วีดีโอ

c'est juste que tu n'as rien compris... . Je retire. Le début est clair et ensuite ça s'embourbe.

What?

​@@bighams69 my thoughts exactly lol

came here to say this ha! hmm i wonder if this was the beginning of his ruminations on A Love of UIQ, which comes later in the eighties.. i mean that is the ultimate match, when a superintelligent infraquark entity body snatches you in a fit of jealousy and lover's rage

just because it goes over your head doesn't mean they have nothing to say. the assumption that an imperial, masculine conclusion (as in the end of thought) is what they ever pursued at all is itself suspect. but no, there is not more of a possible creative project than trying to disillusion each other from our predispositions towards reality.

@@3looming314 i'm not saying that the goal of disillusioning ourselves of our predispositions is a bad goal as such to endeavor, but what i'm saying is that the way these french poststructural pseudo-intellectuels endeavor take is a wrong one. Many good things have spurred from the post-structuralism, such as the acknowledging of gender and race equality, but in our days there are many better ways to convoy the same message, without making the journey towards it unintelligable and hard to grasp

@@AjarSensation if they really were conveying the same message that could be said so simply, why not? because there is always much more to it than the generalisations and outsider-opinions you get from summaries or personal misgivings about technical writers, especially since many are rather radical. it's hard to grasp exactly because they are grappling with centuries of reasoning mistakes, false Gods and "common sense" things which are far more 'Trojan horse'-like than they appear. it's not really for the faint of heart, you can read the condensed or summarized versions if you want that. but you can get a lot out of committing yourself to pushing through the difficulty and actually understanding what is meant. take Derrida, the quintessential post-structuralist. he is extremely difficult to simplify, though i can try, but that kind of simplification necessitates some deviation from his calculated, precise words, so i am confident i will falter somewhere, and be prone to a more critical/refined explanation. but hesitantly, here is an attempt: any text can only be perceived to have meaning in relation to an infinity of other texts/images/sense-perceptions/etc. because of this infinity, the writer of a text will try to delineate a "finite context" for their text, a finite context which itself is always baseless: this is what Derrida calls this the "transcendental signified" of the text-it may be thought of as a keystone which recurs in every text with any kind of proposed thesis. he sees in the entire history of Western philosophy and reason, a constant lack of awareness by authors of their own particular delineations or assumptions of contexts and foreclosures which are the only (i repeat: the ONLY) things which actually give the text perceivable meaning. (he uses a method of writing known as deconstruction to reveal the differences of the meanings of text if this "transcendental signified" is displaced). in sum, this is a rather catastrophic problem in the pursuit of any kind of comfortable truth in writing, and ergo thought itself, if Derrida is right (and it seems most who give him a fair shake find him very difficult to argue with). by pulling the "transcendental signified" out from under a text, Derrida essentially reveals the precarious house of cards any text always is/was. again, if he's right (a concept which itself becomes precarious), this insight is not something philosophy or human thought is likely to recover from in the next... century or so? much less in a few decades. anyway. it is unfortunate that it can be so difficult to grasp difficult concepts, but, well, if it were easy we'd have worked them all out by now... i get the impression that part of why people don't like Derrida is just that it's hard to face how artificial our "truths" often are... which is honestly fair enough, reality is a b*tch, but some of us have to live in reality if we want to avoid this world ending up some kind of technofascist hallucinogenic nightmare hellscape or something... ;9 lmfao

@@3looming314 thx for your elaborate answer, i really appreciate your efforts of trying to communicate with my kind of anonymous entity in internet :D i think it all eventually comes down to the routes that we take, trying to grasp the difficult nature of the reality, but we all choose the routes that best suit us, and deleuze etc jargon is just not my route. What you said, that the goal of deconstruction is to make it apparent that the meaning of meaning itself is always relative to contexts and other texts (namely intertextuality) - i agree with you. There are no "real" essence behind any terms or concepts we make use of, but these consept are in many cases the only way we can take to understand the world. Theories are always only theories and they should be appreciated as such, and what annoys me the most with the popular french poststructuralists is that they are trying to shoot those concepts down, without giving any better alternatives to fill the void. The kind of intellectual behavoiur I admire the most is the one that gives alternative and better ways of thinking, and not just shoot all the already existing ones down

@@AjarSensation well i would say Deleuze is certainly trying to find new ways of thinking. they might be hard to swallow, and heck i don't think i agree with half of them yet, but he's trying in a way that is much more methodologically honest than the 90+% of other intellectual writers who just pretend post-structuralism never happened, and that language can still be "obvious" and "easy" for the communication of important, conceptual things. Derrida and Lacan (like Kant and Hegel before them) are like two venomous vipers in the room that honest writers have to precisely tiptoe around because both have introduced criticisms so fine and so damning that a text can easily subvert itself from within, especially when writing to a completely global audience as in today. this said, it might be a credit to Deleuze (along with a small handful of others, such as Marx) that Derrida himself struggled to deconstruct him. if it can be seen that use of extremely specific jargon means you're very difficult to misunderstand (i.e. no one claims to understand you except those who have actually intellectually engaged with the full weight your material) it's fair to argue that Deleuze avoids a lot of the risks of being widely misunderstood which plagued all sorts of radical or inventive writers, most notably Marx, Nietzsche, Freud. in other words, it's much preferable to be obscure than to have no lasting point, to be speaking into the wind, after all. and again, this video here is lecture meant for students of his work. without the necessary reading, yes, he might well appear totally illegible. he likely won't if you read him, though. and as for Derrida, his work has since given rise to some of the most brilliant feminist writing in history, as just one example of his productive factor. his favourite writer in the French was Hélène Cixous-herself inspired by his deconstruction, and friends with him-whose 'The Laugh of the Medusa' is one of the most stunning, emotionally fervent, and critically sharp womanist/feminist texts in writing. anything she writes is often quite beautiful, albeit also overwhelming. not only did Derrida help spawn a ton of great literature, but deconstruction itself was never simply destructive: it always created a new interpretation of a text which could be just as interesting and fruitful as the one the author intended. so the idea of the post-structuralist who only criticises and isn't actually bringing anything to the table is also not really accurate-they are just much less eager to wantonly wield answers like weapons, and rather like to show how different kinds of richness can be derived from great texts.

He's French so it makes it easier 😉

Hhhhhhh

This was always true before tinder, true for the first entities you can call human. Mate selection was always determined by physicals systems.

@@PonyPhuckcastYes but its only now that we clearly see it.

Or helped set in motion the strategic planning that changed society for the worse

Which is funny, because he hates Guattari.

@@wmradar I'm just saying that his speaking style might be broadly characterized as french.

@@galek75 Making such presuppositions in this context really shows infantile thinking

no way

@@wmradarWhy ?

do not joke about this

@@francescomanzo3939 don't be so serious

για την ωρα εδω quarej.bandcamp.com/album/medjilan-ep κι εδω, loccidental.bandcamp.com/releases με λιγο αλλες συνθεσεις ατομων, και ερχονται κιάλλα

facts

Deleuze is hardly bourgeois, and the students are probably there to hear him speak in particular, rather than to hear about the greatness of other writers-of course we can idealise about better or radically different education systems, but if you really are looking for radical thought then taking it out on Deleuze for his pointed remarks is probably friendly fire, tbh.

What thinkers do you recommend for adults in-becoming ?

He's just bullshitting. They were both grifters.

Bruno Latour, influenced by Delueze and Guatarri, spent 1/2 an academic career pretending that science was just another fiction among many. He (already a trustfund kid) got money, and prestige attacking science (just like the climate change deniers, the anti-vaxxers, the young earth creationists and QAnon people). This juvenile "anti-authority" posturing fed the defeat of the left, the collapse of the center and the rise of the anti-science right that we are now enduring. Some portion of the blame for not doing almost anything about climate change for the last 25 years lies at the table of Delueze, Guatarri, Foucault, Latour and the rest of these anti-science charlatans. Latour has some sense of this and has made some half-assed efforts to minimize the harm he has done - but it clearly is not enough - now he is playing footsie with the "new materialism" that wants to attribute agency to natural phenomena. Back in reality, there have been serious bodies of knowledge and political work taking on the real harms in the inappropriate use of science that have been crowded out of the last 40 years by these con artists. Pretending that science and rules at school (like some stupid little boys fantasy of rebellion), and the use of proper names in langauge are the foundations on which terrible atrocities of Stalin are built is just a stupid, lazy way to think about the world. All of these charlatan's helped clear the way for the rise of the late capitalist grifter leaders in Italy, France, Poland, Hungary, Trump in the US etc. and eventually coming soon, due to climate change and mass migration, actual fascism.

@@SN-xk2rl well i dont know latour (and frankly dont really care, i can't barely read about deleuze) but from what I've looked he's literally know as "the relativist", and deleuze doesn't seem to be one, much less a grifter from what I've gathered. But that's not important, what you say is then that deleuze IS misusing sientific/mathematical terms is his works, and they are metaphors? (I've read an article about his uses of the concept of manifold and he seemed to grasp it really well and what the hell he did with it is not what I was asking about so..) If you could the link me or name some articles about the misuse of sience that you've mentioned, about deleuze I'll be grateful

This video is one my favorites about the subject and I think it will help you out to understand what's happening whenever ppl like Deleuze use scientific terms or language th-cam.com/video/zmYegIGhwtc/w-d-xo.html

@@roflzspas thanks, thats a great video, ironically it links me to some 3hour lectures on deleuze i was avoiding maybe i should dive deeper, and it still is less hardcore than reading difference and repetition. But the video gave me more clarification still, usually my discussions with philosopher friends end up with me not grasping basic philosophy or them not getting basic relativity theory hah

No, it was filmed by one of his students at the time, Marielle Burkhalter, and aired on italian TV. I just did the subtitles.

Thank you for translating