Read Libidinal Economy by Jean-François Lyotard Online


Is regarded as the most important response to the philosophies of desire, as expounded by thinkers such as de Sade, Nietzsche, Bataille, Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari. It is a major work not only of philosophy, but of sexual politics, semiotics and literary theory, that signals the passage to postmodern philosophy....

Title : Libidinal Economy
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780826477002
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 587 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Libidinal Economy Reviews

  • Bradley
    2019-03-04 16:57

    Fascinating, but definitely not known for clarity, or 'verifiable' notions of truth. Truth results from imagination, expressivity, and there is a certain naive aesthetic exploration that makes this a surrealistic text. Probably Lyotard's most creative "Middle Finger" to the Western Philosophical establishment. Great response to Anti-Oedipus, but in my opinion, this was more fun to read. The sections on Marx are beautifully written, and are among my favorite philosophical jewels - of all time. This is epic. One could get lost in the thoughtfully constructed labyrinths.... and that is precisely the point! Lyotard said that this book was largely misunderstood, or completely neglected (poor him because it is magical) and it required a total upheaval of his entire being to see its completion. If you like avant-garde or surrealistic philosophy it is definitely worth the effort - but not because it makes sense but because it opens up the imagination.

  • Ryan Sloan
    2019-02-16 20:53

    Required reading for Content & Form, taught by Charles Gaines. Incredibly difficult reading. One of those books that you re-read parts or sections, take notes in the margins, etc -- Essentially a complex metaphor for the "Human Condition" through the French father of Post Modernism. The translation I have is the somewhat "poetic" one, which makes for an even more difficult read and comprehension. Considering the book has its own glossary for the terminology used to breakdown the human condition, it's more of a puzzle to put together. It's filled with references to philosophers (so if philosophy ain't your thing, I don't recommend it).If I had to make a comparison - I'd day it resembles the complexities of Marcel Duchamp's Large Glass ... Which is by many standards the most peculiar and complex work of 'Fine 'Art ever attempted. I should add that if you are easily offended by concepts like: Jesus is the whore and God is his pimp - then just don't even try. Lol.

  • Pavel
    2019-02-21 16:56

  • Grace
    2019-03-12 14:38

    lyotard's criticisms of marx are horseshit

  • Count Duckula
    2019-02-17 20:45

    always trust a book disavowed by its author - this is both crazy and respectable

  • DaImpossibleKid
    2019-02-28 13:46

    Años después parece ser aún más acorde el mensaje de este libro rezagado en la bibliografía del tan infame filósofo acuñador del incomprendido termino 'post-modernismo', J.F. Lyotard. ¿Qué mensaje subyace en el libro? La verdad, el discurso, la misma teoría es irrelevante como faro a seguir en la civilización occidental actual. No hay ningún concepto definible como 'claro' ni como más 'cierto' o científico que otro, ahora, esto no se plantea como mera proposición sino como práctica tangible en la misma forma de escribir máldita del libro aquí presente o en forma de libro herida, y que cumple de cierta forma la crítica presentada por Marcuse a la corriente analítica en uno de los capítulos de su 'Hombre Unidimensional' [10 años antes en 1964].Más próximo a la anti-filosofía de Bataille, más áspero, nihilista y crudo que el 'Anti-Edipo', sugiere Iain Hamilton [traductor oficial y padrino de lo que después se conocería como el realismo especulativo/Object Oriented Ontology, el cual terminó como una moda similar a los 'noveaux philosophes' de los 70's y en consiguiente con la misma falta de sustancia], el equivalente al Punk en la filosofía moderna, relleno de un barroco más agrésivo que el de las deformaciones sintácticas/lisérgicas de Guattari y Deleuze. 'No inventamos nada, sí, sí sí sí' es su epítome y no hemos aprendido nada: he aquí el punto.

  • Phillip
    2019-03-08 13:38

    This book always seems to get overlooked in favour of other texts from the period (like Anti-Oedipus, Of Grammatology, Writing and Difference) which is a shame because it launches pretty convincing critiques of both Derrida's deconstruction and Deleuze and Guattari's project. It's also beautifully written.The use of economics made by Lyotard is more in depth and helpful than that made by Deleuze and Guattari (Lyotard seems to have a pretty good working knowledge of economics), but ultimately Lyotard's criticism of Deleuze and Guattari is that their analysis that the capturing of the libido of the pure production of the desiring machines for the production of surfaces of inscription as the basis for the functioning of the machines of social production can't be sustained because there are no illegitimate uses for desire. Deleuze and Guattari demarcate the difference between desire's legitimate and illegitimate uses as the basis for the possiblity of schizo-analysis, schizo-analysis being a way of liberating desire from its illegitimate uses. Lyotard will argue that desire can't be understood via such a distinction, that libido indiscriminately adds parts to the libidinal band, such that there is no alienated desire as such. Anyways, totally recommend it.

  • Ralowe Ampu
    2019-03-12 19:02

    what a challenging book! i picked this up on an impulse because the titular phrase was deployed in frank wilderson's red white and black to account for the cinematic placement and function of blackness within the mise en scene: itself a metaphor of the socius. the back of the book tells me it was a response to anti-oedipus, itself an easier read although it exceeds this by 100 pages. lyotard crazily offers the theoretical fiction of the great libidinal band against deleuze-guattari's desiring machines to explain the socius and the shortcomings of represention in marx and freud. like anti-oedipus there were periodizing and irritating moments of essentialism that one is allegedly obliged to dismiss because such transgressions were necessary for the contemporary political subject, or something. do i rate this according to that or being confused whie reading this? what should be the criteria for enjoyment? i enjoyed the craziness and confusion these days can be abated with the internet.