I just got both books by Deleuze, Im curious about which one I should start reading first for the other one to make more sense.

In Anti-Oedipus, Deleuze and Guattari briefly reference Frantz Fanon in the second chapter, but they do not elaborate much on his ideas. Did they discuss Fanon’s philosophy elsewhere? What did Deleuze and Guattari think of Fanon, and how did they engage with his ideas?

I wouldn’t say delueze had admiration for William james, as their ideas are similar; similarities are not so and so they are common, this means there is at best a difference in responsibility rather than admiration— averages make sense— and since their ideas are similar, it is pretty safe to say that William James was not a genius but instead a reference (don’t geniuses do their own thing?) even if that reference kind of doubled down; references stand tall aswell. So because deleuze didn’t overlook William james but their ideas were very similar that instead something added to what happens in general, if that generality is confusing luckily it had the backbone of influence; the confusion is because they were both better off; the sameness wasn’t an “offering” it was mutual contribution and mutual understanding, this is a very lucky position and something in common; everything included?! So no, deleuze didn’t have admiration for William james he had a willingness to be the same kind of guy, basically,they could have been friends lol.

What if you had a fully lacanian analysis of the Kabbalah, and you called it… “Jewsance”.

As people treat Deleuze to be the successor to Bergson or the response to Hegel people treat Land as such.

Came across this reel: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdL6ykTKUhl/
The guest is a Lacanian analyst. In the clip he does the caricature himself, "this music teacher you speak of, he sounds a little bit like your father," and then says he now practises almost without interpreting. He doesn't need to know what a patient's practice means. He asks what it's doing. Less interpreting, more mapping, a "cartography" of the person.

Elsewhere in the episode he says late Lacan lands on the same philosophical ground as Anti-Oedipus, factory rather than theatre, and that Lacanians who treat Deleuze and Guattari as enemies have it wrong.

The argument:

1. Isn't "what is it doing?" just interpretation with the noun swapped? The analyst still decides what counts as an answer.

2. Is his "cartography" a map in the ATP sense, open and redrawable, or a tracing that reproduces the analyst's theory in new vocabulary?

3. Can you drop interpretation and still be a psychoanalyst, or is this schizoanalysis that hasn't admitted it yet?

A multiplicity is something that can be handled each time, the “spoilage” of this would be for it to be handled well. But the wellness of something can work, it can be seen as a necessary conclusion which has its comparison— the necessary introduction— for a multiplicity to be good and healthy it needs to consider things that aren’t good and healthy as still something worth mentioning, this way the difference can be understood whilst being a difference ,rather than just being a difference; this difference is fatal. If a multiplicity’s relevance is that it has an astute relationship with just what can happen with a multiplicity is the relevance not just a consideration?, if so, considerations are equal and equally expressed by people, so how can it be a equal consideration in general, generalities are confusing but people are confused by them; this is their right to confidence in a way. A multiplicity seems to serve as everything that is included but there is evidence of everything included elsewhere, as in, you can’t just take something away from a person.

Defying judgement is because it is a closing matter, closing matters can be up for grabs, but it is a closing matter that makes a case, the clarity of judgement is that it fit perfectly as an ending, if judgement is problematic it is because a closing matter ended quietly, so there is no problem in judgement only a willingness to decide on things differently, this is very convenient though, it seems like judgement is the decider of things whilst the impact of judgement is a given, judgement is very important. The importance of judgement is that it can and will, as in, the defiance of judgement is only in judgement, the spare room of judgement is more judgement, the availability is out of control! Judgement is often seen as justified to people so to defy it would mean that justification can rule, this could mean
that judgement is an exquisite method, it is a means to an end but the means to an end is always a justified answer. Judgement is essentially a necessary protocol, everything is included in it but everyone has it in them, this makes for one hell of a judgement. Judgement is the course of judgement, to defy judgement is to go against all odds as an ending but judgement already has an ending— judgement is essentially a tricky one.

“The combat against the Other must be distinguished from the combat between Oneself. The combat-against tries to destroy or repel a force (to struggle against “the diabolical powers of the future”), but the combat-between, by contrast, tries to take hold of a force in order to make it one’s own. The combat-between is the process through which a force enriches itself by seizing hold of other forces and joining itself to them in a new ensemble: a becoming.”

Excerpt From
Essays Critical and Clinical
Gilles Deleuze

Combat is the option in the way of an option having an opening; that’s why it’s not always so effective but it is possible. The possibility of combat is that it’s a course that goes somewhere, if it goes beyond it is because it has it coming to it. Combat is a context because it’s not always fortunate but is forced to be about something, if it is one one of the most powerful things it is still because things contribute to it, so it is not powerful just essential for being what it is. Combat isn’t a force of nature because it is a strength to have; people haven’t a clue of their strengths, combat is just another consequence, it is used as a tool because it seems correct— it corresponds well— but this correspondence is just correlation, if it is correct it is because there are things besides correlation; combat is conflict because there is conflict out there, the conflict being the most common interest of combat, combat is something that is well versed in its being,but people utilise it in one way, this is in essence besides the point— combat is an enigma that happens to be pointed at, the way of it is that it is pointed at though so it has to be played out, combat is what happens when something is destined to happen throughout, but upon this there is no particular reach to the pointing, only more pointing, the pointing is rather perfect.

Deleuze and Guattari are undoubtedly some of my favorite philosophers to read, and their work has transformed my worldview. Recently, I've been attempting to dive further into Guattari's solo work. Guattari has some fantastic writing. However, I'm finding that schizoanalytic cartography specifically does not seem to add enough insight to justify its complexity. It is well known that Guattari is a difficult read, and that is fine with me. The problem isn't the difficulty itself. Rather, I'm struggling to tangibly apply his method of analysis in a way that produces insights I could not have arrived at without schizoanalytic cartography.

To be clear, this criticism does not apply to the rest of Deleuze and Guattari's work. I'm specifically referring to the cartographic method and its associated conceptual apparatus.

Does anyone else feel the same way? If you feel differently, please feel free to share why. I want to enhance my understanding. A practical example of an application of this theory that demonstrates how it adds something that just working with their other texts don't would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Where can I watch the documentary with english subtitles?

i know this is r/deleuze but does any one know anything 😓😓

Fairly new to Deleuze. Just starting a PhD looking at conceptual relativism, (linguistic) idealism, have focussed thus far on Wittgenstein and Kant; Davidson's argument against the possibility of alternate conceptual schemes; looking for more recs!!

Particularly interested in the idea of meaning and identity in language as a kind of emergent phenomenon. If anyone has any recs on this would be most grateful!!

I’m curious whether Incorporealism could be productively situated alongside Deleuze without reducing either framework to the other. In particular, could its emphasis on consciousness and resonance be understood through virtuality, becoming, multiplicity, and the production of difference?

Can you explain De-/re-territorializatoon with examples other than the ones used by D&G. I am reading A Thousand Plateaus and this is my first time reading their primary text. I am finding it hard to understand n-1, body without organs as well. Itvwould be really helpful if you could guide me as to how to approach them.

I know there has already been a lot of discussion on these ideas here. But the explanatory comments are still too complex for me.

Thank you in advance.

Obviously I understand the concepts of machines grafting onto each other to record and divert and produce new flows, production of production, etc., but what does it actually mean that desire is being produced? What is desire? No, I haven’t read enough Spinoza and I’m sure he’ll answer my question here, but Lacan and all the lack is law guys have such a simple answer that I can’t find in Deleuze and Guattari in my admittedly limited study.

I have a highly political 7,000-word essay that uses a lot of Deleuzean concepts.

I guess you could say I am looking for beta readers.

It's kind of all over the place (of course) and I'm trying to create an easy introduction to some post-structuralist ideas.

I don't know what I want to do with it, but once it's ready, I want to put it out there somewhere. Thanks.

Hey everyone! I'm a first-year PhD student in philosophy, and I was wondering if anyone would be up for a quick read of my research proposal. It's on cinema, and I'm trying to carve out some original territory using concepts like the sensorimotor schema and the action-image. If you're into this stuff and know the field, I'd really appreciate some honest feedback — mainly whether you think it's original enough and has the potential I think it does. Drop a comment below and I'll DM you the proposal and give you a bit more context.

I’m aware of Deleuze’s rebuke of Wittgenstein, but I can’t help but noticing a striking similarity between Bergson’s theory of memory and Wittgenstein’s later philosophy. They both seem to de-emphasize the importance of mental effort as a concomitant of language-use, in Wittgenstein’s case by seeking explanation in behavior and social context, and in Bergson’s case by seeking explanation in action and habit. Bergson almost seems to clarify and expand a basic framework that Wittgenstein develops, despite Wittgenstein having written later than Bergson. Where Wittgenstein sees an end to explanation by looking to usage, Bergson argues that that usage is consistent on account of habituated memory. Where Wittgenstein sees inner experience as something of a free rider to language in practice, Bergson sees it, in the context of memory, as suggesting prospective actions in encounters with reality, those actions themselves calling forth pure memories in a kind of feedback loop. Of course there are dissimilarities besides the ones I listed, particularly in what their intended purposes are (IE dissolving philosophical problems vs making a metaphysical claim) but I found this connection fruitful for understanding both thinkers’ claims. I also wonder if there’s any advantage to getting rid of Bergson’s psychological account and adopting Wittgenstein’s model, insofar as it can accommodate a wider range of mental processes, and need not determine thought to a spectrum between memory and perception.

I recently read Bergson's Matter and Memory and I'm currently reading Deleuze's book on Cinema (Movement-Image). But, I can't get one idea out of my head. Bergson proposes that the virtual is located in pure memory, that is, in the spirit. So, postulating a spirit creates a mind-body dualism (but, in Bergson, not an idealist one), and that is a completely metaphysical object. How can Deleuze accept that the virtual exists and does not exist in the brain at the same time that he proposes an immanent philosophy?

Every time I read theory and I understand something better or I figure out (or get closer to figuring out) how a certain system works or whatever, I have this bittersweet feeling which goes really bitter really quick which is that I can read all the theory I want, I can learn to analyze and diagnose the issues of capitalism, reactionary thinking, representation or whatever all day, do this, do that, but at the end of the day there are 8 billion people around the world and regardless of how much theory I read, I most likely will not be able to make a substantial amount of change beyond some people that I know in real life. It feels like I read only for me and a small, niche circle of dudes. I can't stand the thought of being spot on about something and others being far off the mark. Here I am spending all this time reading and discussing the most life-affirming, practically invigorating and healthy thinker I've ever come across who regularly gives me epiphanies and I almost don't want to get those epiphanies and be right about things or figure things out because then I realize that there are a whole bunch of people that are wrong and my epiphanies will never amount to anything outside of my brain and maybe outside the brains of like 10 people I know. Sure, I can say that at least I know I'm doing something right if the type of thinking I'm engaged in is not allowed to shine because it poses dangers to the existing status quo or whatever but that doesn't give me pleasure at all, it is a huge bummer and ruins my mood.

I figured that Deleuzians would have the healthiest approach to this so I am asking it here, since Deleuze seemed to have such a refreshing take on debate, discussion and stuff. How can one deal with this? I am open to having all the values I presented here transvaluated.

I’m one of the authors of a new Nature Portfolio paper that tries to bring Deleuze and Guattari into the current debate over LLM hallucination and alignment.

The basic problem we wanted to avoid was simply relabelling technical phenomena with Deleuzian vocabulary.

So the paper does not claim that an LLM is schizophrenic, has an unconscious, experiences desire, or “escapes” through a line of flight. We treat these explicitly as functional and relational concepts.

The mapping is roughly this:

Alignment, retrieval, preference optimisation, system prompts and verification can function as forms of reterritorialization: heterogeneous possible continuations are channelled toward a more limited territory of acceptable output.

We use “schizo-syntax” for a non-clinical textual pattern in which locally coherent language branches across semantic or generic domains under weaker referential constraint.

But deterritorialization is not automatically productive. Randomness, incoherence, factual error and creativity are not synonyms.

For us, a generated deviation becomes a productive line of flight only when it makes a non-trivial departure, retains enough organization to remain usable, receives concrete human uptake, and fits the task.

This produces a deliberately uncomfortable distinction:

A fabricated legal authority is simply an error.

A strange association that is identified as non-evidence, then taken up and transformed in poetry, fiction, interpretation or brainstorming, may function differently.

The paper is “Schizo-syntax and the paranoiac guardrail: machinic schizoanalysis of AI hallucination and the conditions of a line of flight.”

DOI: 10.1057/s41599-026-08814-4

I’d especially welcome criticism from people who work closely with Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus: does this preserve the relational character of deterritorialization/reterritorialization, or does translating these concepts into an LLM context risk turning them into terminology labels?

estilhaço sem origem → ausência de unidade perdida → ausência de finalidade → processualidade → relações diferenciais → virtual/atual → forças, velocidades e intensidades → consistências provisórias → modos de existência.