So, what's the deal with Deleuze?
I've read that you can't understand him without Greeks, Descartes, Hume etc., but also that people who know too much about western philosphy had problems to understand, while people who did not read these understood Capitalism and Schizophrenia perfectly.
So... what is the consensus? Should you read these philosophers whom Deleuze liked and wrote about (Nietzsche, Bergson, Foucault, Spinoza etc.), should you read pre-ancient and forward or should you just jump in?
ask your phil professor
>b-but i'm studying by myself
go fuck yourself then
>>8241676
nice contribution.
anyway, what would deleuze think of contemporary universities?
>>8241708
>rhizomatic
>>8241667
>So... what is the consensus?
Depends on what you want to get out of his work. Even though he's very hip with all the humanities losers, he's the most traditionally oriented philosopher of the post-struct school. If you want to get down with Deleuzian metaphysics, you want to go the full learn-the-canon route probably. If you have a decent understanding of Bergson, Nietzsche, and Spinoza I'd recommend Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction by Todd May and Deleuze: Apprenticeship in Philosophy by Micheal Hardt.
If you aren't into traditional philosophy ie metaphysics and want nifty ideas to pepper into your art projects or whatever, there's no harm in diving right into Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
>>8241708
>anyway, what would deleuze think of contemporary universities?
He spent his life in contemporary French academia. Not much has changed since then.
>>8241843
This. Deleuze even dubbed himself an old school metaphysician birthed from the enlightenment.
A quote from Deleuze:
"There are, you see, two ways of reading a book: you either see it as a box with something inside and start looking for what it signifies, and then if you're even more perverse or depraved you set off after signifiers. And you treat the next book like a box contained in the first or containing it. And you annotate and interpret and question, and write a book about the book, and so on and on. Or there's the other way: you see the book as a little non-signifying machine, and the only question is "Does it work, and how does it work?" How does it work for you? If it doesn't work, if nothing comes through, you try another book. This second way of reading's intensive: something comes through or it doesn't. There's nothing to explain, nothing to understand, nothing to interpret."
Basically, you need to read into the text what you already know. It doesn't really matter what you bring forward with you into the text, whether that's a background in architecture, analytic philosophy, media theory, psychiatry, etc, so long as you're bringing something with you. The more the merrier.
>>8242706
>tfw can't even say wheter he prefers the first or the latter
Guess philosophy isn't for me after all.
>>8242990
lol
he obviously prefers the latter btw. guess philosophy really isn't for you huh champ
>he doesn't know "signifier" is Deleuze's trigger-word
>>8242990
They're both perfectly valid and have their uses. Unless you want to write like Anti-Oedipus (which is also perfectly valid, if you can really commit to what Deleuze is arguing in that anon's quote) then go ahead and read intensively. But at some point it pays to know what people mean when they say "post-structuralism" or "the unconscious is structured like a language."
>>8241708
He literally said that it's a shame that universities are becoming trade schools.
