can i just jump right in with this guy? where should i jump in?

>>9690956
Read Todd Mays introduction. Should help you find your bearings.

You could, but it will make you bounce up and down a little bit more hahaha

the SEP article says that difference and repetition is his 'magnum opus' - anyone read that?

>>9690980
will check it out

also, these intro texts he wrote sound great - they sound like him playing word association with another philosopher's ideas - anyone read them shits? how did these french niggas write so much

as an aside: ive read freud, jung and lacan - but when these writers always talk about psychoanalysis/marxism, im a bit confused how theyre using the ideas. psychoanalysis explains the individual psyche within the social structure of marxism, but what main ideas are they taking from freud? that there is a hidden part of the psyche?

>>9690998
Basically that more than a language (Lacan), subconscious works like a factory of desire production.

>>9690998
Todd Mays explains Deleuze's method of appropriating other philosophers. It's tied to the view of repetition

I'd say just give him a go. It might be helpful, especially if you're jumping into C&S to be somewhat familiar with Foucault's notion of power (this doesn't necessitate reading Discipline and Punish and all of his lectures at the university of Paris, a good introduction of "The Foucault Reader" will be more than sufficient) - this isn't to say both are saying the same things but there's a definite lineage there and the language involved is similar for the most part and of the three big hitters so to speak (Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida), he's the most "user friendly." That said, as I say at the start of this post, see how you fair from the outset with Anti-Oedipus, if that's where you're leaning.

>>9690998
I would warn you off diving right into Difference and Repetition. You can try, there's nothing stopping you, but it'll be tough going. Deleuze is obviously famously difficult to grasp, he's no Derrida, that's for sure, but careful, close reading of him isn't particularly difficult.

This is where I recommend everyone start with Deleuze:
cidadeinseguranca.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/deleuze_control.pdf

>>9690956
all I've read are his books on Hume and Kant which prove the guy is a genius. the way he describes their philosophies is off the wall and downright thrilling

>>9691054
i liked this - what is it from

>>9691126
>October, Vol. 59. (Winter, 1992), pp. 3-7.

>>9691112
which books are those?

>>9690998
Psychoanalysis does not explain the "psyche within the social structure of marxism". This is simply an afterthought, it is a biased incorporation of psychoanalysis into Marxist theory. Jung is so far from being a Marxist as a man can be. Freud was not a Marxist. Lacan? I am not sure.

>>9691182
He might mean capitalism (a Marxist term) and Freud says as much

>>9690956
I'm so bored of repeating (without differenciating) this. We need a proper starter guide.

1) Read "Letter to a Harsh Critic" in "Negotiations".

2) Skim through the following collections in no partivular order and read what you find interesting: "Desert Islands and Other Texts", "Two Regimes of Madness", "Dialogues", "Negotiations", "Essays Critical and Clinical".

3) Read "Nietzsche and Philosophy" and the second, shorter book, "Nietzsche". You can start with either one but there are subtle differences.

4) Watch some Youtube videos from Actual/Virtual Journal (some of the better authors like Ian Buchanan [not the actor] have separate videos), some Manuel DeLanda videos, some Sylvere Lotringer videos (the 10 minute one called simply "Deleuze" from EGS is a great intro).

5) Do not start with D&R or Logic of Sense. If you want some Guattari start with the Body without Organs from A Thousand Plateaus and then read Anti-Oedipus.

6) Search online for a Deleuze Bibliography. The one on Immanent Terrain is ok.

7) Wat h Deleuze's Abecedaire. Pirate it, it has acceptable English subtitles. There's also Deleuze's On Cinema on Youtube, but the subtitles are weirdly done (glitchy) at times.

8) Maybe skin through Francois Dosse's Intersecting Lives if you want a bit of biographical context

9) Pick up a series titled Deleuze and ... (Sex, Ethics, Psychoanalysis, Performance, etc.) And/or The Cambridge Companion. Also, there are at least four guides to D&R alone and pretty much every major Deleuzian text has at least a guide.

10) Get drunk on plain water while becoming grass or some shit.

>>9691182
this

>>9691182
no im not saying psycho analysis is marxist at all, but you answered my question

>>9691054
its his best, everything else is a step-down

with this guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4vsHrAsDTk

>>9691328
what am i watching

>>9691215
>get drunk on plain water
con gas? sin gas? why do non-americans like farting so much

how do you pronounce his name?

gee duh-looz?

im going on a roadtrip and will be at the wheel - anyone know any good audio resources on deleuze?

>>9691182
>Lacan? I am not sure.
I've heard the exact opposite, Lacan was supposedly semi-privately way more conservative than Freud.

>>9691471
its weird that you always hear, as an american, about the logical positivists around vienna and berlin (carnap, wittgenstein, etc.) and then in france beauvoir, sartre, merleau-ponty, levi strauss leading to deleuze, foucault, derrida. but you never really hear where lacan fits in

>>9691480
What? I'm not American, but I do know they don't even think about Derrida, Deleuze, etc. in Academia, they barely consider them philosophers.

>>9691497
i dont mean how american philosophers feels - just how the history of philosophy is taught/talked about

>>9691425
Gilles rhymes with shill, the L isn't silent.

>>9691462
Youtube. Convert the files to audio. See >>9691215 point 4.

>>9691471
He used marxist concepts, but Lacanian psychoanalysis tends to be rather conservative and Christian. Zizek isn't exactly an exception even if he'a a Marxist.

>>9691497
On /lit/ what we call "philosophy" most Anglosphere philosophers would call literary or social theory.

>>9691480
>>9691505
I can't remember the exact comment but it explained "where lacan fits" excellently, It went something like; Zizek-Lacan is just the latest couple in a long line of unproductive philosophers who achieve fame but contribute every little to the overall leftist framework, they're the new Laclau and Mouffe.

>>9691425
zheel de-luhz

>>9691544
I forgot to explain that Lacan and Hegel is for Zizek as Gramsci and Derrida/Deleuze is for Laclau and Mouffe,

>>9691497
In many philosophy departments, sure, but in comp lit, literary theory, sociology and anthropology, Pomo folks are considered much more important than analytic philosophers.

>>9691480
>>9691505
You have to remember that while Lacan had a broad philosophical training, he was a psychoanalyst first and foremost who emphasized the "return to Freud"; his lectures and theories were about the therapeutic relationship and treatment, regardless of how they can be extrapolated outside of the therapeutic context. In this respect, he was close to Freud, who more visibly said his ideas had nothing to do with philosophy and condemned the attempts by Reich and some of his other disciples to wed psychoanalysis to Marxism and socialism.

>>9691573
>but in comp lit, literary theory, sociology and anthropology

And sadly that's not something we should be proud of as they produce outrageous theories that would make Freud blush, did you know in sociology there's a groundbreaking school of thought called conservative* criminology that sometimes crimes are committed for simple and petty reasons and not because of "toxic masculinity" and repressed genetic nostalgia for Italian fascism.

*I actually don't think its called this by people in the know

>>9691425
The "eu" sound in "D[e]l[eu]ze" is nearly impossible to pronounce for english speaking niggas, but its similar to the sound you make when you say "duh".

Djill Duh-Luhzz

>>9691574
This is a very relevant passage written by Zizek which confirms this notion.

"Lacan was first and foremost a clinician, and clinical concerns permeate everything he wrote and did. Even when Lacan reads Plato, Aquinas, Hegel, or Kierkegaard, it is always to elucidate a precise clinical problem. This very all-pervasiveness of clinical concerns is what allows us to exclude them: precisely because clinic is everywhere, one can erase it and limit oneself to its effects, to the way it colors everything that appears non-clinical – this is the true test of its central place."

>>9691603
I agree, but I don't think an analytic focus deserves pride or praise either.

start with the Greeks

>>9691884
everyone on this board agrees desu. i read a quine book the other day and wanted to kill myself

>>9690956
*jumps out window*