what do /lit/ think of this book?

a delirious chunk of all the stuff they've read and heard and seemingly need to show off.
and the philosophy is pretty annoying in the end.

>>9438155
> initially found the idea of rhizome to be quite intriguing
> soon turned into deliberate obscurantism after a few sections
> accidentally skimmed through Sokal’s Fashionable Nonsense
> the authors probably do not even have a clear understanding of the concepts employed from other subjects

So is this work completely nonsense or at least some of the ideas/arguments are reasonable?

>>9437699
So far I've read the plateaus (chapters) 1 to 6 as well as 12 and 13. I love it, wrote a paper on the War Machine and the Apparatus of Capture recently.

It's dense as fuck, but I don't understand how people act like it's "complete nonsense". I guess it requires a peculiar way of reading it, you have to create for yourself visual abstractions in your mind to get a lot of what they are saying, but really if you are able to do so and you are not low IQ you should get most of it. Maybe it's the english translation that is part of the problem, my first language is french so I read it in its original language.

It's a roller-coaster of thought that's for sure. Give it a try.

>>9437699
Brilliant but holy fuck what a chore to read

>>9438305
Attacking hightly abstract philosophy for not using borrowed concepts in a scientifically correct sense is such a retarded criticism that only reductive STEM brainlets like Sokal could come up with it.

I think "dense" is the best way to put it, almost every paragraph is full of references, concepts and neologisms.

>>9438323
Please can you suggest a path of readings leading to understanding of D&G?

I've studied the milestones of philosophy up to Kant's CPR and then jumped straight to Foucault, but Capitalism&Schizofrenia seems a collection of random words to me.

Am I missing some important philosopher? Should I study Psychoanalysis and Literary Theory (and how)?

>>9438724
Not that anon but basically, some basic knowledge of bergson, spinoza, saussure, freud, marx and lacan. maybe add nietzsche and whitehead. Obviously, nobody's got the time to read all of that so read some selections and hit the SEP otherwise.

I recommend reading difference & repetition first before D&G, it's more in the vein of classic metaphysics and less weird guattarian schizo-neologism-babble. In any case, you should probably work through the CPR beforehand. It's tough as nails and like a billion pages long but incredibly rewarding if you are familiar with traditional metaphysics.

>>9438766
I've already covered the CPR in depth, will it be enough to jump to D&R? Or should I first study Hegel and Heidegger?

Also, how do I get grasp, quickly, on psychoanalysis and marxism? The suggestions I've got so far are "The Lacanian Subject" for Lacan, but couldn't find a similar book for Freud. And I have somehow picked up the idea that I need Hegel to understand Marx, is it right?

>>9438724
Original poster here. The guy above gave a good canon of theory and auteurs you should know at least what the basics of their thoughts is, because a lot of what Capitalism & Schizophrenia is is a big rant on psychoanalysis, linguistics and any system really.

You need a pretty good grip on psychoanalysis (Freud mostly, some basic understanding of Lacan would be good too, but not needed) as well as linguistics to understand their rant against Chomsky. Marx is important too, as well as an understanding of fascism and its workings. Also Kafka, they are in love with that guy. Probably a lot of other stuff too, I've not finished the book yet so I can't say. Don't get too caught up reading secondary or preparatory material, some decent articles on the auteurs above and a slight amount of reading of their stuff is enough to at least understand what D & G are doing. Obviously, the more you know about the auteurs mentioned and discussed, the better your understanding will be.

As far as understanding A thousand plateaus... well like I said it's dense and you're dealing in almost complete abstractions a lot of the time. Some plateaus (chapters) are more difficult then others, and you can jump from one plateau to another however you wish, the book is not linear. Try different ways of reading it I'd say if you have problem understanding; try slow-reading it or speed-reading, if you don't get a passage you shouldn't fret too much, in every plateau they keep repeating over and over again what the main thesis of it is, and you will eventually see that all the plateaus are displaying the same thoughts coming from D&G but in different contexts.

>>9438835
I meant original anon*, not OP

>>9438835
Forgot to mention Saussure. Important.

I read this in college in a class which looked at Deleuze alongside PKD. Boy was that a trip. 6 pomo pros and 6 lost scifi freaks.

>>9438812
>Or should I first study Hegel and Heidegger?

Jeez no, Hegel and Heidegger are black holes that some people spent their entire lives without fully grasping them. Deleuze doesn't really explicitely build on Heidegger like say, Derrida. He does kind of a critique of dialectics and Hegel but you don't need to go full Hegel to get what he's trying to say.

There's a PDF from jon protevi? "how to learn D&R" that will be helpful.

>And I have somehow picked up the idea that I need Hegel to understand Marx, is it right?

God no. Hegels system is totally self contained, a surface level understanding will suffice. Marx took some key concepts from Hegel and then went in an entirely different direction. Decent secondary literature on Marx will describe his relationship with Hegle.

I'm not an expert on psycho stuff but Zizek does a good job at making Lacan seem approachable, which is known to be another one of these black holes. Not sure about Freud.

>>9438856
Freud is very approachable.

>>9438856
not original anon but I've found "how to beging reading deleuze" by john protevi, is this what you were referencing?

>>9438900
http://www.protevi.com/john/LearnDR.pdf

>>9438900
>>9438305
check out Todd May's book on Deleuze for a good intro.
also if you want more of a realist, mathematical approach to Deleuze (that is still fairly accessible), try DeLanda's "Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy". this should help clear up some of their use of borrowed scientific concepts

>>9438812
the three thinkers most central to Deleuze are Spinoza, Bergson, Nietzsche (roughly in that order), so some working understanding of those figures is necessary