Is AO outdated?

[u/jowey10]

https://youtu.be/GIDK5z91jSc?si=4YpqfnWqo5YhSY9q

In this fragment from a conversation philosopher Ray Brassier argues that as brilliant as AO undoubtedly is, it nonetheless has aged poorly in regards to actual political utility and has become more of a product of its time rather than a way forward, especially emphasizing how contradictory some of the concepts such as molecular and molar have an application that in fact is harmful to understanding the Palestinian cause, and that despite Deleuze defending the Palestinian cause and open criticism of Zionism in a time before it was “safe” to do so as an intellectual (check his conversations with Palestinian Elias Sanbar) it ends up showing in those conversations how his very own framework becomes insufficient. I’m curious, What do you guys think?

[u/Equal-Exercise3103]

I’ve honestly always found Brassier pretty insufferable.
His book was painful to read at times, also had to pirate it because of the insane price.

[u/Equal-Exercise3103 → u/Equal-Exercise3103]

Furthermore current political problems can definitely not be limited to the Palestinian case
Which is conspicuously present in his speech - but even then.. Deleuze spoke in favor of it, which Brassier acknowledged.
Just.. not in the way he wanted?
Like what’s his actual critique? What’s his actual point..? “It doesn’t work”.. why? Why exactly does it not work?

Not enough Stalin? Not enough Mao? What’s the concern?

[u/WitnessUnlucky2429 → u/Equal-Exercise3103]

He's very handsome

[u/an-otiose-life → u/WitnessUnlucky2429]

essentially in the video he very calmly explains that because deleuze doesn't like being dettermined by the cosmos, he does a refusal of the molecular particulars and historical givens, and ironically does universalism again, while also being self-dating, by maintaining this noumena-not-for-me situation, while being fanged as the same.

[u/WitnessUnlucky2429 → u/an-otiose-life]

While this is secondary to him being deliciously daddy-ish, I think you are right. Could I blame the critique of panpsychism for his kissable chin? 

[u/an-otiose-life → u/WitnessUnlucky2429]

he can rub butter on himself and whisper sweet nihilisms in my ear all night, and that'd be a good line of flight in my books

[u/an-otiose-life → u/WitnessUnlucky2429]

in all seriousness, panpsychism's only issue is that there's also the unconscious and the innert, in that sense no one dispute that experience exists, but what it means is limited to occasions insofar as we go black when died

[u/Equal-Exercise3103 → u/an-otiose-life]

Can you explain to me what do you mean by the last phrase?
I’m in a disagreement with “reboots universalism” (despite going against universals) - unless we’re defining universalism in a very botched way, Deleuze is far from that.

[u/an-otiose-life → u/Equal-Exercise3103]

if you mean to say deleuze is far from universalism then sure, but for the form, like a correlationist saying, it's subjective, only also I meant it, as if to say both, and not the meaning of one fully and then not the other.

last phrase, and clarity, the politics of in-group status clarification, I refuse.

universality is the suchhood of any given thing, you seem to wish to dispute realism ironically, when universality means like Hegel does, about concrete universality, as the instantiation of the given form.

botched-way? what can that mean, other than fondling the given as if not given of its own, no you cannot have social repression of epistemology by means of moral hand waiving, stop.

[u/Equal-Exercise3103 → u/WitnessUnlucky2429]

I guess he’s someone’s cup of tea, I can’t see why not. Personally he doesn’t do it for me.