>>7282142>>7282087It's odd that the criticism goes in two opposite directions: either postmodern authors (although it is debatable if D&G can be considered as such) are obscurantist and unclear or they are too easy to understand.
The reason many of their concepts are intuitive is that we are used to them. Considered within the western tradition (whether against dominant philosophical or psychoanalytical trends as well as histories) they seem more important and relevant. If you're read in deleuzian ontology you can sort of understand why multiplicity is so important and unintuitive for a philosopher for example, even though this will not make the concept seem less truistic when applied just to politics or society.
I'm gonna provide an anecdote, take it with a grain of salt obviously. Where I live there is a strong psychoanalytical presence. I had a personal obsessive (almost ritualistic) problem these last few years. Even though I haven't seen an analyst, I did try to understand my problem by exploring it (and developing it) in a psychoanalytical fashion. Sure, this isn't the best way to go about it, but I've got enough theoretical knowledge to attempt it. It didn't work and I felt that this problem would follow me for the rest of my life. Then, I stumbled upon a Lotringer course about Deleuze's concept of line of flight and how it stands in relation to Proust's work, assemblages and multiplicities (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHnrE3j9kg ). All of these concepts are, when taken outside of their ontological function, trivial. Yet somehow simply understanding how they work helped me overcome my problem without any analysis. Will it come back? Maybe, but I've never felt freer. And, while the solution didn't amount exactly to "man up and move on", it's not that far from it. Is all of this intuitive and almost truistic? I suppose. But to a psychoanalyst it is naive garbage, even though it's done wonders for me.
