u/Asterion_97

I'm starting to read Deleuze and i expect to read Hegel some point in the near future, but i just wnated to know what's the consensuses of hegelians on Deleuze take on dialectis as false movement, that maintains in the boundaries of what western philosophy think about difference, as something negative.

Has there been respones from a hegelian perspective against the delezian take on dialectis?

What is the impact of the deleuzian critique in hegelian studies?

Are there books about Deleuzian philosophy read from a mystic or esoteric perspective or the other way around?

I ask because i have been reading deleuzian ontology lately and concepts like the virtual seem very close to the divine nothingness that actualizes itself in concrete forms in some mystic traditions (there are many differences too). So that got me thinking if there's been a reading of Deleuze through esoteric or mystical points ov view or vis versa, a deleuzian reading of some mystical ontologies.

Just finished this video, where Kavernacle said that the socio-economic structure is similar to the racial structure white colonial settlements and colonizing countries have, but it's different, it's a "jewish supremacy state," not a white supremacists one. That said the people at the bottom do have specific traits, as in darker skin tones. Also Ashkenazi jews are from Europe so i would guess they do have a white supremacists mindset that has past down from generations since there departure from Europe, also he himself says they expect to attract euro tourist.

My question would be, given that most capitalist classes are very much white and Ashlenazi jews, and these groups have been interacting for centuries, wouldn't it be fair to say most hierarchical socio-economic structures necessitate the white identity in capitalism? Class and work distribution is very much racially divided like Fanon said, so why make the distinction? Why is jewish supremacy not an off brand white supremacy ideology?

I don't know much about jewish culture, but apart from their obvious culture difference, Ashkenazi jews act as any other white man with money in my experience, lol. They exploit the southern countries via banking and interest in extractivist industries here in South America, plus most newly elected president do wish to re-establish relations with Israel as much as they attack racialized groups so what truly is the difference between rich white people and jewish rich people?

I'm starting to read Deleuze so maybe I'll say some really stupid shit, lol, but i was reading "The actual and the virtual" and in a part he said nothing is fully actual or virtual. That made me think, ¿Can anything exist? If everything is in flux between states that are and states that maybe, nothing fully may exist in the traditional way of thinking being. I thought a bit about buddhism, thinking the ultimate reality of existence being void, nothing ever being, but consisting of the influx of relations in reality, so nothing is and nothingness is the ultimate description of being. Could one make that same clame of deleuzian ontology? Because i remember that in the logic of sense, the apendix on Plato, he kinds critiqued the notion of nothingness, because being would be plurality i.e it would be full, so what would y'all think it's a trash reading of Deleuze or am I on to something?

I was looking for good philosophy memes but i have to go through a bunch of stuff worshiping Camus. I've only read the Myth of Sisyphus so maybe i'm missing something.

I just really don't get the hype for him in philosophy, maybe his novels are great but i thought absurdism is aight, i mean it doesn't have anything particularly interesting unlike existencialism by De Beauvoir or Sarte, definitely not Heidegger. I don't see Camus getting treated by other philosophers as a serious thinker or like. I think the hype is mostly on the internet so i genuinely ask: Why do people live so much Camus?

Maybe it's me not getting it or maybe it's my lack of reading his novels, but i just see him as a mid-tier philosopher. His magnum opus just kinda felt like individualism with a none examination of power structures that produce the differential experience of the self unlike De Beauvoir in the Second Sex, nor did it really address the phenomenology of the self confronted by another self like Sarte. He more or less took for granted the condition in XX century Europe as a global one and I don't really think it has much values so reading the Myth of Sisyphus felt ok, not bad, not life changing, an ok read (i liked the bit of the theater role play and it's similarities with life). I think it's more of a cult of personality thing with him being this ladies man, cigarette smoking french dude.

But maybe I'm wrong so i would like to ask.