/lit/ - Literature

>I AM... LE MUSHROOM
Are frenchies really?

>>18197694
I strongly suggest that you read both. Will-to-Power is Ontological (and Nietzsche himself makes this clear), and while Truth is interpretation it is only on the basis of this grander ontological fact. Will-to-Power lays the groundwork for a pure differential ontology and a radical break with the former traditions in philosophy by introducing a pure metaphysics of becoming (which in a way is anti-metaphysics). Nietzsche views all conceptualizations, truth-positings, values etc... as necessary errors because they take what is in process and solidify it, so to speak, with the use of categories. Bergson builds on this by saying that our Understanding is innately geared towards a sort of spatialized process of thought that takes the heterogeneous elements of pure duration (becoming) and makes them homogenous (thus the birth of language, conceptual thought, mathematics and categorical thinking). This is where I tend to side more with Deleuze who does not agree with Heidegger that Nietzsche is a thinker of the Subjectivist tradition, since N is really trying to break the idea of the Subject which is itself a product of extensive thought and abstracting as Bergson will say with his analogy of the Social Life and Social Self (very similar to Heidegger's They-Self and critique of Descartes!). Politics and Science miss Nietzsche's core critique, which is far more radical than you make it out to be, since both of these domains of knowledge rely on precisely this Essentializing of Consciousness through the Understanding - something which N himself attacks in his works. Eternal Return is tricky, and I kind of agree with you in that N may not have really meant it as a metaphysical principle, but as both Heidegger and Deleuze point out in their exegesis the concept is far too amicable to the Will-to-Power to ignore it as a merely ethical imperative. I'm not too sure why you are confusing the ontological interpretation of ER with impressing it into Science (whatever that would mean?). For Deleuze, WTP is the element of Pure-Difference and Eternal Return is Pure-Repetition, both of these are ontological concepts, not Scientific. I would rec you to read Heidegger's Nietzsche (specifically Volumes 3 and 4) as well as Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy (short but packed with insights) even if you do end up dis-agreeing they offer a lot of depth in one's understanding of not only Nietzsche but also the course of 20th century Post-Structuralist thought.

Deleuze

>>16047672

I recently heard a guy on a podcast talking about Deleuze's philosophy and it seems exactly what I'm looking for.

main points of it according to the dude were
>reality is a hostile unknowable mystery that doesn't give a shit about you
>one has to meet this process with active creativity by tracing "lines of flight" through deterritorialized and reterritorialized zones
>basically Heraclitean becoming + Nietzsche + coherentist model of truth

Is this correct and if so, which texts or resources specifically explore these? The idea of Being as a dark chaotic feral surge outside of reason really appeals to me.
I already have Anti-Oedipus but it seems like an elaborate exercise in ironic wanking. Is this just Guatarri dragging Deleuze down?

>The story goes like this: pseuds are captured by a Landian singularity as empty technobabble and edgy posturing lock into cheesiness take-off. Grammatically awkward obsolete cyberpunk prose meltdowns thought in auto-fellating buzzword incontinence. As post-Virtual Futures tantrums try to manufacture intelligence, secluded bullshitters modernize, upgrade alt-right paranoia, and refuse to get a grip. The cringiness climbs through a series of Myspace posts. Bourgeois Décadence Disguised as Anti-Anthropocentric Rationality trashes Decent Deleuze Scholarship, Worthy Schizoanalytic Praxis, the First and Second Terminator, and Deleuzo-Nietzscheanism, cranking up capitalist ideology through compressing phases of narcissistic self-victimization…

He's right about everything isn't he.

>>14570489
>He doesn’t know that 4chan is a rhizome

Look at this fraud, this charlatan, this profoundly evil man.

Who should I read before starting with Deleuze? Spinoza, Husserl and Nietzsche seem to be a good starting point but I was wondering if I missed anyone. What should I read by them? Cheers

Where should I start with Deleuze?

>chapter name spoils the contents

>>12501822
Get a load of this pseud.

Time to drop out

>>12472580
horrendous profile.

>>12454515

>>12421866
>that dust

I don't even care if they don't get read that often but for God sakes buy a duster.

>not wholeheartedly loving someone down to their stretchmarks and bodily fluids