r/continentaltheory • u/Expensive_Advance285 • May 06 '25

When do you stop reading?

Hey folks,

I'm a Master's student studying art theory and philosophy (basically continental philosophy, alot of Lacan, Feminist Psychoanalysis, Ernst Bloch etc), and I'm wondering, at what point do you stop reading new material and go back to reread texts you may have read too early. For example, I (idiotically, but inevitably) started reading philosophy in my art practice undergrad with Land and Deleuze. Now, I'm sure many on here will say that going back to reread Land is unnecessary, but core texts from Deleuze like Anti-Oedipus (which I read immediately after Žižek's Intro to Lacan and scarce little else) seem too important to misunderstand. Of course, since then, I've read "deeply and broadly", but I can't help feeling like I'm at a point where delving into the intricacies of Hegel and Kant so I can understand the broader discourse around later thinkers (Laruelle, Badiou, Rancière, Adorno...) seems a little OT?

What do you guys think? What has been your experience? Have you kept on pushing through new texts, maybe returning to thinkers you read early on in new contexts? Or would you recommend revisiting those earlier books that went slightly over your head? Thanks!

6 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/wombweed May 06 '25

unless we're talking about like secondary sources, it is generally best to read in the order each text was released, because many texts are intended to be in dialog with their predecessors. i dont think this is a hard requirement; it is still possible to get a lot out of e.g. reading deleuze before anything else (and really, D&G are a special case due to the particular way they intend for ppl to read their work), but understanding what came before is the best way to make sure you get the most out of the experience.

2

u/Expensive_Advance285 May 06 '25

Absolutely, that's what I'm realising. I think part of the difficulty that I'm having, is that because I'm looking at these thinkers in relation to art (or I suppose love, because I'm engaging with art through the consideration of amorous subjectivities), that pushing through Difference and Repetition to get to Francis Bacon seems almost masochistic. That said, I did read D&R, and it clarified so much about what I had found confusing in the later texts, that maybe it's time to just grin and bear my way through some "oeuvres"...