/lit/ - Literature

Remember when right-wingers tried to appropriate Deleuze?
Yeah, that was pretty embarassing.

I started reading difference and repetition and it seems like instead of an investigation into metaphysics he basically sets out with the idea of creating transcendental empiricism, chooses two words “repetition” and “difference” to use as a black box and then instead of defining the words first says all the things that they can’t be because if they were those it would have imply some fascistic anti-creativity thing, and in order to give these words positive content he just cobbles together as much obscurantist “insight” into other philosophers and artists as he can and vaguely associates it with the words. I want to like Deleuze but I can’t get past his style and method.

Gilles Deleuze

How did he predict our century in such an accurate way?

>2021. I am... forgotten

Is this the final boss for ontology? Where does one go from here?

"We sometimes go on as though people can’t express themselves. In fact they’re always expressing themselves. The sorriest couples are those where the woman can’t be preoccupied or tired without the man saying “What’s wrong? Say something…,” or the man, without the woman saying … and so on. Radio and television have spread this spirit everywhere, and we’re riddled with pointless talk, insane quantities of words and images. Stupidity’s never blind or mute. So it’s not a problem of getting people to express themselves but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don’t stop people expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves; What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying. What we’re plagued by these days isn’t any blocking of communication, but pointless statements. But what we call the meaning of a statement is its point. That’s the only definition of meaning, and it comes to the same thing as a statement’s novelty. You can listen to people for hours, but what’s the point? . . . That’s why arguments are such a strain, why there’s never any point arguing. You can’t just tell someone what they’re saying is pointless. So you tell them it’s wrong. But what someone says is never wrong, the problem isn’t that some things are wrong, but that they’re stupid or irrelevant. That they’ve already been said a thousand times. The notions of relevance, necessity, the point of something, are a thousand times more significant than the notion of truth. Not as substitutes for truth, but as the measure of the truth of what I’m saying. It’s the same in mathematics: Poincaré used to say that many mathematical theories are completely irrelevant, pointless; He didn’t say they were wrong – that wouldn’t have been so bad."

What would he think of people who read him today?

Why is he disliked around here? He's a fun read overall and has some good points.

What does "metaphysical materialism" mean?
I thought metaphysics only referred to systems which transcended material conditions?

We sometimes go on as though people can’t express themselves. In fact they’re always expressing themselves. The sorriest couples are those where the woman can’t be preoccupied or tired without the man saying “What’s wrong? Say something…,” or the man, without the woman saying … and so on. Radio and television have spread this spirit everywhere, and we’re riddled with pointless talk, insane quantities of words and images. Stupidity’s never blind or mute. So it’s not a problem of getting people to express themselves but of providing little gaps of solitude and silence in which they might eventually find something to say. Repressive forces don’t stop people expressing themselves but rather force them to express themselves; What a relief to have nothing to say, the right to say nothing, because only then is there a chance of framing the rare, and ever rarer, thing that might be worth saying. What we’re plagued by these days isn’t any blocking of communication, but pointless statements. But what we call the meaning of a statement is its point. That’s the only definition of meaning, and it comes to the same thing as a statement’s novelty. You can listen to people for hours, but what’s the point? . . . That’s why arguments are such a strain, why there’s never any point arguing. You can’t just tell someone what they’re saying is pointless. So you tell them it’s wrong. But what someone says is never wrong, the problem isn’t that some things are wrong, but that they’re stupid or irrelevant. That they’ve already been said a thousand times. The notions of relevance, necessity, the point of something, are a thousand times more significant than the notion of truth. Not as substitutes for truth, but as the measure of the truth of what I’m saying. It’s the same in mathematics: Poincaré used to say that many mathematical theories are completely irrelevant, pointless; He didn’t say they were wrong – that wouldn’t have been so bad.

What are this faggots arguments for postmodernism? Does he even have any?

Does his suicide refute him? How can a life-affirming Nietzschean kill himself? Why didn't he just enjoy his pain?

>gets Nietzsche wrong

>>15938765
>say a bunch of nonsensical bullshit
>pretentious pseuds buy it and think you are a genius

Brainless hacks

>gets Nietzsche wrong

>Huh? What was that, nigga? did somebody just say something about arborescent thought? You know trees are for smokin and not for thinkin, right, Derry-D?

>Cat's foot iron claw
>Neuro-surgeons scream for more
>At paranoia's poison door
>Twenty first century schizoid man.

>Blood rack barbed wire
>Polititians' funeral pyre
>Innocents raped with napalm fire
>Twenty first century schizoid man

>Twenty first century
>Twenty first century
>Twenty first century
>Twenty first century schizoid man

>Death seed blind man's greed
>Poets' starving children bleed
>Nothing he's got he really needs
>Twenty first century schizoid man.

What did he mean by this?

>>14942780
What would I even be projecting, in this instance? I don't think you actually understand what that word means.

But regardless, where did I ever say I wanted to convince you to read it? And since when was why my opinion that important to you anyway, anon? You can just as easily read a synopsis online, or listen to an interview with the author himself, those would be far better alternatives than for me to try and mediate it for you. But the problem is that you aren't expressing a natural curiosity or interest in the book. You are only looking to disparage and ridicule. And that is why I have no interest in humouring you.

>You can cry as much as you want about how I shouldn't be asking you questions about the book
If they were genuine questions, maybe I would be inclined to respond. But we both know that isn't true. Here, I'll even link you to an in-depth podcast on the subject, just in case you ARE actually interested:

https://www.urbanomic.com/podcast/spinal-landscape/

You have no need to hear me butcher his ideas when you could just as easily listen to him talk about them yourself.

>>13356395
immanently.