This is the ultimate masterpiece

kwab

William S Burroughs, Spinoza, Freud, Marx, Claude Levi-Strauss, Artaud, Beckett, Boulez

The author wanted to abolish age of the consent laws. No thank you.

Guatarri didn't

Obviously I'm going to trust the judgement of someone who worked with someone who did. No thanks.

tfw someone's argument is invalid because they did bad things

When you're a philosopher, yes. Your entire world view is a product of your actions. I'm not going to accept the arguments of groomers, you might because you're into that type of thing, but I'm not. Have fun with that, groomer.

god I love scat porn so much

Seriously though, what was the reason for this? Why was this such a big platform that every French intellectual argued for? Is it that important to them to fuck kids?

tfw philosophers aren't people and flawed just like the rest of us

The idea behind it was that consent was a historically contingent category. And it would still be illegal to sexually assault someone. The idea is that someone can only consent if they are a rational subject, which they would argue doesn't exist. So the idea of age of consent laws hierarchicalizes people upon the superiority of a specific type of authority and power

>Is it that important to them to fuck kids?
Yes it is

Nothing. I read it but I didn't understand a thing. Honestly I can't understand any of the philosophy books. It just goes in one eye and out the other.

>Unironically implying child grooming is a character flaw

>Americain enters the thread

happened to me with Aristotle, things come into place if you keep digging

>Or you can read Eugene W Holland guide to Anti-oedipus which is really clearing up all the stuff going on in this book
That's cheating though

>The law is the same as morality
Okay, groomer.

you were the only one here arguing that morality should be legislated by law:

based chocolate factory

I really wish I understood this book. But I just dont get it. I simply dont understand what they mean by "machine", talking about how everything is literally a machine. I guess I just have a specific image in my mind of what a machine is, some technological construction, whereas they explain it very abstractly

No one actually understands it, we just think phrases like nomadic war machines and plane of immanence sound cool as fuck

... But that's what law is. Codified morality. There's no law without morality. Even the libertarians' minimal laws reflect their morality; utilitarianism and property rights.

The BwO isn't really 'everything else'.

Existence is made up of partial objects. TONS of them. (partial objewcts are a whole thingf unto themselves) that either do or don't do shit when connected. When connected they forma desiring machine,an that machine produces. It does something. As it does, it disconnects. When it does, this connection/disconnection produces one thing rdirectly, but also a second element. A breast-babymouth machine perhaps produces milk, sure. But with that it also produces an ineffable something, a satisfaction of sorts.

This doesn't do shit. it's just a memory of the thing in a sesne. Alone it's nothing. But it's kept. This connection doesn't just happen once. It''s A LOT. babyies suck lots of boob. And each time it's recording this memory, like magnetic tape, over itself, over experience. But things that repeat, things that satisfy the same way, sort of last longer. get overwritten less.

No, start with this baby, and apply this to EVERY MACHINE they are a part of. LIKLE WOW so many fucking machines. MILLIONS. Toe-bed connections, lip boob, finger lip, smell dad, eye sun, whatever. LIKE TONS.

Over time, this becomes a massive constellation of experience. The baby doesn't retain this. It doesn't make sense of any thing thing., That's absurd. Instead over time patterns show up. It noticies certain machines lead to certain things. Over and over. Repetition belies reality. And soon it starts almost predicting outcomes. And it's right!

Soon it starts to see mommy as a thing - not as a collection of machines, but a thing. Daddy too. Doggie. cat. Whatever.

Then at some poiunt it sees itself as a thing. No longer organs and machines. A body, a singular element. And it thinks it is real.

But this body doesn't do shit. It ACTS like it does. We like to think 'Oh that's me' when we see actions done, but thta's absurd. It's tons of little machines, and the body takes credit - the body. Without Organs.

That post doesn't say anything about the moral being the law. Can you point to the sentence that says that, user?

we PRODUCE, like a factory, not just physical waste products but also desires and thoughts (which amount to waste products imo). i think they say we have 'moved from the theater of representation to the factory of production' in terms of our mode of being. instead of an historical march towards reconciliation and communion, we produce virally, accumulating our excesses, which in turn produce the conditions in which we produce, which most of the time leads to a degradation. just THINK PRODUCTION and the book makes sense

>start reading a long Yea Forums post that purports to explain deleuze
>stop two sentences in and click over to another tab

happens every time

Attached: download.png (206x245, 6.01K)

In the rest of this post I will explain how much I give a fuck about Deleuze

i wrote it at like 1am last night so it has some spelling mistakes etc but i really think this is the simplest of an explanation i can give as to the body without organs, i dont know what else to tell you man

explained the three syntheses of the deleuzo-guattarian unconscious but not really well the body without organs so im going to try to reexplain it:

-connective synthesis of production (constantly makes connection between partial objects: baby mouth/mommy breast, dick/hand, eye/ground. It is constant and unstoppable: "and...and...and.. Your eye looks to the ground and then the sky and then a random thing..and...etc.)

-disjonctive synthesis of recording (It records the product of the precedent synthesis on the BODY WITHOUT ORGANS, it creates a memory if you want and by doing such it breaks the connection in order to let the desiring machines create other connections (in order to avoid fixation which leads to neurosis). The BwO is a recording surface, it is a patchwork of all theses recordings of connexions, it is in a way your memory of your past connections)

-conjonctive synthesis of consumption (the subject emerges to consume the product/ to feel pleasure/suffer from this product, he thinks he's "real", a sovereign subject while he was created by his desiring machines)

I appreciate your explanation and I believe I understand it, but it still comes across a bit pointless. What am I supposed to do with this information?

i believe that deleuzes philsophy basically provides a psychological and sociological 'metaphysics' or baseline in order to think about things like development and how what we record becomes what we are, i think this is especially important in a political sense, which deleuze expands upon in plateaus which i'd recommend reading

it is a reform of psychoanalysis/propaedeutics which serves to explain the 2 types of production (production-desire/social production) (which are actually interrelated)

They then develop a theory of universal history with its 3 types of society (3 ideal-types which are savage society, barbarian society and capitalist society) which allows us to understand the historical repression of desire and how we arrived at the modern Oedipus complex which is the ultimate form of this repression.

The Oedipus complex takes place in the nuclear family, which aims to prepare docile subjects for the world of capitalist work by repressing desire and advocating asceticism.

I'm probably explaining this very poorly and i am summarising/skipping over some very important details but the book is excellent although difficult. It is 100 times more profound than what i will ever be able to explain here

this is a far better explanation than mine thank you for this

Appreciate the summaries. I read a bit of Plateaus and discounted it as schizobabble. I was looking for more 'cutting-edge' critiques of capitalism to consolidate with Ellul's critique of technological progress at the time. Perhaps I'll look into CaS.

Men are attracted to pubescent girls. Teenagers are obsessed with getting fucked by older men.

yes !
I haven't read ATP yet but AO is a complete critique of capitalism

Its a baseline for how post-modernists justify child grooming

hilarious

Critiquing capitalism is piss easy, a 10 year old could do it
How about some books that have practical alternatives
inb4 communism, I said *practical*

AO is way more than just a critique of capitalism though
And it offers practical alternatives via schizoanalysis

>nooo you're only 16 you can't have sex!! You don't know wtf you're doing!!!
>you're 16, you fully well knew what you were doing. You're going to jail.

Here's the whole faggoty book for you

>Capitalism...BAD!

Actually, that's philosophy for the last 100 fucking years. Useless fucking shit by overpaid academics who need to justify their overfunded departments. Nothing of value in there at all, it's all absolute crap anybody could think up.

Read some Dostoevsky and Saint Augustine instead of this Marxist rubbish.

Christcuck spotted

I will ask this here

What are some prerequisite readings for Lacan?

nothing can make you prepared enough for Lacan

bump

no, it isn't.

thank you for your participation

bump

what is CaS