What are the necessary pre-requisites for reading D&G?

>>9306286
A general understanding of the history of phil.
Possibly some Heidegger

Why do people these guys? Need honest answers.

Autism

>>9306491
People these guys because self-help. Not even memeing. Also because they are interesting despite being difficult. And they are /lit/ af. Guattari was friends with Ginsberg and even invited Borges to hold a speech on some Kafka anniversary. Both D&G wrote about literature often and were friends with various artists and even wrote books with them (painters, movie directors, writers).

>>9306471
When you say a general understanding do you mean to assert literally just a mere understanding? Or would studying the philosophers, or at least the modern philosophers, be of worth? I'm not OP, but I've recently embarked on studying Descartes, and plan, if all goes well, to work my way to the 20th Century philosophers, like deleuze and guattari. I realize however, by studying each one individually, I won't be conducting research on the later philosophers for Atleast a year- as studying takes time. Is this the right approach for a correct understanding? Or should I instead take to efficiency, read a few history of philosophy books, and begin my research from there?

>>9306533
Are they any good for that?Or do they just overcomplicate issues?

File: map.gif (58KB, 748x818px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 748x818px

>>9307601
That way's fine, as long as you keep reading and know where each thinker falls in the greater timeline - who are they responding to, who are their predecessors etc.

>>9306286
being gay as hell

>>9306286
Depends on what you want to read. I'm into "A thousand plateaus" right now. You do need a bit of background in freudian psychoanalysis and some basic history of philosophy, and some semiotics and semiology. You don't need to be an expert on these things to get a lot out of your reading of these guys, but some background info would definitely help you out. They will refer to many different things, from artists to authors and intellectuals, so some "general knowledge" is recommended.

>>9307601
Not original poster, but mere understanding is all you need to get the bulk of what they are talking about, but the more you are familiar with philosophy and the social sciences the more you will understand exactly where they are coming from with their thoughts and understand the finer details. Also I'd recommend you to take the way that is most suited to you, don't need to be a complete autist about philosophy. I'm currently mixing chronological philosophy reading with some readings here and there of things that strike my mind, so I'm juggling between Plato, some secondary literature on Hegel, D&G and Adorno, for example. Be smart about it and understand that philosophy is very much so interconnected, but you can also adjust your learning to your likings. Anyways, take away what you want out of what I just said.

>>9307629

Marx should feed into Structuralism and Existentialism, via Levi-Strauss and Sartre, respectively. Post-Structuralism is unintelligible without Marx. And I think Kant/Hegel should feed into Freud, who is conspicuously absent between Marx and Nietzsche.