/lit/ - Literature

Who are you quoting?

Obscurantism. Blame Hegel

>>20914742
>Blame Hegel
Blame the pre-Socratics

Yeah but now go read Paul Hazard's chapter on Voltaire in his book on the 18th century to see the perils of the opposite tendency of excessive clarity without any tolerance for opacity

>>20914710
>"to express my philosophy better, this book must be intentionally written with difficulty."

The aim is not "to express my philosophy better".
The aim is to justify my continued employment in academic institutions by maintaining the correct balance between apparent insight and ambiguity in my book so that other people in academic institutions can justify their continued employment by publishing books interpreting my book, which will, in turn, be sufficiently ambiguous that I can publish books responding to their books, and so on, in an endless cycle of implied insight and ambiguity that enables the industry to perpetuate itself without producing anything of value to society. And the money will come from government endowments and the well-meaning parents of 18 year olds who read one of my books after seeing it on /lit/ and was stupid enough to take it seriously.

>>20915019
*were

>>20914710
I want to get this book. But I just don't get it. I don't get what they mean by "machines".

>>20915035
something about capitalism putting people in categories, you after a while you also start thinking and behaving and doing things in categories
so the book is saying you need to be a schizo because schizo doesnt fall for these traps
and schizos like machines

idk man i never read this or thousand platoes sober, just cant do it sober

>Preface by Michel Foucalt

Into the trash it goes.

>>20914710
I found this to be very true. Yeah the stuff they’re talking about is complex but 9 times out of 10 I’d read some philosophy shit and be like
>wow this is unnecessarily wordy to the point of making me think it’s intentionally trying to be exclusionary like…is this a class thing?? trying to keep people out??
I specifically started reading more philosophy because that shit pisses me the fuck off and I want to live in a world where everyone understands these fun topics to talk about. So I read them and then talk to people about them acting as an enzyme to break down that verbose bullshit. The concepts aren’t that hard and they do not need to be that semantic, philosophy culture and philosophers are just shit communicators. Scientists and science communication is a great example of how to do it right.

>>20914710
This is the kind of complaint I heard frequently in an intro calculus-based stats course in college, but I never understood this complaint there since all the jargon had a point. I haven’t read too much philosophy, but if it is a slog to get through, then you will either have to find a way or quit reading it.

>>20915334
Same, I like taking some complex shit I know about and making it so some random guy can understand the basics as long as he's mildly interested.

You can cut through a lot of bullshit like a hot knife through butter if you just start from the underlying presumptions of the author, especially the most prosaic ones. Nothing makes an ordinary person less intimidated by Hegel than to tell them some of the almost "embarrassingly" straightforward rudiments of his thought. It makes them realize they have a right to hear him out and decide for themselves, that he's not operating on some magical level they can't operate on, at least not in principle.

Conversely the surest sign of a pseud poseur is when someone claims to understand a complex thinker like Heidegger or Deleuze and when asked basic questions about those authors' basic stances and views, they retreat into regurgitating the author's jargon. And when you ask them to explain the jargon, they use some other jargon to define it, which obviously makes no sense because the first thing an outsider needs is a straightforward foothold.

I don't think there's a single author you couldn't basically give the gist of in 30 minutes. I can explain Heidegger to a cat and have the cat understand the basic contours of his thought, his project, why he is interesting, etc.

>>20915019
a Daisy Chain

Kek, that penguin edition is riddled with typos. They aren't putting 1's instead of L's as some translation choice based in the original; you just got the shitty penguin edition from the era where they were like
>I'm sure nobody will notice if we just leave out random pages of an anniversary edition of Pynchon

>>20914742
Hegel is a lot more understandable than these hacks because unlike them there's actually a substance to his philosophy.

>>20915345
The problem is that dense philosophy can be like a layered puzzle, or like untangling a knot. When untangling a knot you have to strategically find which knotted parts need to be untangled first to slowly begin unravelling the whole knot, while also strategically targeting areas already loose and pliable to create more "give." It's a dialectical process. The same is true of the densest philosophy, you have to know what they mean by X or what they assume you know about Y before you can use X and Y to triangulate Z and then use Z to recursively make X and Y make more sense and then bring all that to bear on A, B, and C. It gets easier and easier as you go along, like a crossword or sudoku, because you start to be able to rule out certain possibilities at a glance rather than having to narrow it down manually for every "move," and things you've already figured out start to exponentially reflect one another. But not everybody enjoys this, and not everybody has a talent for it.

That's why it's so valuable, if you have the talent, to save people all the trouble by letting them skip to the end right at the beginning. Not the end of understanding, since they do have to do the work themselves and there's no substitute for reading. But you can eliminate huge swathes of red herring interpretations and semantic ambiguity with just a few well-chosen tips, for example telling them to skip ahead and read certain pages or chapters first because they reveal stuff that is implicitly assumed in the first chapters which are notoriously ball-breakingly difficult at first.

Also, mathematicians don't go out of their way to use confusing notation. Everything is at least intended to be parsimonious, both because mathematicians love simplicity and elegance, and for the simple reason that cumbersome and redundant shit clogs up the works and slows down the calculation process. Lots of philosophers don't abide by that rule, and they may have terms of art or metaphors that are highly idiosyncratic and only make sense once you already get them.

There is a class of philosopher that is sort of entitled to their idiosyncrasy, like Heidegger. Heidegger is perfectly lucid once you induct into his way of writing. But it's hard not to accuse Deleuze and Guattari of willful obscurantism, or at least of severely lacking foresight.

filtered
Also the point of writing Capitalism and Schizophrenia like that was to not be taken seriously and erasing the idea of authority present in being authors of a philosophy book. D&G really didnt care if people read their shit, they didnt see themselves as a huge event in philosophy like Hegel or Heidegger did. They think if you dont care about X author or book thats fine. Stop seething. Now start with Deleuze's book about Nietzsche which is basically the base of all his thought if you want to unfliter yourself.

>>20915364
hegel is garbage lol

>>20915395
Not an argument.

>>20915414
Nietzsche's second untimely meditation blows him and Marx the fuck out, you know this already

>>20915429
Nietzsche is the reason hacks like Guattari and Deleuze even exist, so no, absolutely not.

>>20914710
>"to express my philosophy better, this book must be intentionally written with difficulty."
Every /lit/ thread discussing philosophy and eastern religions

>>20914710
>capitalism and schizophrenia

The title suggests that it's a pretentious, far-removed wankfest.
>schizoanalysis
C'mon nigga. Imagine you go to these guys for depression and they start "schizoanalyzing" you.

>>20915432
Not an argument. Go read more and stop dick riding academic wankers like Hegel. Its not like I dont like him, he was a very hard working philosopher and its very impressive how systematic he was, but he seriously got BTFO by Nietzsche in like 10 pages.

>>20914710
Philosophy died with Rome. Modern philosophy is an oxymoron

>>20915429
as much as I like Nietz, he barely even read any philosophers other than Schope and the Greeks, his criticism of Kant and Hegel were just high effort shit post at best

>>20915455
>>20915455
where does he get btfo

>>20915455
>>20915471
95% of the reason people love Nietzsche is because of his god tier prose, his actual philosophizing is second rate. so tired of prose cucks shilling him and attacking Hegel

>>20915471
Name one (1) Roman philosopher with even one (1) original and well constructed idea.

>>20915478
>his criticism of Kant and Hegel were just high effort shit post at best
not really, if you think this you have been speedreading, his attack at kantian ethics and hegel's dialectic are his most important contributions to philosophy and made a huge change in later philosophy
What do you even like about him if you dont see any value in his criticism of kantian ethics and hegelian dialectics?

>>20915508
>his attack at kantian ethics and hegel's dialectic are his most important contributions to philosophy
in which books did he talk about this then?

>>20915334
>>20915347
you are both bugmen

>>20915497
Second untimely meditation postulates history is a continium of ahistorical events. Every kind of activity requires a degree of (a)historical inaccuracy. Hegel think every epoch of history and the philosophies of that time progress into a next stage because of an order of necessity that reveals itself as absolute knowledge and the end. Nietzsche on the contrary think every kind of historical consideration that could lead to new and different historical stages needs to be ahistorical in the sense that a "cientific" exact knowledge of any historical stage reveals all the moral and ontological contradictions of human existence. There is a Borges short story about a guy who cant forget that illustrates the problem of absolute historical accuracy and how it cripples life, which ruins Hegel endgame of the absolute spirit, because it represents absolute lack of biological human being from Nietzsches perspective.

>>20915364

>>20914710
The whole point is to intentionally filter brainlets like you

>>20915520
for hegel, his second untimely meditation as I mentioned above
for kantian ethics is all over his books. Theres one really important aphorism in gay science where he explains the impossibility of the subject to access his own "conciousness" because of how this type of thinking happens in languaje, which in his view can only express the most superficial and "middle ground" side of the individual. This impossibilitates the self's responsabilty over his own actions because they stop being anyone's actions when they are expressed in languaje.
This is just one example.

>>20915547
btw I will be checking this thread tomorrow to see if hegelfags can actually discuss or are just repeating stuff they watched on some chud youtube vid

>>20914772
>tolerance for opacity
lol

>>20914710

This book and ATP are incredible and have inspired a huge amount of original thought. Plus every once in a while, this book gets picked up by a suicidal incel and it turns them into a woman, and that's pretty cool.

>>20915502
Weak bait: Plotinus. Also interesting way to show you lack reading comprehension.

>>20915334
>>20915347
I would agree and disagree with this. My problem with science communication is that they have a tendency to simplify things towards the point of ending up creating stupidity. Quantum mysticism would not exist without science communication because it relies on tweaking their simplified explanations to their needs. The issue is to really understand quantum physics, you need to have an understanding of basic physics and to have understanding of basic physics you need to have an understanding of basic mathematics, and if you can't understand that there's a point to just giving up, but Science communication doesn't. quantum physics isn't really that hard or complicated either, it just takes understanding other principles to really get the picture. This is the reason for a lot of other misunderstandings about evolution, heritability, medicine, neurology, etc.

On the other hand you have philosophy, the field has no public respect because nobody knows what the fuck they do, they just assume they're poor, this is not a good thing because philosophy is extremely important to understanding one's worldview (like understanding what is objective and subjective and if those two things even exist or what is logical) and is practically necessary for the foundations of methodologies for the sciences. Heidegger and Hegel where justified in the type of language they used (no more in sciences for the same reasons) because they have to shift through multiple different arguments against and for their points and lot of history of philosophy, and there verbiage was defined or they defined it, and these terms are far more easier to use than having to explain the history and colored complex meaning behind each concept and phenomenon. A lot of Being and Time was spent increasingly narrowing the definition of Dasein and reviewing different ideas on the concept of being and the arguments behind them, you can lose a lot of that in a summary. However you do need some of that communication with the public to get different perspectives within your field and gather interest for it in the hopes that some might pursue it.

there's a fine line you have to walk between trying to communicate what you're doing to the public to gather those that could achieve a deeper understanding and simply giving up because they're never going to get it.

(btw i think it's useful to ask someone if they can explain something in ordinary language or a different "prose" style so to speak as an experiment in critical thinking to make sure one understands the concepts behind something and not just the surface of the terms)

>>20915035
desiring machines in the body, different organs are different desires
i think idk i couldnt understand the book tbqh so i just pretended to get it

>>20914710
freedom of speech ruined philosophy

>>20915364
humanist crap has zero substance

>>20915019
This guy gets it. Wissenschaft is all a money scheme compared to praxis, we only need engineers. You know how it goes, "publish or perish".

>>20915547
>Hegel think every epoch of history and the philosophies of that time progress into a next stage because of an order of necessity that reveals itself as absolute knowledge and the end.
Yes piece of shit atheist think there is progress, it's their whole narrative for taking power. The truth is that Hegel is a failed scientist so he turned to word salads for the midwit bourgeois.
Hegel was a piece of shit know-it-all redditor and wanted to have a career by larping as an intellectual while not being viewed as a has-been christian scholar, so Heglel had to find a way to get people believe that his work is ''verifiable'' like a scientific work and he hopped in the secular rationalist train. A common trait of the atheists is to idolize lawyers, they think they are elite because they squeak a few random latin words in, so he became one and was acclaimed by other lawyer drones.
The best way to do this is by being an atheist, ie a guy who is obsessed with the atheist society and crams as much logic and rationalism into this atheist narcissistic analysis of the society. Heglel is the Deleuze of the french revolution. He is horrendous.

Don't forget that this piece of shit of hegel literally wanted a new religion which was popular and rational. The asshole literally said this. Like any franc mason bugman from the revolution, he was very antichristian, something very helpful to have a career, and he just swapped the one true god for the god of reason. Pure room temperature IQ. And people loved him for this. Muh I saw Napoleon today, look at me! Hegel would have made an insta story with this.

Hegel the piece shit physicist literally said there can't be any more planets that was discovered at the time. This is the power of the atheist who fucking loves science and yet suck at it. EXACTLY LIKE KANT...He was proven wrong and never touched maths and science ever again. Literally BTFO by a planet. FUCKING REKT. He never recovered. He knew he was a fraud who would never be seen as a scientist if his audience was educated, so he went full guru voodoism in front of gullible bourgeois (read germans and females).

After this mental breakdown, he wanted to systematize all this shallow hype of french revolution through the rationalist ultimate goal of unifying intellectual spooks and other dichotomies, and of course he completely failed. His whole oeuvre is a pile of bulky books full of jargon and word salads moving the goal posts all the fucking time. He was Lacan, Foucault and Derrida put together and deluding himself he was kant's true heir.
Now wonder a jew neet like Marx who fucking loves materialism and yet gets triggered by derivatives idolized this piece of shit. 100 years later all you get is this narcissistic crap about dialectical materialism and all marxists as their sole defense claiming that Marxism works but it has never been tried. ha yes very scientific, assholes.

>>20915737
frustrated brainlet meltdown lol

>>20915547
Thanks. Hegel is a faggot charaltan who hides behind his verbosity to give off a facade of profoundness. The whole idea of an Absolute Truth is fucking stupid, and so is the idea that history will culiminate into heaven, literally the most stupidest shit I have ever fucking heard.

>>20915347
tell us the straightforward rudiments of hegel

>>20914740
Deluze.

>>20916025
deluezional

the history of germany is really pathetic.
it starts with them being generic barbarians trying to meaninglessly fuck some very local romans and always failing . They do it only to fill up their days and try to pass as local hardcore heroes towards their retarded local population lol

then they become nothing. France was all the most powerful kingdom ever. Spain, Italy, GB all achieve some relevance too.Meanwhile germany was still a shithole with little warlords killing each others lol.

Then progress was made by france once more. This time with the enlightenment. The german rats were 100 years late on this and the output of the german renaissance is turds like kant, hegel and nietzche lol

Then world wars happened entirely due to german rats.
Of course they got crushed like the rat they were.

Since then germany is a generic american bitch and has been trying to destroy europe for the last 20 years lol

>>20916194
Strongly reeks of seething polack

>another gigapleb filtered by Deleuze
>provokes an entire thread of cope and seethe from plebs insisting that only engineering is real
lol, lmao even

>>20915364
If pun joke, underrated and 7/10.
If serious critique, 0/10 and read more.

>>20916278
>plebs insisting that only engineering is real
big words from someone who thinks "the anus is a machine for shit" is a profound insight

>>20916290
>hasn't read Schreber's Denkwürdigkeiten eines Nervenkranken being referenced
>hasn't delved into the early psychopathological literature concerning schizophrenia by especially Bleuler and Jaspers and reflected on the uncanny similarities in the structures of schizophrenic delusion and the machine rationality of modernity
>has zero sense of what morbid geometrism is
>has zero capability of understanding the sentence which is both a crude joke (which is in itself, not at all pointless) and hides profundity for those able to grasp it
Yes, you are a pleb, it is very plain, very simple. Stick to instruction manuals.

>>20916322
We didn't say engineering is the only thing. We need science, and we really need interpretation of the world involved with scientific fact. What we saying is they commited an overinterpretation.
Anti-Oedipus now borrowed a lot from the book "Order out of Chaos". But did you know that some of the contents in AO is so strange that we only can say they misread the book? Deleuze didn't even realized Non-equilibrium thermodynamics do have nothing to do with opened system.
If you really want serious interpretation, check Jean Pierre Dupuy. As a one in philosophy of science, he is legit, at least on science.

>>20916322
>In the terminology of Deleuze and Guattari, "schizophrenia" refers to the deterritorialized desire that is generated by capitalism and endorsed by Deleuzian philosophy of difference. They see schizophrenia in this sense not as an illness to be cured but as a value to be nurtured. The problem is that capitalism restricts schizophrenic desire to either its economized (public) or its Oedipal (private) form. Those who try to live out non-economized desires in the public realm are violently repressed and lead the lives of terror and frustration that define what is generally termed "schizophrenia".
>Gary Gutting, french philosophy in the twentieth century
D&G's term "schizophrenia" is nothing to do with actual schizophrenia.
And what the fuck is "morbid geometrism"? I never heard that in anywhere. Who says that? Did you made your own term?

>>20916360
Oh wow, Lydia Amir wrote that it has nothing to do with the mental disorder, guess they just picked the name because it sounded cool then. What a strange coincidence that they would do that despite doing clinical work as well, damn. She is a LECTURER at Tufts, not even an adjunct, surely this settles the matter.

I have my own problems with their conception of schizophrenia, but saying it has nothing to do with the disorder is extremely stupid

Morbid geometrism is a term of art from Minkowski, one of the great thinkers of psychopathology (as well as one of the great phenomenologists), extremely prolific writer in especially francophone psychiatry during the early formative years of D&G and most definitely read and understood by both, all of which you would know if you had done the slightest fucking inkling of preparatory footwork for reading Deleuze and Guattari before declaring them obscurantist hacks.

>>20916396
You seriously don't know about Gary Gutting and you tell me this stuff? Have you seen his explanation on continental philosophy of science and exegesis on foucault, an actual philosopher who treats greatly on science?
Like, you seriously lost your brain. The one that "schizophrenia" is nothing to do with schizophrenia is literally one of the most basic knowledge in order to read D&G's AO.
So you just tell me ALL OF ONE in CCRU group misread AO. because someone in psychopathology did "related" the term with that. I don't care about whether you having that or not. The thing is that you don't have brain.

>>20916322
ok ok you got me, but can you outline the hidden profundity, even if i might be unable to grasp it?

>>20916396
I really can't understand it. The thing that CCRU misread Deleuze is striking outside of this debate.
Can you name some secondary literature that explains how early pathologist such as Minkowski-Jaspers influenced D&G in the early years?

>>20915626
based

>>20915737
>Yes piece of shit atheist think there is progress
Nietzsche is an atheist and he doesnt believe in progress lol
I cringe so hard at these /pol/cels trying to discuss with their schizoangsty jargon shit they have no idea about

>>20915547
Hello frens I'm glad
Disappointed to see neither of the hegelfags actually tried to argument against my shitty reelaboration of Nietzsche's arguement lol
I forget sometimes most people here dont even read now
Sad!

>>20916511
back* not glad

>>20915808
I dont think he is a charlatan or that he hides behind verbosity, there are other books besides the phenomenology where he explains his whole deal in very straight forward ways
but I agree his main idea is fucking stupid, at least Marx grounded in materialism, but Hegel is just stupid in his turbo idealism
I cant take him seriously

>>20916525
His dialectic is notoriously difficult, he is incapable of explaining things without overcomplicating his writing.

>>20914767
>Blame the pre-Socratics
Blame the mysteries

>>20916499
He's talking about Hegel retard
>lacks basic reading comprehension

>>20916570
I know he is talking about Hegel, but he says atheists in a general sense believe in progress, which isnt true, that being the reason I mentioned Nietzsche as a counterexample

>>20916573
>lacks basic reading comprehension

>>20916575
Not an argument.

>>20916360
>schizophrenic desire to either its economized (public) or its Oedipal (private) form.
Wtf I thought schizo desire was supposed to be unbounded by the oedipal complex, so it's about a directionless drive that either remains in the body or gets projected outside as persecution complex. Do they classify every desire as schizo desire?

>>20916750
Deleuze wanted to overcome Freud-Lacan'sboedipal complex oppression. I think you know that.
What D did is saying there's two version of oppression, so there's psychological oppression and social oppression. In capitalism nature we must be some kind of machine, so we should choice desire-machine. D&G was quite influenced by Wilhelm Reich. Just look at wikipedia what he did.
Foucault's The History of Sexuality is harsh criticism of that. He heavily criticize Wilhelm Reich, and said this sort of oppression concept is gone too far.

>>20916796
There's a definition problem.
Desire is supposed to be symbolically mediated drive that is born because of repression/oppression/oedipal law. But here D&G think schizo desire - drive is self generated?

>>20916420
the AI is short circuiting. It can only print gibberish now.

>>20916821
>>Desire is supposed to be symbolically mediated drive that is born because of repression/oppression/oedipal law
atheists are so fucking retarded... they should learn about desire through buddhism instead of spouting bullshit from their academia and intellectual circles

>>20916856
I don't get it, you're telling them to educate themselves by researching a belief system that's even less founded? Bizarre.

>>20916856
What has atheism and even more Buddhism have to do with those definitions you pea brain?

This book is good, and its arguments have stuck with me. However, it could have been 200 pages shorter if they wrote clearer, so I will never reread it.

Hegel really did ruin philosophy and history with his god awful prose. Hume and Schopenhauer prove you can discuss complex ideas in a normal style, and Kant demonstrates writing in jargon filled way that is understandable, if difficult to read.

>>20915351
>that penguin edition is riddled with typos
This anon seems the most likely to have read the book and not be blowing smoke. I'm not believing all you mfs are claiming to have read it in french

>>20917264
>you mfs
Stop this, by Allah if you were my brother I would take the shower rod from my bathroom and beat the twitter out of you

>>20917386
mdr

>>20914710
Nothing is worse than seeing your ideas mangled by the masses. If the dirty plebs get their claws on your ideas you can never bring any of them up again expecting any sort of sincere engagement. Obfuscate more, let the mindless scum work for their breadcrumbs.

>>20914710
Nothing has ruined modern philosophy more than the English tongue.

>>20916511
describing hegel as teleological is a misreading. this was common because people would use him to back up their own bullshit and take a one sided non dialectical approach, deleuze, nietzsche and even marx are all railing against bad teachers of hegel.

>>20915451
>>20916396
>>20916750
>>20916360
capitalism and schizophrenia is about commodity fetishism, they are taking the literal meaning of "schizo" as "split, divided" to describe how brands reify products as separate objects that come wholly into being separate from their history and social production creating a false consciousnesses in the consumer. the clinical schizophrenic is the asymtotic limit of human behavior under capitalism breaking down as it starts to recognize socially unnacceptable truths that show between the cracks of interpersonal constituted reality.

>>20915737
Hegel was not an atheist.

>>20914772
Truth. That was my exact thought while reading OP. Philosophers and poets use the style of language they do for a reason. Although I think it’s important to remember that there are multiple true perspectives on reality..

>>20914710
>modern philosophy
What you posted is contemporary philosophy, modern philosophy is everything between Descartes and Hegel. You retards always out yourselves by confusing those two. Start with the greeks andhen everything after them in chronological order before thinking your opinion has any value.

>>20916031
You're not funny.

>>20917856
its irrelevant if he is teleological or not, the problem is history as cientific knowledge/philosophical truth, which the horizon of historic sense thats always leaves out of consciousness the totality of the sucession of real events impossibilitates, and is also the condition of human action, the act of knowing and its conditions included. Cientific/philosofical knowledge of history and the movement of the absolute spirit negate each other. If Hegel "was teleological" or not is irrelevant, he failed to understand the relationship between real/biological action/movement, conciuosness and history. Whatever conclusion, teleological or not, he arrives already contains contradiction in its principles.

does anyone have the screencap of when /lit/ was 90% deleuze threads?

>>20918033
>>20918033
>the horizon of historic sense thats always leaves out of consciousness the totality of the sucession of real events impossibilitates
>leaves out of consciousness the totality
really?

>he failed to understand the relationship between real/biological action/movement, conciuosness and history

I just don't see that at all. Hegel, Marx, Lenin and Deleuze are in agreement they just differ on emphasis.

>>20916194
>France was all the most powerful kingdom ever.
who do you think France got its name from retard

>>20918090
Anon I'm not him but arguing this is a bad idea because it implies the krauts recognised everything not them as french, and therefore a greater dominance of the french than may have existed

>>20918079

>>20918085
>really?
Yes, Nietzsche believes no living being could do anything if it didnt forget, because the totality of existence would seem an arbitrary flow of events, a constant non-being. Any human historical epoch, events or actions have its constitutions in an ahistorical way of being. You could easily read this in the words of N himself, its in like the first 10 pages of the second untimely meditation.

>>20918133
cringe

>>20918149
>Yes,
Hegel leaves out totality? Thats his entire project. This "forgetting" is entirely compatible with the conception of things changing dialectically. Isn't there a word with the same root as amnesia that means something like re-remembering or forgetting to remember? Its odd that you would say that Hegel is contradictory, as if this is somehow a bad thing instead of exactly the point.

>>20914710
>"to express my philosophy better, this book must be intentionally written with difficulty."
Why should it be?

>>20914710
That's why Mark Manson is the best modern philosopher.

anamnesis, literally unforgetting (an = un, amnesis = forgetting).

>FORGETTING AND ANAMNESIS IN THE LIVED EXPERIENCE Of THE ETERNAL RETURN OF THE SAME

>The thought of the Eternal Return of the Same came to Nietzsche as a abrupt awakening in the midst of a Stimmung, a certain tonality of the soul. Initially confused with this Slimmung, it gradually emerged as a thought; nonetheless, it preserved the character of a revelation - as a sudden unveiling. (The ecstatic character o f this experience must be distinguished from the notion o f the Universal Ring that already haunted Nietzsche during the ’Hellenic period' of his youth.)

>But what is the function of forgetting in this revelation? More specifically, is not forgetting the source as well as the indispensable condition not only for the revelation of the Eternal Return, but also for the sudden transformation of the identity of the person to whom it is revealed?

>Forgetting thus conceals eternal becoming and the absorption of all identities in being.

>Is there not an antinomy, implicit in Nietzsche's lived experience, between the revealed content and the teaching of this content (as an ethical doctrine) in the formula: ’act as though you had to relive your life innumerable times and will to relive it innumerable times - for in one way or another, you must recommence and relive it.'

>The imperative proposition supplements the (necessary) forgetting by invoking the will (to power); the second proposition foresees the necessity concealed in this forgetting. Anamnesis coincides with the revelation of the Return: how could the return not bring back forgetfulness? Not only do I learn that I (Nietzsche) have been brought back to the crucial moment in which the eternity of the circle culminates, the moment in which the truth of its necessary return is revea1ed to me; but at the same time I learn that I was othet than I am now for having forgotten this truth, and thus that I have become another by learning it. Will I change again, and once more forget that I will necessarily change during an eternity - until I relearn this revelation anew?
https://monoskop.org/images/4/48/Klossowski_Pierre_Nietzsche_and_the_Vicious_Circle.pdf

pic: https://books.google.com/books?id=G-1YV3x6yakC&pg=PA78

>>20914742
BASED FUCK HEGEL AND HIS WINDBAGGERY

>>20918378
no, I'm not saying Hegel particularly leaves out totality. Its Nietzsche that says that the historical consciuosness of any living being cannot help but to leave out the totality of the events.
And now, the horizon of the historical sense (aka the point until we retain or exclude events from memor) doesnt its not compatible with the conception of things chaging dialectically. Changing dialectiaclly in Hegel means history progressing within rationality, while the horizon of (a)historic sense leaves out the totality of historic reality outside of consciuossnes and reason in order to make human actions and life in general possible.
Hegel on the other hand makes the real and the rational generating eachother in unity. For N reason its inside and operates within the horizon of historic sense, which separates the totality of real events and consiciousnes in every living creature.
The contradiction is that the rational could never be cooriginary of the real and just two side of the same thing.

>>20915035
They propose, against the common conception of desire as a lack of some specific object, to view desire as productive and not "of something" but rather as a connecting objects just like a machine that has inputs and outputs, which may be plugged into different machines.

Yeah ok true but that's one cool fucking cover

>>20918550
>living being cannot help but to leave out the totality of the events
the totality of events still creates the conscious, unconsciously, for example evolution

>Hegel on the other hand makes the real and the rational
>For N reason
but which one are you talking about, real, rational, or reason?
for hegel the real is rational because its idealist, by which he of course means materialist(dialectically)

>The contradiction is that the rational could never be cooriginary of the real and just two side of the same thing.
i think you are conflating the individual particular and universal, the individual subject is obviously finite, limited and historically determined

>>20918133
lmao this is glorious

>>20918550
The decisive point of Nietzsche's cosmology, insofar as it concerns us, can be expressed in two words: Nietzsche was a dialectical monist. His basic force, the will to power, is not only the Dionysian passionate striving, akin to Schopenhauer's irrational will, but is also Apollinian and possesses an inherent capacity to give itself form. The victory of the Dionysian is thus not complete, and the will to power is a synthesis of Nietzsche's
earlier two dualistic principles.

Nietzsche's position is best elucidated by comparing it, not with Schopenhauer's, as has generally been done, but with Hegel's; for there is a truly amazing parallel. Each of the two men found a single word that epitomizes his entire dialectic; and the two words, though not identical, have literally the same meaning and can be analyzed into the same three distinct connotations.

Hegel's "aufheben" has been the despair of his translators. He was satisfied to remark that this word means both preserving and canceling; his translators, however, were grieved to discover that it also means lifting up. Hegel apparently considered this the most obvious connotation and therefore did not mention it. At any rate, it was taken for granted that there is no English word with the same three meanings. Nietzsche's "sublimieren" has imposed no similar hardship on his translators, who could use the English "sublimating," which goes back to the same Latin root. The Latin word in question, sublimare, however, means—in German—aufheben, and Nietzsche's sublimation actually involves, no less than does Hegel's aufheben, a simultaneous preserving, canceling, and lifting up.

It has been shown how a sublimated impulse is preserved, canceled, and lifted up, and how Nietzsche does not incur the absurdities which would be encountered in an attempt to deny the Law of Contradiction. Sublimation is possible only because there is a basic force (the will to power) which is defined in terms of an objective (power) which remains the same throughout all "metamorphoses".

This essential objective is preserved no less than is the energy, while the immediate objective is canceled; and the lifting up consists in the attainment of greater power. This entire exposition could, of course, be repeated for Hegel's conception of aufheben; only Hegel's basic force is not the will to power but spirit—not mind—and its aim is freedom rather than power.

>>20918978


Further, it may seem that Hegel's aufheben is a conceptual process, while Nietzsche's sublimation is a psychological notion. That there is a significant difference here is undeniable; but aufheben is not only conceptual and sublimation not only psychological. Neither Hegel's spirit nor Nietzsche's will to power can be restricted in such fashion: each is conceived as, above all, the essence of the cosmos. Aufheben and sublimation are coextensive with these basic principles and are thus essentially cosmic processes. They do not belong only in Hegel's Logik or in Nietzsche's psychology, but are to be found wherever the basic principle reveals itself—i.e., everywhere.

The translation of Geist as "mind" is, I think, misleading and unjustifiable, while "spirit" is both accurate and adequate. The untenability of Baillie's translation of Geist as "mind" is best evidenced by his own inconsistent use of "spirit" in many sections of his translation, where "mind" would have been plainly absurd. Since the "Absolute" has generally been conceived as "mind" in Anglo-American Idealism, and since the interpretation of Hegel's philosophy that is to be offered here depends in part on this point, it is important to indicate just what is at stake.

"Mind" and "spirit" may appear to be synonyms, but Hegel's conception of Geist emphasizes those very features which distinguish spirit from mind. This is especially evident in his assertion that the Greeks did not know the principle of Geist, and that this was introduced only by Christianity. (Hegel did not render Anaxagoras' nous and Heraclitus' logos as Geist also see his exposition of Plato's and Aristotle's thought) He believed that the Greeks had known the principle of mind, but not that of spirit—i.e., what he himself meant by Geist. Hegel's own conception was derived from the Heilige Geist (Holy Spirit) which he considered as essentially a living and creative force. Finally, attention may be called to the etymology of the word Geist. Such considerations may often be misleading; in this particular case, however, a conceptual distinction between Geist and mind may be crystallized in this manner. Geist and spiritus—like pneuma and the Hebrew ruach, and unlike mind, nous, and logos—also connote breath and wind: they are conceived as moving forces and as the essence of life. Geist is even related to "yeast" and "geyser" and associated with the notion of a ferment and an eruptive force. The overemphasis on Hegel's Logik has been coupled in Anglo-American Idealism with the misconception of Geist as mind. The same two factors have naturally also vitiated much Hegel criticism—notably William James' in A Pluralistic Universe.

https://libgen.is/search.php?req=%2C+Nietzsche%3A+Philosopher%2C+Psychologist

>>20915211
how can you read anything drunk and/or high? How can you remember from one line to the next, my guy?

>>20915334
maybe part of the work of philosophy itself IS the style it's written in, at least that's what the postmodernists would say right?

>>20915347
100%. I used to think the idea of the Platonic Ideal was so intimidating until I learned what it meant and that you can just break it down in layman's terms and say, "oh it basically just means for every object in the physical world there is a 'perfect' form of it in some mental/spiritual place that we're always trying to get to". That's not to say that philosophical jargon/terminology doesn't have a place, but yeah I agree with the idea that if you can't explain it like a retard, then you don't get it yourself.
Gotta break all things down into their elementary particles to be able to build them up into your own formations and all that shit.

>>20919226
You might like Schopenhauer's writing if you feel this way, he often rants about how nothing needs to be so fucking complicated. Although he ends up being just as complicated himself most of the time.

I feel like in the future we should dismiss out of hand any philosopher who isn't also a competent computer scientist. If you can't effectively express processes performing concrete functions using strict syntax, you are probably incapable of anything beyond vomiting sloppily formulated ideas that are too ambiguous to build upon meaningfully.

I think the Bogdanoff's did it best AND have most thoroughly exposed the game that is being played. Watch this video from 19:17 to 20:37 and then move forward in tossing every writer that expresses their ideas obliquely; they're wasting your time intentionally by making meaning difficult to parse.
https://youtu.be/2O1QA1VoRMM?t=1157

>>20914772
This chapter?

>>20915737
holy shit, consider suicide as the first step of your next morning's routine, ASAP

>>20914772
I don't see how that chapter had anything whatsoever to do with "the perils of the opposite tendency of excessive clarity without any tolerance for opacity", nor can I think of a single such peril.

>>20915737
Based.

>>20916796
>Deleuze wanted to overcome Freud-Lacan'sboedipal complex oppression.
This is a wonderful line. It highlights the biggest problem with continental philosophy in this millennium: philosophers make idiotic assertions, build a philosophy around it constructed of bricks of diarrhea, and then other philosophers interpret and contest the individual amorphous bricks of dripping shit rather than take one look at the whole thing and say "this isn't a house, it's a pile of shit".

>>20914710
Agreed. If you actually have something important to say you'll intentionally make it accessible as possible because you'd want as many people to understand it as you could. It's like if there was a fire you wouldn't start an impromptu game of charades with the added rule that you aren't allowed to use your hands. You would just start yelling fire.
But, then there are the cases where it's a truly complex idea and you're trying, but failing to say it as simply as possible. Then this comes into play >>20915552 and you need to work on understanding both the concept and how to communicate it better. Similar to the Pascal quote:
>I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time

>>20914710
Thanks for your input Prof. Kaufmann, now kindly go back to seething over Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche being more popular than yours.

>>20920515
>This is a wonderful line. It highlights the biggest problem with continental philosophy in this millennium: philosophers make idiotic assertions, build a philosophy around it constructed of bricks of diarrhea, and then other philosophers interpret and contest the individual amorphous bricks of dripping shit rather than take one look at the whole thing and say "this isn't a house, it's a pile of shit".
They should have started with the Australians.

>>20915737
Holy fucking based. Midwits seething.

>>20916821
>Desire is supposed to be symbolically mediated drive that is born because of repression/oppression/oedipal law.
Interesting. From whence is desire born in chimps, dogs, or lions? Modern continental philosophy is where critical thinking goes to die.

>>20916573
tell me more about this man who believes you can kill something that doesn't exist

>>20920515
>in this millennium
In the last thousand years, I meant, not in the 2000s.

>>20920544
Heidegger's Nietzsche is quite clear.

>>20920617
You are very clever.
They don't have desire. They're animals they only have drives
.

>>20921002
What separates a drive from a desire in humans? Or do humans not have drives?

apostrophés

>>20921004
Humans also have drives but they are repressed through language, that's basically relating to other people through culture, acceptance and internalization of the other's ideals etc.
You become human by giving up freedom / repressing your drive and being introduced to society/ the symbolic plane

>>20921021
Fascinating assertions on which to build a temple of bullshit.

>>20915334
I agree with >>20915719, the history of science communication is not a great example of how to communicate complex topics to the public. The truth is, the vast, vast majority of the population couldn't even tell you what Newton's axioms mean after centuries of science communication. Yet they will happily spend hours upon hours watching documentaries/youtube or reading pop-sci books about HECKING BLACK HOLES AND QAUNTUM GRAVITY AND SUPERNOVAE OMG I LOVE SCIENCE!

bợ đỡ

>>20914710
Philosophers are just autistic. It's not about appearing difficult to read, they just can't fucking write a simple idea without shitting out 50,000 words.

>>20917876
So they're suggesting schizophrenia is a social phenomenon rather than a biological one and that schizophrenia is causes by unacceptable truths rather than biology?

>>20914710
>I'M TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND BASIC ASS SHIT
this book is FUCKING EASY OP
YOU'RE FUCKING STUPID

>>20915019
Sounds like a fuckin Ponzi scheme

>>20921183
There are minds that search for adequate expressions of things and sometimes go too far (or way too far), but there are also minds that parse multiple paragraphs describing the complex articulation of multiple different complex things and strain as hard as they can to reduce it to "the gist"

For example the above paragraph would be reduced to
>some people like readin. some people aint
and might garner a reply like
>That's a lot of words just to say readin but sometimes aint readin

How do you think language works? What do you think language does? Why do you think someone writes and publishes a book?

Language is not something that contains "difficulty." Philosophy does not have a notion of a quantitative "better." Obviously I understand what you "mean" when you impose your assumptions onto Deleuze but I think it is a misunderstanding of TEXT on a fundamental level.

Deleuze employs both technical and poetic figurations which are virtually unique in the history of philosophy. These terms are reflexively necessitated by the history of philosophy and literature - in order for any discourse to critique itself it must go beyond its heretofore established forms. This is true whether we are discussing holographic quantum matter, L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry, or kabbalistic eschatology. Philosophy has no privileged relationship to "difficulty."

>>20914710
That's a piece of creative writing, not a philosophy book, you actual fool.

>>20915229
It's a really cool preface though - he compares the book to a piece of pornography, but like a based piece of pornography. That, the BWO and schizoanalysis are the only things that I remember from the book.

>>20921209
Nah, fuck off. The way it is written is anything but easy.

>>20921029
Strong argument faggot

>>20921195
>>20921195
Yes. Psychoanalysis always approached schizophrenia as a psychological-social phenomenon. They don't deny a possible biological side but that is outside their scope

>>20921961
What is a based piece of pornography? I saw an interracial video (I know I know) yesterday with the cutest German amateur girl. She was so kind and affectionate. Is this based?

>>20922014
There is nothing to argue when someone makes dumb assertions other than to call them dumb and move on. Here, I'll make a perfect freud-style assertions: man's love of music comes from the positive association of a fetus hearing the heartbeats of their mother, and you like the gay music you do because it most reminds you of your gay mother's heartbeat. Boom, that'll be $2000 for your therapy session.

>>20922047
Some arguments are plain idiotic and some are insightful. Do you expect a "science" paper to be convinced?

>>20922058
I think my argument about gay baby music is as insightful as what was in >>20921021. Did you know that when the soviets fought their way through germany during dubya dubya 2, they raped german women left and right? Yet they came from locales where rape wasn't normalized. Hmmm, looks like repression of lust has little (read: nothing) to do with accepting or internalizing other's ideals. Freud and his ilk hoodwink retards that can't quickly think of OBVIOUS holes in their theories about how everyone wants to fuck their mothers. Think about orphanages and other scenarios and whether these people have qualitatively different psychological profiles and neuroses than people who grew up with their mothers. Babycakes easy shit to dismiss using readily available contradictions unless you're a gullible retard who needs people to fill your head with nonsense. Might as well talk about the chinese elements of wood, fire, earth, metal, and water to explain physical phenomena.

>>20922028
Eh idk how valid that is. Schizophrenia seems to be one of those legitimately biological mental diseases

>>20922121
We know for a fact that there are biological causes that massively increase an individual's predisposition for developing a schizophrenic disorder, but literally none of the ones we know of actually guarantee that outcome. We also know for a fact that people who don't show positive for any of the known biological factors can still end up schizophrenic. At the moment it seems like a very complex thing that certainly can have purely biological factors acting like a massive catalyst, but it certainly cannot be reduced to pure physiology.

>>20921936
>in order for any discourse to critique itself it must go beyond its heretofore established forms.
This is such a cop-out.

>>20922114
Your gotcha is extremely silly. It reminds me of those enlightened atheist quotes.

>>20918578
so true

>>20922138
Yeah I'm open to that. It's so crazy how your brain can begin creating sights and sounds that aren't there though from a not purely biological perspective, but I think the human mind is far more complex and malleable than were aware of.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>20922211
They have found with extremely sensitive microphones that some schizophrenics actually say (imperceptibly to ear ofc) those things they attribute to the outside. Crazy isn't it? The sound comes from the throat, it's not consciously verbalized

>>20922211
>>20922266
I thought this was how it worked for normal people too. Like when you have an internal monologue your vocal cords move very slightly at the same time. Same for other sensations.

>>20922167
Repression and neurosis as a cause => effect paring are the ravings of a coke head just making shit up. Bad philosophers (and psychologists) behave exactly the same as people high on weed: they make baseless assertions that feel interesting or insightful but don't hold up to scrutiny if you examine them critically.

>>20921936
Language is used to communicate. It can be misused to muddle and obscure. (See the video in >>20920183.) "Poetic figurations" are bullshit if your aim is to articulate precise logical meaning, which is exactly what anyone should be doing when delineating a philosophy. Anyone going the Bogdanoff route in a philosophical treatise is a charlatan.

>>20922341
If you "say" something in your head (like you're practicing pronunciation of a language you're learning) your vocal cords move, but I don't think normal lingual thinking (or just reading text) does that.

anglos are literally unwilling to think

>>20923189
Chiming in to say that repression actually does cause neurosis, from personal experience. I thought Freud was horseshit for the longest time but after exhausting CBT, meds, diet supplements, and meditation it was Freudian theory that saved me

>>20923245
What were you repressing?

>>20923247
Almost all anger, especially anger towards my father

>>20915364
Wrong, I was able to understand Baudrillard at 17 just fine. Hegel on the other hand is impenetrable.

>>20923290
Sounds like you were suffering from frustration. The repression => neurosis thing is "I want to fuck my mom but I can't so now I have an insatiable appetite for clams".

>>20923355
In my case it was
>my father is a bit of an insecure narcissist with explosive anger and incredibly demanding expectations and as a child I have no way to cope or stand up for myself so I will subconsciously sweep my anger under the rug and direct it inwards instead, causing low self esteem, anxiety, approval seeking and zero boundaries

>>20914710
>this book must be intentionally written with difficulty
It's only difficult because you're stupid and ignorant
That's life

>>20915345
The reason why what you said doesn't work is because mathematicians rigorously outline exactly what they mean by a set of words in an organized manner. Guess who doesn't?

>>20916499
Nietzsche does believe in progress in his late philosophy. Progress = your quantum of power.

>>20915737
I love these ten paragraph french revolution-hating atheist-hating posts.

>>20916525
>I dont think he is a charlatan or that he hides behind verbosity, there are other books besides the phenomenology where he explains his whole deal in very straight forward ways
No there isn't.
>>20916573
Nietzsche is also a believer in god in his late philosophy (certainly not the judeo-christian god though). His redefinition of the term is in his will to power.

>>20917943
No one cares about your personal idiosyncratic definitions, autist.

>>20923431
No you must listen to that anon. Didn't you know that Freud was debunked and that his arguments are baseless assertions that don't hold up to anon's penetrating scrutiny

>>20923575
its the complete opposite of personal definitions
look up modern philosophers and look who shows up

>>20915347
High IQ post. There's a place for esoteric jargon in philosophy, but if you can't paraphrase it in common english you're a fucking tool

>>20919226
>"oh it basically just means for every object in the physical world there is a 'perfect' form of it in some mental/spiritual place that we're always trying to get to".
another brainlet regurgitating what other retards thought of Plato, not what Plato actually wrote.

>>20923720
Sorry, I forgot that literally all Freud said was that we all secretly want to bang our mom

>>20916290
>"the anus is a machine for shit"
it's not that simple;

>>20916322
>>hasn't delved into the early psychopathological literature concerning schizophrenia by especially Bleuler and Jaspers and reflected on the uncanny similarities in the structures of schizophrenic delusion and the machine rationality of modernity
explain yourself RIGHT NOW

>>20923840
If it's such nonsense, why all the incest porn?

>>20915211
you got it wrong, try again

>>20923896
what the fuck's up with those nails?

>>20914742
in Deleuze's case its Nietzsche's fault, he quite literally proposes for future thinkers to be a little mysterious. I cant remeber if the aphorism is from Gay Science or Twilight of the Idols. Go find it.

>>20922121
Even though it's a very common disease that accounts for 1% of humans, we haven't found a single biomarker(simply, specific thing that's changed in the body).
It is sure that schizophrenia exists - the symptoms of schizophrenia clearly exists, but the medicine is not even close to cure a disease - they currently used by only focusing on preventing positive symptoms.

>>20914710
Imagine believing this is a book you need to "understand". You're a child, OP.

>>20914742
Its all the germans fault. Go all the way back to Kant.

>>20924039
I learned in school that there's some layer of neurons I think in some part of the brain with abnormal geometry (this was years ago but it was something to that effect I remember), so I would challenge your claim.

However, we also learned that it's a condition more common in urban areas and there were other environmental correlations and its prevalence I believe is on the rise. I've been reading up a ton on mondbody disorders and repression and at this point I'm open to anything

>>20915334
>So I read them and then talk to people about them acting as an enzyme to break down that verbose bullshit.

A bunch of other people are trying to do this too, except in bad faith. For example, school of life.
Being critical, why should we trust you and not them? Or the guy who was doing it in good faith, but was genuinely too retarded to understand the concepts? (Being critical here)

>>20923906
It's the small moral battles one wages against capitalism that matter, anon. Schizoanalysis in action.

>>20921195
There is a continental philosophy of science. Prominent one is bachelard.
Bachelard says science(physics) is not that of a progress - it has a rupture.
Disciple, Canguilhem says medicine is stranger than physics - they judge value, not find, and they often swept away by ideology.
Foucault is Canguilhem's disciple. Much soft science like psychology on madness is beyond judgement of value. In Madness and Civilization he wanted to say was they introduced the medical concept of madness as a means of legitimating recent soft science, so they can do something after Pinel and Tuke release patients, controlling them subtlely with a name of reason.

>>20924072
Oh that left ventricular enlargement thing? I genuinely don't know about what "abnormal geometry" is but I get it.
But we all know that this is not that of a major characteristic(idk do they find this as an actual major? Tell me), most of schizophrenia patients cannot find any difference between normal even if we do fMRI findings.

And seriously. One of the most tinfoil-hat shit of all thing on schizophrenia is that we cannot find a difference on most of schizophrenia patients, BUT we can find an actual brain loss caused by constant medicine use near all of it just targeting DRD2.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0101689

>>20924240
What do you propose causes it?

>>20924307
There must be a disease. I want to be sure on that.
But I want to say it is not a single distinct one.
I think it is an incredibly various diseases mingled together with motley causes, causing non-rigorous, low quality research.
Some of schizophrenia can be cured easily, some would be near impossible to remove - even though we are in infancy on psychiatry we found the weak and chronic version of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, which is out of touch of medicine.
Current medicines are so primitive that it is like applying mercury to a syphilis patient. What is important to us is to reduce the adverse effects of drugs.
Speaking of anti-NMDA receptor encephalitis, do you know Minocycline quite works as a minor treatment? I hope this medicine will be used much primarily for treatment. This medicine has advantages that no other can come close - there are very few side effects.

>>20924366
You can't "cure" it, you can instead channel it. Some individuals thrived despite being psychotic. Strindberg and Wagner for example

>>20921004
Read persuasion and rhetoric.

>>20915737
Hegel is not an atheist, at his worst day he is a Spinozist

>>20923431
Sounds like...frustration. A lack of outlets and a domineering environment in which you cannot express your anger means...frustration. You don't need a repression model of your dad not allowing you to fuck your mom to explain that.

>>20923720
This but unironically.

>>20923840
No, he also said that dreams about an apple being stabbed by a sword are about wanting to fuck women more than a dream about actually fucking women are about fucking women.

>>20925789
Why? If all it gives you the ability to do is tell other people to read it (rather than explain the arguments succinctly), then it seems pretty useless.

>>20925988
hegel is a spawn of secular enlightenment, and all those people are atheist

>>20926392
It's not repression it's frustration! Debunked!

>>20925029
look at some studies on total brain volume after successive psychotic episodes, and how much anti psychotics help with that. fact is if you can manage psychotic episodes you are drastically slowing down someone getting what is functionally dementia

Artaud did great for a while for instance, but these episodes HAMMER your grey matter, the prognosis of untreated schizophrenia is terrible.
>>20924366
the notion in psychopathology is cluster analysis right, so highly correlated symptoms are tranched together as disorders, and maybe you find organ or chemical systems that are common factors, but psychopathology doesn't generally end up digging into that. I have heard similar pessimism about brain scan research, and fwiw I buy it, which makes it hard to see a way beyond behavior targeted treatment.
>>20924091
a related issue is that there is at some points a real merit to obscure and challenging writing– it encourages the reader to critically engage with the text and come away with something they find agreeable and integrative with their existing beliefs and practices. if your writing is very direct and specific, it encourages readers to take your whole idea wholesale and repeat it, rather than truly reconstruct a form of it they can in turn holistically teach to others in turn

>>20914742
Blame my dick nigga

>>20917996
yes he is, cope

>>20914710
dont worry I’m about a third of the way done with my Kantian-Baconian fusion anti-hegelian magnum opus that will end philosophy once and for all, it is written in plain english.

>>20922155
No? Nothing can describe the experience of itself meaningfully without recourse to externalities, or else it risks becoming reification. Language itself is a symptom of ontological conditions -- in order to perform an ontological critique you must first challenge presupposed language conventions.

Not like Deleuze is the first person to do this obviously. The same could be said of Schelling, Descartes, Spinoza etc.

>>20923189
>language is used to communicate
>articulate precise logical meaning
You seem to be describing math, not language. This is the argument analytic fundamentalists like to use but it's obviously self-contradictory. There are infinite uses of language which are "illogical," "meaningless" etc. These instances are not somehow inessential accidents but actually the very essence of communication itself. Embracing such moments of parapraxis makes a writer stronger, a text more forceful, not vice versa.

Math is cool too, just don't get them confused.

>>20923189
kek this nigga hasnt even read quine

>>20926485
Yeah, basically.

>>20928464
Math is meaning, not emotion. If you're trying to convey meaning, your writing should have the clarity of math. If you're try to convey emotion, write a poem.

>>20929232
there is zero meaning in maths. Maths is just association of concept and classification of concepts.

Reminder that the cocksucker Hegel wanted a rationalist religion in Fragment de Tübingen

He was literally the first generic atheist bug who fucking loved science lol

>>20915546
And you're a faggot who views the world through memes

>>20929263
so what's the concept of meaning?

>>20929232
poems also have meaning you stupid fuck
how else could they convey emotion
holyshit the analityc tradition is fucking brain cancer
what are you even doing on a literature board? if it is meaningless whats the point of it? you can feel emotion and experience beauty without poetry anyways, right?
the funny thing is that the conclusion of the analytic tradition (the post analytic gang) are a bunch of defeatist fags who end up being more relativistic that all the guys anglos call relativists like Derrida (I don't even like that fag because he does a similar philosophical pussyfooting)
If you establish that languaje should be used like this or that ir order to count as philosophy you just kill philosophy, it ends, at least for the ones with this stupid belief.
People who take this position nowdays just end up repeating what Aristotle or Locke said in "le plain common use languaje" in articles that are at best used as a manuals in undergrad courses or limit themselves to comment on current devepments on physics or neuroscience or whatever and how this affects the discussion of "metaphysics as the essence of things or the conceptual foundation of science!" (aka Aristotle vs Descartes wow) or "does this mean kantian apriori trascendental subject in back on the menu boys?" (aka what all the wankers Husserl BTFO were endlessly wasting everyone's time with)
There is no philosophy here, there is no thinking here, just second order sterile reflection and academic eunochoidism, while the thought of people like Heidegger, the typical example of "le meaningless evil obscurantism because he isnt using languaje in the way we like!" is still relevant and objectively present in the real world. Alexander Dugin and the Russia vs NATO conflict make this explicit. Dugin develops how Dasein works as a replacement of the political subject of the ideologies that couldnt defeat liberalism (which also is an interpretation of the modern subject as the individual) as the worldwide dominant one. Heidegger came up with this concept (Dasein) when he noticed the problem of the limitation of the modern concept of subject at the moment of comprehending the human empiric experience in (at least western) contemporary civilization. This is the entire point of Deleuze when he defines philosophy as the discipline of the creation of concepts, this creation being the result of the need to resolve a problem in the human empiric experience. This new concept may or may not be a new term, a new word, but it will be a different use of languaje in some degree, in the way how Plato created the concept of Ideas or Forms (taking the word out of its common use and was unclear to everyone else who wasnt studying outside his academy) which then influenced Aristotles and made him come with his categories and their metaphysical grounding, and no one in the analytic tradition could avoid using them while crying about the "incorrect" use of languaje.

>>20930592
>Delueze
>Dugin
alr, back to /pol/ you go...

>>20930656
?