This is honestly so cool to find. I’ve got a lot out of this summary in my first listen. Can’t wait to come back to this and check out more of these videos. Keep it up, man!
Just found a new channel to bing watch, I guess! Also the fact that sometimes you were on the verge of giving up understanding what in the world these fellas were trying to say makes the listening even more enjoyable, I have to say.
thank you for making these ideas more accessible! i was reading this book and was incredibly confused at first and came to youtube for help, and you completely delivered. thanks for this!
I've already started reading it, been reading some freud and already have a good knowledge of radical politics, spinoza and nietzsche, so the first chapter has been quite a breeze (although I haven't finished it, so again, thanks for the video), except for the BwO witch I had to get some secondary sources to understand better. I think D&G's ontology is bloody brilliant. It's beautiful and interesting, and rings true to me, specially having read spinoza, and having a monist view of the world, but now with desiring machines included. Their attempt at creating a new philosophy of desire is also quite powerful. I know these descriptions aren't vigorous philosophical analysis, but I just wanted to say, the book is quite fun to read. Hope you get to posting the other 3 chapters.
Though Zizek disagrees on the 'importance' of Anti-Oedipus, I still think it's the best argument for the cultivation of schizophrenia ever written. Every time I read it, I find some overlooked or neglected element/aspect to (re)consider. Do you care?
19:30 to 20:00. I've been struggling to conceptualize this emergence of this *strange* *wandering* subjectivity that preceeds subjectivity at least in the sense we understand it in everydayness. What "is" it? BwO, machine, simulacra or whatever of BwO created by imposed structure upon machines... in the text, this say primordial predecessor to subjectivity appears to *preceed* the consumption production. It wanders on the recording surface, which doesn't really say anything about the temporal nature of this primordial subject, whether it came before the recording and once the recording surface manifests it then inhabits it, or if it only comes to be with the creation of the recording surface. Also, just a big thumbs up to your slow, methodical style, and also your transparency and honesty that you're simply doing your best reading/interpretation/effort and do not know 100% if its correct lingo/etc. Its refreshing for someone to discuss philosophy and theory as not the supreme knower of truth haha.
Unfortunately I do not :/. I am characteristically opposed to the character limits allotted for Twitter posts and have an equal disdain for picture media through instagram. With that being said, as soon as I cave and make an account, y'all will be the first to know :). And yes I will definitely be continuing the Anti-Oedipus. Currently trying to recruit some people doing their dissertations on them to come and talk about the next chapter.
As opaque as a lot of this material is, there are certain points in it that I vibe with deeply. I really do suffer from having to sleep and therefore not being able to play Dark Souls 3 for the 88th time all night. I really do suffer from not being able to breathe underwater, or flap my arms and fly to the Moon. I really do suffer from the fact that the most pleasurable things I can put in my body will slowly poison me.
Hi Veronica, I do a monthly zoom meeting with my patrons, if you're interested. Otherwise, I unfortunately don't have the time to commit to a reading group :/
Heya, you might be interested in searching 'Deleuze and Guattari Quarantine Collective'! They're currently running an AO reading group which, as a first-time reader, I've found to be an absolute lifeline for D&G! Recordings for previous sessions are on Soundcloud and Spotify, and the group's also spawning out into- inter alia- Butler, Nietzsche and Foucault texts :)
Dudesh! Your lecture is up there bro! I'm obsessed with these two thinkers. Just trying to level up the high i got off scoring an A+ on a deleuzoguattarian analysis of the german speaking HipHop scene for my MA dissertation(ahem, complement fish alert), and damn; re-reading AO without actively (and kinda aggressively 😂) looking to apply D&G to parallel cultural theory is an experience I did good to reserve for this hot girl summer I find myself having😂 I have a random question if you or anyone who's read Kunzru's "white tears": I'm convinced that this particular novel lends itself to an deleuzoguattarian analysis like hell. soooo uhhhh here's to more posthuman theory and affirmation of or arguments against Kunzru being a deleuzoguattarian perceptive porcupine in his historical horror piece 💜🙏🏼 love and blessings from India! Happy Sunday 😁
31:05 Honesty is a valued commodity. You did a great job in introducing a very difficult text. Well done! or Should I say Fuck off? Both are applicable no doubt. ;)
"...the production of recordings itself is produced by the production of production. Similarly, recording is followed by consumption. But the production of consumption is produced in and through the production of recording." ...excuse me what
"Recording falls back on production, but the production of recording itself is produced by the production of production. Similarly, recording is followed by consumption, but the production of consumption is produced in and through the production of recording." For paragraphs like these, I really really wish D&G would give concrete examples that aren't just about some mentally ill guy's delusions. If this is meant to be a comprehensive account of desire, you'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask for an illustration of these processes on a really simple material level before tackling something as abstract and arcane as schizophrenia.
It’s the afternoon of July 13 (or is it 14?), and I listened to the end while making dumplings. No, I don’t think you made any mistakes, because I have no idea what the two great French philosophers wrote. Your constant cursing, however, gave me great anti-oepedius pleasure and, somehow, I felt I have never felt this good. F***, it’s good to know that, somewhere, another soul is suffering and reading and making sense and, perhaps, having fun as well.😅 Cheers. My dumplings are 1/3 way ready.
@@TheoryPhilosophy I may have overstated and I don't mean to impugn your general understanding or your explanation - I'm sure they're much stronger than mine in many respects - but I do feel you downplay the political radicalism of the text; it's not a neutral explanation of how capitalism works, it promotes revolutionary desire. I think there are times where you say something like "they're not totally down on capitalism" (I can't find the exact phrase) - and no they're not, but neither are Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto when comparing it with feudalism; however, they do quite distinctly see it as exploitative and oppressive - they say, for example, that "the astonishing thing is ... that all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike". If it is not clear that the exploited are exploited by capitalism, then I would want to point out that Deleuze and Guattari reference "capital as a means of extorting surplus labour" - it's worth noting the word "extorting" rather than a more neutral term like "extracting". There are other examples, but rather than trawl through the text for more specific details, it would be easier to point out that they refer to "materialist psychiatry" and to schizoanalysis as "militant analysis", both terms that implicitly if not explicitly align them with Marxist and other revolutionary traditions. I do feel you brush over these aspects and even play them down. Similarly, you talk of the reterritorialising overcoding that takes place in capitalism to offset the wholesale decoding that is necessitated by it, as being something that is somehow comforting or helpful to people. This seems an overly benign way of looking at it when it works to facilitate the ways in which people desire their own oppression - choosing your own exploitation, for example, as long as it comes with patriotism or a belief in the sanctity of the family unit. There's also evidence for the radicalism of both Deleuze and Guattari from outside this text - Guattari wrote a book with Toni Negri called "Communists Like Us", for example, or Deleuze, in an interview with Negri, said that both he and Guattari always considered themselves Marxists; in L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze he discusses his own leftism more generally. I think these kind of things are worth bearing in mind. I may be doing you a misservice of course and misreading your comments regarding the political aspects of the text. However, I do find that a lot of commentators downplay the radicalism of the politics, even including luminaries such as Daniel Smith - there are a lot of claims that D&G downplayed or disregarded class politics, which I think is a deeply questionable position and often reflects a certain privileged, academic discomfort with such radical politics (I'm not suggesting this is the case with you - how would I know? - I mean in general).
I agree with all that. My challenge to D & G is not motivated by an oppositionary stance like that of Badiou, Baudrillard, Culp, or Han; I simply like to mount criticisms so that we do not take any one idea as Gospel. With that being said, I like D & G. A lot.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Critique is always legitimate, of course - I merely felt you underplayed the political aspects of the text. However, on the whole I think your summaries are useful and I'll keep listening.
This is honestly so cool to find. I’ve got a lot out of this summary in my first listen. Can’t wait to come back to this and check out more of these videos. Keep it up, man!
Thank you for the kind words!
Well, I've found my new favorite youtuber
Awww shucks
me too Kuro, me too
Great lecture man, saving me money on a philosophy major lmao
❄️
You're crazy if you think they teach this in philosophy majors.
Your format, depth, and articulation reminds me of Stephen West from Philosophize This. Keep it up! Thank you for the commentary and unpacking!
Just started reading this. Appreciate this sort of foreword or summarizing of the book.
Your videos on these Theodosian walls of books have changed my life for the better
I just started reading this, and this is immensely helpful. Thank you so much!!
Happy to hear it 😊
Just found a new channel to bing watch, I guess! Also the fact that sometimes you were on the verge of giving up understanding what in the world these fellas were trying to say makes the listening even more enjoyable, I have to say.
Cause we all feel that way!
Just discovered this channel, looks like you’ve got some great vids here, can’t wait to dig in
thank you for making these ideas more accessible! i was reading this book and was incredibly confused at first and came to youtube for help, and you completely delivered. thanks for this!
Such a coherent, detailed explanation; so helpful. Hope you do more.
I;ve got a bunch of vids up, but I do hope to continue doing them for years to come :)
Thank god you made this, I just bought the book and I love your videos
You're welcome, Raphael. Let me know what you think when you get to reading it though.
I've already started reading it, been reading some freud and already have a good knowledge of radical politics, spinoza and nietzsche, so the first chapter has been quite a breeze (although I haven't finished it, so again, thanks for the video), except for the BwO witch I had to get some secondary sources to understand better. I think D&G's ontology is bloody brilliant. It's beautiful and interesting, and rings true to me, specially having read spinoza, and having a monist view of the world, but now with desiring machines included. Their attempt at creating a new philosophy of desire is also quite powerful. I know these descriptions aren't vigorous philosophical analysis, but I just wanted to say, the book is quite fun to read. Hope you get to posting the other 3 chapters.
by the way, this resource helped me a lot, hope it helps you people.duke.edu/~hardt/Deleuze&Guattari.html
Literally everyone who has ever read this book has said I don't know but I think I might get it... Maybe
Though Zizek disagrees on the 'importance' of Anti-Oedipus, I still think it's the best argument for the cultivation of schizophrenia ever written. Every time I read it, I find some overlooked or neglected element/aspect to (re)consider. Do you care?
19:30 to 20:00. I've been struggling to conceptualize this emergence of this *strange* *wandering* subjectivity that preceeds subjectivity at least in the sense we understand it in everydayness. What "is" it? BwO, machine, simulacra or whatever of BwO created by imposed structure upon machines... in the text, this say primordial predecessor to subjectivity appears to *preceed* the consumption production. It wanders on the recording surface, which doesn't really say anything about the temporal nature of this primordial subject, whether it came before the recording and once the recording surface manifests it then inhabits it, or if it only comes to be with the creation of the recording surface.
Also, just a big thumbs up to your slow, methodical style, and also your transparency and honesty that you're simply doing your best reading/interpretation/effort and do not know 100% if its correct lingo/etc. Its refreshing for someone to discuss philosophy and theory as not the supreme knower of truth haha.
Read Rene Girard dismantling the Oedipal complex and demonstrating a clearer, more direct account in terms of mimetic rivalry. No machines required!
This is great! Do you have a twitter or anything? Please keep the Anti-Oedipus podcast going :D
Unfortunately I do not :/. I am characteristically opposed to the character limits allotted for Twitter posts and have an equal disdain for picture media through instagram. With that being said, as soon as I cave and make an account, y'all will be the first to know :). And yes I will definitely be continuing the Anti-Oedipus. Currently trying to recruit some people doing their dissertations on them to come and talk about the next chapter.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Oh, that's a good idea. Looking forward to the next episode!
As opaque as a lot of this material is, there are certain points in it that I vibe with deeply. I really do suffer from having to sleep and therefore not being able to play Dark Souls 3 for the 88th time all night. I really do suffer from not being able to breathe underwater, or flap my arms and fly to the Moon. I really do suffer from the fact that the most pleasurable things I can put in my body will slowly poison me.
that's great at 30.00 - you're honest and clear. What about doing a shortish - Covid virus as desiring machine lecture?
Just came across your videos. Do you think about having study groups, like reading the books collectively?
Hi Veronica, I do a monthly zoom meeting with my patrons, if you're interested. Otherwise, I unfortunately don't have the time to commit to a reading group :/
Heya, you might be interested in searching 'Deleuze and Guattari Quarantine Collective'! They're currently running an AO reading group which, as a first-time reader, I've found to be an absolute lifeline for D&G! Recordings for previous sessions are on Soundcloud and Spotify, and the group's also spawning out into- inter alia- Butler, Nietzsche and Foucault texts :)
@@AmberScarletFeathers rock n roll. Sounds like a good resource
Dudesh! Your lecture is up there bro! I'm obsessed with these two thinkers. Just trying to level up the high i got off scoring an A+ on a deleuzoguattarian analysis of the german speaking HipHop scene for my MA dissertation(ahem, complement fish alert), and damn; re-reading AO without actively (and kinda aggressively 😂) looking to apply D&G to parallel cultural theory is an experience I did good to reserve for this hot girl summer I find myself having😂
I have a random question if you or anyone who's read Kunzru's "white tears": I'm convinced that this particular novel lends itself to an deleuzoguattarian analysis like hell. soooo uhhhh here's to more posthuman theory and affirmation of or arguments against Kunzru being a deleuzoguattarian perceptive porcupine in his historical horror piece 💜🙏🏼 love and blessings from India! Happy Sunday 😁
Thank You!
So basically just visualise everything in terms of an H.R. Gieger artwork. Got it.
Thanks for this, really helpful
Ohhhhh shiiiittttttt the og deleuze and guattari
Lol
good job! very well explained!
This so helpful!
31:05 Honesty is a valued commodity. You did a great job in introducing a very difficult text. Well done! or Should I say Fuck off? Both are applicable no doubt. ;)
Love this
Wonderful. Thank you very much
Thank you thank you thank you
so helpful
You aren't wrong
"Don't want to do away, per se...with psycoanaylis" wow just wow
"...the production of recordings itself is produced by the production of production. Similarly, recording is followed by consumption. But the production of consumption is produced in and through the production of recording." ...excuse me what
"Recording falls back on production, but the production of recording itself is produced by the production of production. Similarly, recording is followed by consumption, but the production of consumption is produced in and through the production of recording."
For paragraphs like these, I really really wish D&G would give concrete examples that aren't just about some mentally ill guy's delusions. If this is meant to be a comprehensive account of desire, you'd think it wouldn't be too much to ask for an illustration of these processes on a really simple material level before tackling something as abstract and arcane as schizophrenia.
Well this isn't going to be a quick weekend read i guess.
It’s the afternoon of July 13 (or is it 14?), and I listened to the end while making dumplings. No, I don’t think you made any mistakes, because I have no idea what the two great French philosophers wrote. Your constant cursing, however, gave me great anti-oepedius pleasure and, somehow, I felt I have never felt this good. F***, it’s good to know that, somewhere, another soul is suffering and reading and making sense and, perhaps, having fun as well.😅 Cheers. My dumplings are 1/3 way ready.
Thank God for you. This book seemed impenetrable, and now it is only partially so. Thanks 👍
bio mechanic spiders that pose as object of desire, evolved to be attractive to the senses of P, controlled by sauron
It's okay to not understand.
🙏 thanks
this is very schizo of you😎
Wjeres chapter 2 3 4
I have a playlist on my channel with the rest or you could probably just type "anti-oedipous ch. 2 in the search bar" :)
This is a very socially and politically conservative account that does not do justice to the revolutionary trajectory of the text.
Ouch
I think you should elaborate if you're up to it
@@TheoryPhilosophy I may have overstated and I don't mean to impugn your general understanding or your explanation - I'm sure they're much stronger than mine in many respects - but I do feel you downplay the political radicalism of the text; it's not a neutral explanation of how capitalism works, it promotes revolutionary desire.
I think there are times where you say something like "they're not totally down on capitalism" (I can't find the exact phrase) - and no they're not, but neither are Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto when comparing it with feudalism; however, they do quite distinctly see it as exploitative and oppressive - they say, for example, that "the astonishing thing is ... that all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike". If it is not clear that the exploited are exploited by capitalism, then I would want to point out that Deleuze and Guattari reference "capital as a means of extorting surplus labour" - it's worth noting the word "extorting" rather than a more neutral term like "extracting".
There are other examples, but rather than trawl through the text for more specific details, it would be easier to point out that they refer to "materialist psychiatry" and to schizoanalysis as "militant analysis", both terms that implicitly if not explicitly align them with Marxist and other revolutionary traditions. I do feel you brush over these aspects and even play them down.
Similarly, you talk of the reterritorialising overcoding that takes place in capitalism to offset the wholesale decoding that is necessitated by it, as being something that is somehow comforting or helpful to people. This seems an overly benign way of looking at it when it works to facilitate the ways in which people desire their own oppression - choosing your own exploitation, for example, as long as it comes with patriotism or a belief in the sanctity of the family unit.
There's also evidence for the radicalism of both Deleuze and Guattari from outside this text - Guattari wrote a book with Toni Negri called "Communists Like Us", for example, or Deleuze, in an interview with Negri, said that both he and Guattari always considered themselves Marxists; in L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze he discusses his own leftism more generally. I think these kind of things are worth bearing in mind.
I may be doing you a misservice of course and misreading your comments regarding the political aspects of the text. However, I do find that a lot of commentators downplay the radicalism of the politics, even including luminaries such as Daniel Smith - there are a lot of claims that D&G downplayed or disregarded class politics, which I think is a deeply questionable position and often reflects a certain privileged, academic discomfort with such radical politics (I'm not suggesting this is the case with you - how would I know? - I mean in general).
I agree with all that. My challenge to D & G is not motivated by an oppositionary stance like that of Badiou, Baudrillard, Culp, or Han; I simply like to mount criticisms so that we do not take any one idea as Gospel. With that being said, I like D & G. A lot.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Critique is always legitimate, of course - I merely felt you underplayed the political aspects of the text. However, on the whole I think your summaries are useful and I'll keep listening.
I'm a bit over post structuralists