/lit/ - Literature

>>12617082
Difference and Repetition.

read this one also if you are getting into Deleuze, it's awesome.

>>11887282
i don't know, anon, i didn't know the man. i do know that he conflated in his own person three of the greatest anti-christian or anti-religious philosophies of all time - spinoza, marx, and nietzsche - and produced something extraordinary with them.

i don't think his project or hope in the end was to devalue the human condition. if anything i think he had a sensibility like leibniz: a kind of desire to produce a theodicy that might explain how the world works as it does without passing judgement on it, because it had a surfeit of judgment already and those judgments were almost always wrong.

he's a complicated man, no doubt. how we all feel about a writer is how we feel about them, it's not really right or wrong, it's just how we are in a relation. there are philosophers who i dislike too. i don't think it was cheaply sensational pessimism, because i think he was in the end not on the side of pessimism but the affirmative and joyful life - however, this being done in the shadow of spinoza, nietzsche and bergson would have some caveats also.

read the fold sometime. maybe not now if there are other guys who are more interesting to you. but i don't think his point was to reduce the world to debauchery, baseness, madness and horror. those things existed and he thought about them - he was, i think, at bottom a supreme logician who applied himself to thinking about the logic of madness, philosophical schizophrenia, and other things - but i don't think if he were alive he would say that his point was to make life into something grubby, brutal, and excremental. it might have been to conjure up something out of that that nevertheless became more than the sum of its parts.

that's my hot take, but i'm an admitted deleuze fan.

>>11854767
i'll be reading up on some leibniz for a bit and he is indeed a very interesting man. connects to D&G, spinoza and whitehead pretty quickly. and i have been looking into some of the secondary sources leibniz-anon has suggested. the math goes over my head, but there's enough in there that isn't math to penetrate my thick skull.

but in terms of books/secondary sources i've read on leibniz - or books i've read in general - pic rel is one of the greatest things i've read *period.* it was deleuze's last book, or one of the last ones, and it is 10/10 amazing. absolute must-read if you like deleuze or leibniz, continental stuff in general. run don't walk.

>>11240873
sup

>Can you tell me how schizoanalysis differs from psychoanalysis, still hasn't clicked with me.
it's just axioms i think, really. oedipus is a thing for lacan and it isn't for deleuze. lack is not the primary object for deleuze, desire is.

>Desire is the set of passive syntheses that engineer partial objects, flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production. The real is the end product, the result of the passive syntheses of desire as autoproduction of the unconscious. Desire does not lack anything; it does not lack its object. It is, rather, the subject that is missing in desire, or desire that lacks a fixed subject; there is no fixed subject unless there is repression. Desire and its object are one and the same thing: the machine, as a machine of a machine. Desire is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it. - AO, p. 26

basically deleuze just has a very different portrait of what's going on in your unconscious mind. we should take our cues about what is normal from this more primordial weirdness than from any kind of oedipal theatre or 'despotic' signifier. two very different points of view. they both 'work,' in a sense, much as freud and jung do. but the BwO as D&G understand it is very different from anything hegel-freud-lacan would recognize.

>There's something vaguely repellent about deleuze to me, first his nails and second him signing that pedo petition
the nails are there because his fingertips didn't have any whorls on them. he actually had to grow them long because it hurt to write. i agree that they're a little weird but he didn't ask to be dealt those cards.

>Also all the muh multiplicities shit kinda represents the worst excesses of French Phil to me, and i think Lacan is brilliant. Idk just thinking out loud
nope all good. lacan is brilliant, stupidly so. and lots of people don't like deleuze (like badiou, for instance). you absolutely can make the argument that he's completely supplied the ontology of the worst aspects of capitalism. lots of other stuff. personally i think he built a pretty excellent time-machine for escaping from a lot of stuff that quietly destroys us in the long run, but tastes vary.

plus his book on leibniz is one of the greatest things i've ever read. but, i mean, some people like peirce or w/e. everybody's different but it's all good.

>>11206959
>you're gonna wanna dive in that abyss until you hit bottom

this. and i don't think there really is a bottom. just the clinamen and Thou Art That.

>rubbing the sand out of our eyes as we emerge out of the sleep of Nature/Ain?

like lens-grinding...i think so. you never gain access to the Real, and yet, how do you explain those moments of reading philosophy where you go, *i always knew that was true.* updated your journal, new stage unlocked: like this. some new wings in the mysterious and crumbling old mansion in which you live open up. books kind of make us who we are by gently pulling apart the threads that hold together the personas we are not
>and revealing the edges of the ever-widening mandala below?

polishing that bright mirror.

>this urge to innovate is like a claustrophobia of the spirit

this. especially when it becomes a kind of desire to trap the other (know that feel?). i think the only way Spectacle can be explained is really from industrialization. *trying* to create anything...well, i'm sure you know how this goes. labyrinths and busted circuits.

>it was only nietzsche who saw the world for the altar it was, that it is humanity that is the sacrifice, and sacrificed only so what survives us will know the thrill of what is more than us.

this also. and i think we're in that bizarre place. wagering yourself against the future for god only knows what. rationalism and just kind of adjusting to things is all well and good, but the core of human subjectivity is absolutely fucking bonkers. i can not even imagine the kinds of things guys like nietzsche or blake had going on in their heads.

>whether we can salvage our old ideals and give them that apple corp. sheen or whether millennia of war and suffering and tortured paeans to the stars, etc. are really telling us one thing, which is to get a fucking move on.

pretty much. depressing...but in a way it's kind of awesome too. the historical Time Machine has shattered and you're on salvage ops.

>How would it feel to be smuggled back out of the future in order to subvert its antecedent conditions? To be a cyber-guerrilla, hidden in human camouflage so advanced that even one’s software was part of the disguise? Exactly like this?

to subvert or to restore? all we know for certain is that we can't stay here.

apropos of nothing, or maybe something: have you read pic rel, anon? if not you should read pic rel. deleuze always gives me that Chill Homie feeling when i find myself getting a little too wound up about some of these things. it may be different for you but w/e, it's still a really good read.

>>11206971
i don't know anon but
>just the joy of death's afterglow, eternally repeated
is a pretty fucking beautiful/haunting line. good enough for me.

>>11207002
of course is ya big dingus. who was unironically talking about restoring the House of Bourbon or w/e in the 2000s? moldbug is brilliant. you don't have to agree with everything he says but the guy's an original.