So I know you have to read Anti-Oedipus before Nick Land, but what do you read before Deleuze and Guattari? Just the basics of Freud?
So I know you have to read Anti-Oedipus before Nick Land, but what do you read before Deleuze and Guattari...
Chase Young
Other urls found in this thread:
Gavin Sanders
Nick Land is fucking worthless and not part of any serious conversation
As far as D&G are concerned, you should have working knowledge of Hegel, Nietzsche, Reich, Marx and Engels as well as Freud
Jordan Morales
Nietzsche, Spinosa and Lacan. But Deleuze was a major philosophy autist and he can draw influence from the weirdest places, so, essentially, you have to be familiar with the whole canon.
Lucas Green
>Nick Land is fucking worthless and not part of any serious conversation
Maybe, but he's at least weird enough to be an engaging read, and I'd like to know what exactly he's reacting to/against.
Jacob Perez
Land was reacting to the more defeatist strains of 20th century Marxism. After consuming sufficient quantities of "research chemicals" he stopped seeing the antagonism between the continuation of capitalism and the destruction of humanity as a bad thing.
Bentley Kelly
deleuze literally says in the first pages of negotiations that u should not follow any cannon and should not listen to these who say "read x before y"
Matthew White
Anti-Oedipus will be much easier if you know your Freud. Read Freud and lots of it.
Logan Ramirez
>should not follow any cannon
So we should push the cannon forward and then make sure we stay behind it?
Oliver Ramirez
>Dude capitalism and schizophrenia
Read something worth your time user
Kayden Allen
at least deleuze thinks about the creative act (doing art,science, philosophy) as resisting any objectively defined criteria (philosophy/art/science is x and only x). If you want to make something new it has to be something that resists appropriating and, well, for Deleuze, interesting. So it is not really the need to push forward the cannon or to sustain as it is, but to create new concepts, affects that do not concede with pre-defined norms.
Deleuze talks about it in "What is creative act?" (there's video in youtube i think)
Nathaniel Smith
>make stupid joke about your misspelling of "canon" (a "cannon" is a weapon)
>you give me a thoughtful intelligent reply
Egg's on my face, user.
I realize what Deleuze was saying, but a person without any sort of background in psychology or philosophy will be totally lost 10 pages into Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus. Neither is easy to understand if you don't grasp the medical model of schizophrenia
Bentley Hall
Deleuze's philosophy is a transcendental philosophy of immanence
If you don't understand that phrase you will probably have a hard time with his work with Guattari
Deleuze is certainly interested in defying canonicity, linearity, and conceptual stagnation, in a certain specific sense. And in a way, and that's precisely what his works with Guattari have accomplished, when you look at the 98% of people who use them and realize all those people are braindead social psychologists who create stagnant consensuses and localized canonical understandings of "Deleuze for Social Psychologists." Maybe Deleuze's sense of anti-canonicity and rhizomatic conceptual networking would find that interesting, but I'm not sure he'd be happy to know that his work is mostly read by dilettantes, and not by people who can understand the first sentence of this post, and take it as an invitation to become conceptually and cognitively nomadic.
Carson Cook
...
Michael Sanders
oh my god im a lil bit drunk and now feel stupid
I dont really know if there is another hidden joke when u talk about schizophrenia, but Deleuze literally said that he has never met schizophrenic. It is on the conceptual plane, not medical that he talks about it.
>I realize what Deleuze was saying, but a person without any sort of background in psychology or philosophy will be totally lost 10 pages into Anti-Oedipus or A Thousand Plateaus.
In a way I agree, if someone without any knowledge of philosophy or psychoanalysis would try to tackle these works it would be painful, but on the other hand privileging some approach over the other is very un-Deleuzian (he talks about it in his Abc's when discussing thousand plateus). He literally says that he views his work as a box of conceptual tools, either they work for you and you use them or you throw them away.
Cooper Hernandez
>Nick Land is fucking worthless
Grayson Turner
>He hasn't been involuntarily hospitalized and diagnosed with schizophrenia
>He hasn't asked his father, who visits him daily, to pick up an obscure book he only vaguely remembers the title of "Capitalism and Schizophrenia"
>He hasn't spent the remainder of his hospital stay, kneeling on the floor of his sterile room, reading said book to the sounds of the screaming of the other patients
>He hasn't had that moment where it all makes sense and he feels himself as the locus of the desire flows while muttering to himself repetitively "I am the body without organs, I am the body without organs, I am the body without organs"
I feel bad for you user.
Angel Green
>transcendental philosophy of immanence
If it is so important, please,explain what that means.
Bentley Martinez
>If you don't understand that phrase you will probably have a hard time with his work with Guattari
if you think that knowing what a few concepts mean gives you some secret acess to jouissance then you're not getting the point
Carter Young
I'm pretty sure posts like these is precisely the reason some analytics look at continental phil as arrogant obfuscatory bullshit and many continentals look down on pomo French phil as autofellatory pseud nonsense. Despook yourself at once.
Jason Hill
Nicholas Phillips
...
Adam Robinson
Freud and Marx
Alexander Price
>to be fair, you need to have a very high iq to understand Anti-Oedipus
(someone finish this for me)