Why do so many millennials have blogs on Deleuze and throw around

Hipsters like to pretend to be smart enlightened post-modern critics

Eventually one of them has something explained to him in a college class

He then uses that knowledge to show off that he is the smart hipster post-modern critic man

The other hipsters copy what he says until absolutely everyone is going
>ahhh yes, indeed but you see, quite verily, rhibozomes.. rhibozomes for the win!

Me on the right

>>8820247
They're very accessible, they outright allow for whoever to interpret their work however, and shit like RHIZOMES really captures people's imaginations.

File: a88.jpg (22KB, 500x514px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x514px

>post-modern
into the trash it goes

File: michel-houellebecq-submission-novel.jpg (668KB, 1600x975px) Image search: [Google]

668KB, 1600x975px

>>8820247
He looks like a happy, well-adapted-to-society and mentally-healthy Houellebecq.

File: 0711-Nihil-Unbound.jpg (24KB, 300x476px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x476px

Hi, I'm a big fag.

Could be because they think there's no serious criticism of his work and they like having the high ground. D&G make Lacan/Freud look like tyrants obsessed with an Oedipus complex that may not even exist.

And as far as i know there isn't decisive BTFO of Deleuze that people can identify with. Deleuze is in a weird position of being both the ultimate descriptor of libidinal economy but for that reason he winds up being accused of being an apologist for that very system. it's more than a little interesting that exactly the same thing happened to Spinoza, who is one of D's influences: S's theology was so complete that he was accused of heresy. I think that's how it works today: if you're on the side of capital even as much as you want to explain it in a non-Marxist sense, you're an enemy.

So criticism of Deleuze either comes from goofballs who dismiss continental philosophy as bunk (and this is not a criticism as much as it is fuckface virtue signalling among positivists), or from guys like Badiou and Zizek who disagree with his departure from Lacan/Freud. Or from spec-real guys like Brassier, who I think is so ultrapessimist that it becomes hard to get excited about what it would mean for him to be right. Deleuze is far warmer in tone by comparison.

It's precisely because D is so freewheeling that people don't like him, because there's no room in his thought for programmatic political solutions v/capital and so on.

I like Deleuze for this reason. In general it seems to me that continental philosophy continually seems to advance its causes by taking ever-dimmer views of humanity, which is why antinatalism and Ligotti and cosmic horror and Nick Land are as popular as they are today. Nobody wants to get caught holding the hot potato of history and capital, but everybody needs to catch it at some point unless they want to live under a rock forever. And even then it's hard to avoid the temptation to get philosophical.

Life is weird.

>>8820454
>Life is weird

Pseudo intellectual detected

>>8820377
t. fredric

>>8820454
Cool post

File: 1433689452578.gif (2MB, 580x433px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 580x433px

>>8820454
>dedicating so much time to study this heap of bullshit

>>8820454
> i know there isn't decisive BTFO of Deleuze

Just read Guttari. Deleuze is irrelevant.

>>8820477
Nothing else is relevant

>>8820462
share your thoughts

>>8820477
i envy you

>>8821052
this