4 ms·
Many contemporary artists are good at associative thought but pretty bad at rational thought. Several popular French philosophers say a lot, so there will alwa
by smokel 3y ago
Many contemporary artists are good at associative thought but pretty bad at rational thought.
Several popular French philosophers say a lot, so there will always be some interesting hook for people to catch on.
The rational thinker will get annoyed, because the drivel is unfounded. The artist will feel inspired and enlightened.
(Source: have formal education in both mathematics and fine arts.)
- 2devnull 3y agoThe influence of French cinema may be a factor too I would guess.
- nathias 3y agothis is more of a problem of the US reception of Deleuze via literary studies not philosophy, Deleuze is a very serious and rational thinker, but without context, it's senseless (which people use for posturing)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- smokel 3y agoHm, I should not have used the word "drivel", that may have been a bit too harsh. A thing with Deleuze is that I still see very little value in some of his ideas. The idea of a "rhizome" for instance (which might be related to Latour's "actor-network theory") seems rather trivial to me. This may well be because I grew up in a time when these ideas were already fairly mainstream, but I find it highly unlikely that people before Deleuze only thought in black and white. A hurdle that I may once have to cross is that I should not read these philosophers for their original thought, but more for their critique on contemporary society. The latter seems rather pointless, because it costs me almost no effort to superficially critique contemporary society myself :)
- nathias 3y agomost of it is an attempt to escape Hegelianism/Marxism/psychoanalysis, but his earlier works (Difference and Repetition, Logic Of Sense) are much better in terms of accessibility, to me his best are books on other philosophers, on Kant, Spinoza, Leibniz. The late stages of philosophers' works are often quite wacky.