Literal fucking gibberish, who takes this garbage seriously?

You just aren't in the mindset. That's fine. Don't need to sperg out for no reason.

>>8345580
Ppl with Ph.D.s in rhetoric and composition and currently getting $$$$$ for tenure track Jobs fools

>>8345580
Tell us your critique, explain your position.

>>8345580

>i lack the necessary patience and imagination for D&G
>i haven't read any philosophy and now D&G is too hard for me
>i need my philosophy spelled out for me in extremely frank terms

pick all three

shit dude you gotta take it in slow, like you were expanding your anus, only philosophically

It takes a lot of preparation to study contemporary philosophy; the criticism that authors should try harder to communicate than obfuscate is valid. One should withhold judgement until they feel they are in a position where assessment is possible. Arguing against authors should require the feeling that one has mastered the topic better than said authors.

>>8346411
> the criticism that authors should try harder to communicate than obfuscate is valid

only idiots complain about this. it is not the fault of the authors who are writing to an erudite audience that the philosophically untrained cannot understand their works. literally no person complains about this in the sciences and yet plebbit is full of people like you who think that it is a """"valid"""" criticism to say that professional philosophers writing to an educated base need to tone it down. professional philosophy is not, and will never be, egalitarian.

>>8346421

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 (at least from my understanding of it). i think that is missed by first time readers -- i also think they intended their writing to be "for" plebs and not for an educated populous. this i believe because as politically minded as they are, they must have meant it for the workers, since it is after all "Capitalism and Schizophrenia." unfortunately i don't think it really worked...

>>8346445
>i don't think it really worked
orly

It's not even that hard to understand desu

>>8346421

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

"authors should try harder to communicate than obfuscate"

>>8346445

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

File: apo.jpg (49KB, 247x382px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 247x382px

Nobody sane.

>>8346877
read this

>>8346917
What's Boutang all about and what's his relation to D&G?

I want to get into them

File: 1466120584119-4.jpg (10KB, 216x255px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 216x255px

>>8345589
>You need to be schizophrenic to understand this book, so it's your own fault if it doesn't make sense

>>8346873
>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.

>>8346990
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."

>>8345580

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.

>>8346421

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

>>8347677
>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

>>8347648
this desu

>>8345580
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.

>>8348182
Pure ideology.

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

>>8347726
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.

>>8348206
>2016
>still not understanding french pedagogy
yeah dude searle is really good am I right

>>8347645
pretty cool, I'll try to check him out

>>8348205
You ever see Akira? Remember, it's a rip-off of an episode in Gravity's Rainbow.

Pynchon has read D&G deeply.

>>8348206
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'

>>8348276
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 anon. People who say that Foucault is obscurantist either don't have read any work by him or is clearly obtuse lol STEM fags

>>8348276
>>8348317
chomsky BTFO of foucaults charlatanism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE

>>8348340
*chomsky BTFO by foucaults charlatanism

>>8348265
>You ever see Akira? Remember, it's a rip-off of an episode in Gravity's Rainbow.
what do you mean by this

>>8346421
> 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

>>8348413
>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: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

File: Panopticon.jpg (1MB, 2179x2402px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2179x2402px

>>8348177
>you're regarded

>>8348265
>>8348364
seriously how is akira related to GR

>>8348450

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.

>>8349094
good bost

>>8347570
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

>>8349655
>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

>>8347629
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

>>8349672
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)

>>8346421
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).

>>8349713
>stop liking what I don't like

>>8349719
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

>>8345580
gullible idiots

>>8346390
it's unintelligible

>>8346445
>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

>>8349665
great counterargument, aren't you so catlike & clever?

>>8347645
blah blah blah blah

literally zero substance whatesovever

>>8349904
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

>>8349094
How do you trick yourself into believing this shit?

>>8349841
read the logic of sense instead

>>8350083
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)

>>8346421
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.

>>8346445
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.

>>8350157
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.

>>8350170
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.

>>8350183
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.

>>8350159
i think part of this is there way of poking fun at lacan

>>8350183
nu sophistry

>>8350219
French philosophy is sophistry.

>>8350157
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

>>8350272
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.

>>8346445
>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.

>>8350334
Do you even know what "obfuscation" means?

>>8349904
>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

File: 1329613286958.jpg (3KB, 112x126px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 112x126px

>>8346421

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

>>8350377
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?

>>8350384
(gangster popeye font)
the only DERRIDA i can READ
is DAIRY
duh
ANY QUESTIONS???

>>8350384

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?

>>8350397
no just critique of judgment

>>8350402

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

>>8350408
you are jesus?

>>8350408
well that's great, congratulations !!!!

>>8350402
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.

>>8350415

government parasite

>>8350355
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

>>8350531
>right now
since 1999 at least

>>8350545
google this

>>8350549
google what

File: rocknroll.jpg (15KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 255x255px

>>8350093

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.

File: vfblog-nickland1.jpg (62KB, 580x386px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 580x386px

>who takes this garbage seriously?

>>8350402

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.

>>8350578
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?

File: littlegnon.jpg (29KB, 426x318px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 426x318px

>>8350619

>>8348260
Is that sarcasm? I can never get a grip on what /lit/ generally thinks of Searle

>>8350645

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?

>>8350652
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.

>>8350664

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

why anon

>>8350696
Because the original literature/spread of the written word was pornography?

>I feel like a person responding to an televangelists question. Should you respond Hallelujah now?

>>8350619
>>8350578

What sort of essays do kids come to you with?

>>8350703

That's a provocative thought.

What the hell are we talking about?

>>8350717

A lot of humanities. Psychology, philosophy, sociology, education, some history.

I just wrote a paper tonight about the relationship of socioeconomic status and juvenile delinquency. It was hard not to just say IT'S CUZ RACE DAMMIT and instead had to pretend the environmental factors were solely determinative.

Did you know that between black and white juvenile delinquents, whites are substantially more likely to suffer from a diagnosable mental illness? Should tell you something.

>>8350717
I've mostly had law and mathematics, apparently that's what the kids are studying these days.

>>8350720
I don't know I just know you asked me why after I was preaching and I know to come back with an obvious answer and to expect hallelujah.

>>8350727

Law and mathematics? Interesting, I haven't had any essays on those subjects. What's your rate?

>>8350734
Honestly your paper on juvenile delinquency sounded like law to me. That's just how I classify them.

I think I might get math papers because I have qualification there and it's a hard subject.

Literally all my papers that are humanities are law/social studies related and a lot of them are math.

>>8350743
I'd say 30% are mathematics/math proofs. And the rest are some sort of law/law-related social studies.

If I got that Racial Juvenile Delinquency paper (and I've gotten believe me). I'd focus on the Flynn Effect (the Germany study) to disprove race as CHUNK 1, then Culture and racism/socialism and CHUNK 2 and 3.

>>8350752

The Flynn effect might've been useful. I just said something like "IQ correlates to juvenile delinquency, but evidence shows that cognitive development depends on a nurturing environment" and then just correlated it to SES.

Yeah I couldn't do math.

I can't tell you how many times I've explained Plato's theory of the tripartite soul. I actually had a dream recently where I wrote a paper about it.

How long you been writing? I've been doing it regularly for about a year now, was doing it occasionally for a couple years before that.

>>8350408
thanks pickle man

>>8350761
I've done a lot of Plato/Kant/any philosopher that's not intuitive.

I've done it professionally for a couple years but I used to do math homework for people in High school (I went to an international baccalaureate high school).

I could tell you all the advanced racial essay writing tactics. The first thing you need to think about is what is the modern political opinion on this and side with it as if it was an a priori truth.

So if you do Race make sure you bring up the German Flynn Effect study and the American Baby Study.

And if you do Sex, bring up the baby elevation strength study and education level statistics.

Never at any point imply there is an organic difference.

>>8350652
Sounds to me like you just hate him because he's an analytic and not because you've engaged with and have any real disagreement with any of his ideas. What's the problem with biological naturalism?

>>8350082
So plebbitry is literally unhealthy.

>>8350726
>muh biology

>>8350811
>Muh Psychology

>>8350779

Thanks anon, those are good tips. I've found outright denial works pretty well. "These statistics might seem like they imply xyz biological difference, but actually [insert something social]."

>>8350781

I've actually engaged with Searle plenty, and I have a very analytic background. Wittgenstein, Ayer, Turing, Quine, Frege, Austin, and so on. I studied under a professor who studied under Searle, if that counts for anything. I read Searle's books The Mystery of Consciousness and Consciousness and Language. I was working on a thesis about reductionism and panpsychism when I dropped out.

I'm being quite honest in saying you can skip everything of Searle besides his Chinese room, and even then you'll end up discarding it in the long run.

>>8345802
no, we aren't. believe me. the job market is shit.

>>8350817
>muh capitalization

>>8350821
for you

>>8350834
>Muh Informality.

File: 183ob861iy0ckjpg.jpg (57KB, 636x477px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 636x477px

ITT: Amerifags confuses their own stupidity with critique of the authors.

>>8350853
In this post: Europoors confuse their having fucked Pigs for sexual dominance.

>>8350851
>muh misplaced """"""""formality""""""""

>>8350726
>Should tell you something.
That professionals aren't willing to diagnose half of the young black male population as crazy?

>>8346410
i love this metaphor

>>8347648
Wouldn't it be a better use of time to go outside and make a table, or learn to ride a horse, or do basically anything rather than read this entire list of books?

I mean, if you need to read fifteen odd other slabs of dead tree before this one makes a lick of sense, is this not an entirely superfluous piece of dead tree?

I'm not sure any book would enrich a person's life enough to make such a profound waste of time worthwhile.

>>8350901
I feel like I shouldn't have to point out the obvious here, but what the hell. People call it specialization. People like to take the interests they already have to unprecedented new levels in bizzare dimensions. People want to learn to read Deleuze or the same reason that someone who once learned to ride a horse decides they want to play polo.

>>8350559
thanks god there stills hope

i love u anon <3

>>8350136
If you understand Hegel and Heidegger you can summarize them in one short 4chan post.

>>8351047
pls be trolling

then people asks why all this stemfags hating

>>8348471
he may be referring to the cocaine-blob early on idk

>>8351047
Hegel:
>things change, lol
Heidegger:
>14/88, gas the kikes now

>>8350554
this

>>8351156
I'm pretty sure Hegel never laughed.

>>8351156
well i keked

>>8351156
Hegel:
Allah wills it!
Heidegger:
Wax on, wax off

HEGEL AND HEIDEGGER IN ONE SHORT PARAGRAPH EACH

HEGEL:
God existed and was infinite. God became finite (in order to truly transcend its own infinitude). Now we have history. But the trajectory of history is to bound to end up in its remembering that it was and still is God. Therefore, God becomes finite and then is resurrected, becoming infinitely infinite. Hegel says Christianity is the best religion because of it's ideal balance of infinite and finite. BUT...Christianity will be replaced with Hegelian philosophy. This is part of the "remembering" and this is the final goal of history. Becoming God again is literally the whole world believing in Hegel. Hegel thinks he's the second coming of Christ.


HEIDEGGER:
Things come from no-thing. That's the way it's gotta BE, man. "The nothing isn't a thing and I'll prove it using weird language." There is no eternal God or eternal anything. Paganism is more in-tune with the reality of experience (because everything is finite - to be, is to be finite). Even though Heidegger outright denies monotheism/infinite he thinks it's pretty cool when plebs absorb themselves in their mental/spiritual delusions (ie. Lutheran Christianity, neo-Paganism) and he thinks it's important to have these delusions for a good life. So he sticks it to STEMlords even though you can only ironically support a kind of "I'm spiritual" perspective with Heidegger, because deep down he convinced you already that it's just a bullshit temporary delusion.

The entire trajectory of western history is forgetting about "Being" and to be forgetful of "Being" means that you think Being exists because of something else. Heidegger says existence begins for no reason, from nothing, and ends for no reason, into nothing.

Oh, yeah, and German, ancient Greek, and Sanskrit are the best languages because of there verb tenses which allow people to perceive existence as coming from nothing. So there's that Nazism link with the ancient Greeks that he tried to push.

There's literally no reason to read beyond a couple wikipedia paragraphs.

Reading primary texts of philosophy is a meme.

File: 1462740159742.jpg (74KB, 682x1024px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 682x1024px

>>8351256
>HEGEL:
God existed and was infinite. God became finite (in order to truly transcend its own infinitude). Now we have history. But the trajectory of history is to bound to end up in its remembering that it was and still is God.

>>8350397

one of Deleuze's books is on Kant; and perhaps ironically, given this board's obsession with the idea of not reading anything that takes more than a paragraph to get to the point, he wins up all three of the critiques in 80 pages. Deleuze knows exactly what he's doing. Guattari was trained as an analyst, but under Lacan, so while I don't know exactly what he had read, a lot of it was Freudian, but a lot of it was probably pre-Socratic and Hegelian, as well.

>>8351256
>>8351259
>>8351320

pathetic and disgusting. neck yourselves, your flyover states need the tax money you'll save once you're no longer on welfare

>>8351256
>confusing three for one
back to kindergarten

>The demand for such explanations, as also the attempts to satisfy this demand, very easily pass for the essential business philosophy has to undertake. Where could the inmost truth of a philosophical work be found better expressed than in its purposes and results? and in what way could these be more definitely known than through their distinction from what is produced during the same period by others working in the same field? If, however, such procedure is to pass for more than the beginning of knowledge, if it is to pass for actually knowing, then we must, in point of fact, look on it as a device for avoiding the real business at issue, an attempt to combine the appearance of being in earnest and taking trouble about the subject with an actual neglect of the subject altogether. For the real subject-matter is not exhausted in its purpose, but in working the matter out; nor is the mere result attained the concrete whole itself, but the result along with the process of arriving at it. The purpose of itself is a lifeless universal, just as the general drift is a mere activity in a certain direction, which is still without its concrete realisation; and the naked result is the corpse of the system which has left its guiding tendency behind it. Similarly, the distinctive difference of anything is rather the boundary, the limit, of the subject; it is found at that point where the subject-matter stops, or it is what this subject-matter is not. To trouble oneself in this fashion with the purpose and results, and again with the differences, the positions taken up and judgments passed by one thinker and another, is therefore an easier task than perhaps it seems. For instead of laying hold of the matter in hand, a procedure of that kind is all the while away from the subject altogether. Instead of dwelling within it and becoming absorbed by it, knowledge of that sort is always grasping at something else; such knowledge, instead keeping to the subject-matter and giving itself up to it, never gets away from itself. The easiest thing of all is to pass judgments on what has a solid substantial content; it is more difficult to grasp it, and most of all difficult to do both together and produce the systematic exposition of it.

>your faces when Hegel preempted every single one of you worthless illiterate sots in the third paragraph of the Phenomenology

>>8351256
>Hegel:
>God
>God
>God
>God


Are you not paying attention ree.

>>8351390
Hegel did a lot of prefacing in phenomenology of spirit. In fact I considered it the most memorable part; him just saying how to and how not to read the phenomenology of spirit. The actual meat of the text, eh, so so. But Hegel meaning business in the first 40 pages or so: priceless.

>>8351397
Oh, sorry. GEIST

Hegel literally says it's easier to understand his philosophy if you use the word God but then once you understand it you can replace it with the word Geist.

>>8351390
Hegel pre-empted everything because he's saying nothing.

>>8351337
Where was he wrong?

There's no point reading Hegel. A youtube lecture will suffice.

>>8351639
Hegel is literally the only person who ever deserved to live.

>>8351639
Ew. YouTube lecture over primary source. Come, really?

>>8351639

>>8351390

try learning to read, then you can try thinking

Start with Foucault's preface to AO.

D&G present philosophy as a form of conceptual engineering. They are the Finnegan's Wake of philosophy

>this thread
geez, keep jerking off to infinite jest and leave this alone

>>8351047
why did not the greeks have 4chan? they could make their dialogues way more funny to read t-b-h

Best reason to read primary texts- enjoyable?

If you really don't care enough to read them then why care enough to discuss them.

(Unless of course you are only discussing another primary text which makes reference to a book which you haven't read- since sometimes writers reference from hundreds of different books and it really isn't necessary to read them all; particularly if they are only referring to a specific quoted part or detail).

In terms of OP, D&Gs work isn't garbage, a lot of their methodology and ideas are interesting and useful tools for further critical analysis. Personally I find their philosophy on rhizomatic thought, (de/re)territorialization quite engaging, among other things.

>>8351656
You're forgetting Friedrich Nietzsche

>>8352304
Only one of them.

>>8352304
No I'm not.

>>8352003
"Whatever happens at the end of history, we'll, let's say I predicted it, whatever the fuck it looks like!"

> this is why you have to read all of Hegel's Phenoemenology

Let's get real. The only thing you need to read by Hegel are his lessons about language that he wrote to his elementary school students.

>>8352263
You don't have to read Deleuze though.

They're responding to Freud's idea that all of paranoia is latent homosexuality. D&G are saying that's way off the mark and we need to re-conceptualize power relations.

>>8346421
Russell is an idiot?

>>8352378
Yes.

>>8352341
>>8352329
There's only the human body. Everything else is illusory

>>8352385
You think you're smarter than guys like Russell and Chomsky. You're so delusional.

>>8352455
>You think you're smarter than guys like Russell and Chomsky.
Literally never said that. Idiot.

>>8352457
>>8346421
They complain about the things you said. You think of them as idiots.

>>8352509
I never said anything about chomsky.

>>8346851
are you that same anon in /fa/ and /his/ who says desu at the end of everything?