[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 279x200, Gilles_Deleuze.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7949427 No.7949427 [Reply] [Original]

Looking to delve into Deleuze. I've read the occasional Foucault (Abnormal, History of Sexuality) but am still largely unknown to the field of poststructuralism. Before starting with A Thousand Plateaus, I found some articles/books that might be good preparation:

-Janet Watson: Culture as Existential Territory
-Jacques Derrida: Speech and Phenomena
-Jacques Derrida: The Animal That Therefore I am

What is a good reading order? Is delving into A Thousand Plateaus the right thing or should I read Lacan/Derrida first? What parts of ATP can I skip to still get a correct understanding of Deleuze?

>> No.7949434

>>7949427
Why would you read ATP before Anti-Oedipus?

>> No.7949442

>>7949434

Copped that book the other day. You think reading A-O is the better option?

>> No.7949472

>>7949442
>>7949442
Anti-Oedipus and ATP are the two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Read them both, in that order.

To answer the question in your first post – yes, make yourself familiar with Lacan. Marx and Freud too, but if you're approaching Deleuze I'll assume I don't need to tell you that.

>> No.7949495

>>7949472

Marx and Freud should be fine. What by Lacan do I need to read? His own works or some good articles maybe?

>> No.7949531

>>7949495
Bruce Fink's 'The Lacanian Subject' and 'A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis' are the best introductory works. You'll want to look at his translation of the Écrits as well – though, along with the Seminars, that's more of a long-term reading project.

Within the Écrits perhaps start with 'The Purloined Letter', ' The Mirror Stage' or 'The Situation of Psychoanalysis and the Training of Psychoanalysts in 1956'.

There's always Zizek's videos and even 'The Sublime Object of Ideology', but unless you're interested in Zizek himself and not just what he has to say on Lacan then that wouldn't really be the most efficient use of your time.

>> No.7949533
File: 113 KB, 500x446, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7949533

SOMEONE hasn't worked their way up from the Greeks

>> No.7949556

>>7949533
"It is always perilous to approach Lacan from a philosophical point of view. For he is an anti-philosopher, and no one is entitled to take this designation lightly." - Alain Badiou, 'Lacan and the Pre-Socratics'

>> No.7949569

>>7949531
Sorry, I forgot to add – there's a reasonable summary of the seminars here:

http://www.lacan.com/seminars1.htm
http://www.lacan.com/seminars2.htm
http://www.lacan.com/seminars3.htm

>> No.7949591

>>7949427
You should read Bergson´s Creative Evolution and Delueze's own work on Bergson. If you can get Descombes's "The Same and the other" that would be a good introduction on the whole french philosophy movemente from the XX century.

Zizek's "Organs Without Body" It's good too.

>> No.7949603

>Reading post structuralism without reading Heidegger

I hope you're not doing this fampai

>> No.7949607

>>7949531
>>7949569
>>7949591

And what do you think of Derrida's works Speech and Phenomena and The Animal That Therefore I am, are they books that are readable by their own? Should I first read Derrida, then Lacan, then Deleuze, or Lacan > Deleuze > Derrida?

Thanks for the feedback btw

>> No.7949611

>>7949427

Why has everyone including me developed an interest in reading Capitalism and Schizophrenia lately? How largely is understanding Nietszche, Plato and Derrida's works in being able to comprehend it.

>> No.7949627

>>7949603
By this logic you would need to go through Aristotle and Cassirer to read Heidegger. So it's best to start reading what you're actually interested at and go from there. Also, you're shitposting.

>> No.7949638

>>7949627
Heidegger is the gatekeeper to the twentieth century. All the post structuralists are responding to him. It must be done

>> No.7949643

>>7949611

Because my BA sociology didn't cover enough poststructuralism (and what it covers was mostly limited to Foucault).

>> No.7949647

why do u want to read deleuze though? dudes just want to read this shit cause it's in vogue within leftist academia circles and to look cool, fucking shit. i want do delve into deleuze blah blah but I NEVER READ NIETZSCHE AND MARX

FUCKING DUMB

>> No.7949650

>>7949647

I have, though.

>> No.7949682

Derrida doesn't have anything to do with Deleuze, he's a post-Heideggerian philospher like Levinas or Gadamer, it just so happens he's frenh and from that generation.

Anyway I recommend reading Difference and Repetition or one of his work on philosopher which inspired him, better if you already familiar with their doctrine. Anti-Oedipus is so dated it reeks of 68.

Oh and check Badiou's book about, although I don'tknow if it's been translated in english.

>> No.7949702

>>7949682
You're right about Derrida. Just a note about the Badiou book, I think its pretty widely recognized as a bad reading of Deleuze. That doesn't mean don't read it, but just keep that in mind

>> No.7949943

>>7949627
this. the notion that there is an arborescent approach to doing things (ie do this before you do this before you do this...) is one of the things D&G rail against in their concept of 'rhizome'.

the best way is to pick up what you're interested in and go from there.

>> No.7950052

Deleuze is a fucking meme-tier philosopher. You're going to open that book once, not understand a word, and never pick it up again.

>> No.7950067

I just read Deleuze recently and it was wonderful.

Braidotti's "Deleuze and Feminist Thought" is a blast as well, a lot of good stuff about the monstrous.

A chunk of my final papers and projects this semester now have a good deal of Deleuze in them where they didn't before the other week, I'm looking forward to reading more this summer

>> No.7950077

Just read it with one of the many supplemental guides.

>> No.7950079

>>7949627
>By this logic you would need to go through Aristotle and Cassirer to read Heidegger
Aristotle and Cassirer are actually coherent philosophers, so that wouldn't be a bad idea.