Deleuze general

dlete

>post-structuralists/post-modernists
Why is post modernism getting shilled so hard here

Aesthetics

D&G themselves suggested in interviews to start reading it at 15 even if you know nothing and to just keep rereading it until you get it.

Because it’s the most cutting edge inquiry into the world there is

>it
What?

Start with Desert Islands then proceed to the last two chapters of A Thousand Plateaus and finish it in order from there.

>Why haven't you read him yet?
I'm too fucking dumb and poorly read.

Where do I start with this fag I've read Kant and Hegel if that matters

>it's like sex in literary form.
clearly written by a woman.
stick to Vogue magazines, please

i would start with D&G's "What Is Philosophy"

Cinema I&II are probably the most widely read Deleuze books when it comes to Deleuze being taught at universities. so it's a good starting point as well.

really it depends on what you want to get from your readings: are you a quietist, or do you have an application for your study?

OP is deleuzed in the comatorium

double posting

if you want context you should also read Spinoza and Bergson, Deleuze was heavily influenced by them.

also, let me know if you want to try to get a Deleuze reading group going! I'm reading ATP but we can do something else.

Read some Lacan first, like half a book. Lacan is trash don't waste too much time here.

Then Anti-Oedipus > A Thousand Plateaus.

Now read some stand alone Guattari, like half a book. Guattari is trash, your reading him so you can learn to separate Guattari's influence from Deleuze's work.

What is queitism? Not talking about what you read so people don't realize you are a brainlet pseud? If so, sign me in!

>Read some Lacan first
The problem is, to even make Lacan slightly intelligible you need a working knowledge of practically Freud's entire corpus

Wtf does he want

philosophy for pleasure/therapy

Deleuze? he was a crypto-fascist, he wrote a guide on how to conduct warfare in the 21 century?

I'm not even kidding,

Deleuze started the Great Meme War

Deleuze literally taught the Israeli army they needed to blow up all the walls in Palestine.

Anti-oedipus.

How do you know my name?

Ah yes, the Bad Company technique

I'd be interested, but I haven't read Anti-Oedipus yet?

you can read ATP without having read Anti-Oedipus.

always lol at that quote of D&G when they had to deal with actual schizos and couldn't stand them

K I'm just gonna start anti-oedpius, I've dealt with enough phil to know that reading every "pre-req" usually isn't worth it

Read Deleuze's books on Nietzsche and Spinoza first and then all the rest of it

Thread theme.
youtube.com/watch?v=H17tf7Pe7J0

Deleuze is the only philosopher I keep notes on, because it's the only way I'm able to retain his language at all. I just keep a giant acentric list of words he uses and continually add definitions, explanations, and connections to each term and try to use it as rhizomatically as possible to avoid the pigeon hole of metaphors and explication.
One of his biggest projects was transcending the stultifying problem of structuralism. The structuralists locked themselves into a permanent Oedipal relationship with reality by positing that language is merely representational of noumenal reality. If there is a Real that precedes and exists entirely outside of linguistics, and our entire experience of life is through the symbolic order of language, then we exist in a state of complete loss, in which the Real will always elude us. Most of Anti-Oedipus and ATP is directly or indirectly addressing this problem, and Deleuze does manage to overcome it through the plane of immanence. Although personally I would call Deleuze more of an anti-structuralist than a post-structuralist, if that had any historical meaning.

why does everyone focus on D&G and not Difference and Repetition

I've definitely been dipping into him. I was much more enthusiastic when I started my undergrad in English Lit. But since then I've got too deep into guys like Roland Barthes and Fredric Jameson, who I think are much more into representation as an unavoidable mediation that thought has to come to terms with.

So I guess my question is, how do you see Deleuze getting around the importance of representation? As I understand it, he's putting the emphasis on representation as a symptom of a much more material or positive process. But what seems left out is the idea of recognition, Deleuze or his audience understanding these things as meaningful and part of a system of writing and reading. I saw a youtube lecture by Manuel DeLanda where he was talking about Deleuze's lesson to us being that 'we have to be affected by the mountains, by biology, by the processes of the earth' (to paraphrase). But isn't this affect a response to a symbol, i.e. a representation best understood through a study of semiotics, the semiotics of the image of the deep and unknowable mountain or whatever?

And, can materialism only ever be an abstract reminder to idealism, the idea that there's always more beneath the surface, and you're just an effect of its deep and earthy stirrings—in other words, does materialism just become another symbol?

Honestly the ideal here would be for someone to tell me I'm totally misunderstanding Deleuze. Hope these points make sense.

Nietzsche and Philosophy is good, but I haven't read Difference and Repetition.

I think you know the answer to your question though though. Does the average Veeky Forums guy want to read a rigorous technical response to phenomenology or read about lobsters and nomads and capitalism?