What should I know / read before this? Is there an intro / summery of Freud I could read and you could advise? Is the communist manifesto and a general understanding of Marxism enough?
Anti-Oedipus
Jace Powell
Benjamin Price
The intro covers what you should know going in.
Ian Sanders
Deleuze was a hack and should not be read by anyone.
Carter Johnson
:3
Hudson Phillips
There is a thread on this exact topic everyday. If you aren't smart enough to know to use the archive, then you should probably never open this book.
Colton Russell
You have to read all of the late works of Freud.
Jose Lee
not him but i read interpretation of dreams so that i could read this but i think i might have fucked up
Nicholas Brooks
Delueze, Gilles. Dislike him. A cheap wordsmith, crazy and obscure. A schizophrenic, a claptrap metaphysicist and a slapdash Spinozan. Some of his philosophy is extraordinarily nonsensical. Nobody takes his Body-Without-Organs seriously.
Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Bacon's "Essays"
Difference and Repetition. Dislike it intensely.
Anti-Oedipus. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly haunting.
Aaron Lewis
the bit on bacon, the fucking painter, is good, agreed
and everyone takes the body without organs seriously
Jordan Lewis
You need to have a working knowledge of Western philosophy to understand Deleuze. You especially need to know about the distinction between what Deleuze considers the dialectical tradion leading from Socrates to Hegel, and what he considers the anti-dialectical tradition of Bergson, Nietzsche, and Spinoza. Then you can read Deleuze starting with Difference and Repetition. To read Anti-Oedipus, you also need to have a working understanding of Freud and Lacan, as well as Lyotard to understand Guattari’s contributions.
Or you can just start with Deleuze and read philsophy backwards through him, which would be a very Deleuzian thing to do
Charles Murphy
Kys.
Anti-oedipus has a lot of parallels with eastern philosophy like buddhism and daoism.
We are desiring machines and we seek to fulfill our desires. Our neuroses emerge when we are incapable of satisfying our desires. Capitalism is a mechanism that allows us to fulfill our desires, but it is a morbid and vain. Everything is a machine. A schizophrenic going for a walk in the park is better than sitting on a sofa.
If you need help understanding their ideas go to reddit/youtube/google
go to websites like the plato stanford encyclopedia or websites similar.
Ideally, however, you should become a schizo (not in the clinical sense). Take a bunch of psychedelics.
Noah Gutierrez
No u, the fact that you take anything Deleuze says as fact already says enough about you.
Easton Cruz
As fact?! You are fucking laughable. Continue to jerk yourself off.
Jacob Reed
That's rich coming from someone who idolizes Hegel
Easton Watson
>We are desiring machines
No, we are the products of complex systems of machines attached to other machines, desiring machines are only one type of machine.
>and we seek to fulfill our desires. Our neuroses emerge when we are incapable of satisfying our desires.
D&G's desire is not associate with lack and can't be "fulfilled"
>Capitalism is a mechanism that allows us to fulfill our desires, but it is morbid and vain
No, Capital is a self replicating machine process. We thought it was a mechanism to fulfill our desires, but it has its own desires and needs that are unrelated to human ones
Please don't talk about things you don't understand
Grayson Cruz
Sorry, you are right. I was injecting my own biases. But, though we are products of a complex system of machines, we are still machines nonethless.
Nathan Gonzalez
Mate, just give up. You're making a fool out of yourself.
Matthew Robinson
Mattery and Memory by Bergson then Difference and Repetition by Deleuze then 1000 Plateaus then that mess. I know 1000 Plateaus was written later as a second part but it honestly makes Anti-Oedipus make sense so I would read it first and then maybe again after.
Xavier Robinson
Camden Hall
Colton Nelson
John Hernandez
>Guattari the psychoanalyst
>psychoanalysis
>having ANY merit in ANY way whatsoever
Holy shit are there seriously people outside of the most demented/brainwashed parts of European academia in a few select countries who take anything related to psychoanalysis seriously? It is literally on the same level as astrology. On the other hand, the willful delusion is on par with what I'd expect from some of the woke leftists here.