Talk:Anti-Œdipus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophical literature

Contents 1 English translation 2 Desire machine 3 Maybe 3.1 I think so 3.2 Not even the right title 4 Deleuze & Guattari's terminology 5 Is this really a neo-marxist work?

[edit] English translation

When was the English translation published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewmewmew (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desire machine

While stub sorting, I came across Desire machine in the {{Lit-stub}} category. I transferred it to {{Psych-stub}} and fixed a link to this page (capitalization error). However, there is no information about "desire machines" on this page. I'm suggesting a merge, but cannot do it myself, since I have absolutely no knowledge of this subject. BonsaiViking 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe

I created the page. I dont know much about Wikipedia organization. I created the page because it is a term used frequently in Anti-Oedipus. My hestation in merging the two would be that one is the name of a Book, and the other is a concept that is explored in the book.

[edit] I think so

To my understanding, "desire machines" are rarely talked about anywhere outside Anti-Oedipus, so I think it would be a good idea to merge the articles. Desire machines are a key concept of Anti-Oedipus, so it is only sensible to list information on desire machines under the 'key concepts' section in the Anti-Oedipus article.

[edit] Not even the right title

The Hurley/Seem/Lane translation of Anti-Oedipus uses the term desiring machines, not desire machines. But concerning merging: it really depends how much we can expand on the topic. The article has no content and should really be a redirect for now. But if the subsection in the article becomes long enough, it could get its own article.

Alternately - and I'd say preferably - we could finally get to writing an article on desire in psychoanalysis and use Deleuze and Guattari's concept (in fact it was Guattari who coined the term - see Dialogues, p. 13) of the desiring machine as a counter- or re-conceptualization of desire in Lacan. - yeah that would be my vote: redirect to new article desire (psychoanalysis) and merge 'content'. Pteron 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleuze & Guattari's terminology

Reading the above discussion regarding the merging of the 'desiring machine' page with that of generic 'desire' as a psychological drive got me thinking....

One of the most important (and confusing) things about the authors is the amount of neologistic terms they coined, and the extent to which their definitions of these terms (including 'desire') differs from traditional meanings. So, my suggestion for Capitalism and Schizophrenia, ie. the books AO and ATP, would be to have a parent category 'Capitalism and Schizophrenia' which, to the extent that it is possible, contains a section for each term, ie. desiring machines, assemblages, Body without Organs, etc., and also contains links to seperate pages for each of the two books. These pages would then, ideally, be broken into abstracts and (optimistically ) chapter descriptions (especially in the case of ATP, which is in part a collection of disparate, previously published essays). Reference in these pages to the aforementioned terms would then link back to the parent category, ie. Cap and Sch.

Too ambitious? And, while I'm at it, is this even the right discussion page for my proposal?

[edit] Is this really a neo-marxist work?

I'll qualify my statements by saying that I am a relative new to D&G but I read this book not as neo-marxist work, but as a neo-anarchist work. The overarching thesis of the book is anti-teleological. That's its whole point. It uses capitalism, psychoanalysis and the Oedipus myth as its straw men, but the implication is that any theory with a telos in its supposition is equally open to critique from their vantage point. How can the work be neo-marxist given their basic premise?

the purpose of linking Anti-Oedipus to the "neo-marxist" wiki entry is to help the reader understand that the book uses a great deal of marxist terminology in a modern way, the term "neo-marxist" is very broad and does not refer to a particular reading, slant, or school (although sometimes it does for some people who can't think up specific words to use, but I don't see why that narrow usage should prevent the broader term from being used.

Calling it "neo-anarchist" would not convey the importance of Marx as a foundation to their thesis. I suppose then calling it "marxist" would be a better, do you agree? About it's anti-teleological aspect - well that is a good point and it is debatable. But because of the works narrative rhetoric it can be read differently by dfferent folks.