Deleuze & Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus" (Ch. 2/4)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 чер 2019
- Link to Podcast site (new episodes added daily): theoretician.podbean.com/
Link to Patreon (for those whom can afford it): / theoryandphilosophy In this episode, I dive into the second (of four) chapters of Anti-Oedipus. It is here that they level their strongest critique of Oedipus and Freudian psychoanalysis while proposing an alternative way by which to understand the world: through syntheses.
Hello, I wanted to let you know that your Videos help me alot while Reading Postmodern Philosophy. I download them so I can listen to them as Podcasts on the Train, sorry for not giving you the views. Anyway, thanks for your work.
Lol I don't mind! Keep listening any way you wish
I fucking love your channel
Super happy to hear it :)
It’s impossible to actually read/analyze deleuze and not think ‘holy shit I really hope I’m not fucking this up’. It’s part of the territory lol.
Too true
thank u so much
Wilhelm Reich and Malinowski found that the so called “inherent” Oedipal complex did not exist in the matrilineal tribe. They prescribed this lack of complex (pathology) as a result of natural un shamed expression of sexuality amount teens. I believed that in a larger tribe embedded in nature, the “adult authority” is dissipated across all adults in contrast to the nuclear family (especially but not limited to) monotheistic families, where adult authority is more concentrated. In the tribe, children band together with peers, teens has places to make love without shame or punishment. Oedipal complex is then a reversion of the natural development of sexuality coupled with the concentration of power in the home.
Hi, I'm discussing the universality of the Oedipal complex in a paper, and would appreciate if you can provide any references to the works you mentioned. Thanks
@@audreylopez2980 sexual life of savages (Malinowski) and Reich I think his Sex pol essays talk on that. I was able to find free pdf online you can try searching online with “pdf” in search
They both created the problem to which they have the solution
#TranscendentPhallus 🤣
I have listened to your presentations on chapters 1 and 2. That's half of your series covering a little over a third of the book. I'm glad you recognize that you are struggling to understand, but you don't need to remind us of it. Look. You're the expert here. You've read it, I'm guessing, more than once. That puts you way ahead of almost all of your audience. So quit whinging and carry on explaining. You know what you're talking about, even where I disagree with you. (As a commenter on the first video said, you're reading of the text is more conservative than the text itself.)
Now. I understand you've read A Thousand Plateaus. That's necessary to complete the picture. Have you read Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense? Those two books provide valuable explanations of some of the concepts you say you're having problems with. Examples: The three syntheses are introduced in Difference and Repetition, and the theory of signification is elaborated in The Logic of Sense. (I haven't heard you talking about signifiers and signifieds yet.) I'll keep listening.
"but you don't need to remind us of it." I disagree, for the simple reason that Deleuze and Guattari write very confusingly, and we should be reminded of exactly how confusing and difficult the text is. It's not easy to work with, trust me, I'm doing an entire course focused on Capitalism and Schizophrenia along with some of Deleuze's earlier works.
@@theamici Oh, yes! You're absolutely right that these books are not an easy read. And a reminder that even well-read scholars find them difficult may keep some readers from becoming discouraged.
At the time I wrote the comment, I was reading through Anti-Oedipus for the third time, this time with a friend new to Deleuze. His background includes biblical studies, but his profession was in psychology and counselling. We had already worked through Difference and Repetition and The Logic of Sense (my third time, his first). We've continued with A Thousand Plateaus, Cinema 1 & 2, and we finish Foucault tomorrow. Next up, The Fold.
Part of my reading companion's problem is that he's approaching Deleuze skeptically based on neuroscience and Chomsky's linguistics. He still finds the reading difficult. In spite of these barriers, he says that he's glad he's pursuing this project (and that he has a sherpa).
I was new to the channel. In later videos about Deleuze, the whinging subsides.
you literally dont evne know what youre talking about. no one does. they dont. a scholar would sound as confused as you do. why is existentialism like this?
Lol I'm happy to hear it!
roseman “Here’s some stuff, it aint word for word, do better”
I love this
this isnt existentialism lol you are just a dumbass
@@judeh5704 it’s an immanental metaphysics, it may aswell be existential. this guy still sounds like he has absolutely no clue what he’s saying.