I agree that Catherine Liu mopped the floor with Daniel Tutt. However, I don't think that Deleuze and Guattari should be disregarded completely. They come up with some very intriguing concepts that are very much like what the Nietzsche quote in the article says about the thinker. There's also a quote of Nietzsche's that Deleuze used in, at least, a couple of books:
"Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow; it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere."
That is kind of the essence of Deleuze's thought I think. He fires multiple arrows in multiple directions just trying to dig for some new idea that will stick to a target and cause the arrow to be fired again, but the next time, with a better idea of a target. Deleuze is a philosopher and that is the extent of his revolutionary potential. He is like a farmer broadcasting seeds. I think that people felt this deperation at the end of the 20th century for a novelty of ideas. Not really taking the time to dig into reality itself because collectively the West turned inward to itself. In its insularity it became as the proverbial Ouroborous or even more gruesomely like the Human Centipede. Just the same old rehashing of old ideas and the people like Deleuze and Guattari felt around in the dark for solid forms to lay their hands on, but maybe most, if not all, were but cobwebs.
That's fair. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was rejecting Deleuze per se. Just Tutt's odd version of it. But you bring up a fair point. I'll also add that the reason I only touch on Deleuze briefly is because I don't know a lot about him. So I didn't want to get into an analysis of his theory as much as poke fun at Tutt.
I agree that Catherine Liu mopped the floor with Daniel Tutt. However, I don't think that Deleuze and Guattari should be disregarded completely. They come up with some very intriguing concepts that are very much like what the Nietzsche quote in the article says about the thinker. There's also a quote of Nietzsche's that Deleuze used in, at least, a couple of books:
"Nature propels the philosopher into mankind like an arrow; it takes no aim but hopes the arrow will stick somewhere."
That is kind of the essence of Deleuze's thought I think. He fires multiple arrows in multiple directions just trying to dig for some new idea that will stick to a target and cause the arrow to be fired again, but the next time, with a better idea of a target. Deleuze is a philosopher and that is the extent of his revolutionary potential. He is like a farmer broadcasting seeds. I think that people felt this deperation at the end of the 20th century for a novelty of ideas. Not really taking the time to dig into reality itself because collectively the West turned inward to itself. In its insularity it became as the proverbial Ouroborous or even more gruesomely like the Human Centipede. Just the same old rehashing of old ideas and the people like Deleuze and Guattari felt around in the dark for solid forms to lay their hands on, but maybe most, if not all, were but cobwebs.
That's fair. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was rejecting Deleuze per se. Just Tutt's odd version of it. But you bring up a fair point. I'll also add that the reason I only touch on Deleuze briefly is because I don't know a lot about him. So I didn't want to get into an analysis of his theory as much as poke fun at Tutt.