Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

I figured starting with a easier secondary reading like

Crowned Anarchy-Anarchy-Anarchism – Countereffectuating Deleuze and Guattari’s politics, by Aragorn Eloff

or

War on the State: Stirner and Deleuze’s Anarchism

I mostly commented in case someone had a really good starting point

normally I dismiss philosophers who can't explain their ideas simply but deluze intriged me and TW has written on how like reading deluze changed their whole perspective on stuff which is captivating

3

cyberrose wrote

normally I dismiss philosophers who can't explain their ideas simply

Really not know why everybody is saying such things when talking about Deleuze and Guattari. Maybe I just don't get them to the fullest extend but reading Anti-Ödipus I would not say I'm not understanding what they say. But maybe other people read books differently; I'm not interested to get every reference, this would hardly be possible, I'm rather interested in getting an Idea about how they think and how their world functions. And this is completely feasible if you allow your thinking adapt to the written word.

But as I said maybe that's not what people mean when they say they want to understand Deleuze.

2

lettuceLeafer OP wrote (edited )

Many philosophy books are the most challenging work of literature that people can read. While raddle is filled with people who read for fun so reading philosophy texts isn't seen as weird for the average person they rarely read and when they were in school their reading ability wasn't a high percentile. The average person would not be able to understand most philosophy texts without more reading practice before hand. Now a lot of this is just nonsense to sound profound imo.

I could have read a whole crimthic articel on abolishing gender or some other cool concept to make me think about diffirently in the time it took me to understand one sentace about deleuze. Which isn't bad just like a text has to be really good to warrant me reading that instead of way easier to comprehend texts

Like I was readin aaragon talk about deleuze. And to their merit aaragon apologized about using more difficult words as it was to save space. Take this sentance

Instead of this, Guattari argues, we need an ‘other’ movement that is founded on the self-valorisation and self-production of singularities

Almost everyone has no fucking clue what self valorization and self production of singularities means. You know why because the ways these words are used aren't even in dictionaries. For me to learn the definition for self valorization I had to pull up a article on a university page for valorization to learn what it means. Because the use of valorization in most dictionaries makes no sense in context. This includes understanding the history of the word in philosophical texts as the way marx used self valorization is much different than later philosophers. So then I had to read this winding diatribe about the several different definitions and their nuances then put them into context and try to figure out which deleuze means.

But learning wtf self production of singularities means was a whole other ball park. In the dictionary no definition made sense in the context of self production. So then I went hunting for context. Couldn't find it in any decent hits on google search for the term. So I then browsed philosphy reddit as there were threads asking for explainations on what the word meant. And as is typical it was so complex no one could comment the definition but I did find a link to a medium article explaining the definition of the word. It was only 9 paragraphs long.

Now keep in mind I"m a reading nerd who reads for fun and was vastly better at academics than most people in high school. And most peoples reading ability doesn't improve after highschool because most people don't read challenging texts for fun. So I someone who isway way better than average at reading thinks this is hard and difficult. Can you imagine what reading this shit would be like for someone who rarely reads or someone with dislexia or a learning disability. Honestly it would be such a undertaking.

Philosophers just love wasting people time writing in the least acessible way possible for their own amusement. And the only people who read them are into that wierd stuff like me. Just reading philosphers is generally such a massive effort and time sink because of that compared to like the average anarchist text which is meant to be accessible.

So for most philosophers I don't bother because its just so much more beneficial and relaxing to read texts written by people who aren't full time academics. I made an exception for deleuze because the tip of the iceberg seems interesting and unique.

3

cyberrose wrote

First of all: I agree to a lot of points.

So then I had to read this winding diatribe about the several different definitions and their nuances then put them into context and try to figure out which deleuze means.

And you think this is really that important? When I read this stuff I rather do it to understand the content overall not in detail. I mean when you really want to understand every single sentence you have to go down a never ending rabbit whole. How do you want to understand Deleuze and Guattari without understanding Marx ( -> Hegel), Stirner ( -> Hegel), Spinoza, ... ? Understanding every single sentence as you explained is in my opinion not possible. So I'm fine to read it from my perspective and be fine to get some things "wrong" as long as I have the feeling to get a grip of the overall philosophy. (In the end I do not read this stuff to reproduce every single bit someone else said but include the stuff I find valuable in my own world-view)

Can you imagine what reading this shit would be like for someone who rarely reads or someone with dislexia or a learning disability. Honestly it would be such a undertaking.

I didn't want to say it's easy. Sorry if it sounded like this. I rather wanted to say it's not harder than other philosophical/political texts for people reading those for fun. I didn't want to sound like an asshole, sorry. (I mean there are a lot of philosophical memes saying deleuze is hard) [And I'd like to add that I have dyslexia as well and it takes a lot of time for me reading such stuff]

Philosophers just love wasting people time writing in the least acessible way possible for their own amusement.

I really don't think thats the point with Deleuze and Guattari, as some other person wrote refering the repetition book: The style they write is analogue to the content. It sounds hard to suck you in the thinking they want to transfer. And this makes Deleuze/Guattari more accessible to me.

Sorry I have to stop here. Have a nice day.

3

lettuceLeafer OP wrote

Oh I completely misunderstood u. Mb. I thought u meant Deleuze was as easy as regular books while you meant Deleuze was just as hard as other writers like Kant or Hegel ect. Which I agree with and don't dispute in any way.

3