Talk:Anti-Oedipus

haha human machine go brrr
yall took down my "haha human machine go brrr" meme, i see how it is SShinx (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When uploading images that are likely to be copyrighted, you need to 1) State in the upload where it came from (attribution) 2) Choose the licensing that is applicable 3) If using fair use licensing, confirm that the image is of relatively low resolution.


 * Book cover images, by the way, are usually considered fair use because they are used to promote the sale of the book (this is Amazon's excuse, for example). Bongolian (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The good insights issue
I think that what you wrote overall is good,. The problems that I have on the page are with what appears to be your overall conclusion in this sentence: Even if it is seen as slightly outdated, the text is still a good framework for revolutionary change and puts forth many good insights into psychoanalysis and authoritarian culture. First since you yourself wrote that the book is "nearly incomprehensible", I don't see how "good insights" are going to be forthcoming. Its near-incomprehensibility would seem to lead into multiple- and mis-interpretations. Second, it's not clear what you (or the authors) are referring to with revolution: is it in psychology, sex, politics or something else? Why would a nearly incomprehensible text be useful for anyone except academics? Third, how can the book provide insights into psychoanalysis when it is basically pseudopsychology of a different type than Freud's? Bongolian (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Excuse my formatting, still getting use to the site. First and foremost, yes, it is nearly incomprehensible, especially on a first read. Though, it is not incomprehensible like time cube is, but more like how The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant is incomprehensible on first read. D&G make their texts difficult via there language and sentence construction not because of any wiggle room in their arguments. In certain parts, you are right, I am for sure projecting assumptions in which I have not provided evidence for. The revolutionary character of D&G's writing is very interesting. Fundamentally, it is not restricted to just politics or psychology. The idea of freeing desire from dogmatic frameworks/ideology is one of the main goals of Anti-Oedipus (which admittedly I have not gone into depth about). I will make it a goal to expand upon it. I think the only thing I will claim as completely disagreeable is your claim about psychoanalysis and the insights they make. There's an entire section about their analysis of Freudian psychology (the way it constructs desire, how it falls in line with modernist thinking, and their main claim that it is just flat-out too restrictive for how chaotic humans are). You may consider it pseudo-psychology (even though I disagree), you have to admit that it is less dogmatic and assumption heavy than psychoanalysis which is definetly a improvement SShinx (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think it's noteworthy that after 5 decades, schizoanalysis is barely mentioned in the medical literature (only 8 papers), whereas psychoanalysis has 13,000 papers. Mental health professionals do not seem to have taken the idea of schizoanalysis seriously. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also think it's noteworthy that I didn't mention schizoanalysis at all in my response to you 💀 the article alludes to it but the insights given to psychoanalysis very much live independently to schizoanalysis (though they are used to support it). I plan to create another article on schizoanalysis and how it plays into modern psychology, but this article was supposed to highlight the arguments in the book. So yeah, I don't understand your critique and it seems to ignore everything I said in my response. SShinx (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason that I brought up schizoanalysis is that I presumed you were alluding to it when you wrote, "…puts forth many good insights into psychoanalysis…". Unless you can explain how the book's description of psychology (or schizoanalysis specifically) is evidence-based, then it is indeed pseudopsychology. That is just like medicine that is not evidence-based is pseudo-medicine (a.k.a., alternative medicine). Unless you can cite evidence for that particular statement, it amounts to your opinion, and it will get removed sooner or later. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to interpret your arguments charitably i.e. I'll put myself in your shoes, and I'll try to render your arguments faithfully and plausibly. I hope that a charitable interpretation (which I shall indicate via italics) will allow me to gain a clearer picture of your argument—one that yields fruit, as opposed to dry leaves.


 * SShinx writes: "D&G make their texts difficult via there language and sentence construction not because of any wiggle room in their arguments."
 * My charitable interpretation: D&G's texts are difficult because their grammar is different from the grammars that output the well-formed sentences of most languages.
 * My comments on my interpretation: If D&G can't provide a grammar for their language, one which would produce well-formed sentences as its output, then valid reasoning cannot occur. Leucippus Salva veritate 22:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonconventional grammar does not equal invalid sentences. The grammar is hard because it is unusual, but it is very much consistent. Also, their critique of psychoanalysis is logic based most of the time and therefore needs no "evidence", the evidence is the contradictions they reveal within psychoanalysis. Even though D&G believe their critiques to supplement schizoanalysis, the arguments exist independently of the practice. It's like saying Lacan didn't have any good insights into psychoanalysis because his psychology was pseudoscience, he still provided changes to psychoanalysis which made it less worse. Marx didn't need evidence for Capital since it was a work of theoretical framework. SShinx (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can be correct in their criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis, but that does not necessarily mean that their schizoanalysis is valid. I think you should be clearer about that on the main page. Bongolian (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, that's what I always intended. That's why I put "insights" and not "prescriptive psychology". Insights (being a set of observations from a state of understanding), is plently clear and I don't intend to change it. SShinx (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could give at least one example of such an insight. Bongolian (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Desire as production, not lack.(big one) 2. As shown by the schizophrenic, desire doesn't have to conform to the oedipal triangle and even by itself, the triangle is obviously restrictive. (To be fair, not all of those going forward are present in the article since I'm a full-time student and it is hard to find time) 3. Psychoanalysis has been used as a tool to curb revolutionary practice via its tendency to relate any hatred of authority to the Oedipal complex and not resisting that hate is failing your maturation. 4. Historically, Oedipus doesn't make sense "it is doubtful incest was a real issue in previous societies" or something along those lines. SShinx (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sokal and his relationship to Deleuze
@Leucippus Yes, Sokal wrote a chapter about Deleuze and Guattari and the he had made some good insights in the book, but not in that chapter. He misunderstands Deleuze's use of antiquated mathematics as an example of image-of-thought (the territories of thinking, usually examined historically). There are no substantive criticism of Deleuze that is made SShinx (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I find it implausible that something so intentionally opaque as postmodernist writing can be misinterpreted. The other problems with this book, as I've indicated on the main page, are 1) that there's almost no interest in it or consequence from it among psychologists after the passage of decades, and 2) that it challenges something (Freudianism) that is unscientific with something else that is unscientific, with a distorted view of schizophrenia. In short, DG may hae shown that Freud was wrong, but that is far from showing that DG is right. Bongolian (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Even though postmodernist writing is opaque, that doesn't mean that there is no normative consensus. The idea of image-of-thought is incredibly clear (one of Deleuze's most clear ideas). 2. Yes, the book didn't really do too much in psychoanalytic circles, and? 3. I don't understand what your point is. Yes, Schizoanalysis is technically a pseudoscience in some respects. You guys (you and the other guy who kept reverting my edits) are legitimately being cringe right now because you're acting as if this is a debate over the book's integrity. I don't care about Deleuze and Guattari's ideas, they may reflect reality, they may not. I wrote this page because it's a bit of a really interesting and weird theory on psychology and authoritarianism.SShinx (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Has anyone here actually read Sokal's book? Anti-Oedipus is never mentioned in "Fashionable Nonsense". On the subject of schizoanalysis, I don't think Sokal presents a good critique either, because he simply takes a quote out of Chaosmosis out of context. All they're able to say about it is "Besides, the article of Guattari (1988) on tensor calculus applied to psychology is a real gem." (Chapter 9). This isn't really a critique. What is Guattari doing with tensor calculus and psychology? It sounds like they weren't able to tell. That's fine - but hardly a critique. Sokal has no background in psychology and Guattari worked in a mental hospital most of his adult life so it might be that Sokal is the one not able to speak here. It doesn't help either that they don't even reference what article that Sokal is talking about, so we can't independently cross-verify.
 * All of Sokal's critiques in this chapter take the texts strongly out of context and reference random chapters to point out potential inaccuracies. Consider how, if taken out of context, many complex scientific or philosophical works also become unreadable. Honestly, this chapter does very little to actually critique Deleuze/Guattari, and I would recommend removing the reference. There are definitely critiques out there of AO. Deleuze is critiqued in a good amount of detail on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --67.149.10.152 (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , the person who created the article, appears to have read it. Better critique would be appreciated. Bongolian (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with the edits?
Out of curiosity, why were those edits reverted? They were good, and did away with some of the rank amateur "edits" that were previously in the article. Vee (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the "introduction" is less of an introduction and more of an insult. Some of the new material should be ideally kept, while others should be removed or rewritten. Vee (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problems with the edit are: 1) Removed italics (all books have italic titles) 2) removed one citation, included no new citations 3) claims that it "remains useful and praiseworthy" (without evidence) despite not disputing that it is unfalsifiable social science. Bongolian (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC) I put my comment in the wrong section. Bongolian (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if commenting on this text requires familiarity with "numerous other philosophical and literary figures," including all of those listed, we likely shouldn't have an article on it, since it is unlikely that there will ever be an appreciable number of editors here who are so familiar, and it will consequently be effectively impossible to evaluate the veracity of the article's claims. This is especially concerning given that the article appears to have been written largely by a single editor, and contains many sections without sources. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  23:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know of Youtubers who have made introductory videos to the philosophy of Anti-Oedipus, so it's not impossible. Also see this: "On second thought, the "introduction" is less of an introduction and more of an insult. Some of the new material should be ideally kept, while others should be removed or rewritten." Vee (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The introduction does have a condescending tone. But it's true that Deleuze and Guattari worked in a tradition with quite a lot of hermeneutics, and drew on the work of figures like Lacan, so I would be surprised if it were possible to get very far into the details without at least some familiarity with some fairly obscure thinkers. If you can attest to the reliability of the Youtubers you're referring to, and if they provide sufficient detail to allow evaluation of the article's claims, great. Now, more to the point of the thread, some problems with the new edits are, (i) the tone is condescending and polemical, (ii) they engage in editorializing, (iii) they make reference to ideas that are obscure and unexplained (notably, the distinction between Royal and Minor Science), which makes the article less accessible. I'll also suggest that to refute the claim that the work is anti-science by framing the work as a critique of (power in) a capitalist society in which science's position is unchallenged, is not compelling. It suggests that the position of science should be challenged, which is compatible with being anti-science. Something more specific needs to be said, probably enough so that the issue should not be discussed in the introduction. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  00:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend to have read Anti-Oedipus or even most of the required reading: "Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Baruch Spinoza, Sigmund Freud, and Jacques Lacan, amongst numerous other philosophical and literary figures, such as George Bataille." That doesn't trouble me though. I am glad to see editors challenge themselves as well as our readers. However, consider the short section
 * " Impact and Criticism of Anti-Oedipus:"


 * "When Anti-Oedipus was first published, it was a wildly controversial and scandalous book. It received tons of press coverage and sold out in 3 days. [9]"
 * So far, I am not impressed that the book accomplished anything or is worth pursuing. If you must work on this article I would start by offering an explanation of why anyone should read it.Ariel31459 (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to read A Thousand Plateaus four oe five years ago. I'll never make this mistake again. The fact that Deleuze doesn't use paragraphs makes it even more incomprehensible for me. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarification
Can an explanation be provided for those of us who find the subject opaque? I get that one has to have familiarity with Kant et al but the rest seems 'slightly opaque' (and possibly generated with this program. Anna Livia (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)