>But it has a very specific effect on young white males reading it
And that effect is known is transitioning. Without HRT the body of organs cannot be seen.
Reading postructiral philosophy made me virulently transphobic because once you get down to it the whole ideology is about defending society compulsory education psychiatric normalization public opinion and all the things deleuze and foucault thaught me to hate
It's designed to get you to think in a method that is not only extremely different from popular contemporary methods but has been highly stigmatized by various structures of authority. The method they chose to use for this was to interleave references the assumed audience would be familiar with and philosophical exertions designed to break your existing perspectives.
And in the course of using that "method" it doesn't make a single rational argument or state something that can be verified. It's pseudophilosophy that would make even the sophists hide their heads in shame.
what in the actual frick
now I want to read this shit
8 months ago
Anonymous
it's pretty simple and you should
they have a lot of good points in it
8 months ago
Anonymous
name 1 (one, /wan/)
8 months ago
Anonymous
ok, um, schizoid escape lines of flight vs oedipalized frames of capture, the body of the earth and schizoid shit etc
also relation with the mother as being homosexual
they theorize an entire uh system, it's a good work dude and it makes sense
Basically this
It starts to get better if you just go with the flow without analyzing everything down to the detail. Read secondary literature after getting your impression first.
My main complaint was the terrible prose at times. It's been some time since I've read it and it was always a translation into German or English but D&G are absolutely shitting the bed at times with terrible sentence structure and terrible wording.
It's a lot better in "what is philosophy" so they actively choose to make it this way. Good books but could be improved.
I really wish I could understand this. It seems fascinating and like it really expands your mind. But I just don't get it at all. Even in the first page or two I get completely lost and I have no idea what they're talking about.
That's precisely the point. What Gabbana are trying to do is to is to expand the definition of "understanding". You understand it by not understanding it.
you have to force yourself to read a couple hundred pages of it without getting it, will remember very few details but the way of thinking will stick with you. if you're a chud like me you might like to start with the positive tasks of schizoanalysis chapters since they try to explain to wordcel leftists why fascism works, as a real-world movement, and their pseudo rational ideology doesn't. this is blindingly obvious to people whose politics are influenced by meme culture, so if the problem is not getting anything, this might be a motivating starting point.
the political theory is also eerily similar to Ernst jüngers arbeiter, which they quote favorably in a thousand plateaus (they even quote ludendorff)
badiou calls them fascists, i don't understand his text at all but i think he's kinda right
What should I read before reading Anti-Oedipus?
I looked it up and what was promised really interests me but I don't have much of a background in the area
Anti Ödipus is one big refutation of Freuds psycho-analytics and it rejects the mommy-daddy-me triangle that he based a lot of things on.
It is at least as much of a psychology book as it is philosophy if not more. So if you want to get into it, then you should at least try the wikipedia article on Freud and what the ödipus-komplex is.
Read up on Daniel Paul Schreber. He is pretty much THE essential person if you want access to psychology. His writings are basically the first edition of "my diary tbh: schizo edition" and pretty much every early writer on psycho analytics takes a look at his case.
Freud, Jung etc.
The body without organs D&G use are directly from his case where he was convinced that the organs in his body are not within at certain times.
Wiki is probably a good first start for this to get going.
If you want actual secondary literature on the specific book AÖ and later TP then my go to recommendation is Eugene Holland who wrote one for each of them and they are in my opinion very much objective and try to be as informative as possible.
The camebridge guide to Deleuze is also often recommended and while I agree about the quality of it, it is a pretty big load of incredibly wide spread topics which will overwhelm any reader at first.
If you want a quick roadmap I'd say: >Quick overview and Freud > read up on Schreber > start with AÖ and supplement with "Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis" when things get too confusing
Reading postructiral philosophy made me virulently transphobic because once you get down to it the whole ideology is about defending society compulsory education psychiatric normalization public opinion and all the things deleuze and foucault thaught me to hate
It's kinda strange really. A lot of the stuff the pomo frogs where so very adamant against has slowly gnawed its way into their philosophical tradition.
Twitter/reddit/discord, the last time I checked, was teeming with these seemingly Deleuzian gays that are adamantly defending a system that cements identities as some sort of item that can be acquired trough the access of a monstrous Chimera consisting of capital/medical/state intersection.
Foucault was warning against biopolitics all the time. Everyone agreed until the coof happened and academia had to write circles around him to not look like the bootlickers they ultimately are.
I’m a psychiatrist and I’m wondering what I could get out of reading this book. I’m already fairly sure that psychoanalysis is a sham, would this book allow me to articulate this point without resorting to references that are obscure to the layman?
>would this book allow me to articulate this point without resorting to references that are obscure to the layman?
Absolutely not.
If you are a psychiatrist then you are probably already much more versed in what psychoanalysis is and entails than me so I wont be able to give you much help here. Attacking it on the angle that there are hardly any reproducible effects and making an actual diagnosis is often very shaky is probably a better bet. Thats easier to understand for a normal person.
But I'm almost certain that trying to refute psychoanalysis to the average layman with the reasoning D&G bring up, it will have the opposite effect.
A simple a concept like "Ich, Es, Über-Ich" is much easier to grasp than stuff like
First page of chapter one, here's an argument about what mechanical roles the mouth can play
.
The frick you mean "anal-machine"? Becoming a pack of wolves? Body without organs? Insane gibberish unless you are open up to radically different reasoning.
Both AÖ and Thousand plateaus are deliberately obscurely written works as
That's precisely the point. What Gabbana are trying to do is to is to expand the definition of "understanding". You understand it by not understanding it.
correctly states in order to get the mind of the reader going.
If that works as intended or if D&G are just fart sniffing fricks that could have just spelled it out like a normal person, is debatable.
It's very clear however that you won't be able to use any of it to reason with some who doesn't have at least some backround in phil. or psych.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>But I'm almost certain that trying to refute psychoanalysis to the average layman with the reasoning D&G bring up, it will have the opposite effect.
I had a young psychotic patient "debate" me about his sanity using D&G during a ward review. Luckily I had skim read the wikipedia entry enough to know what he was talking about, but my colleagues just took his ramblings at face value and sectioned him. I'm not sure how much of what he said was manic flight of ideas and how much was actually D&G's obscurantist writing style, probably a mixture of both.
That digression aside, thank you for your posts, they're helpful in explaining what D&G are/aren't useful for. It sounds like there needs to be some groundwork in place before their radical reasoning can have its desired effect. Some of my colleagues are fairly institutionalised and wouldn't be open to the language or concepts they propose, but a small minority do have an interest in phil and psych (which is partly why some of us do this speciality anyway) but I do think something like AO is a bit too axiomatically challenging for even them. Hell, I find it daunting and have yet to take the plunge in committing time to go through it.
Has it changed the way you perceive mental health/psychiatry in a meaningful way?
8 months ago
Anonymous
It's difficult. D&G was quite insightful for me but only after a long time of study.
I'm phone posting so I'll try to give a more in depth answer tomorrow when the thread is still up.
>would this book allow me to articulate this point without resorting to references that are obscure to the layman?
Absolutely not.
If you are a psychiatrist then you are probably already much more versed in what psychoanalysis is and entails than me so I wont be able to give you much help here. Attacking it on the angle that there are hardly any reproducible effects and making an actual diagnosis is often very shaky is probably a better bet. Thats easier to understand for a normal person.
But I'm almost certain that trying to refute psychoanalysis to the average layman with the reasoning D&G bring up, it will have the opposite effect.
A simple a concept like "Ich, Es, Über-Ich" is much easier to grasp than stuff like [...] .
The frick you mean "anal-machine"? Becoming a pack of wolves? Body without organs? Insane gibberish unless you are open up to radically different reasoning.
Both AÖ and Thousand plateaus are deliberately obscurely written works as [...] correctly states in order to get the mind of the reader going.
If that works as intended or if D&G are just fart sniffing fricks that could have just spelled it out like a normal person, is debatable.
It's very clear however that you won't be able to use any of it to reason with some who doesn't have at least some backround in phil. or psych.
Not the anons you replied to but both of your posts were very insightful. Thanks a lot anon.
Depends what you mean by "supposed to"
It was certainly written during a time when nonsense was fashionable
I read just one section of that book (on Lacan), and it was clear the authors were more full of shit than Jordan Peterson debating Slavoj Zizek
That's all continental philosophy. Not worth reading unless you want AIDS in the future.
To me, yes. But it has a very specific effect on young white males reading it, so I'm reconsidering.
>But it has a very specific effect on young white males reading it
And that effect is known is transitioning. Without HRT the body of organs cannot be seen.
Reading postructiral philosophy made me virulently transphobic because once you get down to it the whole ideology is about defending society compulsory education psychiatric normalization public opinion and all the things deleuze and foucault thaught me to hate
For some Deleuze seems to particularly appeal to bodies without (female) organs.
It's designed to get you to think in a method that is not only extremely different from popular contemporary methods but has been highly stigmatized by various structures of authority. The method they chose to use for this was to interleave references the assumed audience would be familiar with and philosophical exertions designed to break your existing perspectives.
And in the course of using that "method" it doesn't make a single rational argument or state something that can be verified. It's pseudophilosophy that would make even the sophists hide their heads in shame.
First page of chapter one, here's an argument about what mechanical roles the mouth can play
If I did not know any better I would've said that this was most likely written by schizoid anon with > 150iq
what in the actual frick
now I want to read this shit
it's pretty simple and you should
they have a lot of good points in it
name 1 (one, /wan/)
ok, um, schizoid escape lines of flight vs oedipalized frames of capture, the body of the earth and schizoid shit etc
also relation with the mother as being homosexual
they theorize an entire uh system, it's a good work dude and it makes sense
so glad i have never and will never suck a dick in my life, even my own. it's big enough, i could
By anal machine surely they mean expulsion i.e. vomiting, you poopy brain
what the frick :DDD
Basically this
It starts to get better if you just go with the flow without analyzing everything down to the detail. Read secondary literature after getting your impression first.
My main complaint was the terrible prose at times. It's been some time since I've read it and it was always a translation into German or English but D&G are absolutely shitting the bed at times with terrible sentence structure and terrible wording.
It's a lot better in "what is philosophy" so they actively choose to make it this way. Good books but could be improved.
I'll interleave my wiener between ur booty cheeks
I really wish I could understand this. It seems fascinating and like it really expands your mind. But I just don't get it at all. Even in the first page or two I get completely lost and I have no idea what they're talking about.
That's precisely the point. What Gabbana are trying to do is to is to expand the definition of "understanding". You understand it by not understanding it.
you have to force yourself to read a couple hundred pages of it without getting it, will remember very few details but the way of thinking will stick with you. if you're a chud like me you might like to start with the positive tasks of schizoanalysis chapters since they try to explain to wordcel leftists why fascism works, as a real-world movement, and their pseudo rational ideology doesn't. this is blindingly obvious to people whose politics are influenced by meme culture, so if the problem is not getting anything, this might be a motivating starting point.
the political theory is also eerily similar to Ernst jüngers arbeiter, which they quote favorably in a thousand plateaus (they even quote ludendorff)
badiou calls them fascists, i don't understand his text at all but i think he's kinda right
I found a thousand plateaus much easier to comprehend. What is odd because I feel its supposed to be the opposite.
It's basically a less skillfully written Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra
....it makes complete sense though. why is this such an underrated work? guattari's solo work is underrated too, especially chaosmosis
Bros... I love this book so much it's unreal. Love from the production of recording production.
What should I read before reading Anti-Oedipus?
I looked it up and what was promised really interests me but I don't have much of a background in the area
Anti Ödipus is one big refutation of Freuds psycho-analytics and it rejects the mommy-daddy-me triangle that he based a lot of things on.
It is at least as much of a psychology book as it is philosophy if not more. So if you want to get into it, then you should at least try the wikipedia article on Freud and what the ödipus-komplex is.
Read up on Daniel Paul Schreber. He is pretty much THE essential person if you want access to psychology. His writings are basically the first edition of "my diary tbh: schizo edition" and pretty much every early writer on psycho analytics takes a look at his case.
Freud, Jung etc.
The body without organs D&G use are directly from his case where he was convinced that the organs in his body are not within at certain times.
Wiki is probably a good first start for this to get going.
If you want actual secondary literature on the specific book AÖ and later TP then my go to recommendation is Eugene Holland who wrote one for each of them and they are in my opinion very much objective and try to be as informative as possible.
The camebridge guide to Deleuze is also often recommended and while I agree about the quality of it, it is a pretty big load of incredibly wide spread topics which will overwhelm any reader at first.
If you want a quick roadmap I'd say:
>Quick overview and Freud > read up on Schreber > start with AÖ and supplement with "Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Introduction to Schizoanalysis" when things get too confusing
It's kinda strange really. A lot of the stuff the pomo frogs where so very adamant against has slowly gnawed its way into their philosophical tradition.
Twitter/reddit/discord, the last time I checked, was teeming with these seemingly Deleuzian gays that are adamantly defending a system that cements identities as some sort of item that can be acquired trough the access of a monstrous Chimera consisting of capital/medical/state intersection.
Foucault was warning against biopolitics all the time. Everyone agreed until the coof happened and academia had to write circles around him to not look like the bootlickers they ultimately are.
I’m a psychiatrist and I’m wondering what I could get out of reading this book. I’m already fairly sure that psychoanalysis is a sham, would this book allow me to articulate this point without resorting to references that are obscure to the layman?
>would this book allow me to articulate this point without resorting to references that are obscure to the layman?
Absolutely not.
If you are a psychiatrist then you are probably already much more versed in what psychoanalysis is and entails than me so I wont be able to give you much help here. Attacking it on the angle that there are hardly any reproducible effects and making an actual diagnosis is often very shaky is probably a better bet. Thats easier to understand for a normal person.
But I'm almost certain that trying to refute psychoanalysis to the average layman with the reasoning D&G bring up, it will have the opposite effect.
A simple a concept like "Ich, Es, Über-Ich" is much easier to grasp than stuff like
.
The frick you mean "anal-machine"? Becoming a pack of wolves? Body without organs? Insane gibberish unless you are open up to radically different reasoning.
Both AÖ and Thousand plateaus are deliberately obscurely written works as
correctly states in order to get the mind of the reader going.
If that works as intended or if D&G are just fart sniffing fricks that could have just spelled it out like a normal person, is debatable.
It's very clear however that you won't be able to use any of it to reason with some who doesn't have at least some backround in phil. or psych.
>But I'm almost certain that trying to refute psychoanalysis to the average layman with the reasoning D&G bring up, it will have the opposite effect.
I had a young psychotic patient "debate" me about his sanity using D&G during a ward review. Luckily I had skim read the wikipedia entry enough to know what he was talking about, but my colleagues just took his ramblings at face value and sectioned him. I'm not sure how much of what he said was manic flight of ideas and how much was actually D&G's obscurantist writing style, probably a mixture of both.
That digression aside, thank you for your posts, they're helpful in explaining what D&G are/aren't useful for. It sounds like there needs to be some groundwork in place before their radical reasoning can have its desired effect. Some of my colleagues are fairly institutionalised and wouldn't be open to the language or concepts they propose, but a small minority do have an interest in phil and psych (which is partly why some of us do this speciality anyway) but I do think something like AO is a bit too axiomatically challenging for even them. Hell, I find it daunting and have yet to take the plunge in committing time to go through it.
Has it changed the way you perceive mental health/psychiatry in a meaningful way?
It's difficult. D&G was quite insightful for me but only after a long time of study.
I'm phone posting so I'll try to give a more in depth answer tomorrow when the thread is still up.
Not the anons you replied to but both of your posts were very insightful. Thanks a lot anon.
It's 2023 and fatherless atheists still want to read bourgeois' diarrhea.
bwo is the egg revelation Gilles De Leuze wasn't a philosopher (one of the shameful academic castrati) but an ancient Balkan initiate.
read the trooth beyond the lines.. count to two or whatever and comprehend the giga transism