Permanently Deleted
cmv there's no difference between philosophy or theory. We just call it "theory" because the left was pushed out of conventional philosophy.
IMO "theory" should be multidisciplinary and incorporate philosophy as well as every other relevant kind of inquiry or study.
Oh yeah for sure, I totally agree and was just being pedantic sorry.
Why would I have to change your mind? He explicitly is a philosopher, and referred to himself as such.
Deleuze conceived of philosophy as the production of concepts, and he characterized himself as a “pure metaphysician.”
That being said yeah it is kind of difficult to parse. That's then the social purpose of pop-philosophers: to try and repackage or translate these things into a more contemporary or digestible format.
spoiler
E: also BwO is difficult to explain, but it's significantly easier when the person already has a grasp on physical vs. metaphysical qualities.
E2: "What the fuck is a Rhizome? I know that there’s stuff like this in contemporary leftist theory but it’s usually explicitly explained SOMEWHERE in the writings of the author or the book in question. I’ve NEVER seen Deleuze explicitly explain ANY of their concepts in clear language." -I don't want to get too far ahead of myself (because I am still in the process of reading A Thousand Plateaus, not an expert) but I believe this is addressed in the 2nd or 3rd page of the intro to ATP. It's difficult to get, because D&G are using 3 different levels of metaphor there.
tbh i’m just overly critical of deleuze because i already have a hard time caring about anything and prioritizing caring about something over accomplishing what i care about sounds like a fun way to lose the rest of the things i care about.
I am having a difficult time articulating my thoughts on this part. Caring doesn't have to be such a zero-sum circumstance, one care does not necessarily have to be at the expense of another. Perhaps some of these cares are not "cares" at all, and perhaps no-action is the proper response? I am trying not to just tell you to "check your priorities" or something unhelpful like that but the words aren't really coming to me.
Edit: also where does it end? if my desire is to desire things would accomplishing desiring things be counted as pleasure and thus reterritoralization?
Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization both happen simultaneously as two faces of the same process. When something is removed from its previous territory it is reterritorialized to reflect its change in state. So "accomplishing desiring things" would deterritorialize "desiring things" from the territory of a desire, and reterritorialize it into the territory of an accomplishment (or pleasure.)
Also part of the problem might be that i’m just a normie nerd that is no fun and doesn’t have any conception of non-typical physics, “metaphysics” just means “pseudoscience” to me dumdum brain
As someone with a very abstractly-wired brain: :shrug-outta-hecks:
wait shit i thought reterroitorilization was exclusively a colonialism thing and that deleuze meant that living in a state of deterritorilization was optimal (which i guess means absolutely nothing? lmao).
Yes this is gibberish lmao, I'm glad we cleared it away for you!
goddamit chapo how could you not give me 100% factual information 100% of the time, hexbear is cancelled
BuT ReAlItY Is SuBjEcTiVe So MaYbE sOmOnE tOlD yOu ThEiR tRuTh?!?
IMO lingo is good for avoiding falling into traps like "dictatorship of the proletariat", "middle class" etc. Also, he didn't even invent the word rhizome, it is used for roots with the very properties he is describing. I got some clarity from listening to these podcasts:
Trash Talks (pro-Deleuze): one - two - three - four
Why Theory (anti-Deleuze): one - two - three
they’d probably run slightly faster away from you
good bit
Why would Deleuze not want you to eat and fuck? Is not half the appeal of these French fucks that they are all perverts?
The idea of capitalism as schizophrenic is a kinda cool metaphor, and I think Control as he opposes it to Foucault's concept of Discipline is incredibly helpful to have around as concept, but sure, most of Deleuze is like weird, avant garde metaphysical shit. It's for big nerds. Difference? More like, diff the fuck outta here, am I right? He was pretty based, but he wasn't out here writing something technically brilliant or generally accessible enough to change the world. We're all probably better off reading a wikipedia page about Control and Anti-Oedipal and getting all of our Deleuze through Mark Fisher.
Kind of doing a bit, but mostly serious. I think you've got a point, and I like the weird shit that philosophers go on tangents about.
All of today's theorists are philosophers, i don't think that Deleuzeans today would see the distinction.
Definitely the end of revolutions and serious political engagement plays a role here. Deleuze actually said in the ABC's of Deleuze that "all revolutions fail." Already when 'critical theory' was coined, Adorno and Horkheimer were disillusioned with politics and modernity and it is only worse today. I agree that thinkers today are much more concerned with their own ideas than directly shaping the world around them, Zizek openly says we should reverse Marx's eleventh thesis.
it was more like a wry and reticent observation than a factual claim. he was talking about how ineffective the communist party meetings he went to in college were. he said that the revolution would be better helped by people finishing their theses than by pretending that the revolution was to begin tomorrow. this is exactly what you brought up, the shift in perspective from Lenin et al. writing about how to actually take power to philosophizing about how to see things.
if I remember the old LF effortpost correctly, deleuze writes gibberish
