>Language is not made to be believed but to be obeyed, and to compel obedience newspapers, news, proceed by redundancy, in that they tell us what we ‘must’ think, retain, expect, etc. language is neither informational nor communicational. It is not the communication of information but something quite different: the transmission of order-words, either from one statement to another or within each statement, insofar as each statement accomplishes an act and the act is accomplished in the statement.
Was he right?
>>8176860
Yes he was.
Yes, he was; no, he wasn't. You decide. Deleuze's work is a sweet box; you take what you like, just like Deleuze did with other writers.
>>8176885
I feel this way as well. Tracks on a record my dude.
>>8176885
I'd take your sweet box from behind and give you a monstrous child. If you know what I mean.
>tfw you actually go read all the postmodern shit and realize they've been saying the same fucking thing in different words for a century
Holy shit get it out of your fucking system already. They keep saying it like it's the newest idea ever, too, every time.
>>8177226
That's the way philosophy has been for centuries.
>>8177226
It's not the idea, but how it's used.
>>8177220
kek
>>8176860
I think the best example of this is in business/economic academic journals where 'facts' are given.
of course he's right, but he also individualizes power and domination to such an extent that he begins to think like a neoliberal, and edges towards being another bourgeois postmodernist.
>>8177241
It's not used. Saying the same thing over and over again is not using knowledge. They're just regurgitating Nietzsche.
>>8176885
French faggots have been reduced to shallow meaningless koans.
>ah, ah you see, the author-function is destabilized therefore I am both author but not author #whoa #deep
>>8177300
>They're just regurgitating Nietzsche.
Hardly. Inspired, but absolutely not regurgitating. What on earth are you on about.
>>8177280
I don't know, he distinguishes between puissance, which is basically Nietzsche's will to power, as a capacity to do something, and "power" in the sense of authority and restriction. Puissance is basically a conquest in the sense of growth rather than domination, like one feels empowered after mastering a skill rather than controlling someone else. Maybe you were already including this into what you said, just wanted to make sure.
>>8177300
I don't know, it seems that accentuating and expanding upon certain Nietzschean concepts is already a realization if done well enough (Foucault and Deleuze both do this rather well and targeting different ideas). Even Derrida does more than just stick his fingers in his ears and say "language is based in metaphor la la la I'm not listening", he even explicitly says that deconstruction is not fundamentally against rationalism, but rather something that must be taken into account if we truly desire rationalism. Maybe he fails in pursuing this, but that's a different point.
>le speech act theory meme
How do I find an ugly french guy like Deluze to fuck me?
>>8177363
not that anon, but yes, that is the definition of neoliberal rhetorics of "control" and "mastery".
Will to power (puissance) is sublated into capitalist processes.
Postscript on Control Societies touches on this feeling of being "compelled" to participate
>>8177608
Deleuze in his prime was handsome
>>8177640
I don't see what specifically neoliberal about it. It seems like something that can go either way depending on how it's used.
>>8177652
Your complimenting the way he carries himself, not the way he looks. Even there he's ugly, but he is without a doubt attractive.
