Literal fucking gibberish, who takes this garbage seriously?

It's not even that hard to understand desu

Relax dude. Tell me again whether or not you disagree with this statement:

"authors should try harder to communicate than obfuscate"

I've not read it but is it really as hard as people say? Like Phenomenlogy-tier hard?

>can't even dismantle the authors arguments

Nobody sane.

read this

What's Boutang all about and what's his relation to D&G?

I want to get into them

>You need to be schizophrenic to understand this book, so it's your own fault if it doesn't make sense

>Like Phenomenlogy-tier hard?

lol nothing on this planet is Phenomenology of Spirit-tier, except perhaps Being and Time.

It is idiotic May 68 garbage. Should absolutely not be taken seriously.

That said, it's one of the most entertaining things I've ever read. The sheer exuberance and wackiness of it.

Well he's refuting their system in parts of this book.

From the editor's page :
"As he approaches the debris of desire, the author hears the galloping hooves of the four horses in the Revelation of St John. His reaction is not despair; just as St John’s text does not end in disaster. But before continuing, there is some rubble to clear away. In metaphysics, to clear away is to recognize, to invite others to recognize. Consequently the author reveals the deadly effects of the idealism of the ‘Enlightenment’, of psychoanalysis, of Deleuze’s ‘desire machines’. After demonstrating how desire was ‘unmasked’ during three centuries of theoretical and practical error, the author establishes, or re-establishes, a free will whose tragedy and glory was understood only by Christianity. Assembling the Fathers of the Church and modern thinkers such as Kierkegaard (and even, on rare points of convergence, Heidegger), he designates the hope, fundamental and constitutive, of all desire. Built on faith in the Christian revelation and the specifically Catholic idea of man in God’s image, he brings us a philosophy which permits man who has recognized his supernatural origin to access authentic release."

if you aren't intensely familiar with pre-and-postwar french literature, Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalyses, Kleinian part-object theory, Guattari's anti-psychiatric positions, Deleuze's philosophy (both his monograms and his philosophical treatises, which themselves require intensive understanding of the entire western philosophical canon), and all of Marx, then yeah, Anti-Oedipus isn't going to make a lick of sense to you. stop being a fucking pleb and read books.

But the problem isn't the 'philosophically untrained' because some of the most esteemed authors of the 20th century have criticised this very tendency. Even Foucault himself admitted that much of this style is just needless obfuscation. It's fair to argue that there is merit in this kind of philosophy but completely pathetic to deny that it is at all problematic

>Foucault himself admitted that much of this style is just needless obfuscation
Source?

>I'm too stupid to understand it therefore it's shit

>there are people who think this book is hard to read

this desu

did you read it in the original French?
if not, do that.
if so, retread it.

if still no je comprends pas, you're regarded. feel shame, and submit.

Disregard any philosophers who do not follow Schopenhauer's maxim(s) on the clarity of writing.

Pure ideology.

You ever see Akira? Remember Tetsuo, when he became that enormous, amorphous, all-consuming blob? That's the desiring machine unbounded.

He admitted to it a few times when asked by colleagues as the press. Google "Foucault admits to obscurantism." You could do the same for Derrida. I read somewhere that Foucault accused him of the same thing only worse. This is fairly well known, that is, if you didn't suspect it already.

>2016
>still not understanding french pedagogy
yeah dude searle is really good am I right

pretty cool, I'll try to check him out

You ever see Akira? Remember, it's a rip-off of an episode in Gravity's Rainbow.

Pynchon has read D&G deeply.

It's pretty clear from these statements that he's taking the piss. His sense of humor is totally self-deprecating enough to take a jab at himself and, by extension, the philosophical tradition he's working in. And honestly, while his earlier works are much more dense, by the time he got to his most famous works like Madness and Civilization, Birth of the Clinic, Discipline and Punish, and a History of Sexuality, his writing is pretty clear imo. Dense, but easy to tell what he's talking about.

And re Derrida, his books are a demonstration of his thesis that meaning in language is subject to slippage and recontexualization that weaves meaning in and out of nonsense. Sure, you can criticize his approach to illustrating this, but his motive for writing in a difficult style is far from 'lol he's just makin shit up becuz he got nothin to say'

Yeah, but you know, for being able to know that you have to read and shit and woah who has time for that.

good post user. People who say that Foucault is obscurantist either don't have read any work by him or is clearly obtuse lol STEM fags

chomsky BTFO of foucaults charlatanism
youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE

*chomsky BTFO by foucaults charlatanism

>You ever see Akira? Remember, it's a rip-off of an episode in Gravity's Rainbow.
what do you mean by this

> literally no person complains about this in the sciences
The sciences don't obfuscate. It's simply impossible to simplify hard science to the point a layman can understand it without it also massively losing accuracy to the point it's little but trivia. Chemistry is both clearer and more complex than alchemy

>sciences don't obfuscate

Hahahaha, absolutely not. Ever heard of p-hacking? Scientists are nervous that they'll lose their funding for a failed experiment, so they add confounding variables, tweak data, and outright lie sometimes to get a "significant" result. You'd never know unless you have a really good handle on statistics or go to the trouble of replicating the experiment. Sure, the theoretical bases of science are solid--for instance, it's easy to understand and explain that molecules are made of atoms and other such factual statements about the nature of the universe--but scientists absolutely obscure their findings to push a certain result or agenda. They actually have a lot to gain by skewing their results so they can get grants and funding. Only another expert in the field would know that the results are not honest, but to the more untrained committee dispersing grants, everything looks accurate. For sure it's a different kind of obscurantism from that of philosophy, but the end result is the same: to cover up the lack of originality and insight in order to trick others into thinking a breakthrough has occurred.

Example article about p-hacking: fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

>you're regarded

seriously how is akira related to GR

This.

Also:

Reading D&G requires giving up the presupposition that the text is, as it were, "self-explanatory" or "self-evident." In A Thousand Plateaus there is the essay On Regimes of Signs which details how all signs gain their meaning in relation to historical events mediated by the observer. As such, and this is one of the main reasons for their "obscure" style of writing, it requires the reader to "read into" their work to find meaning.

It should be read as an experimental style, under-determined in meaning except for the meaning the viewer imputes. The meaning you get out of it, is the meaning you're meant to find.

Here's some hacks which might help (although they aren't necessary):

desiring machine = capitalism = living bodies

body without organs = mind = self-subsistent form = prime matter

state apparatus = universalizing impulse = fascist = gnostic spectacle

Others who have read the books might disagree, but that's kind of the point.

good bost

neither of those are difficult, just dull

literally a wikipedia paragraph can summarize all of hegel and heidegger and then you can just think about it and not have to actually read their texts

>literally a wikipedia paragraph can summarize all of hegel and heidegger and then you can just think about it and not have to actually read their texts
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

While I do agree with them, I gotta say any D&G influenced philosopher is great for this.

They're full on out there, it's almost a psychedelic experience to follow D&G or Nick Land's argumments.

I remember taking a course on Kafka: For a Minor Literature and leaving the classes physically exhausted in levels I've only felt playing squash or walking for kms

And Kafka is pretty much one of their simpler works, but the professor had this bizarre relation with them in which he disagreed with a lot of shit but also needed some of their tools to conceptualize some stuff or some shit, so the guy both understood and "kept a distance" (not that it's possible to)

I mean it is. If they had something important to say, one would think they might attend to how they say it. And yes people in the sciences complain about it all the time, so much so that most intro science courses require some sort of style text (which is pretty dumbed down shit) to ensure an education in communicability. And that is why professional philosophy will forever be banished to it's impotent, irrelevant, ivory tower (not to mention that Anti Oedipus isn't meant to be a professional philosophical texts anyways. Deleuze and Guatarri were working against academia in producing this. They just did a shit job; and also, like they went on record as having said shit like "just write this shit down" so yeah it does fall on those bastards for being idiot writers so your whole argument is fucking dumb, kid).

>stop liking what I don't like

Never said I didn't like it. I've only read selections, but I happen to think Deleuze is kinda interesting. But fuck me if D+G knew how to write.

Also, 3/10 bait. I gave you one because I responded.

only reasons to read Dolce & Gabbana is to impress art girls and better understand Nick Land

gullible idiots

it's unintelligible

>D&G are writing from a particular position in which their language is intentionally difficult and obtuse in order to depower their own fascistic impulse

holy shit you just raised my blood pressure by 10 bips

great counterargument, aren't you so catlike & clever?

blah blah blah blah

literally zero substance whatesovever

sadly, both of these causes are fool's errands. art girls are never as patrish up close as they seem from a distance and nick land has failed to see the green pill and taken the redpill instead. the salvation of philosophy is in the hands of sloterdjik

How do you trick yourself into believing this shit?

read the logic of sense instead

You first need to have an argument to get a "counter-one", sorry friend

(Protip :
>literally a wikipedia paragraph can summarize all of hegel and heidegger and then you can just think about it and not have to actually read their texts
isn't an argument, it's illiterate shit)

That's because difficult to understand sciences produce things like nuclear explosives and digital computers whereas difficult philosophy just produces piles of obfuscatory paper and groped coeds.

Nothing depowers you like intentionally scrawling obscurantist nonsense and then looking smugly down on anyone who says you're full of shit as a pathetic plebeian.

Agreed, philosophy is the best subject to study in uni because it allows you to avoid having to talk to plebs and you get to have sex with hot coeds.

As long as we're on this subject, modern philosophy is clearly just a recent sort of occultism. You've got esoteric bullshit mind games purporting to unlock the mysteries of existence, layered pretenses of sophistication to allow for plenty of eyebrow-raising at the insufficiently initiated, and of course dumb chicks to sucker into deviant sex.

Which makes sense since philosophy was essentially birthed from the greco-egyptian mystery cults.

What is it about French philosophy that brings out all the illiterate dregs on this board? I have never seen so many people admit they don't know how to read as when this book is brought up.

i think part of this is there way of poking fun at lacan

nu sophistry

French philosophy is sophistry.

no, it's because obfuscation in science is unacceptable. Nobody in the natural sciences is taken seriously if they express a thought unclearly so as to make it harder to criticize, whereas doing this is not only common practice but required in order to be taken seriously in many areas of philosophy

you know that most mathematics invented so far are too complicated for most people. Ho wait, you do not know because you are a shitty 20 yo undergrad.

>Being against Capitalism is fascistic brah.
>If they were really aiming at anti-capitalism they would have told the workers so brah.
> It's too hard for me brah, so the workers didn't get that shit.
>Trump 2012 Amirite?

Basically condensed your argument for you.(Yours was too complicated so I worded it for the workers)

Idk about Anti-Oedipus (since I havnt read much of it), but Difference and Repetition makes some appreciable points. Also, I quite enjoyed reading it.

Do you even know what "obfuscation" means?

>implying "art girls" (TERF bangs, don't shave, like Grimes, etc.) know who D&G even are
>implying this will contribute positively in any way to the ever decreasing likelihood of you banging one of them

THE PHILOSOPHICALLY UNTRAINED SHOULD NOT BE WRITING BOOKS TO BEGIN WITH

IF YOU CANT ARTICULATE A THOUGHT CLEARLY IN YOUR OWN MIND THEN WHAT THE FUCK MAKES YOU THINK ANYONE ELSE IS GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT

MUDDLE IN, MUDDLE OUT

FUCK OFF WITH THIS HEGELIAN CLAPTRAP

they are philosophically trained in fact they are able to actively apply philosophy to the writing (and reading) of philosophy itself. remember derrida's critique of the parergon?

(gangster popeye font)
the only DERRIDA i can READ
is DAIRY
duh
ANY QUESTIONS???

lel trained in what school m8? You think either of these buffoons ever read Critique of Pure Reason or Essay Concerning Human Understanding?

not a fucking chance.

>remember derrida's critique of the parergon?

I'd rather have my head slammed in a car door than read such twaddle

Ok, so new fag with an average interest in Lit, and after reading some of the comments here, I am questioning who the other members that frequent this board are. Are the majority of you academics? prominent members of the intelegencia? philosophers? It seems that the majority of comments represent expansive knowledge of multiple schools of thought, with a firm grasp of intellectual developments on all fronts from since the Rennaissance. could some of you share what your profession is?

no just critique of judgment

I am the first in the East, the first in the West, and the greatest philosopher in the Western World.

you are jesus?

well that's great, congratulations !!!!

I'm a lands officer. I have a Masters of planning and a BSc in geographic information systems.
I work 35 hours a week and read and pursue other interests aggressively in my spare time.

government parasite

I mean actual art girls not girls that call themselves art girls that don't make art
D&G are huge in the art world atm

>right now
since 1999 at least

google this

google what

It's not really a matter of belief. I simply find the tools and concepts useful in developing my own when confronting complex phenomena such as capitalism, democracy, history, etc.

Philosophical development for the individual, in my experience at least, has an initial phase where the person wants to "find the truth," so they pour their efforts into determining whether determinism is true, or whether God exists, and so on. These are important questions, but past a certain point these concepts become tools in their own right to unlock higher plateaus. You move from an attempt at being systematic, to meta-systematic where systems can be set against each other to derive further conclusions.

To make an analogy with mathematics, it is like the difference between algebra, calculus, and topology. If you master algebra, you can "unlock" calculus; from here you can also unlock other mathematics domains which were previously inaccessible.

So, D&G are something more like the philosophical equivalent of topology. If you haven't mastered algebra, it will be incomprehensible. At the point you can implement a meta-systematic approach to your own philosophy, you can appreciate D&G.

In a sense, all things we believe we have only "tricked" ourselves into believing, since whatever can be named does not actually exist. Our words are discrete approximations which cannot perfectly fit the continuous contours of reality.

>who takes this garbage seriously?

I'm a college dropout. I write essays for college students. I have a lot of free time. I've published a book, working on another. I was once acquainted with a number of internet famous people and academics but I dropped out from that scene in order to clear my head.

I am exactly this except I also travel while I write essays for college students and I graduated with a double major in Philosophy/Mathematics.

What Internet Fame scene were you in, it would be funny if we were in the same place?

...

Is that sarcasm? I can never get a grip on what Veeky Forums generally thinks of Searle

Searle is literal shit, and it's a complete embarrassment to analytic philosophy academia that he's considered "good."

>lol guys, but, y'know, the mind and stuff
>it's hard
>I'm not talking about my dick
>or am I?

I bet you could have made that up or found it in a book.
Or could you.
It doesn't matter because I was talking about my dick the whole time.

>I was talking about my dick the whole time
>found it in a book

why user