He was literally right about everything

> GUYS, JUST BE WEIRD!

whew

really changed my life

that's not what organs mean, you transcendentalist scum.

his book on spinoza is good.

There's no discernible discussion in this thread. And no, that's not what Deleuze would want because he was againat debates.

Why don't the French have philosophers who are actually passionate about philosophy, like Wittgenstein and Parfit were?

wow bro obfuscation and hypercomplexic terms without set meaning are totally cool and not self-serving/hyperrealistic in any sense whatsoever

Deleuze was about as passionate about philosophy as you can get.

But they are literally meant to be self-serving. You're supposed to use the texts as a toolbox.

we are not body without organs

we are totality of machines producing machines...

the bwo is the breakdown of the machine spirit due to the inherent deterioration machine of capitalism, the machines frequently break and reveals the bwo

is that why he jumped out a window

he couldn't breathe due to tuberculosis so he jumped

> yfw he was wrong about gravity

I hate it when people complicate the BwO before giving the obvious empirical examples. D&G did that in AO, but they later admitted not agreeing about the concept. The ATP chapter corrects that. Basically a BwO is a way the body transforms some sensations and rejects others. There are always several BwOs, but not simultaneously. Their empirical examples are falling in love, masochism and drug use. There's a lot more to it, but it basically goes against the judgment of God concerning organ(ization)s: genitals for sex, eyes for seeing, rectum for shitting, etc. For starters, our entire body is covered in erogenous zones activating under certain conditions.

Once you get the BwO in this corporeal way you can use ot rhizomatically, connecting it with the body of capitalism, body of the tyrant, etc.

They do.

dude, like, fight capitalism with weirdness!

All I see there is a hackney and a woman, though. Where's the philosopher?

re-territorize

actually, he was left about everything

> that pic

Toppest of keks. I'm glad he took a pie to the face recently.

I am skeptical and curious what a Deleuzean science really would have to offer over more traditional conceptions of science. Sadly, he only extended it to psychology which is a dangerous game. I believe his metaphysics to be highly refined and scientific but his antipsychiatric sentiments crude. There is a danger in staring into the abyss and a reason why humans are drawn to their fragile systems of form and identity and repetition. I was reading Deleuze and Land and Delanda in college as a philosophy major when I deterritorialized too hard and had a mental breakdown. I dropped out of college and went to a psych ward. While the experience was somewhat cruel and medieval as Foucault might say, there is value to the medicine and the hierarchies and organization for the disorganized mind. Antipsychiatry, however, made me think there were conspiracies to oppress me which resulted in several subsequent breaks and incarcerations. It was not until I started returning to the classics that I began to see the value of something greater than my ego. My ego knows not what's best for me. It wants an impossible transcendence that can only be found in the illusory highs of mania, delirium, psychosis, or intoxication. Get drunk off water? Sounds like an excuse to be wasted 24/7. And that's app postmodernism is. An excuse for waste. Punishment for decadence. Through submission to God and State, I am now humbly employed as a librarian who studies the ancients in their spare time.

how much of my marx to I have brush up on if I want to go on to read deleuze, debord and then move my way on to nick land/accelerationism etc? any other recommended pre reqs?

he explains his quotes of marx

this doesnt make any sense

You should read more Deleuze. In order this time and without whatever the hell you think postmodernism is.

> stupid memes don't make sense

Debatable.

What do I need to read to understand Deleuze?

just read more, i tried reading it as a plebby stem undergrand a decade ago and i was like gosh this is hard to understand, read it again last winter after plowing through literary theory texts and now i'm like wow this is kind of boring

I read plenty already lol. I ran into his texts while studying Nietzsche, was wondering if there are other recommended preliminary readings

zionist scum

some intro freud is all you really need

some intro freud is all you really need

oh god now that dfw died that dude is the number one pseud on the planet lol

well you should probably read some marxist shit too, and have a general knowledge of european modern history etc. idk

Idk. I was trolling. Maybe some day when I am far older perhaps. I missed out on a lot of the richness of philosophy only learning by lectures and selections in my classes. On a circuitous journey of discovering and understanding everything properly this time. I like to blame my mental breakdown on Deleuze but it probably had more to do with environmental stressors and age. Anyway, surpisingly, philosophical training is mostly useless when psychotic. There's a feeling of presence and alterity not unlike psychedelics which causes delusions for the same reason.

> Deleuze made me schizo

whew, also, they're not really anti-psychiatry, it's mostly their Foucault influence

Look into Francois Tosquelles, or whatever his name is. He's the psychiatrist Guattari worked with. Would probably have more therapeutic value for you.

Is this a thing now? Every time Deleuze or Land has been brough up recently someone talks about an experience of having a psychotic break after reading them, but it's not a copypasta since the story changes slightly every time.

It is efficient at de-oedipalizing individuals in combination with late capitalist psyop schizocacophonousignifcation.

This may sound strange, but I respect him more for killing himself than for his work, which has its moments. I don't think he's a fraud per se. But I just don't like most of his work. I think it's kind of flaky for the most part. He is 1/10 of the intellectual superpower that Bourdieu was, for example. But kudos to him for making the right choice when he felt the suffering in his life was overwhelming the pleasure of life.

Badiou is still alive pham

>communists
>being right about anything

How many times will communism have to fail until commies are completely discredited?

about as many times as christianity

NOT REAL COMMUNISM NOT REAL COMMUNISM RREEEEEE

weren't they meant to be self-serving?

>he didn't read his essays on Proust
>he doesn't understand that we're all foreigners of our own private language meant to bring out its stuttering

Bordieu, not Badiou

how difficult is bordieu, how well versed does one have to be with his contemporaries to understand him?

How do you compare Bourdieu and Deleuze?

I didn't find him that hard to read. He's a cool, erudite French Marxist intellectual and a very good writer. You'll pick it all up as you go along, really.

If you're interested in his work, you might start here. Outline of a Theory of Practice is good too.

>how well versed does one have to be with his contemporaries to understand him?

In the end, if you're interested, you'll wind up finding your way through all of those guys when you feel like it. That's my approach, anyways. I'm not as much into continental phil as I used to be but sooner or later, if you're interested, you'll wind up reading most of these guys and seeing where the lines criss-cross.