Who is 'Dark Deleuze'?: A Discussion with Andrew Culp
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 тра 2024
- Andrew Culp is the author of Dark Deleuze, the controversial piece of Deleuze scholarship which challenges appropriations of Deleuze by academics and professionals uncommitted to a program of radical politics. Craig, Will, Matt, and Adam together interrogate Andrew on the finer points of the book. Also, we discuss the similar dilution of Foucault's legacy. Some concepts on the table are negativity/positivity, ressentiment, the outside, imperceptibility, asymmetry, fugitivity, and destroying worlds.
Like theory apparel and want to support us? Go to:www.crit-drip.com
Support us on Patreon: / acidhorizonpodcast
I just read Dark Deleuze and having little understanding of the parent material I still found it captivating.
Can you please time-stamp when you change topics in the discussion? I listened to this all at once in the background, but I'm having a hard time finding my favorite bits.
Let me look into that. I'm new to the UA-cam game.
@@AcidHorizon it's really easy, just type the time in your description:
8:34
And automatically it functions as a time stamp
Okay I am very interested in his opinion of Baudrillard since he in my reading at least of him, someone who very much called for practical, actual revolution and change. He was so “pessimistic” which I did not get at all because he very bluntly just called out the very essence of the difference and illusion of imperceptibility and the carnivalisation of actual change. The lucidity pact. What are his thought on that? What are your thoughts on that?
I heard a lot of good things about this book but haven't had a chance to read it yet.
it hurts that all across youtube, only 7.5k subscribe to these channels.
Holy shit this is a great find. Gonna follow this podcast like a fly following some good quality food
It’s so good. I’ve been listening for a few months.
couldn't find anything re: "jacques franam". common notions press doesn't seem to have anything with that name.
Very interesting conversation as ever
(Slightly tangental point. I don't believe suicide is "committed". Rather it is the end point of a disastrous psychologic pathology that is beyond the control of very ill people who die from suicide/depression)
Sorry what did the guest mean "Zizek is there to defend the imperialism of communist countries like Russia." Is there a consensus I'm not aware of within philosophy? How is Russia communist?
"in the moment in which things actually start popping off, a banner becomes a way to help hide your friends who want to start hacking away at a storefront"
ive only became politcally active at the start of this year and just recently had my first action training and we learned exactly this, how a banner is not just an expression, but a tool
Excuse me if I don't believe that the guy who wrote Lemurian Time War is a fascist.
dont worry nick land only became a facist in the late 2000s. lemerian time war was written before then
@@ashkondastmalchi3510 😂😆😂😆
@@ashkondastmalchi3510 it's funny because Nick Land says he can't be a fascist because Fascism is a leftist ideology.
Nonsense
if christ can be appropriated into christendom as the figurehead of many wars, then anything can be appropriated and manipulated for nefarious and sterile purposes, etc. and yes, under capitalism, everything must be commodified - that is the rule
I also am a bullshit name dropper. Love you honey, come back.
If Zizek is the hot takes on the left, which he is and I actually admire him for it and its transparent, then Nick Land, Curtis Yarvin are the hot takes of the Right. I watched a great conversation with Zizek and Jordan Peterson and I don't think the crowd realised that a lot of the stuff he was saying was very reactionary and ill-liberal to the core and it left JP confused and I think it went right over the audiences head. I mean he as cited Carl Schmitt as a influence figure when it comes to deconstructing liberalism. The hot take on the right seems to be genetics and eugenics and its the one thing the left and some on the right dismiss and call a pseudo science and at times assert Nazism with it. But the soviets messed with eugenics as well. Many studies have been done since and its very credible and uncovers some startling truths. Marx in part acknowledged genetics himself. But I feel the Spector of Nazism has again caste a shadow on many that leaves them to have a knee jerk or emotional reaction rather than discuss the idea with any nuance. If anything the Nazis form of eugenics was more pseudo science than what is and has currently enveloped in a place like China that are speeding ahead of the west and with IQs lowering in Europe, mental illness on the rise this should be alarming issue in the future.