Thoughts on these guys?

Do we like or dislike?

>>24580884 (OP)
I tried to read Deleuze's book on film and I didn't understand shit, so I quit after the first couple of pages. I imagine the rest of their philosophy is like that as well.

>24580899
I get that. From what I do understand, I do enjoy the concepts of Cybernetic Desiring-Machines and the Rhizome, but it’s still very much on the upper level of my comprehension. So much prior reading is required to touch it.


>inb4 wow you’re so dumb!

Sticks and stones pal.

>>24580884 (OP)
can't rightly say I ever could make heads nor tails of these here fellers

I've read most of their work and could provide some (non)retarded guidance if anyone is curious, was in some seminars with Negarestani on them.

They have immense staying power and are definitely worth reading and understanding. I guess, in brief, the problems in the current 'mainstream' of a philosophy are: everything can too easily be interpreted in their paradigm just like with Nietzsche, the distinctions between who decides what counts as a deterritorialization and what doesn't or what the BwO is or isn't is up for grabs in the same way that who decides who is Uber and who is last man in Nietzsche is up for grabs, and most importantly the primary revolutionary concept in their paradigm is molecular-becomings. Probably Marx was more Hegelian then their conception of freedom in molecular-becomings permits.

Been reading quite a bit of Guattari lately out of interest in his solo, psychoanalytic work. If anyone has actually read Schizoanalytic Cartographies and wants to chat about it I'd love to. Still can't figure out most of the diagrams. I can link some good papers summarizing their work and the contemporary vibe of the last couple of years if anyone is interested.

>>24580884 (OP)
they were the big /lit/ meme in 2018

>>24580884 (OP)
Deleuze is a scam artist. Anything worthwhile in Anti-Oedipus and 1000 Plateaus comes 100% from Guattari.

>>24580884 (OP)
I'm nearly done with Anti-Oedipus Vol. 1. I've been taking my time annotating it and arguing with it as I go since it feels like an aberration of Nietzsche but yk that's what happens when you try to revitalize Marx.

It's extremely creative and if you filter it through a neutral political lens you open the gate to thinkers like Land, especially the later Land, which I'm more in tune with.

It even makes me want to sympathize with old school Marxists when you see the devolution that occurs from Marxism to Cultural Marxism.
Subsequently I feel that placing Libido with regards to deterritorialization as a force that "can and should be freed" I have no problem with that in technicality, but in the words of our prophet:

"Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free FOR WHAT?"

And so Libido is meant to be in a greater service to Life, the general aim of Nietzsche. Neo-Reactionaries are more correct on this because they uphold competition, they're not scared of Capitalist growth as such. So much talk about avoiding "bad-conscience" in this book but it's unescapable if you begin from a liberal-"capitalist" perspective.

>>24580884 (OP)

It's all just an elaborate excuse to justify the idea that a man who puts on a dress, mutilates himself, and injects chemicals can become a woman.

>>24580884 (OP)
Reading his treatment of Kant. I especially liked the part about Kant creating a stifling and excessive atmosphere but if you can make it through the filtration hurdles then you become a machine surrounded by fog.

Classifying him as a 3 guy is a bit underwhelming though. Kant can always opt for 3 but he's at his best with 2. If you slow down for 3 then you will wind up at Hegel without the external world.

>those 2 guys

>>24581465
This is like the fucking opposite. The entire reason the retarded use of schizophrenia in Anti-Oedipus exists, is 90% because of Guattari's faggot ass, which predisposes him to stupidly undermining and deconstructing psychological categories. I DONT FUCKING CARE that "he doesnt LITERALLY MEAN ACTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA" first of all thats debatable, because they are using the base of how a schizophrenic interprets and understands reality differently to formulate their stupid revolutionary theory, but also because WITTGENSTEIN. LANGUAGE GAME. HOLY FUCK. It doesnt matter whether you intend to mean it differently, the fact you even chose to use that word in such a blatantly altered way, but that still harkens back to its intended meaning in some sense. even loosely, is borderline a sin.

prove me wrong.

>>24581410
Sadly I just read them to reboot communism. The problem with diagrams is that it is often simpler to express onesself in french than in diagram, vide Lacan.

>>24582260
You're Schizophrenic because you can't properly enter language, like being reverse birth raped into your mother.

>>24582504
No idea what you mean. You got me

>>24582236
Kant as a 3 guy instead of a 2 guy. Wtf do you mean by this? Are you alluding to the view that Kant assumes an objective third person exists in a since(i.e. the scientific truth)? By a 2 guy, are you talking about the inherently subjective nature of Hegel's view?

I'm sorry, you just described this in such a retarded way but sound like you know what you are talking about. I am confused lol

>>24582837
I dont know either, but guessing has something to do with the dualism, multiplicity buzzwords I see on here

>>24580884 (OP)
>>24581410

I read part of Hollands book on Anti-Oedipus. A few things stood out to me.

1.) I don't like the term schizophrenia as G and T's preferred creative flow state. Too much clinical baggage.

2.) it feels like they historicize everyone but themselves. If they were to historicize themselves I think they might see that what they are creating is in response to the trauma of the second WW2 and the failure of student protests.

>>24581410
Oh sorry, wanted to add.

I think they were hugely influential, and their work impacts everything we see now, but I don't think it's been in a good way. They ripped up the foundations of everything, hoping that people would be able to carve out identities for themselves free from desire/labor distinctions but instead people were just left drifting. We need to bring back that nigga Oedipus because he was the only thing keeping people anchored.

Actually maybe schizophrenia was the right word because the world went crazy internalizing G and T.

>>24582952
>Actually maybe schizophrenia was the right word because the world went crazy internalizing G and T.
I do not think they were THAT influential lmao. Most people arent even aware of Delueuze and Guattari, even loosely.
Theyre just a continuation of what Nietzsche started, which is a continuation of what Schopenhaeur started, which is a continuation of what Kant started. Throw Hegel in there too I guess if somebody feels like it.