H a v e

I read it, what about it

>reading anything by a French guy in the 20th century, especially post-structuralism/post-modernism\

At swim two obscurantist hacks

as I like to call it

i'm waiting for the fad to pass so i don't have to read it to keep up. hey faggots what other books have you not read let's talk about books we did not read.

I tried and it was nonsense. Why did you read it and what did you get out of it. Is it correct to call it "nonsense"?

Anyone on here claiming they read and got it, who's not in grad school or doing a ph.d is probably lying.

It's a deliberately obscurantist polemic against lacanianism, and Lacan is difficult enough to get your head around to begin with.

Are you in grad school or doing a PhD? Just curious.

I know weird art dropouts who all read this together so are they frauds

Epic.

Are there any serious Deleuze readers here?

I've been wanting to read him for a while, but wasn't sure where to start since I don't have a strong background in post-structuralism. I found this post:

newappsblog.com/2012/08/how-to-begin-reading-deleuze.html

>"I would start with Deleuze's book, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, because it expresses Deleuze's ethos, his affirmation, his love. You should know what a philosopher loves (Plato would tell you that), and this little book is a love letter from one philosopher to another. Reading it will I hope inspire you to want to read Deleuze, to see how he lives up to "the secret link between Lucretius, Hume, Spinoza, and Nietzsche: their critique of negativity, their cultivation of joy, the hatred of interiority, the externality of forces and relations, the denunciation of power" (Negotiations, 6). "

Would you agree with this?

win back your independence

win back your freedom

stop explaining

you don't know what the you are talking about

lose the crutches

stop telling yourself that you know

you
don't
know
anything

what a useless post

what Lacan should I read before this

plato.stanford.edu/entries/lacan/
this tbqh.
I've read Lacan before, and can confidently say reading summaries is more helpful than reading the text.

also "Looking Awry" which is Zizek's book using pop culture as a introduction to Lacan is fairly readable because most of his examples will be familiar

this, but also
>reading any 20th century french "philosopher" not as something to laugh at while stoned, secure in your platonic, aristotelian and/or thomist worldview

>the imaginary in place of the Father
>the symbolic in place of the Son
>the real in place of the Holy Spirit
Lacan is wildly original

Lacan literally stole all his shit, so allegedly not even him understood his books

>Nietzsche
>denunciation of power
WHAT?!

a thousand plateaus

is it really advisable to read mille plateux before anti oedipus?

Not just that, pal.
I've read this.

Deleuze's work with Guattari is horrible, loaded with incredibly bad misinterpretations of other philosophers, based on stereotypes.

It's usually people interested in Art Theory or Comparative Literature who read this text. Anyone who's read Hegel, Freud, Lacan, &c is not going to take it seriously.

As a work of art, I suppose it's alright. But I don't think the constant asinine comments about books they (probably Guattari) didn't understand were supposed to be "ironic" or "edgy".

It's mostly a highly stylized and narcissistic parade of ignorance, if you ask me...

Difference and Reptition, The Science of Logic, and the books on Nietzsche and Bergson are all good. Deleuze's solo work is well thought-out, and aims to generate a genuinely different type of thought. Whether he was successful or not, I dunno, but the project itself is admirable.

Best preparation for Deleuze: Bergson. Bergson is fun to read, interesting, and totally bonkers. There's a reason pretty much every well-known philosopher of his generation denounced him.

Basically, I'd call Deleuze a neo-Bergonist.

people like you described are the only people I know that actually have spent meaningful amounts of time tackling C&S

lol I didn't even catch that association

thousand plateaus is the second book. you're meant to read antioedipus first. BWO doesn't mean that.
>that edition
Penguin burnt me bad when I got that translation. Someone was drunk at the copy desk because there's shittonnes of typos.