3 ms·

I haven’t really read these guys but that seems like a very strong claim.

Der_Einzige 2y ago
You really should try reading them. I am not even scratching the surface. Just open up a book called “anti-oedipus” or “A Thousand Plateus” by Deleuze and Guattari. It’s all full of shit. The moment that you start with Freud (and all of these figures implicitly assume he’s right as they do for Marx) you’ve become intellectually bankrupt.
- mediego 2y ago
  _Anti-Oedipus_, is fairly critical of Freud, as the name implies. To refuse to engage with a subject is intellectually bankrupt.
  - Der_Einzige 2y ago
    I unfortunately cover to cover read and engaged with these authors far too much in my competitive debate career. I repeat, they are all full of shit. Their “criticism of him” is not even close to on base. They literally advocate for “Schizoanalysis”. Everyone claims that they critique everyone else in this field. “Critique” in the sense of “your mostly right but made a few mistakes” instead of being like “I’m pretty sure that young children don’t want to fuck their mom and kill their dad” (oedipus complex, which Deleuze and Guattari think is real) It’s telling that their attempted psychiatric hospital was an epic fail, that Deleuze famously said guattari told him to “write stupid shit”, and Deleuze ends up flinging him self out of a window in an apparent suicide later.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      From what little I know, their use of schizophrenia is different from how we use it now, and when they refer to the schizophrenic they mean someone who doesn’t systematize and abstract things in order to make sense of the world like most people, so they want to try and use something like this state of mind to observe things as they are rather than reducing them into constituent parts and abstracting their function like we tend to do when analyzing, hence schizoanalysis. I think that’s a neat idea, lmk if I’m misreading.
- devoted-acolyte 2y ago
  I keep my copy in my bed and draw little flowers in the margins and give it sweet kisses and sleep with it every night. :3

You really should try reading them. I am not even scratching the surface. Just open up a book called “anti-oedipus” or “A Thousand Plateus” by Deleuze and Guattari. It’s all full of shit. The moment that you start with Freud (and all of these figures implicitly assume he’s right as they do for Marx) you’ve become intellectually bankrupt.

mediego 2y ago
_Anti-Oedipus_, is fairly critical of Freud, as the name implies. To refuse to engage with a subject is intellectually bankrupt.
- Der_Einzige 2y ago
  I unfortunately cover to cover read and engaged with these authors far too much in my competitive debate career. I repeat, they are all full of shit. Their “criticism of him” is not even close to on base. They literally advocate for “Schizoanalysis”. Everyone claims that they critique everyone else in this field. “Critique” in the sense of “your mostly right but made a few mistakes” instead of being like “I’m pretty sure that young children don’t want to fuck their mom and kill their dad” (oedipus complex, which Deleuze and Guattari think is real) It’s telling that their attempted psychiatric hospital was an epic fail, that Deleuze famously said guattari told him to “write stupid shit”, and Deleuze ends up flinging him self out of a window in an apparent suicide later.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    From what little I know, their use of schizophrenia is different from how we use it now, and when they refer to the schizophrenic they mean someone who doesn’t systematize and abstract things in order to make sense of the world like most people, so they want to try and use something like this state of mind to observe things as they are rather than reducing them into constituent parts and abstracting their function like we tend to do when analyzing, hence schizoanalysis. I think that’s a neat idea, lmk if I’m misreading.
devoted-acolyte 2y ago
I keep my copy in my bed and draw little flowers in the margins and give it sweet kisses and sleep with it every night. :3