Find a flaw.

File: tips potato.png (420KB, 460x805px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 460x805px

>>8954653
I like Deleuze, but do we really need daily threads?

>>8954693
Meh, fair enough. I don't want to turn it into a meme. Have just been thinking about Deleuze since the last couple of threads were good, and when they appear I almost always find myself agreeing. Just curious to see if /lit/ had some kryptonite stashed away I didn't know about.

The sniffler? Nope. Analytics? Whatever. Positivists? Same. Heidegger? Deleuze is just more interesting. I mean people can run wild with Foucault too (like Butler). But I never hear Deleuze being associated with shit I hate. He's not on the side of capital, and yet not in a fuckface way. He's opposed to despotism and authoritarianism, yet there are redpill guys who like him too. Even Nick Land based his work on Deleuze. I guess it's just weird to find that.

>>8954653
closet idealist

>>8954653
Lapses too often into vitalism—"forces" and "desire" don't really tell me anything about what's going on, but they are often just guises for the a Bergsonian rhetoric of fluxion. That is fine—where I take issue is places where—in the Nietzsche book and Anti-Oedipus—flux becomes some specific substance which is imparted with will or intention. Then you have to choose between panpsychism or Hegelian idealism, neither of which is satisfying and one of which Deleuze spends countless pages of polemic avoiding.

>>8954804
I want to emphasize also the word lapse—I don't consider things like will to power or desire particularly important to the Deleuzian metaphysics, or to the project such as it is—but rather as local tics which are more a consequence of the particular place where the lightning of his thought touches ground, the actual texts his mind chooses to confront. "When in Rome" applied to the philosophy of purely immanent differential fluxion: so when we talk about Nietzsche, we get acquainted with forces and wills; when we talk about Freud and Lacan we learn about desire. All these can become allegories, if you like, or rather, difference and flux become, in Deleuze's writings, the allegorical master-keys for the systems of those great thinkers.

Now the Derridean gesture is of course tempting at this point, urging us to say that it doesn't matter what desire and force and flux refer to because it's all just self-deluded signification, sheer text anyway. But I still think Deleuze is out for the ontological, rather than the merely (apparently textual) ontic, and that the achievement of his career is to have found a lasting way to talk about it without the talking taking center-stage, something particularly remarkable given the climate in which his metaphysical works matured.

>>8954804
>>8954804
>Then you have to choose between panpsychism or Hegelian idealism, neither of which is satisfying

this guy gets it

Overly complicated and obscurantist.