u/Interesting-Loss-551

"The advantages of psychological observation. That meditating on things human, all too human (or, as the learned phrase goes, ‘psychological observation’) is one of the means by which man can ease life’s burden; that by exercising this art, one can secure presence of mind in difficult situations and entertainment amid boring surroundings; indeed, that from the thorniest and unhappiest phases of one’s own life one can pluck maxims and feel a bit better thereby: this was believed, known – in earlier centuries. Why has it been forgotten in this century, when many signs point, in Germany at least, if not throughout Europe, to the dearth of psychological observation? Not particularly in novels, short stories, and philosophical meditations, for these are the work of exceptional men; but more in the judging of public events and personalities; most of all we lack the art of psychological dissection and calculation in all classes of society, where one hears a lot of talk about men, but none at all about man. Why do people let the richest and most harmless source of entertainment get away from them? Why do they not even read the great masters of the psychological maxim any more? For it is no exaggeration to say that it is hard to find the cultured European who has read La Rochefoucauld and his spiritual and artistic cousins. Even more uncommon is the man who knows them and does not despise them. But even this unusual reader will probably find much less delight in those artists than their form ought to give him; for not even the finest mind is capable of adequate appreciation of the art of the polished maxim if he has not been educated to it, has not been challenged by it himself. Without such practical learning one takes this form of creating and forming to be easier than it is; one is not acute enough in discerning what is successful and attractive. For that reason present-day readers of maxims take a relatively insignificant delight in them, scarcely a mouthful of pleasure; they react like typical viewers of cameos, praising them because they cannot love them, and quick to admire but even quicker to run away."

Schizoanalysis methodically dismantles everything in Kant’s thinking that serves to align function with the transcendence of the autonomous subject, reconstructing critique by replacing the syntheses of personal consciousness with syntheses of the impersonal unconscious. Thought is a function of the real, something that matter can do. Even the appearance of transcendence is immanently produced: ‘in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphors, but matter itself’.3 Where Kant’s transcendental subject gives the law to itself in its autonomy, Deleuze-Guattari’s machinic unconscious diffuses all law into automatism. Between the extreme fringes of these two figures stretches the history of capital. The eradication of law, or of humanity, is sketched culturally by the development of critique, which is the theoretical elaboration of the commodification process. The social order and the anthropomorphic subject share a history, and an extinction. Deleuze and Guattari can appear to be taxingly difficult writers, although it is also true that they demand very little. Thinking immanence relentlessly suffices on its own to follow them where it matters (and capital teaches us how to do this). At every point of blockage there is some belief to be scrapped, glaciations of transcendence to be dissolved, sclerotic regions of unity, distinction, and identity to be reconnected to the traffic systems of primary machinism. In order to advance the anorganic functionalism that dissolves all transcendence, Anti-Oedipus mobilizes a vocabulary of the machine, the mechanic, and machinism. Things are exactly as they operate, and zones of operation can only be segregated by an operation. All unities, differences, and identities are machined, without transcendent authorization or theory. Desiring machines are black-boxes, and thus uninterpretable, so that schizoanalytical questions are concerned solely with use. ‘What are your desiringmachines, what do you put into these machines, what is the output, how does it work, what are your nonhuman sexes?’

"The very inception of the critical project lay in Kant’s decisive response to the voiding of logical metaphysics – the disintegration of the philosophical endeavour to reduce synthesis – that was consummated by Hume. Perhaps nothing was clearer to Kant than the radical untenability of the Leibnizian paradigm of metaphysics, still dominant in the (Wolfian) philosophy of the Prussian state."

​

I’m 35,m, and I’ve always been more interested in understanding things than simply accepting them. I’m drawn to philosophy especially (epistemology, ontology, and logic), because I like questioning what we take for granted and digging into how we actually know anything at all.

I’m also interested in psychology and human behaviour, particularly the contradictions in how people think and act. Literature plays a role in that for me I’ve spent time with writers like dostoevsky, huxley and orwell I wouldn’t say I read obsessively, but I read with intention mostly things that stay with me and make me think.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. I’m naturally drawn to anything that explores tension, perception, and the less obvious sides of human nature

All this shit is a veneer layer a facade of a dilettante philosopher please don't buy it or buy it ...I don't know the intro is getting long and I'm digressing take care 🌹

I'm 35, and I've always been more interested in understanding things than accepting them at face value. Philosophy is where that curiosity finds its home, especially epistemology, ontology, and logic. I'm drawn to questions about what we know, how we know it, and whether our assumptions deserve to survive scrutiny.

I'm equally fascinated by psychology and human behavior, particularly the contradictions that shape the way people think, believe, and act. Literature is part of that exploration. Writers like Dostoevsky, Huxley, and Orwell have left a lasting impression on me. I don't read obsessively, but I try to read with intention. I prefer books that linger in my mind long after I've finished them.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. Anything that explores tension, perception, ambiguity, or the less obvious sides of human nature tends to catch my attention.

Now, before this starts sounding like the profile of some profound intellectual... take it with a grain of salt. Most of it is probably just a veneer, a carefully polished facade of a dilettante philosopher. Or maybe not. Buy it, don't buy it. I've already made this introduction longer than it needed to be, and I'm clearly digressing.

Take care. 🌹

Schizoanalysis methodically dismantles everything in Kant’s thinking that serves to align function with the transcendence of the autonomous subject, reconstructing critique by replacing the syntheses of personal consciousness with syntheses of the impersonal unconscious. Thought is a function of the real, something that matter can do. Even the appearance of transcendence is immanently produced: ‘in reality the unconscious belongs to the realm of physics; the body without organs and its intensities are not metaphors, but matter itself’. Where Kant’s transcendental subject gives the law to itself in its autonomy, Deleuze-Guattari’s machinic unconscious diffuses all law into automatism. Between the extreme fringes of these two figures stretches the history of capital. The eradication of law, or of humanity, is sketched culturally by the development of critique, which is the theoretical elaboration of the commodification process. The social order and the anthropomorphic subject share a history, and an extinction. Deleuze and Guattari can appear to be taxingly difficult writers, although it is also true that they demand very little. Thinking immanence relentlessly suffices on its own to follow them where it matters (and capital teaches us how to do this). At every point of blockage there is some belief to be scrapped, glaciations of transcendence to be dissolved, sclerotic regions of unity, distinction, and identity to be reconnected to the traffic systems of primary machinism. In order to advance the anorganic functionalism that dissolves all transcendence, Anti-Oedipus mobilizes a vocabulary of the machine, the mechanic, and machinism. Things are exactly as they operate, and zones of operation can only be segregated by an operation. All unities, differences, and identities are machined, without transcendent authorization or theory. Desiring machines are black-boxes, and thus uninterpretable, so that schizoanalytical questions are concerned solely with use. ‘What are your desiringmachines, what do you put into these machines, what is the output, how does it work, what are your nonhuman sexes?’

I've read the book in my native language and am planning to read it in English ... but not archaic English so any recommendations

Marwanos here

I’m 35,m, and I’ve always been more interested in understanding things than simply accepting them. I’m drawn to philosophy especially (epistemology, ontology, and logic), because I like questioning what we take for granted and digging into how we actually know anything at all.

I’m also interested in psychology and human behaviour, particularly the contradictions in how people think and act. Literature plays a role in that for me I’ve spent time with writers like dostoevsky, huxley and orwell I wouldn’t say I read obsessively, but I read with intention mostly things that stay with me and make me think.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. I’m naturally drawn to anything that explores tension, perception, and the less obvious sides of human nature

All this shit is a veneer layer a facade of a dilettante philosopher please don't buy it or buy it ...I don't know the intro is getting long and I'm digressing take care 🌹

Marwanos here

I’m 35,m, and I’ve always been more interested in understanding things than simply accepting them. I’m drawn to philosophy especially (epistemology, ontology, and logic), because I like questioning what we take for granted and digging into how we actually know anything at all.

I’m also interested in psychology and human behaviour, particularly the contradictions in how people think and act. Literature plays a role in that for me I’ve spent time with writers like dostoevsky, huxley and orwell I wouldn’t say I read obsessively, but I read with intention mostly things that stay with me and make me think.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. I’m naturally drawn to anything that explores tension, perception, and the less obvious sides of human nature

All this shit is a veneer layer a facade of a dilettante philosopher please don't buy it or buy it ...I don't know the intro is getting long and I'm digressing take care 🌹

The error of the confusion of cause and effect

I had chamomile tea yesterday, and I'm having a bad day today

Chamomile is bad

Hello does this thing Work lol

I’m 35,m, and I’ve always been more interested in understanding things than simply accepting them. I’m drawn to philosophy especially (epistemology, ontology, and logic), because I like questioning what we take for granted and digging into how we actually know anything at all.

I’m also interested in psychology and human behaviour, particularly the contradictions in how people think and act. Literature plays a role in that for me I’ve spent time with writers like dostoevsky, huxley and orwell I wouldn’t say I read obsessively, but I read with intention mostly things that stay with me and make me think.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. I’m naturally drawn to anything that explores tension, perception, and the less obvious sides of human nature

All this shit is a veneer layer a facade of a dilettante philosopher please don't buy it or buy it ...I don't know the intro is getting long and I'm digressing take care 🌹

​

I’m 35,m, and I’ve always been more interested in understanding things than simply accepting them. I’m drawn to philosophy especially (epistemology, ontology, and logic), because I like questioning what we take for granted and digging into how we actually know anything at all.

I’m also interested in psychology and human behaviour, particularly the contradictions in how people think and act. Literature plays a role in that for me I’ve spent time with writers like dostoevsky, huxley and orwell I wouldn’t say I read obsessively, but I read with intention mostly things that stay with me and make me think.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. I’m naturally drawn to anything that explores tension, perception, and the less obvious sides of human nature

All this shit is a veneer layer a facade of a dilettante philosopher please don't buy it or buy it ...I don't know the intro is getting long and I'm digressing take care 🌹

​

I’m 35,m, and I’ve always been more interested in understanding things than simply accepting them. I’m drawn to philosophy especially (epistemology, ontology, and logic), because I like questioning what we take for granted and digging into how we actually know anything at all.

I’m also interested in psychology and human behaviour, particularly the contradictions in how people think and act. Literature plays a role in that for me I’ve spent time with writers like dostoevsky, huxley and orwell I wouldn’t say I read obsessively, but I read with intention mostly things that stay with me and make me think.

Outside of that, I enjoy football and psychological thrillers. I’m naturally drawn to anything that explores tension, perception, and the less obvious sides of human nature

All this shit is a veneer layer a facade of a dilettante philosopher please don't buy it or buy it ...I don't know the intro is getting long and I'm digressing take care 🌹

preferably deep philosophical talk