/lit/ - Literature

>>17604019
>In the battle of arguments, he is always the wiener

>>12978490
Well I'll check the thread from time to time so if you have any questions post them and I'll try to give simple answers. Sadly there's a lot to say since entire books were written about this stuff, which is why any attempt at a summary will result in it feeling dense.

>>12673877
>"jesus christ who cares"

Kek. That does describe a lot of philosophy, but Derrida did have some interesting ideas if you have the patience to go through all the boring stuff. In fact a lot of the stuff Derrida said can be found in a very similar form in other authors (including Deleuze), although this is probably true for most French philosophers of the time. They were all obsessed with excess in some sense or another for example.

>>12153065
>deleuzes philosophy is just "muh tingles" transgressive hedonism for the normiest of normies
Deleuze wasn't a hedonist, he was influenced by Nietzsche too much for that to be the case. Please be more detailed if you're arguing against Deleuze rather than whatever art sluts pretend to read him.

>It's also a literally luciferian philosophy in its obstinate refusal to acknowledge the lack inherent in the material world
There are ways of viewing the world where lack isn't meaningful and there are ways of exacerbating lack.

>Deleuzes view on religion were literally shrek fedora level of Reddit and I'm glad he's dead
Please elaborate on this, he seemed perfectly reasonable to me. He wasn't a militant atheist afaik.

>>11697941
>HOW THE *FUCK* ARE YOU GOING TO SAY DESIRE DOESNT PRESUPPOSE LACK, YOU FUCKING RETARDS! HOW CAN YOU SCAN OVER YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE OF DESIRE AND SAY IT DOESN'T REVOLVE AROUND LACK!

Calm down Lacan, it is possible to think of a purely material production of desire without lack. It's like saying that when you need to pee you lack going to the toilet. It's true, but misses the point of the actual production of urine in the body.