Can someone give me a quick rundown on him?

>>9941364
Why? Most plebs can't even understand something as simple as the body without organs, the assemblage or pluralism.

Start with Nietzsche and Philosophy as a prerequisite to reading any Deleuze at all and then pick your path.

>>9941378
>Nietzsche and Philosophy
already read that and i was pretty disappointed

What is Deleuze´ System?

>>9941390
Did you read Michael Hardt's intro to it? He is kinda right that Deleuze finds his foundations there. The Will to Power, Plurality of the Will (aka plurality of Forces) and others are part of that basis. Maybe continue with his book on Proust? Just keep in mind that it was updated several times during Deleuze's career so the concepts and problems differ from one chapter to another.

If you want the meat of things jump into Anti-Oedipus and then A Thousand Plateaus. They are easier choices than Difference&Repetition, but you may have some difficulties if you don't know a bit of Lacanian paychoanalysis (even though that is what they are criticizing).

>>9941407
thanks

Deleuze is very ironically one of the most appropriated and least systematised philosophers currently, especially now that he's a hot topic in academic charlatanism.

98% of allegedly Deleuzian philosophy has a badly inbred pedigree, a corrupted family tree if you will, and is really more a case of fourth-remove butchering of simplifications of simplifications of idiosyncratic interpretations of his work. Right off the bat, a huge % is shit like film students who took one Intro to Film Theory class and read one chapter on Deleuze and haven't stopped saying "rhizome" since, or weird splinter-cults of Italian pedagogues who are obsessed with a watered-down interpretation of the body without organs.

The remaining 2% of Deleuzian philosophy is made of two groups. First, the retarded stupid people who read him in totally batshit ways, also because they are dogmatically following a simplified version of a single idiosyncratic interpretation of Deleuze, like that he is a straight-up pre-critical metaphysician. Second, the tiny minority of this tiny minority of people who have the ability to study philosophy seriously, and can make a critical assessment of Deleuze's philosophy.

This latter subgroup is completely mixed in with the former subgroup, so it's very hard to find them, and even when you do find them, you usually find them in the process of venturing idiosyncratic interpretations of Deleuze that then become fodder for a generation of Italian pedagogues who read a gloss in an Intro to Film Theory class.

>>9941407
Oh, if you want a follow-up on Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche, try Klossowski's Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, which is dedicated to Deleuze. It has a bit of the psychobabble fashionable at the time, but so does Deleuze in his initial texts.

>>9941364
My assessment of people like Deleuze is that you really do not have to engage with their thought at all to understand philosophy in any way other than 'historically' ie. their effects on modern thought. They are charlatans.

>>9941414
>body without organs
>"The Body without Organs is thus, as Deleuze and Guattari explain, also a "plane of consistency," which, concretely ties together heterogeneous or disparate elements" (507). In other words, the BwO provides the smooth space through which movement can occur. Rather than the unifying principles of a system of organization, the BwO's system of embodiment is constituted through principles of consolidation."
Off some glossary. What is this unscientific bullshit? Oh my god philosophy is embarrassing.

>>9941364
If any of the frenchs who are called hacks is really a hack is this guy

>>9941364
Look at his finger nails. Take all the time you need....

File: ew.jpg (9KB, 180x214px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 180x214px

>>9941457
>his finger nails
what THE FUCK

>>9941440
That's because that glossary explains an unfamiliar concept through other unfamiliar concepts so it sounds like gibberish. If you understood what a philosophical concept is for D&G and how the empirical phenomena of the BwO relate to it as abstraction, you wouldn't judge it as being scientific or unscientific.

>>9941437
>>9941448
Great, you won't have to read him then. Go find a different thread to shitpost in.

>>9941457
holy shit

>>9941457
>>9941464
His mom used to cut them for him and, being a victim of the Oedipus Complex, he is unable to cut them himself.

"dude just be weird lmao"

>>9941484
He actually had very sensitive skin on his fingers

File: 61oXuDtbYKL._SL1500_.jpg (94KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1000x1500px

>>9941414

>the tiny minority of this tiny minority of people who have the ability to study philosophy seriously, and can make a critical assessment of Deleuze's philosophy.

Who are these people and where can I find them? Is pic related anywhere to start?

>>9941440
>>9941467

What is the difference between 'organization' and 'consolidation'? Functionality and telos? They sound related, if not synonymous, to me-- organization typically requires consolidation of elements--but they are being counterposed in this passage.

just read it however you want, it's what deleuze would have wanted. He literally said so

>>9942404
>>9942412

bump

>>9942312
That's the joke.

>>9942412
You're right, but that passage does not explain the greater context in which organization is associated with a fixed model whereas consolidation in a sense creates new organization. Still, the egg model of the BwO is too difficult as an initial step, too close to science. You're better off reading the A Thousand Plateaus chapter about the BwO rather than the Anti-Oedipus one for an initial impression. It describes it in terms of love, drugs and masochism.

>>9942312
That's the joke.

>>9941414
How micro-fascist of you.

>>9941440
It's about re-evaluating how hierarchies/classifications come to dominate. Your "omg it's not scientific" is exactly the kind of thinking he's trying to get around.

>>9942837
how would you explain the body without organs

>>9941364
>Doesn't cut his nails

Need I say more

>>9941414
Your a faggot

>>9941414
Imagine typing a response like this shitting on a thinker, and not having a single argument; just hot air.

Pathetic.

>>9942429
yeah, rreah him like you listen to a bob dylan-record; outside-in

>>9942926
an organism that is more than its parts, a partless whole

>>9941457
What the fuck?

>>9943436
how do you read him if you don't listen to bob dylan

>>9943405
it's pretty well-written tho

Yo /lit/ I'm currently studying to be a clinical psych. I've delved heavily into Freud and moved onto Jung and now Lacan (all in my own time of course, modern psychology is obsessed with CBT). I'm slightly familiar with Deleuze but I wanna ask: is there any worth to studying D&G? Do they offer anything that could help an up and coming practitioner with an amateur interest in philosophy?

>>9943727
ye
s

>>9941440
Why would you even consider science relevant in this context? Is that positivism I smell?

>>9943727

yo have to leav e

>>9943727
>is there anything worthwile in D&G?

No, not in D&G. Deleuze's solo work is very good, and still maintains relevance. His work with Guattari is more of a political toolbook for extremists of all sorts. Started out confined to leftism but has more recently spread to the right. The tools work well, but you're most certainly not going to gain any insight or wisdom from them.

You just might start a little anarchy though, if only in your own life...

Deleuze's solo work is philosophically rigorous, and offers a fresh and interesting approach. Again, it won't help you improve your life in a very concrete way, but it will show you many new dimensions to things.

>>9943942
This is what being clinically retarded looks like.

>>9943727
D&G's assemblages are quite close to CBT even though they are in part a critique of behaviorism. Their work together is close to psychology even though they tend to use it in a pejorative sense (as a term for excessive interiority or rationalization for example), unlike their idol Nietzsche who claimed to be a great psychologist. In fact, what makes them rather close to CBT is Nietzsche's influence to begin with (his work on drives and the will to power). That of course does not mean that they are one and the same thing since D&G have metaphysical stances such as the plurality of the will (aka plurality of assemblages) which no psychologist would assume.

Just to clarify on why the other poster is dumb and should simply be ignored. Politics for D&G is micropolitics aka absolutely everything ever. They replace Levinas' "ethics is primordial" with "politics is primordial". Even the way you take a shit is politics.

>>9942926
For starters, you will never understand a D&G concept if you assume that it is one thing rather than an open rhizome capable of all kinds of unconventional connections. They insist on not restricting philosophical concepts (unlike scientific functions for example). The main title tying their first two books together is Capitalism and Schizophrenia and they use the philosophical concept of "desire production" as an inbetween to bring the two (economics and psychiatry) together. Now this might seem arbitrary, but it is justified as long as it works and is useful in understanding the world.

So the BwO is a lot of things, many of them difficult to understand. If you've ever taken drugs or fallen in love or felt a masochistic connection to pain which joins pain with enjoyment rather the standard response of recoiling and avoiding, then you've felt a Body without Organs, one of many. Deleuze described ot poetically once as a desert populated by tribes (multiplicities). It is between the organs and their organization: for example in sexual arousal the skin, covered in erogenous zones, becomes a sort of sexual organ rather than whatever it was organized towards before (keeping the flesh safe, tactile response, etc.), of course this being just a rudimentary example of something that we go through daily without realizing it because every BwO is part of an assemblage which contains all kinds of elements: symbols, spaces, feelings, movements, time lapses, etc.

>>9944036
Interesting, thanks for the in depth response. Once I've got my fill of Lacan I'll move on to D&G.

>>9944064
Damn nigga now I'm just even more confused

>>9943727
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA KYS FAGGOT

>>9944109
W-what did I do

>>9944089
What confused you exactly?

a footnote to Nick Land

>>9944255
I like Land but this is stupid.

post modernist cancer, throw it in the trash with rest of the marxist trying to destroy Europe.

>>9944486
>tfw I'm white and will never have kids just to spite /pol/ because I hate their shitposting so much

>>9944501
>I'm ending my line to spite people of my own race.

Cultural marxism sure did a number on you.

>>9943663
with little record-scratches

>>9944543
I'll be sure to shout "white pride worldwide!" every time I waste my sperm.

are deleuzians alt-right?
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/deleuze-guattari-and-the-new-right-part-1/

>>9944036
>politics are everything ever
>not extremist
>muh CBT
>calling other posters retarded

>>9944068
Once you get your fill of Lacan you will find D&G laughably bad. Deleuze's solo work seriously engages with psychoanalysis on meaningful terms.

Capitalism and Schizophrenia does makes ridiculously bad straw men out of Freud, Lacan, and Hegel. Capitalism and Schizophrenia is mostly polemical, intentionally designed to scand any serious discourse and dissolve everything into endlessly chattering dogmatic altperspectives, none of which understand any of the others. Sound familiar?

>>9945210
its the other way around too

after reading D&G, Lacan seems like a charlatan

>>9944543
someone used cultural Marxism un-ironically
someone is actually scared of ~~le cultural marxism~~ and thinks we are all brainwashed dotards for not being #woke

that's enough of /lit for today
see you

>>9945254
Only if you haven't seriously read Lacan... It's true, that Lacan wasn't anywhere near the greatest thinker (or even psychologist) to have walked the earth, but he was a knowledgeable Freudian, and understood exponentially more about Freud's project than D&G, who reduced Freud to the hackneyed image of a tyrannical patriarch of the type that Freud himself described in Totem and Taboo.

Much like Nietzsche, Deleuze and Guattari engage with stereotyped renderings (masks) of thinkers, not the stated intentions of the thinkers themselves. They always dig for ulterior motives and in the end find nothing but their own in the simplified shape of another.

Real scholarship is charitable to the subjects or theorists it addresses, and can evince subtle twists of logic which do not completely undermine the thinker, but add meaningful detail.

Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus take a laundry list of complex, meaningful thinkers, and reduce them to cartoon-tier images. Then they accuse these thinkers of doing this themselves, imposing "images of thought" on everything.

>>9945210
>>9945404
You're doing what Deleuze called interprethosis: you can never criticize Freud or Lacan because there's always a "too deep for you" at the end of it. So you're better off writing or reading a book about a book about a book until the end of time hoping for some revelation. And a Lacanian or Freudian ever complaining about dogmatism is hilarious. Besides, D&G explicitly state that they do not attack some abstract psychoanalysis in-itself but rather the dogmatic practices of their day. As for "ulterior motives", I'm not sure what you mean, D&G mostly complain about ulteriorism (as in that you can never do anything without there being some ulterior unconscious motive to be interpreted behind it) and insofar as honesty is concerned, if that's what you were going for, it isn't questioned. One can be honest in their approach and still be integrated in a tradition of ressentiment for example.

>>9944036
>CBT

Stopped reading here.

>>9945404
>Only if you haven't seriously read Lacan... It's true, that Lacan wasn't anywhere near the greatest thinker (or even psychologist) to have walked the earth, but he was a knowledgeable Freudian, and understood exponentially more about Freud's project than D&G
Were Dolce & Gabbana even philosophers?

>>9945484
I'm neither a Lacanian or a Freudian, and would defend their dogma no more than I would defend any that makes for an interesting literary excursion.

There are certainly valid criticisms of both Lacan and Freud, but Deleuze and Guattari did not hit on any of them. Their criticisms are based on highly selective readings and systematic misrecognition.

The dogmatism in psychoanalysis would have been more aptly criticized by Ernst Cassirer, for example, but he saw no point in it, because if people had not yet understood Kant's first critique, there would be no point in educating them of its importance two hundred years later.

As far as Guattari's ulterior motives are concerned, it appears to me that he was far more interested in political tactics than philosophy or metaphysics. If he isn't actually at all interested in philosophy and subordinates the entire field to his own political activism, I'd say he has an ulterior motive when claiming to be engaging with philosophers.

>>9945577
no, they were dirty capitalists until they unleashed their schizzes and made increased their flows of cash by decreasing their models to skin and bones: the primal BwO.

>>9941440
*sniffs your ass* fucking gross! What is this unscientific shit? Your asshole is embarrassing

>>9946063
you mean the solar anus?
Well, God is a Lobster!

>>9945404
>implying a sketch of how thought actually works on the ground is a bad thing if it dismisses its impetus in the grand tradition of Beckett

>>9945672
> There are certainly valid criticisms of both Lacan and Freud, but Deleuze and Guattari did not hit on any of them. Their criticisms are based on highly selective readings and systematic misrecognition.

Could you give some examples? It is true that in Anti-Oedipus thry tried to get Lacan on their side and painted a pretty picture of him which did not describe him, but other than that the only problem I see is that they sometimes said Freud instead of Freudians and Lacan instead of Lacanians, something that they themselves admit. Besides, I'm not sure what would differ if they were more precise, it would not create a non-Oedipal Freud for example.

> politics

As I said before in the thread, for D&G micropolitics is primordial, yet people seem to consider this extremist or opposed to philosophy even though it is an obvious fact if you understand synthesis and desire production in Deleuze's sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS35vUMhww4

>>9941364
-Postmodernists bow to D&G
-In contact with rhizomatic structures
-Possess schizocapitalist-like abilities
-Control France's universities with an iron but relativist fist
-Own potato farms & organ banks globally
-Direct descendants of the ancient Marxist tradition
-Will bankroll the first Communes in Ecole Normale Superiere
-Own 99% of postmodern jargon in post-structuralist study
-First designer babies will in all likelihood be schizocapital organs
- Both said to have 215+ IQ, such intelligence on Earth has only existed deep in MENSA
-Ancient Indian scriptures tell of two angels who will descend upon Earth and will bring an era of enlightenment and unprecedented technological progress with them
-They own all the great American plateaus
-You likely have schizocapitalism inside you right now
-D&G are in regular communication with the theorists Marx and Engels, forwarding the word of communism to the unwashed student masses.

>>9947861
>schizocapitalism
Y64 c643dn't have s-ent 6ver 9*** h64rs 5n -a5nt t6 0a2e a 0e0e 6f th5s f6r 4s/

>>9948105
>schizocapitalism
Wow my keyboard fucked out hard.

>>9948105
Go to bed, Nick.

>>9944486
he was a critic of marxism you idiot

"Be a yuppie artist." - Deleuze & Guattari

>>9941440
Pretty much.

>>9944064
>>9943942
Like I said in the other Deleuze thread >>9946521, his type should have reread the Gorgias. In practice, BwO is birthing fiction and calling it reality: an exhortation for a poetic understanding of facts. A radical interpretation of all contexts, intelligble or not. Gorgias at least had the integrity to follow through and claim the consequences of meaninglessness.

>>9941364
OP, Deleuze is fine as an artist, but does not deserve to be on a shelf next to Wittgenstein or Heidegger.

>>9948727
Heidegger is a Hegel 2.0 with added Nazi ism
he doesn't deserve to be on the shelf next to Deleuze....

>>9942926
Think of the BwO as the state of embryogenesis: a region of non-stratified latent potentialities, of limitless, unfixed becomings. What may emerge as a beak or head is in the BwO some amniotic, amorphous matter. But the BwO can never be more than asymptotically approached. It exists at the limit of being: pure becoming.

>>9944255
you mean the other way around
it's like calling Hegel a footnote to Zizek

>>9948467
where does this meme come from

>>9941364
LOOK AT THOSE FUCKING FINGERNAILS EW FUCK

>>9948727
>>9949980
Wittgenstein is the odd one out here, barely worth prepping bulls like Deleuze and Heidegger.