Genius or hack?

No, Plato thought Heraclitus was one of the wisest philosophers of his time

Thats nice. The first time I read about H was in pkd valis, the part when he quotes him is one of my favorite in the book. He also talks about theology there. Is theology outdated in contemporary philosophy?

He's great, I used to be just another "woke" Marxist until I read Deleuze, and now I'm far-right.

go to bed, Land

Are posmo french philosophers responsable in some way of neoliberalism?

Heraclitus is solid, Plato deals with one of his disciples in Craytlus I believe

I mean Kant thought Hume was smart and shit but wrong about everything

Genius, no one understands him tho he’s incomprehensible like a true genius. Thank god for him and Baud

>Kant thought Hume was wrong about everything
t. has never read Kant

>"There are, effectively, features that justify calling Deleuze the ideologist of late capitalism"

No. That’s another school of philosophy entirely.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Cultural Marxism is, in fact, Cultural Deleuzianism-Guattarianism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Deleuzianism AND Guattarianism. Idpol is not a political philosophy unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning philosophical non-system made useful by Guattari's schizoanalysis, rhizomes and vital deterritorializing components comprising a full philosophy as defined in "What Is Philosophy?"

Many left identitarians use a modified version of Deleuzianism every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Deleuzianism which is widely used today is often called 'Cultural Marxism' and credit is given to the Frankfurt School, but many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Deleuzian non-system of difference, developed by the Liberal identitarians.

There really is a 'Cultural Marxism', developed by Adorno, Marcuse, and Walter Benjamin, but these people aren't using it; it isn't a part of the system they use. Deleuze's repetition is the philosophy of liberals: the difference in the plateaus that allocates the machinic desires against the oppressive totalities and identities that you know. Deleuze is an essential part of Guanttarianist identitarianism, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete liberal college campus. Deleuze is normally used against Frankfurters: Cultural Marxism is actually the whole system of Deleuze and Guattari with the name of Marx added. All the so-called Cultural Marxists are really Cultural Deleuzeans!

get out of Veeky Forums

>a priori synthetic judgements are possible
>causality is more than just constant conjunction
>you can go from is to ought

>these three statements comprise the totality of responses to Hume

Seems you missed the entire section of the Critique devoted to explaining the development of rational criticism from Hume's sceptical method. Kant thought Hume did not go far enough in his explanation of causality; he agrees with Hume that it's impossible to ground it in reason alone, but disagrees that this is the only possible a priori basis

Cultural Marxism = applied Gramscian theory

Neither Deleuze nor especially Guattari are nearly as important or influential as you think, especially within the Anglosphere.

I wish Deleuze and other French philosophers were MORE influential than they are. We just get this watered down shit like "check your priv" and not "check you being"

Terribke kikery desu

As much as I like copypastas, D&G talked about revolution quite a bit and their philosophy is abstract and conceptual enough to work in any context. Even Zizek admits that what he is criticizing is pseudo-deleuzian. Besides, no matter the diversity, identity and representation cannot solve the problems of difference for D&G so left-liberal identity politics, no matter how precise in designating genders upon genders, is still at best a slightly better identity based system that hides and attempts to neutralize difference. There are plateaus and desiring machines (assemblages rather) associated with identities, but the identities are still secondary since for D&G images (including signs and signals) are secondary to movements.

I'm seriously having trouble discerning whether this post is some kind of /pol/ parody or a really sincere response.

There is no difference between the two.

I enjoyed this pasta recipe, thank you

Genius. In the same way we remember Hegel, not Fichte; Heidegger, not Bergson; we will remember Deleuze, and not so much Foucault or Derrida.

>Is theology outdated in contemporary philosophy?

Well, there is philosophy of religion and religious philosophers who incorporate/focus on theology, but the majority of academic philosophers are atheists and probably a larger percentage don't include theological concerns within their work at all.

>reading jewish facists instead of italian ones
oy vey all day underneath the sun's ray

This
Except you can't compare Bergson to Heidegger, they are way to different in there fields of studies.

>we will remember Deleuze
he's already forgotten lmao

he'll be known for a while, but only as the guy who influenced Nick Land