>>7637489 frenchfags taking acid and thinking they stumbled on some transcendental truth. they prattle on about it for hours but it makes no sense to anyone though it occasionally seemss they are into something
why do people think that the stakes for philosophical texts are higher than literally anything else, you're not going to change anything you do based on one any more than you would an xbox game or television commercial
I have a soft spot for Deleuze and Guatarri. I imagine it's because I'm a schizophrenic who used to take a lot of acid and studied philosophy at uni.
If you want to read something more straightforwardly philosphical by Deleuze then I'd recommend his monographs on Nietzsche and Spinoza et al and maybe pick up Difference and Repetition afterward. These books really flesh out his ontology and what he was trying to accomplish philosophically. My personal favorite by him, however, is The Logic of Sense. If you're a fan of Lewis Carroll and more comfortable with analytic concerns (i.e., philosophy of language) then The Logic of Sense might be up your alley too.
As far as Guatarri goes, I've only read Chaosmosis but I highly recommend it if you're interested in mental health and the possibility of a more humane and philosophical approach to helping people overcome their issues.
As far as Capitalism and Schizophrenia goes, I would say "trolling" isn't a bad descriptions. I prefer to think of it as a game tho. A lot of it is deliberately obscure or obtuse and requires a lot of heavy background to make sense of but it is a fun read once you "get" it. You should at the very least be familiar with Marx and Freud and Lacan to understand what exactly is historic about the work otherwise it will all seem like postmodern wankery.
>>7637489 It's a very very good (if intentionally dense and misleading) text about the nature of conformity and social conditioning, but even I made it all the way through and I'm still not exactly sure what an 'anti-oedipus' is.
Could we please have an actual discussion? Deleuze never wanted his interpretation to be correct, it was to create a monstrous child for that philosopher. Where did he go wrong specifically with Nietzsche? And by wrong I don't mean incorrect, but rather where exactly did he deviate? It is indeed an interesting idea to contrast Nietzsche's actual (as close as possible, obviously) notions of Force, Will to Power, Interpretation, Evaluation, Eternal Return, Affirmation and so on with Deleuze's creative version. Surely that's more interesting than shitflinging.
>>7637489 I am not well read in D&G at the moment, but from what I can tell you have to understand Freud's Oedipus Complex and Lacan's influence on psychoanalysis at the time. From the little I've read, Lacan wasn't directly attacked in Anti-Oedipus, but he was dismissed in the second volume, A Thousand Plateaus, as being just as dependent on Oedipus despite having dislodged the concept from it's birth in the nuclear family. Mommy and daddy turned into mother-figure and father-figure. Obviously, Marx is involved as well since desire is related, in the D&G model, to production so Capitalism and Schizophrenia is trying to bridge the gap in a different way than the Freudo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School. Still, according to interviews and articles I've read, D&G considered Nietzsche to be the main influence on the work. This is already visible from Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy where he criticizes Freud as being too reliant on reactive mechanisms and giving no credit to active ones. To this day, I still do not truly understand if the unconscious in psychoanalysis gives any possibility of resistance because the patients are fully presented as victims of themselves. With psychotics this is understandable it seems, you can't really tell someone to get over their illness and neurosis has it's difficult moments (ticks for instance which can be so severe that they make Zizek seem like a statue by comparison) which seem to leave no room for active change, but nonetheless the point of "active" forces or drives is not to "get over" something, but to overcome it in a creative manner as far as I can tell or, at least, to appreciate the body's role in the process rather than the mind's.
As I said, I'm not yet well read in either Deleuze, Guattari or their works together, so please correct me if I misunderstood something and let's get a discussion going rather than throw insults.
>>7641154 > Marx His insights into Capitalism are studied to this day and taken seriously. You don't have to be a communist to study and take Marx seriously.
> Freud Some of his texts are studied and taken seriously in psychology today. The others are studied and taken seriously in psychoanalysis.
> Lacan He is studied and taken seriously in Critical Theory and Psychoanalysis. Even if you disagree with his model, his contributions to Semiotics are still considered important.
You don't have to agree with everything an author says. Even Deleuze considered Freud a genius until the end and was heavily influenced by him, despite attacking what most consider to be his main concept, the Oedipus Complex.
>>7643551 I heard Guattari used to take acid while working at Le Bord or whatever it was called, that insane asylum or whatever it was. The point was that if doctors took drugs they could understand the patients better.
Thread replies: 40 Thread images: 7
Thread DB ID: 479825
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.