it's a concept that's not a concept, it's abstract but there are practical examples, so what's the deal?
I can't understand the body without organs
it's a concept that's not a concept, it's abstract but there are practical examples, so what's the deal?
Just be yourself
All Frenchmen are really just endlessly reappropriating Marx's idea that conceptual activity lags behind the real (however the latter is construed), which they also read into psychoanalysis. As Deleuze was coming up, Althusser was running around yelling about how Sartrean "humanist Marxism" blunts the cutting edge of Marx's thought, and trying to convince people to attend Lacan's lectures because some Marxist/psychoanalytic/structuralist fusion and total social revolution was impending, which is why Badiou became a Maoist when the PCF allied with Mitterand (from '65 and then with the Common Program). This desire to be more radical than the centre-izing tendencies of the contemporary mainstream-radical left, and thereby to maintain some meaningful sense of impending social revolution around the gay hippie atmosphere of '68, led Foucault et al. to do things like defend pederasty and to read Nietzsche on a beach and say "I'm so radical I'm not even me, you know what I mean?" In this atmosphere, le fingernails man met communist radical and Lacanian chauffeur-slave Felix Guattari, who was obsessed with overcoming "mere" scientism in post-Freudian Freudianism for the same reasons Althusser et al. were obsessed with overcoming "mere" humanism in contemporary Marxism. Deleuze in Difference & Repetition had already elaborated his own version of a quintessentially French (and thus essentially limited) and in particular quintessentially 1960s French philosophy of "what about the subaltern and underconceptualized Real, though? huh? what about it?" quasi-Hegelianism, obsessed with indeterminate and thus un-Hegelian forms of "negation" a la Marx, using a typical French pastiche of German phenomenology, historical materialism, and psychoanalysis, and aimed polemically at Sartre's and Wahl's generations in a self-assertive slaying of the fathers aka a symbolic "please give me tenure at Lyon, I am the silliest clown in Paris." When he combined this with Guattari's own "I'm so attendant upon the wave-crest of the ever-emerging Real that I sometimes even forget I exist!"-ism, they formed a reese's peanut butter synthesis of indeterminate negation metaphors. They began opening books they had overheard cool-looking people at cafes mention within the last four months to random pages and systematically making allusions to the 65th word on whatever page their finger landed on, bringing all allusions systematically and unrhizomatically and utterly un-"repetitively" under the determinate concept of indeterminate negation, but never SAYING indeterminate negation, because that would be cheating. Becoming-anus, Judge Schreiber, Sneed's Feed and Seed
I kneel...
Genuinely why? It's just information from the first paragraph of various Wikipedia pages with a layer of smug disdain on top.
I've actually read Deleuze, and I have to agree with
. That's not all that there is to him, obviously, but his writing does effectively convey that being the biggest fricking clown in the circus is way more important to him than anything else that said writing might contain.
Even though I'm sympathetic to French philosophy of the 20th century I have to say this post is quite on point. Deleuze never managed to go beyond Hegel.
Frogs on suicide watch
Will continental philosophy ever recover?
Based. As much as I like some of foucault's work, he and his crowd sure said and did some fricking stupid shit.
Annihilated
Humanism had to be overcome because Modernism had to be overcome
You say its easy, but you try creating philosophical concepts while high af, cause thats what they did and I think its hilarious how far they went with it.
its legit so simple, just a being that isn't fixed on one way of desire. Deleuze is just bad btw not worth reading, he's just for people on tik tok and Instagram to act contrarian.
he is interesting although it seems like a wasted effort, I'm devoting most of my reading to his material, what other philosopher could I study who has the same amount of ideas as him? because he seems to have an idea for everything.
Don’t get all your ideas from one place
but you need a base though
I like D&G volume 2 just for the aesthetics mostly, some of the style of it was cool, but as a work of philo its not much
If you dont get body without organs youre just a fail whale though
Go on youtube and type body without organs
Some homosexual theory guy will explain it to you
>be a body
>have no organs
>spend your life trying to fill those gaps with non-organs
Although I also like sun and steel, I doubt that a body without organs is a good way to go
Censure his nails when you post him, this is a blue board, anon, ffs.
Censor, censure means disapprove of rebuke morally
In fact it is very simple.
In anti-oedipus, D&G present their new and radical model of the unconscious. Like kant's conception of the mind (apprehension in the intuition, reproduction in the imagination, recognition in the concept), it operates according to three synthesis:
-The connective synthesis of production
-The disjunctive synthesis of recording
-The conjunctive synthesis of consumption
the bwo corresponds to the second synthesis,too lazy to go any further, sorry, but look into this and you'll find out.
All french "people" can ever produce is that characteristic, unmistakable blend of political/social commentary, "cultural critique", and psychology. For some reason the world seems to still put up with it, even granting it the title of philosophy.
Anyway, if you don't get it, it's probably because there is nothing to get.
They've never been the same since the revolution. Now they all want to be just another Marat
I can help with that.
Chortle.
It's the horizon that you move towards but can never reach. This is because existence requires some organs, and a Body Without Organs... has no organs. To make this very grug-approachable: the BWO is Deleuze's replacement of a Platonic Form. A thing moves towards some BWO and that's what defines it. The BWO is the problem, the thing is the answer. It's not a schematic, like a Platonic Form, however. Getting laid is the BWO, so you work out. Working out is how you move towards getting laid. But you can never reach the BWO because you have to do stuff other than get laid, like breathe (and work out).
Philosophy after Heidegger is schizophrenic nonsense. There are only a handful of exceptions.
>after Heidegger
did france ruin philosophy
mr. deleuze, please
Just read some graph theory and you won't need deleuze, lol