I’m finding Deluze unreadable

https://www.reddit.com/r/Deleuze/comments/1hnjxd7/im_finding_deluze_unreadable/

created by Loose_Ad_5288 on 27/12/2024 at 17:25 UTC

66 upvotes, 21 top-level comments (showing 21)

I've been studying him via podcasts, YouTube, Reddit a while and to be honest I think he's probably now one of the most influential philosophers on my thought. However, diving into his primary texts, right now his book on Nietzsche who I also love, I find his work practically unreadable. This is very disappointing to me. Any suggestions?

Comments

Comment by lathemason at 27/12/2024 at 17:46 UTC

53 upvotes, 1 direct replies

One strategy might be to make the transition from explainers to primary texts more gradual by starting with the interviews and shorter pieces of writing? Negotiations, Dialogues I and II, Desert Islands. Try to take him in through small-to-increasing doses...

Comment by DeathDriveDialectics at 27/12/2024 at 19:07 UTC

25 upvotes, 4 direct replies

I want to start by just validating your frustration. Deleuze is a very difficult philosopher to understand, especially because he uses a lot of his own terminology and concepts that are unique to his way of thinking. I would highly recommend reading, aberrant movements, the philosophy of Gill Deleuze by David Lapoujade and a users guide to capitalism and schizophrenia by Brian Massumi. I just recently made a video on the concept of the body without organs, and I found these secondary sources helpful.

Check it out: I tried to make it as understandable as possible. body without organs[1]

1: https://youtu.be/f1qPtnDJNwc?si=AqhXxd8gy1GJ5Ba6

Comment by kittenbloc at 27/12/2024 at 20:21 UTC

15 upvotes, 1 direct replies

basically his writing is designed to drive a structuralist philosopher insane. I'm reading Anti-Oedipus for the second time in one year and I swear I understand it even less now.

Comment by CodeSenior5980 at 27/12/2024 at 22:28 UTC

12 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Dont think in terms of structures and hierarchies, start reading little chunks of the text first, try ro understand it do not try to rush it. His thinking style is very horizontal so, i think, when you read some part of his thought you kinda both understand the base of it but dont understand his philosophy as a whole. Its weird I know.

Comment by Traeh4 at 27/12/2024 at 21:01 UTC

8 upvotes, 0 direct replies

it's still a little heavy for a beginner, but todd may's book on deleuze helped me loads when trying to understand some basic post-structuralist concepts that he championed. https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1226878[1][2]

1: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1226878

2: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1226878

Comment by maddog367 at 27/12/2024 at 22:38 UTC

7 upvotes, 1 direct replies

my philosophy professors said even they couldn’t understand deleuze — and these are people with phds in the field from ivys — you’re fine bro it’s j gonna take a while

Comment by lithium900mg at 28/12/2024 at 01:20 UTC

7 upvotes, 0 direct replies

The Deleuze and Guattari Quarantine Collective is a discord server that does a weekly very close reading of Anti-Oedipus in small sections. When they finish it they just start over again. I think they’re on their 3rd read through now, and the old sessions are available as a podcast. The guy who runs it is really good at breaking things down, and really helped my understanding of the book.

Eugene Holland’s Introduction to Schizoanalysis is very helpful as well.

Comment by skycelium at 28/12/2024 at 02:02 UTC

6 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I share the sentiment, I had to work for a number of years before I could feel comfortable with Deleuze and while reading Deleuze it was nonstop, all I did, and the only thing in front of my mind. Reading social sciences/humanities of any kind is learning a language. Sometimes it’s fine to put down something really challenging (Deleuze being notoriously one of the most challenging philosophers) and focusing on other things until you feel you’ll get more out of it. The point isn’t necessarily to overburden yourself, the point is to get something meaningful out of the text. If you cant at this point, focus your attention elsewhere and come back later. (Or dont). No shame in that!

Comment by Erinaceous at 28/12/2024 at 15:11 UTC

5 upvotes, 0 direct replies

One thing I'll add is that Deleuze is intentionally difficult because he wants to push readers to create their own concepts rather than have an orthodox interpretation.

Think of it a bit like a Zen koan. The point is not to produce the right answer. The point it to stimulate a creative response.

One way to read Deleuze, particularly his big works with Guattari, is just let it wash over you. Don't try to understand it but just follow the line of thought and see where it takes you.

Comment by Technical_North7319 at 27/12/2024 at 23:47 UTC

4 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I’m revisiting Anti-Oedipus and completely understand your frustration (and I say this as a fan of Deleuze). Aside from typical note taking practices (I personally write down terminology and definitions and occasionally diagrams for quick reference and orientation) and reading commentary on Deleuze’s work, my best advice would be to just push through the sections that drag, mark them, and revisit them later. A lot of Deleuze’s concepts grow in clarity once you’re able to see the larger, overarching ideas that encompass them, and taking a retrospective approach towards difficult passages allows you to get a feel for how they fit into the bigger picture.

Comment by theb00ktocome at 28/12/2024 at 03:18 UTC

3 upvotes, 1 direct replies

I had trouble with texts such A Thousand Plateaus and The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque, but reading the essays in Essays Critical and Clinical along with Pure Immanence sort of unlocked Deleuze for me. Even the Nietzsche one I felt was a bit repetitive and vague at points.

I think the big thing that obstructed my path was the way in which he described mathematical ideas in his signature “vibes” way. It just didn’t really resonate with me, and I feel Michel Serres (who influenced Deleuze quite a bit) did a similar thing but better. The Essays I mentioned have a broad scope and some are really spectacular, such as the one on Bartleby and To Have Done with Judgement. You can really get a sense for his personality and concerns from that collection, imo.

Also, if you haven’t read much Nietzsche at this point, it would probably help to dig into his stuff a bit, given that Deleuze is heavily inspired by some of his themes. In a fortunate twist, reading Deleuze helped me enjoy Nietzsche more as well.

Someone in another reply mentioned some things just not “resonating”, and that is very important to keep in mind. Deleuze’s thought is really an acquired taste, and there’s no shame in checking out someone else from the same milieu instead (e.g. Derrida, who I personally prefer in most scenarios).

TLDR: Check out Essays Clinical and Critical! Or Derrida, if you’re tired of Deleuze. His work is pretty difficult in other ways but we all know what Spinoza said about all things excellent (:

Comment by Financial_Routine588 at 28/12/2024 at 17:00 UTC

3 upvotes, 0 direct replies

There are authors where you just need to start with a good companion book or two, and really work through them before you confront the primary text. Hegel is notably one of them for a ton of people, but everyone is different (I’ve met a few people who say they found Hegel very accessible to them from the start, and one or two of them I even believe. The one I believe I know had other authors they did struggle with, though). Idk enough about Deleuze to even try and recommend one, but I’ve seen some recommendations in the comments that I’m sure are from more knowledgeable people.

I will add, when I’m in doubt I often find myself starting with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. At the very least it can give you a sense of the topography.

Comment by ImpossibleLeave2649 at 30/12/2024 at 13:35 UTC

3 upvotes, 0 direct replies

All the suggestions here are great but I want to recommend something a bit different from all the other answers.

I had only learnt of Deleuze in early summer 2024 and feel relatively comfortable currently with a fair amount of his concepts. Perhaps I’m erroneous in that comfort but here was the way I approached Deleuze:

1. Have an angle or a thread to chase. Don’t read Deleuze for the sake of reading Deleuze. With his problematics, you need to either have a pressing question that moves you that he addresses himself, or you need to see the questions that he is enthralled by. This is especially true for his primary texts and the way his books are written. Logic of Sense for example does manage to be somewhat cohesive but the Series are written such that you would totally be fine only reading a select few of them instead of the book building up to a grand thesis. His work is, contrary to a lot of other dissenting opinions, systematic and fairly structuralist (more so the earlier works). As such, it might be rewarding to have an entry point and exit point to his labyrinthine system than traversing it’s entirety.

2. Secondary Literature is great and I definitely agree that you should use companion pieces/guides to help aid your understanding. However, I found a lot of the secondary literature to be MORE confusing than I found Deleuze himself. Most of his connections to somewhat ‘analytic’ philosophers haven’t even seen much engagement (like Berkeley for example, there was a post on this subreddit about the connections). As such, what I’d recommend alongside that is binging his seminars here[1]. While this is no less complex, it is made better by the fact that he is attempting to teach and is thus relatively clearer. The pacing also helps a lot.

1: https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/

3. Try to establish parallels with other philosophers and find ‘affinities’ and points of divergence. Despite the intentional dizzying affect his work has, he is not coming out of nowhere with his ideas. You need to actively engage with his ideas even when you’re not reading the text.

Lastly, it helps to have someone to talk to. You need to be able to explain his ideas to other people.

Good luck! I hope you find reading Deleuze rewarding in the future. My DMs will be open if you have any specific questions. I always want more people to read and engage with him.

Personal Note: I came at him with the question “What exactly is the metaphysical status of Numbers in his system? What should this tell us about the way we should define them?” and it has been a dizzying ride. Kudos and thanks to u/Streetli for her post on Deleuze’s Philosophy of Number that inspired these questions. My idea was to explain in clearer terms how Ordinal numbers for Deleuze are more fundamental than Cardinal ones. His book on Leibniz and The Fold is very difficult and I thought I understood the concept in a coffee-fueled haze at 3 A.M and woke up my roommate up because I ran around scared and screaming. The break came when I was thinking about infinite regresses, relations and Deleuze’s affinities to F.H Bradley and in general the project of the British Idealists.

I am only an undergrad currently but the fact that no one in the philosophy department at my university is engaging (or worse, not willing to) with Deleuze spurred me on so incessantly that I have been synthesizing his works like crazy over the past few months.

Another Tip (It’s the last one I swear) : Deleuze talks about Borges’ “The Garden of Forking Paths” but I find it criminal that nobody talks about Borges’ “Funes, The Memorious” in relation to Deleuze. I think it’s a great way to understand some of Deleuze’s concepts (generality vs singularity in LoS for example).

Comment by Kernelied at 28/12/2024 at 13:13 UTC

2 upvotes, 0 direct replies

I suggest began with Deleuze's philosophy of his own, which starts in Sacher-Masoch his dialogue with Freud and gets more deeper in Differance and Repetition. Deleuze Work has three moments, The First one Reading other philosophies, his own philosophy til Logic of Sense and finally The books with Guattari.

Dominates freudian psychoanalyses can make easier to read Deleuze's inicial books.

Comment by fxrnvxh at 27/12/2024 at 17:50 UTC

2 upvotes, 1 direct replies

i struggled with anti-oedipus too! what helped me was listening to the “theory and philosophy” podcast after reading chunks of it, so whatever would be unclear to me would be addressed in the podcast. not sure if he has any episodes on his book on nietzsche tho.

can i ask what exactly makes it unreadable for you? is it the language or something else?

Comment by Positive_You_6937 at 27/12/2024 at 17:42 UTC

5 upvotes, 2 direct replies

Skip it as camus said "no one ever died for the ontological argument " Sometimes things that dont resonate are not worth it

Comment by Remalgigoran at 27/12/2024 at 23:20 UTC

1 upvotes, 2 direct replies

There's a reading group on Discord hosted by AH, MM, and MUHH podcasts covering Anti-Oedipus going on right now. We've only covered the preface so far and the first 22 pages discussion is coming up in a week. Check out the Twitter accounts for those podcasts to find an invite link.

Comment by Impressive-Gur216 at 27/01/2025 at 11:44 UTC

1 upvotes, 0 direct replies

Comment by Impressive-Gur216 at 27/01/2025 at 11:46 UTC

1 upvotes, 0 direct replies

It’s typical that post structuralists’ (though some disagree with this cetagorisation) writings are hard to read