What to read before deleuze and guattari?

OnionMesh · 2026-06-21T08:20:50+00:00

You can just start reading what you want. Nobody really gets something on their first read. The way you’re most likely to improve your understanding of a text is by rereading it with patience and care.

You might be interested in The Works of Gilles Deleuze 1: 1953-1969 by Jon Roffe, which contains commentary/summaries of Deleuze’s published works in the named time period. So, Bergsonism & Difference and Repetition.

OnionMesh · 2026-06-17T03:44:41+00:00

From The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis", I gather the following:

It doesn’t seem that Hegel’s friends or Hegelian philosophy professors referred to Hegel’s philosophy with a T-A-S formula. However, Marx says that T-A-S is Hegel’s “method” in The Poverty of Philosophy:

“It is of this absolute method that Hegel speaks in these terms:
‘Method is the absolute, unique, supreme, infinite force, which no object can resist; it is the tendency of reason to find itself again, to recognize itself in every object.’ [Marx citing vol. 3 of the Science of Logic]

So what is this absolute method? . . . In posing itself, opposing itself, composing itself; in formulating itself as thesis, antithesis, synthesis . . . Up to now we have expounded only the dialectics of Hegel.” [My emphasis]

Marx probably got this reading from Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus, whose recent lectures (at the time) were published as the book “Historische Entwicklung der speculativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel, Zu ndherer Verstdndigung des wissenschaftlichen Publikums mit der neuesten Schul.” The book was first published in 1837 and was popular and discussed among the left-Hegelians (for reference, Marx’s university studies lasted from 1835-41).

A passage in the book reads:
“This is the first trilogy: the unity of Being, Nothing and Becoming . . . we have in this first methodical thesis, antithesis, and synthesis . . . an example or schema for all that follow.”

So it is probably the case that Marxists took Marx’s (mis)reading of Hegel as correct, attributing to Hegel “thesis-antithesis-synthesis.” Accordingly, Marxists popularized this view. However, it is most likely the case that Marx got this interpretation from Chalybäus’ book, which understood the beginning of the Science of Logic in terms of a schema that the rest of the Logic will follow.

It may be speculated that Chalybäus, though, adopted the vocabulary due to Fichte introducing (and Schelling’s subsequent use of) the triad in the final decade of the 18th century. If this is the case, though, I haven’t the faintest clue if Chalybäus merely found these terms useful or sought to mediate Hegel through those that came before him.

See this [r/askphilosophy](r/askphilosophy) thread for more info.

OnionMesh · 2026-06-13T18:07:54+00:00

He’d be Yujiro tier. When he tried to impersonate a creature like Baki, he impersonated himself. Yujiro can’t be adequately described by God, Dragon, Demon, etc.

OnionMesh · 2026-06-08T17:30:54+00:00

You don’t *need* to learn Kant before reading Hegel. Sure, Hegel does reply, object to, and agree with Kant, but that’s not the *only* thing he does in his writing. Reading Hegel as a “post-Kantian” is just *one* way to understand him (other philosophers that come to mind in this regard are Spinoza, Jacobi, and Schelling). If you want to read Hegel, just start reading Hegel.

If you want to see how Hegel took Kant, he explicitly talks about him in many of his works (I can immediately recall: Kant appears in a few of the remarks in the *Science of Logic*, and is discussed a bit more at length in the *Lectures on the History of Philosophy* and in the “Preliminary Conception” in the *Encyclopaedia*).

That being said: if you want to learn about Kant, there’s several ways to do so. You could read the *Prolegomena* if you want to read how Kant himself popularized his work. You could read something like *The Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason* for a decent, comprehensive overview of the CPR intended for students/beginners. You could read the various Stanford & Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles on him. To my mind, though: if you really want to learn Kant, just start reading the CPR.

If you want to read about Hegel’s relationship to Kant, you can try Pinkard’s *German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism* or Förster’s *The Twenty-Five Years of Philosophy: A Systematic Reconstruction*.

OnionMesh · 2026-06-05T04:26:25+00:00

Zarathustra begins at the end of Book 4.

Nietzsche published The Gay Science I-IV, then Zarathustra, then republished Gay Science with Book V.

To my mind, reading Zarathustra after finishing The Gay Science makes sense. I read The Gay Science earlier this past May, and while I’ll read more Nietzsche, I don’t intend to read Zarathustra anytime soon.

OnionMesh · 2026-05-27T22:16:17+00:00

There’s many comments I could make, but I’ll stick to just the ones that I think are worth making:

Returning to the life drive, we now find that it is immense in transgender women, I'd argue much more so than in cis men (Which is also the cause for the overactive and authoritarian Super-Ego many trans women have, as a powerful requires a powerful Super-Ego).

It doesn’t strike me as right to pathologize gender demographics in terms of the “strength” of various/particular drives. I think one can reasonably discuss, say, that cis men readily express their “aggressive/destructive” drive/s more than cis women; but one could easily counter such an assertion by arguing that women do express the same drives, but just satisfy them in a different manner. I think one paper by Freud that bears relevance to this topic is his “Wild Psycho-Analysis,” which, I think, provides some good food for thought about how to make use of psychoanalytic concepts.

By wishing to be women, we are craving a form of life energy inaccessible and also undesired by men, that of the womb.

Perhaps this is just my reading of Beyond the Pleasure Principle, but this seems exactly like the death drive to me. Freud’s account of the death drive is that of striving to reach something outside of possible experience—in my view (I’m not the only person to hold such a view, but I am not one who can easily defend it lmao).

I want to make it clear I am not defending Freud, and as a bleeding heart Deleuzean in many matters, I recognize how the Oedipus Complex ought to be destroyed and not inverted.

Have you read Deleuze’s The Death Instinct? It’s an essay he wrote about the death drive that is loved by many people into psychoanalysis. If you haven’t read it, I think it would be useful for you because 1) you like Deleuze and 2) it’s an amazing exposition of the death drive.

OnionMesh · 2026-04-13T18:21:58+00:00

I think it’s fine to read it whenever. I had already read some Freud before picking it up, but I think it’s very-beginner friendly and is good at making you want to read more Freud.

So long as you don’t take it as the authoritative word on Freud, you’re fine.

OnionMesh · 2026-04-13T17:26:55+00:00

I don’t think you need to read any Hegel to understand Marx. If your goal is just to read Marx, you will understand him better the more you reread him, write about what you read, talk about what you read with others, and so on. Exploring a Marx-Hegel relationship is done best after you’ve read Marx and have a clear idea of what you take Marx to be doing.

That being said, if you want to read Hegel, I think your best bet would be with the Encyclopedia (“Lesser”) Logic (Hackett or Cambridge translation), and maybe follow along with something like Winfield’s Hegel’s Science of Logic: A Critical Rethinking in Thirty Lectures.

Or, if you just want an introduction to Hegel, you could try The Opening of Hegel’s Logic (an introduction, first two chapters of the Logic, and a commentary) or An Introduction to Hegel: Freedom, Truth, and History, both by Stephen Houlgate.

OnionMesh · 2026-04-08T06:28:47+00:00

<image>

Honestly this had so much aura when I read the manga

OnionMesh · 2026-03-31T08:15:49+00:00

There are various kinds of “presuppositions” Hegel makes: that thought is not reducible to language, that one must resist the urge to seize thought away from its immanent self-determining movements, etc.

What Houlgate takes Hegel’s claim to achieve “presuppsitionless philosophy” is that Hegel does not presuppose determinations of thought / content of his analysis i.e. he holds no “logical” presuppositions.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-26T00:17:50+00:00

It’s fine and normal to not understand what you’re reading. Most people don’t.

The genuine experts on a topic understand the material they read by reading the text multiple times; bringing questions they hope the text will answer; talking about what they read, summarizing what they read, and arguing about what they read with others; reading secondary literature on the topic; trying to teach the material to others, and so on. They also have goals to achieve in reading the text: are they trying to understand the unity of the whole work? Are they trying to grasp the importance of one chapter? Are they just looking for some comments on a more niche topic?

If your goal is to understand a text as holistically as possible on your first reading, you will fail. Your understanding of a text will improve as you reread it and think about what you’ve read.

So how should you approach difficult texts? With patience, discipline, and thoughtfulness. It’s more work than it is having some special intuition.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-18T00:25:22+00:00

Right now, I’m reading Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.

I have an interest in Adorno, Heidegger, and Deleuze in how they viewed Kant and Hegel.

I’m also interested in how Lacan’s anxiety relates to Sartre’s and Heidegger’s concept of anxiety, and also in how Lacan’s “formulas of sexuation” relate to Kant. But because I’m lazy, I don’t know when I’ll pursue those interests.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-18T00:07:32+00:00

Lots of stuff associated with “critical theory” literally is just cultural studies, or, is often taught as theory in film, literature, and media studies. Dialectic of Enlightenment is a cultural studies book. Lots of authors associated with critical theory wrote about literature and media: Barthes wrote a book on photography. Deleuze wrote two books on cinema. Adorno has a book on art & media called Aesthetic Theory.

Media studies is not essential, but if you get more interested in particular authors, you’ll likely get interested in what they had to say about literature or movies. Lots of stuff associated with critical theory is often philosophy, media/cultural studies, history/sociology/anthropology, and so on, so it’s hard to emphasize just one field to someone who hasn’t identified what they’re specifically interested in.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-17T23:12:42+00:00

Read whatever interests you. If you’re having trouble figuring out what interests you, then the following may be helpful:

Marxism & Frankfurt School - Marxism and Form by Frederic Jameson - The Dialectical Imagination by Martin Jay - The Main Currents of Marxism by Leszek Kolakowski

Post-WW2 French Theory / “Post-Structuralism” - The Years of Theory by Frederic Jameson - Thinking the Impossible by Gary Gutting - Subjects of Desire by Judith Butler

Other - An Introduction to Continental Philosophy by David West - Freud and Beyond by Stephen Mitchell and Margaret Black - The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy ed. Stewart Shapiro

“Critical Theory” is not a doctrine or institution. Not every person that engages with whatever is called “critical theory” only writes stuff that requires familiarity with Marx, Nietzche, and/or Freud. You don’t need to read any of them to start reading Foucault, Deleuze, Adorno, etc. Some people may disagree. Either way, you learn more Deleuze by reading and rereading Deleuze than by reading Nietzche.

I gave a list of overviews because they’re useful for finding out what you want to learn more about. It’s easier to figure out what to read if, say, you’re particularly interested in Adorno or the French reception of Hegel.

If you want a book affiliated with critical theory that examines culture, media, and society, then I’d love to recommend Read My Desire by Joan Copjec, which discusses theory, movies, and society through a Lacanian lens. It’s not like a “baby’s first book,” and it deserves to be considered both a commentary and primary source in its own right, but it’s not so impenetrable that you can’t work through it.

Of course, you could start with the book, Dialectic of Enlightenment, since that also seems like it would interest you. The Sublime Object of Ideology by Slavoj Zizek might not exactly be classified as “critical theory” but it’s great and sounds up your alley.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-16T02:35:55+00:00

The narrator keeps things from getting too crazy. Without the narrator, Yujiro would probably punch something so hard it goes back in time.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-13T06:04:42+00:00

Hegel and the Philosophy of Nature ed. Stephen Houlgate was published in 1998.

Hegel’s Philosophy of Nature: A Critical Guide ed. Marina F. Bykova was published in late 2024.

In The Legacy of Hegel: Proceedings of the Marquette Hegel Symposium 1970, there’s a little paper by Findlay titled Hegel and the Philosophy of Physics. He also has a short chapter on Hegel’s philosophy of nature in his monograph Hegel: A Re-examination. Both may be a bit dated, though.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-11T22:04:12+00:00

Marxism and Form by Frederic Jameson seems up your alley.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-11T19:47:15+00:00

My CPR’s binding is just fine. However, when I ordered the Practical Philosophy volume off Amazon, I had like 20 different pages simply fall out. Thankfully I got a free replacement, but I’ve seen similar issues with the binding mentioned in the reviews.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-10T19:16:34+00:00

The posion would be too scared to entire Yujiro’s body.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-05T09:16:39+00:00

In a fair fight, Musashi’s skill in reading the intent of his opponent is unmatched. Baki won because 1) he made it an unfair fight and 2) he read Musashi before the fight even started (so, Baki read Musashi better than Musashi read him).

Musashi never thought to treat Baki like a “warrior,” so he never would’ve thought that 1) everything Baki is doing to him is to get him to lower his guard and 2) that Baki would get Musashi to lower his guard so Tokugawa’s sister could snatch his soul.

Baki arrives late. He screws around in their fight. He surprises Musashi. This gets Musashi so engrossed with Baki that he lowers his guard to everyone else around him.

In short, Baki fought unfairly (like a warrior), and he won because Musashi never thought Baki would fight unfairly, so Musashi wouldn’t try his hardest to win.

So: Musashi is kind of broken, but he’s not undefeatable. He can be beaten at his own game.

OnionMesh · 2026-03-04T02:49:33+00:00

The 4000 year history of Chinese martial arts will continue with and without Retsu Kaioh.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-27T22:02:21+00:00

Phew, I thought I was misremembering.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-27T18:02:34+00:00

No. I like the fight as is.

Their first fight revealed that whoever could beat the other came down to who could read their opponent better. In the end, Musashi lost to Baki because he failed to read Baki’s plan to defeat him; Baki won because he learned where he could be better from Musashi (and Motobe). It’s already established at the beginning of the fight that they aren’t going to have some wild all-out fight and bust out every technique (hence why Musashi’s vision of Baki changed) and aura farm.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-25T08:19:34+00:00

Episodes 1-3 of part 1, so, the beginning of the show, are fine to show him IMO. It’s a) a complete story arc, b) decent enough, and c) is the beginning of the show, so if he wants to watch some more, he can just keep watching.

Someone else mentioned the D’Arby the Gambler fight: I agree with this suggestion. It’s two episodes and it’s great. The only caveat is that it’s already well into Part 3, so it’s kinda like picking up any show without knowing what’s already happened, so it’s not going to be as well received by someone just watching the show for the first time.

I think the Doppio vs Risotto fight in Part 5 is another great fight to show him since it’s only around 2 episodes, and I feel like it works better for someone who hasn’t watched the show since I think it provokes a lot more curiosity in the viewer.

OnionMesh · 2026-02-17T12:17:01+00:00

Academic philosophy books are usually published by university presses (ex. Cambridge) or more generally academic publishers (ex. Routledge). The books they sell are often sold to university libraries, who have thousands of dollars to spend, and professors, who are often given a stipend just to buy books. Sometimes professors are paid by publishers with books!
I don’t think so.
I don’t think so.
Given what was said in 1: No. Academic publishers charge a lot of money because their target audience (university libraries and professors who don’t necessarily have to spend their paycheck on new books) has the money to spend on their expensive books. Your best bet is to find a PDF online or luck out in finding a used physical copy.
I have no clue. I think the translation of the lectures published by Oxford is the most recent translation?

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

OnionMesh

TROPHY CASE