How do I get into this guy's work?

How do I get into this guy's work?

I read a few chapters of "L'image-mouvement" for uni and I enjoyed it. Is "Qu'est ce que la philosophie?" a good start?

Other urls found in this thread:

protevi.com/john/DG/
www2.univ-paris8.fr/deleuze/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Read the Ecrits and stop being a pussy
Seminar 7 is also really important

Manuel Delanda if you don't have a philosophy background.

I have a little background, but not much. Not an academic background, I mean.

What do I read by this Manuel Delanda? I don't like the idea of discovering a philosopher through another writer, but why not. Also, I'm french, so I don't know if I'm really interested in reading a mexican writing in english about a french philosopher...

Syllabus:

protevi.com/john/DG/

Look up "Deleuze for the Desperate" videos on Youtube and watch them to get a feel for Deleuze's deployment of metaphor as philosophy

DeLanda is good like the other guy said

DON'T interpret Deleuze as some kind of stupid fucking metaphysician. He's basically a genetic phenomenologist concerned with breaking down sclerotic structures of thought/understanding, especially of self-understanding. Joe Hughes' book on him and Husserl is good.

Honestly, once you realize what his project is, the Guattari stuff becomes interesting mainly as a storehouse of metaphors for thinking about alterity and how to maintain/seek alterity, especially as a way of attacking bourgeois society (which is an alterity-eating alterity-hating machine).

Read his Nietzsche book, which is both mind-blowing and fairly accessible

Thanks a lot guys

If you read in French, go first for 'Dialogues' et 'Pourparlers'.
The rest depends on your interests. But be sure to keep a critical eye because there's a lot of bergsonian-nietzschean bullshit in the whole corpus.

Thanks man.

I'm studying film theory so I'm interested on his books on cinema, but overall I just have the intuition that his philosophy might strongly resonate with my life right now. I'm watching his "Abécédaire" these days and I really enjoy it.

I must disagree. Deleuze is a 'pure metaphysician' as he defines himself, and not some phenomenologist (even if you can clearly be both).

You might also be interested by his 'cours sur le cinéma' :

www2.univ-paris8.fr/deleuze/

Wow, thanks user!

There's so much philosophical content on the internet.

watch the abécédaire on youtube

"1000 years of nonlinear history" is a brilliant piece of nonfiction writing. He kind of "eases" you into Deleuzian thought by explaining key concepts such as abstract machines / haecceity / etc. through historical developments and by applying them to science, without specifically naming them. This will help you immensly as some kind of "point of reference" when actually tackling ATP or any other major work.

The lectures from the European Graduate School are also a great start. They are uploaded on YouTube.

Aristotles Metaphysics and Spinoza's Ethics should be self explanatory.

I'd only agree insofar as you can take something like William James' virtual empiricism likewise to be REALLY "metaphysical." It's poignant to say
>I reject correspondence theories of truth so hardcore that I don't even distinguish ontology from nature anymore.
but at the end of the day I think you should still do so.

Similar to some argument two fag anons were having on Veeky Forums about Nietzsche yesterday, about whether Nietzsche by deconstructing Western metaphysics becomes anti-metaphysical or hyper-metaphysical. I think it's a semantic issue to an extent, but really, people should be clear about whether they are dualists or not, no matter how extreme their "virtual" philosophy of mind is. Also, it's potentially extremely confusing for philosophy newbies to hear people talking about Deleueze as some kind of neo-Leibnizian, read hundreds of pages of Deleuze, and still not know whether that's meant in a literal sense or not. Again, at the end of the day it's helpful to just say: "No, it's a metaphor for ontology being really really fluid."

He is a metaphysician tho

just drop acid LOL! haha :)

This but unironically

I was NOT being ironic.
Apologize.

Read "Nietzsche & Philosophy", then move on to "Difference and Repetition". Read some Bergson if you want (Deleuze is, imho a Bergsonian before anything else).

Don't touch his work with Guattari. Also beware DeLanda. His work is polluted by influences from Speculative Realism which, while being interesting and fun, is not at all a serious philosophical system. Deleuze's solo work actually tries to accurately grapple with philosophical problems.

His work with Guattari and the work of most modern-day "Deleuzeans" builds on highly inaccurate readings of important texts.

His projects are just barely connected to eachother and each have their own language. Read his monographs on earlier philosophers

>Don't touch his work with Guattari
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

pseud

Guattari is literally a pseud. His engagements with other philosophers have an accuracy rating around 10%.

D&G even admitted in interviews that they didn't actually read the stuff they wrote about.

the cinema books make a lot more sense after reading Difference and Repetition

This is really funny.