sup /lit/
what background reading (and secondary readings -- iirc these guys are hard as fuck to understand?) should i know to prepare for and understand the post/structuralists and nick land and shit? these theories on accelerationism and transhumanism seem cool, and i'd like to know what they're talking about.
i've already started with the greeks, but i want to approach these guys concurrently bc muh impatience
thanks
>>8159410
>anime
>muh
>bc
>nick land
Kill yourself
>>8159410
I've prepared a chart for your benefit OP, its your lucky day.
>>8159424
That shit is fucking hilarious
here you go
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3_u-4HD_w
>>8159410
Read both of D&G's capitalism and schizophrenia (or the first at the very least) and lots of sci-fi
>>8159410
>Step 1
Plato
>Step 2
Marx
Nietzsche
Freud
>Step 3
some introductory secondary text
(I read 'Beginning Theory')
>Step 4
Saussure
At this point, you will be ready to poison your brain with whatever feminist/marxist/post-structuralist/whatever type of continental philosophy/critical theory or whatever the fuck you want to call it seems most appealing to you.
The fundamental outlook of this stuff is 'anti-essentialist' so it's good to read Plato, who is THE 'essentialist' to understand what they are arguing against. Most of this stuff will assume prior knowledge of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud & Saussure so it's pretty much mandatory to at least watch a few youtube videos on these guys (if you are a lazy bastard). A good intro text will help give you the basic ideas of thinkers like Foucault or Derrida who deliberately write in a frustratingly obtuse way as part of their project.
Have fun!
>>8159537
Probably a terrible starting point. I haven't read this but the full title is "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia" so it probably makes no sense to read this unless you've read Freud, right?
>>8159566
>asks about nick land
>dismisses the deleuzian new metaphysics the dark enlightenment is fuelled by
A terrible starting point sure, but bear in mind the introduction of part 2 discusses the mode of 'rhizomatic' thinking, which is not a linear model of thought but rather a network of multiplicity and difference which progresses outwards from the middle. No starting point thus needed - Delueze himself thought those would best understand his works (especially C&S) were those with no formal training in all this fashionable nonsense
autism
>>8159505
>rage against the machine
>leftypol
my sidddes
>>8159825
I mean god knows what they actually believe, but anti-oedipus is an attempt to reconcile marx with freud. Land does a lot of stuff w/r/t desiring-production, breaks/flows of capital, coded information, desiring-machines etc. which is stone-cold deleuzian
Although its important to bear in mind that Land has come out as something of an ultra-rightist much of which deleuze would probably denounce for being too fascistic and wildly repressive
