’ viz., a possibility that is merely the result of my inability to know . . . —rather, it is the knowledge of the very real possibility”5 in the heart of the In-itself:
>>7842280
Philosophy is Concept and Jargon heavy; it can't often be boiled down to layperson terms especially when talking about intricacies within the theory.
>>7841923
That's REI, but it's almost sacrilege to namedrop him in a thread about materialistic sophism crap by a posseur pretending to be "le schizophrenic XD"
![laruelle[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TwKMXC6.jpg "laruelle[1].jpg")
>he's still following speculative realism
>he hasn't turned to non-philosophy
>>7842165
pretty sure he means he's under treatment rather than dating
Can someone explain what a BwO is exactly and how this differs from Organs without a Body?
>>7842304
>Quentin Meillassoux does the same with regard to the experience of facticity and/or absolute contingency: he transposes what appear to be transcendental partisans of finitude as the limitation of our knowledge (the insight that we can be totally wrong about our knowledge, that reality in itself can be totally different from our notion of it) into the most basic positive ontological property of reality itself—the absolute “is simply the capacity-to-be-other as such, as theorized by the agnostic. The absolute is the possible transition, devoid of reason, of my state toward any other state whatsoever. But this possibility is no longer a ‘possibility of ignorance,’ viz., a possibility that is merely the result of my inability to know . . . —rather, it is the knowledge of the very real possibility”5 in the heart of the In-itself:
indeed
but this work relies on the faith in the principle of non-contradiction
>>7842322
>>>he hasn't turned to non-philosophy
this guy is badiou doing quantum logic, instead of ZF
>>7842279
>What's wrong with the subject/object dichotomy?
People started to realize there were all kinds of problems with this by the 19th century. The big one, being the turn to existentialism and phenomenology, is it cannot describe what makes a man a man - we are neither pure object nor pure thinking thing. Plus dichotomies are just a bad idea in general.
wish Nick Land was my dad tbqh
>>7842165
whats the name of this girl again?
>>7842353
The organs distribute themselves on the BwO, but they distribute themselves independently of the form of the organism; forms become contingent, organs are no longer anything more than intensities that are produced, flows, thresholds, and gradients. "A" stomach, "an" eye, "a" mouth: the indefinite article does not lack anything; it is not indeterminate or undifferentiated, but expresses the pure determination of intensity, intensive difference. The indefinite article is the conductor of desire. It is not at all a question of a fragmented, splintered body, of organs without the body (OwB). The BwO is exactly the opposite. There are not organs in the sense of fragments in relation to a lost unity, nor is there a return to the undifferentiated in relation to a differentiable totality. There is a distribution of intensive principles of
organs, with their positive indefinite articles, within a collectivity or multiplicity, inside an assemblage, and according to machinic connections operating on a BwO.
- D&G, A Thousand Plateaus (p. 164-5).
>>7841903
>Brassier?
Brassier and Land are kind of 180s of each other. I say go for it since it's always good to hear the perspective of the opposition.
>>7843559
he actually explains his thoughts on land here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkty18S8q4k
