/lit/ - Literature

reject conditions of possible experience
embrace conditions of real experience

>>19835568
yes.

Where do we go from here?

This and The Logic of Sense are Deleuze's best books and are written beautifully. What the fuck went wrong in his collaborations with Guattari?

ok this fucking slaps

I am looking to start this and someone told me you should start with the conclusion.
Are there any other tips I should know for this?

I have read Deleuze's book on Kant and his book on Nietzsche, and listened to a few hours of lectures on him, so I think I am prepared to start.

I've read like 2/3 of pic related by skipping the parts where he talks about other philosophers. I've decided that I'm gonna read it again after getting familiar with Hegel, Descartes and Leibniz. What should i read from them to be able to understand D&R?

So I was listening to this YouTuber describe Deleuzian thought and it seemed rad as fuck.

Basically an amped up heidegger but instead of the gay waiting around to let being show itself Deleuze thinks Being is a blood-thirsty horror that wants to tear us to pieces, in response to which we should go balls-to-the-wall in charting "lines of flight" as "nomadic warmachines" through "newly deterritorialized zones". It all seemed pretty Heraclitean as well, which is what I'm after.

Is this true? The way the dude described Deleuze got me jonesing to read him but idk anything about him and as a layman he seems like pretty elite stuff

In the first paragraph of the first chapter of Difference and Repetition Deleuze implies the formula "two things are as alike as two drops of water" confuses repetition and generality.
Is "two things are alike" the generality and "two drops of water" the repetition or the other way around?

So I'm trying to read Deleuze's Difference and Repetition and I'm having trouble in the first paragraph.
It begins by stating that repetition is not generality, and every formula that implies their confusion is regrettable. As an example, when people say "two things are as alike as two drops of water".
Which one of those is generality and which is repetition? The drops of water or the two things that are alike?
If two things are alike, they resemble each other, and resemblance is of the order of generality. On the other hand, two drops of water may be exchanged for one another, exchange being the point of view of generality.
On the same chapter it is stated that repetition, although different in kind from generality, might be represented as extreme resemblance or perfect equality (if we can pass from one thing to another by degree doesn't prevent them from being different in kind). Two drops of water are so resemblant and equivalent to each other that they may be considered the repetition of the singularity which is the power of nature to form drops of water? I'm not sure if this reasoning is valid.

Couldn't understand a thing about the discussion of difference around Hegel and Leibniz (1st chapter), so I'm looking for secondary literature on this book.
What should I read?
>huges, d&r
>williams, d&r: a critical introduction and guide
>other, show me

Meaning, books where what you get out of it is a fucking joke compared to what it took to get there.
This fucking faggot takes you through the most absurd tangential visual metaphors just to arrive at the point that
>all metaphysical models are more alike than they are different
>that's because they're all bullshit!
I'm genuinely pissed off that I put up with it through the entire length of this piece of shit. I feel more retarded for having read this.

Only answers from who knows it

I've never read Kant's critiques, Hume, or Spinoza, but i've listened to almost 6 hours of Deleuze lectures to prepare and I know the general history of philosophy pretty decently from Stanford articles. How do you think this will go?

Why does anyone even read Deleuze? There is literally no way someone could read this and understand it without external commentary. It defines it own terms within the first few pages without even explaining them. You get more of a concrete understanding of his work from secondary sources without having to sift through the purposefully obscurantist, haughty French writing style.

Someone please tell me I'm wrong since I like Deleuze's ideas and think he interesting, but the way he writes is maddening. French Philosophy presents itself as if it were some new form of esoterism.

>the ordinal precedes the cardinal
is deleuze retarded?

holy shit

thoughts?

Can someone please explain to me why difference is subject to representation? I started reading Difference and Repetition from the conclusion and I can't seem to grasp this concept yet, and I don't want to read the whole thing wondering why.

The implications of this are what I have the most trouble with.

Is this book really as mind-opening as people claim it is?

>>10151850
deleuze.

Is this book as enlightening as people say it is or is it just postmodern drivel?

>>9787058