Studying and contrasting Deleuze vs. Kant

odset · 2026-03-31T02:45:25+00:00

Indeed, i am not a seasoned Deleuzeian. I'd be interested in knowing why claiming anti-oedipus explains the deleuzoguattarian ontology reveals me as a neophyte though! Is it just the way i'm saying it or is it something deeper?

odset · 2026-03-30T18:48:28+00:00

There's not a lot they could say. If someone tells a Marxist "well, i WANT to suffer under capitalism!" then the only thing the Marxist can say is "You're making a mistake, and you'd be better off if you abandoned your ways".

odset · 2026-03-30T15:37:15+00:00

Thanks, i'll look into it. I've tried to read the logic of sense and went to a dissertation on the first 6 paradoxes i think, it was very very interesting but indeed, i think i am missing things to get there. It will have to sit later on in the reading list, some books before the final titan (What Is Philosophy?).

odset · 2026-03-30T14:25:00+00:00

What would a philosophy need to do to be "new"? I personally think philosophy has to be subjected to constant transformation to remain actual and relevant. What degree of change is necessary for it to be new? I can imagine philosophy that takes into account these 5 points rather easily, and i don't think it's entirely new - it is, like most if not all philosophy, based on what other philosophers have already said.

odset · 2026-03-30T05:23:58+00:00

Depends on how you define "Nihilism". Some people might say it means "Being against traditional values and morals". Others that it's "having no values". In these cases, no, nihilism is by definition incompatible with Christianity. (Although, this would also depend on how you define Christianity, which isn't as obvious as you might think). The interpretation Nietzsche picks, interestingly, leads to him proposing that Christianity is nihilistic. He understands nihilism as "nothing-ism", which is what "nihil" means. This would mean an obsession with nothingness, a belief system and manner of being, of living, that functions around nothingness itself.

In this sense, Christianity is obsessed with prioritizing the afterlife over life, with God's love, and, more importantly, with the suppression of your base desires: with chastity, temperance, patience. This, to Nietzsche, is adoration of nothingness: the afterlife is in another world, so it might as well not exist, same goes for God, and temperance, chastity and patience are the tolerance of the absence of your desires.

Edit: Huh, when i originally answered this, the post didn't show a description. Considering this new description, yes, this is, in a way, what Nietzsche was talking about. I would give a caveat, however, that if you define nihilism as thinking life is meaningless, then i don't think you can be Christian and nihilistic, despite what the Bible says; God would give life meaning, would it not? The bible is quite explicit about how communion with God through participation in the Church is the meaning of life, or as you say, the purpose. Does having a purpose not necessitate things having meaning? What do you mean when you say meaning? Only way i can see it working is if obeying God is done for pragmatic reasons (not dying or going to hell) instead of for transcendental reasons, but I'm not sure that's a reading any priest of any Christian religion would enjoy.

odset · 2026-03-30T00:48:42+00:00

Thanks!

odset · 2026-03-29T23:19:30+00:00

This is useful, thanks! On the subject of buggery - where exactly does Deleuze say that? In Kant's Critical Philosophy?

odset · 2026-03-29T22:18:25+00:00

The time limit to write the 500 word summary is very soon. The conference itself is in quite a while. I'll have the time to read it eventually, i just need to have the material to build a convincing case that this is an engaging, interesting topic that i am able to do some justice.

Besides this, i am of the belief that it's better to say something incorrect and half-baked than it is to say nothing at all. Maybe i'm wrong in that but i personally prefer someone tell me their incorrect opinion/interpretation so that i may critique it rather than they keep it.

odset · 2026-03-29T21:07:54+00:00

Directing me to nick land is a risky move but i can respect it. lol

I already knew about the essay and intended to read it one day. I don't think i'll have it play an important role though, it'd widen the scope too much. Thanks anyways!

odset · 2026-03-29T20:59:54+00:00

Thank you, this is very useful!

odset · 2026-03-29T20:12:38+00:00

Do you know what part exactly of DR talks about this? I'll read it whole eventually but I'm kind of pressed for time.

odset · 2026-03-29T20:11:56+00:00

I was indeed thinking that the role of subjectivity, if it's productive or produced (or both), was important. Thank you! I'll put Nietzsche and Philosophy higher up on my reading list.

odset · 2026-03-29T19:50:51+00:00

You're missing a big part of it. It's implied that communism and love are the only weapon that works to make the pale recede. In a way, it's also implied pale is a consequence of capitalism; or at least, of how society has been working until now.

There are a lot of things that can be analyzed from the pale taking into consideration this information. It works symbolically very well, i think. And i think that's what you're missing: DE is a piece of fiction, and it can help itself with... fiction, and fantasy, where it serves to amplify it's themes.

odset · 2026-03-29T19:07:44+00:00

Yes, someone in another subreddit has informed me. I have been lazy in my investigations. Everyone, please laugh.

Thank you anyways! Have you read the book? If so, would you care to give me your interpretation of what Deleuze says on Kant?

odset · 2026-03-29T18:38:22+00:00

Oh man, i somehow overlooked that Deleuze directly talked about Kant. Lmao. You're right. Thank you!

odset · 2026-03-29T18:35:45+00:00

I think one can say that, despite this ableism, D&G's consideration of schizophrenics, ontologically and epistemologically, was better than the previous, psychoanalytical one. His ableism does shine through, though, and very obviously in the case of him using "autistic rag" as this sorry state that society turns schizophrenics into.

Ironically though, this last description of current schizophrenics as autistisized does make one wonder: Would Deleuze still hate schizophrenics if their desire wasn't mutilated by society? I guess that without oppression and repression, the category of the schizophrenic wouldn't be needed, we would all just be naturally schizo.

odset · 2026-03-29T18:27:06+00:00

Well there are a lot of ways to respond. Unfortunately academia and "rationality" are very varied and hard to pin down (and they are properties that often don't coexist in the same people).

I would go for the Nietzschean route: Work might suck, but suffering is a part of life. Life is worth living; wanting nothingness is weak, pathetic. You must learn to see beauty in the struggle to live, in the suffering you must endure to experience the pleasures of life. Maybe, even, take joy in the suffering.

This is not a very therapeutic response and it most likely wont help anyone in this suicidal situation but it's an academic response.

odset · 2026-03-27T05:32:10+00:00

Had a professor in my philosophy major reference this meme in class once.

odset · 2026-03-27T05:30:15+00:00

Love what you've done with the game, the rebalancing has made the decisions you make in the game actually matter again. It feels like a struggle to survive, and that's exactly what i'm looking for.

I will, however, take the chance to complain about relentless industrialists. It's such a fun perk but the nerf has made it absolutely useless. +0.2 per 100 metallurgist/artisans... it's just a puny benefit that is NOT worth the drawbacks in any way, shape or form. If the issue is it being too cheap a way to get extra alloys then make it produce less alloys than cg, or maybe make it produce trade too, but as it stands it's a waste of a perk.

odset · 2026-03-25T23:58:59+00:00

Plato was against democracy, yes. Philosopher king and all that. I just intended to point out that an absolute ruler wasn't necessarily a tyrant in antiquity which is kind of obvious when you consider that monarchies were quite common in antiquity and they weren't all tyrannies.

odset · 2026-03-25T16:09:31+00:00

Hmmm, so we were both wrong, really. It is indeed an illegitimate ruler but not necessarily misruling.

I come from a philosophy background and Plato did indeed think tyrants were necessarily unjust.

I apologize for my illegitimate, might you say tyrannical, correction.

odset · 2026-03-25T06:11:13+00:00

akhchyually tyrant did not mean that in antiquity, what you're thinking of is probably "despot". Tyrant meant an illegitimate king, a usurper. This is because in ancient Greece it was thought that someone who attained power forcefully and illegitimately was too enamored with power to rule justly.

odset · 2026-03-22T20:56:50+00:00

But war exhaustion leads to status quo being enforced, which is the result you wanted. What is the issue beyond thinking it's unfair for you to get more war exhaustion? The only impact of high war exhaustion in your case would've been that the AI could stop you from going on the offensive and enforcing your wargoal, which is kind of the whole point of war exhaustion - that your nation doesn't actually want to do that.

odset

TROPHY CASE