/lit/ - Literature

>>18699187
Sounds good, I can agree with that, but what does that mean in practice? Just edging until you feel that cooming is good enough, or more focus on foreplay or is it just a roundabout way of saying you're into spanking and wax?

>>17197562
>>17197638
Kek.

But by Nietzsche's own standards ("But ugliness, in itself an objection, is among the Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all?") we shouldn't hesitate to consider the author when criticizing, it's just that these memes about Nietzsche aren't intelligent worthwhile criticisms, shocking as that might sound.

>>16910324
“Sit as little as possible; give credence to no thought that is not born in the open air and accompanied by free movement — in which the muscles do not also celebrate a feast.”

>>16910480
It has nothing to do with it because thinking follows the same pattern. You're still writing for yourself in deciding how to live, so to speak.

>>15913142
>>15913215
Found it.

A decent short summary / intro to D&G:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lajsoQJ0V6A

A lot of the stuff here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4CtHPqv6eKr8pYqe8qEoEA/videos?disable_polymer=1

Everything by Manuel DeLanda:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=manuel+delanda

A bit more on the Nietzsche-Deleuze relation through Klossowski (who dedicated his book about Nietzsche to Deleuze):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7l7ZAKZZZU

More on the Deleuze-Nietzsche relation (the entire series is fascinating if you're into Nietzsche):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFFxnf92XqY


The Deleuze for the Desperate series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

Derrida's lecture about Deleuze (mistitled, it's about Stupidity not Forgiveness):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_r-gr3ccik

There's probably a lot more, there are Vimeo videos as well which don't feature on Youtube.

Pirate Deleuze's Abecedaire (it should have English subtitles) as I can't find it streamed in full online anywhere.

For compilation books, start with the essay and interview collections (in no particular order): Dialogues, Negotiations, Desert Islands, Two Regimes of Madness, Essays Critical and Clinical. "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in Negotiations is short (about 7 pages) and tells you how to read his texts.

As for books written by Deleuze, start with Nietzsche and Philosophy (read the intro to the English translation by Michael Hardt even if you don't read the book in English). Deleuze's courses are also pretty accessible and translated in several languages: https://www.webdeleuze.com/


A decent bibliography:
https://immanentterrain.wordpress.com/biblio/

>>14755904
>yfw you finally begin to understand what philosophy is all about

>>14733319
At this point I'm more inclined to think that the anons always entering such threads just to dismiss them are the ones suffering from recursive abstractions.

In any case, a problem with any approach can be that it isn't abstract enough rather than too abstract. That is to say it does not incorporate enough from reality when creating its concepts. Ironically, D&G always advocated a pragmatic approach to these things so that you never look at a concept in isolation, but always find its meaning in what it is connected to. This might not sound like much, but you have to consider that every theoretical approach is tempted to fall back on a single dimension of reality in order to explain everything else, some familiar formula (or familial in the case of psychoanalysis). Even Nietzsche, for all his influence on Deleuze, still relied on some more or less fixed identities in order to make his concepts function (for example a certain reliance on the bodily organs in terms of perspectivism/will to power). For D&G it was a matter not just of the body without organs, but also of a much greater freedom of possible meanings to any set of phenomena. A transversality (Guattari's term) that connects all kinds of means and effects (a runner's high has something in common with a cocaine high even if they will never be the same thing).

>>12241684
Alright I'll give an extended explanation since I'm bored. Sorry if it's a bit messy, I'm mostly rushing through it since there's a lot to say.

First off, that part of the text is pretty much shitposting before the Internet. D&G admitted to having laughed a lot while writing and this particular passage which, I believe, is from A Thousand Plateaus is even more on the nose because at that point D&G were tired of psychoanalysis. The rest of the book and the remainder of their career they barely speak about it anymore. Also, keep in mind that the Wolf Man, Freud's famous patient, is called that after his dreams so the weird things D&G are describing have to do with dream logic in some sense, with the pluralistic (disorganized) larval subject that lives and develops when we are asleep.

>Who could ever believe that the anal machine bears no relation to the wolf machine, or that the two are only linked by an Oedipal apparatus, by the all-too-human figure of the Father?

The anal stage for Freud had to do with production and about how later in life, based on that moment in infancy, we end up treating what we produce or own (not just feces, pretty much everything: how easily we let go of things, how harshly we judge our work etc.). D&G use it here as far as I can tell in a more literal sense of how the anus is connected to the psyche in an assemblage: the image of the anus, the sensations associated with it (solar anus means just that although it can certainly be artistically extended to mean the black sun or whatever as Bataille did), the feelings we have towards it (revulsion or attraction or both at different times etc.).

So for D&G it's all about a philosophy of connections, of becoming as unlikely connections (as in neuroplasticity, D&G said that their concept of rhizome is based on how the brain develops and changes). A machine is for D&G not something mechanical, but something that's prone to unlikely connections that change its focus and what it means to us (like the mouth used to eat, talk, smile, kiss, bite, threaten, give oral sex etc. all within different assemblages). D&G say that Freud was wrong to think these connections (which for them pertain to metaphysics itself, not just the human psyche or brain) as being only possible due to the psychoanalytic figure of the Father (what the father means to the child in his unconscious).

(to be continued)