Episode 127 ... Deleuze pt. 3 - Anti-Oedipus

Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@lexparsimoniae2107]

By breaking down difficult Deleuzian concepts into a language comprehensible to mere mortals like us, you make the world a more educated place. Thank you sir!

[@peeingcaddis]

This is sooooooooo important right now! Fantastic work PT! So thankful to have this dialogue - to help in reading D+G but also to know we are not alone 🙂

[@comu157]

Deleuze and Guattari were up to some acid. Just kidding but actually sayind something quite serious. During my only acid trip I felt, while I was squeezing myself through cars at a parking lot, like if I was a cell in a bloodstream, avoiding other cells while making my machinic moviment of getting from the outside to the inside to grab some water. I was younger then, so I didn't had knowledge of Anti-Oedipus yet, but when I started reading the book I remembered that feeling and how natural it felt, how bodily.

[@TheToygangster]

Thanks for teaching us more today than we knew yesterday :)

[@giornogiovanna3782]

The auto subtitles write "Deleuze" in sooo many funny ways Great podcast thank you very much, the first pages of the Anti Oedipus are like hitting my face on a wall over and over again and you're really helping !

[@natnar6181]

does it make sense in the end?

[@giornogiovanna3782]

@@natnar6181 Took me a year to go thought it while going to so many different books and starting to make myself at home in this strange place but it is one of the greatest book i've ever read and I highly recommend persevering. If I can help in any way, do not hesitate. I does not really make sense in the end, but it's worth it.

[@natnar6181]

@@giornogiovanna3782 i have it waiting for me when i get home on saturday, i’ve done my surrounding research of the book and concepts but don’t have any real relative knowledge prior to the ideas, i’m going to just give it my best go 🙂. Thanks for the reply :)

[@giornogiovanna3782]

@@natnar6181 When I started reading it I stumbled upon a Discord Server called the Deleuze and Guattari Quarantine Collective and they started doing a reading if the book. I was very involved at that time but I don't know what they do now. A lot of the readings are on Spotify and SoundCloud (and maybe elsewhere) and it's really good you should check it !

[@AnthonyA321]

Wow, I’ve been waiting for a new one. Yippee!

[@matthewmelson1780]

Just have to let you know I've been binging on your podcast waiting for a new one.

[@EMC2Scotia]

When you touch on Freud and Lacan, anyone interested to pursue this point may be directed towards chapter 5 in Aaron Schuster's book 'The Trouble with Pleasure', entitled 'The Philosophy of Schizophrenia'.

[@mars7726]

It's been so long since my last Philosophize This fix.

[@TheKalazar]

Two videos in one day!!! I am so happy!!!

[@brainxtc2171]

Thank you. Amazing work.

[@nightoftheworld]

20:53 “go get some other job that they enjoy more with no detriment to society as a whole.” Except the jobs that exist have collectively huge impacts on society as a whole-making one complicit in economic colonialism, exploitation, etc. Sure we’re free to get new jobs, but unless you’re born with a silver spoon then your chances of finding an occupation outside of a managerial structure that enforces/reproduces the sickness of the status quo are severely depressing and limited. Look at modern precarity, the short accumulation is backfiring in the arena of mental health, harming the social fabric to such an extent that were fracturing into post-truthiness (anti-vax, new forms of racism, xenophobia, mistrust of government/corporations, deaths of despair, socioeconomic precarity, ecological degradation, mass species extinction, political apathy, etc.)

[@jdorritie]

I thought all the Marxists WANTED people to distrust the state and corporations

[@nightoftheworld]

@@jdorritie not Marxist’s like Slavoj Zizek. To him we desperately need an efficient state apparatus-as that is the only mechanism by which we can address the scale of today’s global problems: climate, biogenetics, intellectual property rights, finance.. The state should be held to the highest standards of ethical life and must protect the commons and the lives of those left behind on behalf of the spirit of progress. This type of progress I think can be seen in both social democratic systems like the Nordic models and in democratic socialist systems like Morales’ Bolivia. There are a dozen ways to slice those terms up, all with varying ideas about degrees of economic ownership, etc. but the bottom line is the expansion of liberty democratically. No longer a corrupt centralized system of rule by the rich, no longer that old authoritarian state capitalism. The state doesn’t have to be corrupt, post WW2 there are now enough new mechanisms of accountability to have a state informed and directed on the basis of prosperity of the commons. We still have the problem of corporate capture/corporate socialism/populism from neoliberalisms legacy to contend with, but I don’t think those preclude the state from being a force for good in working people’s lives.

[@americanmisfit1]

@@jdorritie hmm kinds sounds like Qanons

[@rodrigodiazcasas384]

I feel like i have listen a quantum phisics podcast. This "machines" sound like every little thing in the universe having their own behaviour, but conforming eventually more complex things that have aswell their own behaviour and relation with other complex things, being actualized through that mutual relation, and so on. And i cannot help to sense somenthing of the holographic universe theory in that complex "rizome" understanding of the world.

[@socialkonstruct5397]

Great talk about Deleuze!

[@aszy4527]

Just a heads up it was published in 1972 not 1983

[@conquista37]

I am confused about your assertion that Deleuze is not "that kind of marxist". Every marxist credits capitalism with the rise of living standard and the increase of productivity this is just basic historical materialism. To praise capitalism is not un-marxist quite the contrary. To missread the critiques of capitalism that have been made as absolute and thus placing them outside of their historical context would be the "rigid structure" that marxists avoid by analysing trough the lense of dialectical materialism.

[@akhshat1]

Deluze is not marxist because he rejects the totalising narratives that marxism constructs.

[@OjoRojo40]

You are right, the KZbinr is making a big mistake. It's true D&G acknowledge the economic aspect of capitalism (like Marx) but they harshly critic the power structure of Capitalism!!! in the socio-political spectrum analysis they do between paranoia and schizophrenia, the first is totalitarianism (be it of the state or the market) and the second is an abstraction. If D&G are anything in political terms, they are Anarchists. Cheers!

[@OjoRojo40]

@@akhshat1 Then why did he define himself as Marxist? By the way, Capitalism is also a totalitarian narrative.

[@akhshat1]

@@OjoRojo40 he did not. he is a post-structural thinker and is against any form of meta-narratives.

[@OjoRojo40]

@@akhshat1 Well he's certainly not an orthodox one, but he totally follows Althusser and his re-interpretation of Marx. He's and anti Hegelian so of course he can't agree with the causality of dialectic materialism, so he replaces it for a continues critic of the present.Also don't forget the book was written by him and Félix Guatarri, a member of the PCF (French communist party).

[@Setherian]

I need a break from listening “machines”. Like 2,3 years break.

[@tonym6566]

Are these re uploads???

[@2UMADINA]

Thank you 🙏!

[@andrejjovicevic7433]

At 11:30, the speaker gives us an interesting example of a bicycle, in order to explain the notion of the virtual and it's relation to the actual. I disagree with this notion, as I think this is not what Deleuze actually meant when he spoke about the virtual plane, and the actualisation of the virtual. I agree that there are multiple ways in which a virtual plane can actualise itself, and this depends on many factors of different intensities within the virtual (this is key to understanding this concept in Difference and Repetition). However, I don't think the bicycle is a correct example for this, as I always interpreted Deleuze's virtual/actual as a means of becoming or creating something. What would be more fitting here, is the relation of the Real and the Possible, which are more revolved around already existing objects and characterising their possible forms.

[@pygmalion8952]

But in bergson's perspective actually this is what speaker said. Deleuze was influenced by bergson and these are all bergson's terminology.

[@casabonita1492]

27:00 There is someone who specialized in linguistics (even revolutionized the field) and writes extensive commentary on political power! Noam Chomsky

[@benbork8757]

who they criticize in 1000 plateaus

[@casabonita1492]

@@benbork8757 good to know, thanks. I should read the book

[@rayneweber7636]

Finally!!!! I've been checking for a new talk every day since Joe Rogan mentioned you.

[@darillus1]

its nice the way u simplified Deleuze, but wouldn't it be simpler to say everything is interlinked.

[@Paddyjay12]

Can you cover Carl Jung?

[@SuperNomeparaoyoutub]

What an interesting ideia!

[@-diogenesthecynic-]

Fuck, yesterday I was wondering where you were.

[@jamesandrewferry]

The internet is the ultimate modern-day rhizome

[@austinglover8311]

Are you not familiar with Noam Chomsky?

[@jerilynburnsify]

where the hell you been??? lol

[@AP-xj3iz]

Guess who's back back again

[@dadedraak]

Shady

[@christinemartin63]

Lol ... a rose by any other name ....

[@akhshat1]

why not use the word apparatus instead of machines? It would be easy to interpret and it is often used in post modern vocabulary.

[@kiyoaki1985]

From how you talk about it it sounds like Deleuze (actually Guattari, who was just a charlatan) completely misunderstands "lack", lack isn't isn't the absence of a concrete thing like a standard of living or a nice car or whatever, that was never the point in psychoanalysis. Lack is the fundamental absence of a master signifier (or "transcendental guarantee", i.e. a secure reference point outside the subject that can secure their thoughts and desires) and is really very close to what Deleuze himself reacts against, the idea that there is a single point of reference. When Guattari comes into the picture "multiplicity" starts to take on this role of the master signifier and you get all of this, frankly tiresome, talk about amorphous social movements that really just boil down to conventional liberalism. The interesting part of Deleuze is immanence and the status of matter, which I think is where the real difference with psychoanalysis lies. Also "subject" is NOT the same as the individual in psychoanalysis.

[@kylerodd2342]

That’s where the rhizome comes into play in ATP.

[@Dan-si8fp]

Second

[@OjoRojo40]

You are making a BIG mistake. It's true D&G acknowledge the economic aspect of capitalism, but they harshly critic the power structure of Capitalism!!! in the socio-political spectrum analysis they do between paranoia and schizophrenia, the first is totalitarianism (be it of the state or the market) and the second is an abstraction. If D&G are anything in political terms, they are Anarchists. I hope this help you to understand better the text. Cheers!

[@phoebeparedez8453]

Freud- proto structure concept of unconscious mind where ur personality comes from Marx- Econ climate results in superstructure of society Deleuze- Freud and Marx not the sole ideas, political landscape trapped in modernity, Could we be looking at politics in a completely different way from previous perspectives, a more adaptive and fluid belief system. We can’t limit ourselves to a single perspective as a society, look at the world through machines to get away from traditional belief of looking through as the subject. Subject as a political unit is the individual consciousness of people. Machine means many things total multiplicity not being definable as metaphors of their parts. Machines are entities in a political landscape that attempt connection with others of their type in order to actualize a political reality. A movement in a given moment is defined by its connections. Collections of machines make up the individual. Reinterpretation of desire, is desire and production are default and fundamental characteristics of being a machine. Inherent to life itself. Capitalism and schizophrenia . Oedipal way of viewing desire, desire is first rooted in a familial setting. Just because capitalism is better than feudalism doesn’t mean we are done with critiquing economic systems, it is the responsibility of the leading system to criticize it in order to change. In no other system, the oppressed are at freedom to change it. Capitalism dictates every narrow parameter the individual has. Concept of the rhizome. Dogmatic way we think about thinks traditionally to a tree. Tree is structured in a hierarchical way, roots to leave to sun etc. deeply rooted system with different parts that work together. Rhizome is a chaotic root structure, subterranean plant stem, doesn’t grow in a particular pattern, no beginning middle or end. The networking of the process of thought, ideas, and beliefs. History is not a single line of progression. He thinks trees are important to understanding political ideas.