This is what reading looks like

this is what ressentiment looks like

Is the author jewish? I'm guessing he is. Few people have the ability to say so little in so many lines.

Worse... He's a frenchman

I'm french.

My condolences.

I'm sorry to hear that

rest in power

>ressentiment
what's that?

psychological/philosophical concept that describes a creation of value system/scapegoat which functions to explain why someone who made you feel inferior is that way. E.g. you read something you can't understand, get frustrated and annoyed then start looking for explanations that would avoid blaming your own ignorance so you start blaming writers ethnicity (comments above). It is now me who is stupid but the fault is that the writer is jewish/french and etc

?

Attached: foxandthegrapes.png (688x1434, 112K)

DK effect

I would harbor no resentment against certain people if they weren't trying to kill my people. I see it on the hordes of immigrants, advertisements and the like every single day, don't think you'll be able to dissuade me with a witty reply trying to pressure flip(which is a remarkably jewish trait btw).
t. frog

>brainlets have to visually signal their engagement with the text

Basically the literary equivalent of counting with your fingers.

Useful if you're going to write an academic paper on the subject, because you need to make sure you quote things and summarize things just right. If you're reading for yourself, it's a bit tryhard.

very similar
I think if we try to explain ressentiment with DK some portion of the phenomena escapes, because (im not very familiar with it, only read up on wiki) DK tries to do away with cognitive ability (showing off where there is lack of it) whereas ressentiment is creative (e.g. slave morality in nietzsche's philosophy
not trying to dissuade you, all im trying to show you that it is easier to blame or brush off things (calling something the product of jewishness) than to try understanding. and whats a pressure flip?

The worst part the ones like OP's where they deliberately go for le super engaged genius aesthetic using irrational different markers and just highlighting almost everything, basically the literary pseud equivalent of random green hacker letters on a screen to represent complex processes going on.

These people are obsessed with the artefacts of intellectualism way more than the actual work of it. It's like fatherless young men trying to reclaim masculinity with facial hair, brown spirits and old timey hobbies, or ugly fat girls donning Dito Von Teese outfits in the hope that it will trick people into mistaking accessories of sex appeal for the thing itself.

Everyone is confusing representations for the thing itself. I bet there was some 20th century French philosopher with something to say about that.

My copy looks similar, but it's a digital copy.

Also, how does Deleuze literally arrive at pure (intensive, qualitative) difference no matter who he reads? I'm honestly surprised he hasn't done the same for Kant (unless I don't recall correctly his book about him) or Hegel (whom he opposes outright). His entire career is "this thing I vaguely found in Nietzsche applies to everyone ever if I'm the one reading them". And he dares to complain about "interpretosis" in intellectuals and about translations (such as translating any system, no matter how complex, into the matter-form system).

Still love Deleuze though, but he can be very annoying.

Attached: 17626253_1002405589901493_7403478581249253265_n.jpg (640x628, 36K)

For what it's worth user, I agree with you and am glad to see someone using the Nietzschean concept correctly (of course it can be argued that it's a pre-nietzschean concept since iirc he got it from French moralists or whatever).

Attached: 1484170_1557193277907408_4623920538146906255_n.jpg (640x582, 42K)

this

It's also easy to reduce any criticism to scapegoat status. We can use other examples, if you like. I think pretty much everyone on Veeky Forums agrees boomers were dealt an amazing hand and left their younger counterparts a shit deal because they were too busy being hippie hedonists. Is this scapegoating? Some might characterize it as such. Is it a lie? No, it isn't.
>than to try understanding
Understanding is exactly what I'm am(or we are) doing. I didn't take this out of my ass. One can see patterns, and when these patterns go back centuries and are right 9/10, there is a very good chance you're on target. If the government suppresses your ability to discuss it you can now be sure you're on target.
A pressure flip is, instead of facing the argument, passing the ball for the opponent via trickery. One example would be trying to discredit the other, fitting the person into some stereotype and ignoring any arguments posed. Then it becomes about trying to taint the other person's credibility, instead of debating, all the while ignoring the argument. Convenient, no?

LOL

rise in perseverance

Attached: HOW ABOUT I SLAP YOUR SHITE.jpg (293x208, 16K)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Deleuze may be worse than Hegel

>this is what coloring looks like

What did Philostratus mean by this?

Attached: DLZAzq5UEAARsH_.jpg (685x204, 33K)

>It's also easy to reduce any criticism to scapegoat status
I agree with you on this and I think I understand your concern. I personally hate this moralistic technique especially when some kind of sensitive topic is touched (e.g. holocaust, feminism, racial questions etc) the only way to approach them for some people (esp. politically correct) is trying to shove in the person asking the questions into predetermined stereotypes brushing off the weight intertwined with these topics. This way you get a set of some sacred topics you have to approach very very carefully or else you'll be outcasted. I just would like to point out and hope you agree, that one thing that certainly happens is that this generates a reaction of equally irrationalistic explanations of why certain things are prohibited (bloody neo-marxists are behind everything that is bad in this society).

There are mistakes in both sides: some say everything is a scapegoat, while others say everything is due to X or Y. The problem here is you're judging arguments according to society's reaction to them, as opposed to judging the arguments themselves. You're looking for justification outside the "debate environment", essentially injecting more emotion into the topic. The closest one can get to impartially debating heavy issues is to "stay within the debate atmosphere". That is, caring about the offered arguments alone, and not about the behaviour of external groups.
tldr: what matters is the argument itself, not which external groups stand by it, meaning you judge the proposition, not whether losers or winners abide by that. And I think this sums it up best, because the argument can be that certain groups are using their influence to push a narrative, and that accusation is founded on observations, which are then debated. This is different from trying to discredit an argument based on something like "fat neckbeards swear by it", this is bringing external groups into the conversation, but not to smear via guilt by association, which was my original point.

Why? Is his prose horrible? Are his ideas not well worded?

Agreed. What is the purpose of highlighting a whole sentence, then circling a word in that sentence that is already italicized by the author?

Then, later, in several highlighted sentences, part of the first sentence is underlined in red, but not the italicized Latin which encapsulates the sentence.

The only acceptable justification for this particular mess is if the book had multiple owners, who each had their own annotation style.

>one you're trying to learn and retain something
>other you're casually chilling like a villain

both activities are legitimate

>what matters is the argument itself, not which external groups stand by it, meaning you judge the proposition, not whether losers or winners abide by that.
Yes I agree with that, and i want to make clear that I didn't imply that you can 'judge propositions according to society's reaction to them', what i meant is that certain irrational defences can give birth to reverse irrational fears and then there is no room for rational discussion only fighting ('you're racist! how dare you speak about it!' or 'I can tell everything about this thinker/book even though I havent read it, but he is jewish/french so it is subversive-evil trickery')

Isn't reading without retention like eating food only to induce vomiting afterwards?

nah, you're likely to retain some of what you read, or retain the salient parts or the gist of the material without really analyzing it.

but if you STUDY the material you are likely to take away much, much more.

You can apply the same principle to watching movies.

This is what common core looks like

Attached: D40C0F8E-073B-4A28-9500-3F688C4C9BBA.jpg (623x416, 38K)

As I said, there will hardly ever be an absence of stances based on irrational fear or whatever you might call it. Not everyone can rationally discuss, so all there's left to do is try, within our individual limitations, to guarantee that those with the disposition to rationally debate are left alone to, well, debate. The thing is that doesn't happen in topics like the holocaust. Debate is forbidden. So it is only expected that it will attract angry/reactive people. Allowing true debate would favor rational discussion.
In regards to ignoring an author due to ethnicity, it comes down to one's goals. Most people don't want nor have the time to endlessly search through authors from different backgrounds and perspectives on a given topic, and rightly so, most books are not groundbreaking. So if a common person notices authors from a certain background lie or beat around the bush 90% of the time, it is reasonable that they would ignore that kind of author.
>but he might lose that 10% which adds something to the conversation!
It's much more likely that it will be a waste of time. Time that person could spend with their family, working on their career or whatever. You can't expect people to read all kinds of authors in search of different perspectives.
So the only answer to diminish irrational debate is to allow rational discussion to take place, something that doesn't happen.

The logic of mixing divisible and indivisible described here makes no sense. God makes a mixture of divisible and indivisible. Now what? Why is it significant that God obtains "only" A + B/2 = C? Why is the arithmetical expression here representative of a mixture at all? Why does A mixed with B correspond to A +B/2 = C?

The only answer as to why A mixed with B corresponds to that expression is that it is "precisely because the divisible, B, escapes the mixture and shows its inequality and oddness." However, I could equally give the answer that the correspondence is precisely because the divisible is trapped in the mixture, and split in it, so that one half is in the product, C, and the other half is in the unmixed components, A + B/2, and that in this way the entire expression is one the one hand unequal because of the difference in components and products, and on the other hand indivisible since one side is meaningless without the other, thus the entire expression is the actuality of the divisible and indivisible, and God is satisfied.

The point is that my explanation, as well as his explanation, are equally bullshit. There is no logic, there is no necessary connection between the constituent parts of my sentences. The outward form of equality, that I keep talking about the same things, is all that's preserved, but as I talk I introduce new concepts, so eventually I'm not talking about what I started with, and there is a feeling of "progress" in thought, when in reality there is nothing done.

I'm going to need some background schema to understand what you and him are talking about. I get what you mean when you imply that his conclusions or premises don't logically follow each other.

You guys need to keep the Timaeus in mind.
Commentary will seem ungrounded without proper context.

this

Usually what Deleuze is getting at is pluralism, the notion that there are multiple "elements" that cannot be brought together in a final unity, meaning there are qualities which are irreducible to quantity as quantity tends to reduce everything to one criterion.

His phrasing is always weird, especially when he talks about other philosophers (in this case Plato), so I'm not sure it's exactly the same point, but it usually is.

Attached: 20785822_1713883995586939_3874112752917775618_o.jpg (1000x750, 87K)

I love highlighting and notes but that looks fucking disgusting.

Smug Pepe?
You cheeky cunt

No it isn't. That's what bad reading looks like.

How to save time. Just use a pen to bracket off the paragraph or whatever size text you want and write next to it. Done. It also looks much cleaner. Plus if you really want you can highlight key words for later.

>I think pretty much everyone on Veeky Forums agrees boomers were dealt an amazing hand and left their younger counterparts a shit deal because they were too busy being hippie hedonists.
See this is textbook scapegoating mixed with dunningkruger. You're trying to blame the sexual habits of our parents for the existence of economic cicles.

how ironic

Not the same guy, but economic cycles don't excuse their behaviour. None of the previous generations did what they did.

They did nothing wrong.

Just an example

your annotation strategy does not serve you by functioning to unpack the text but rather merely highlights the sentences that tickle your sensibility

keep hunting to carry the mindless bulk of information youve determined haul around to augment whatever unfortunate porous filter it is you use to interact with in the world

Attached: ar.jpg (1224x1632, 731K)

What book is that?

this, OP is a brainlet