/lit/ - Literature

>>11733273
it's funny too how much hegel still matters in all of this: we think, in a way, with each other. whatever thought is, it's the exclusive property of no one individual, and certainly no one individual in solitude. land borrows from hegel in an incredible way, part of his reversal of marx, to reproduce hegel as teleoplexy. but the problem with doing this is that it reduces all human interaction to its barest minimum. it makes logical sense, even political sense, but there's no way that it doesn't end in disaster.

it's why the question about hegel *and* marx has to be revisited, which is exactly what acceleration and spec-realism does. and heidegger also. thinking about life and society, technology and the rest without its revolutionary aspect as we have traditionally understood it. carl schmitt also understood the dangers and the limitations on this: the original social justice warriors are still the nazis, and it's why land is correct to say that heidegger still matters.

>The whole of critique, and the whole of capitalism, can be translated into a discourse on time. Most famously the Heideggerian formulation of critique, that seems to me conservative in its essentials — that’s to say I don’t think it is a candidate for a post-Kantianism, but I think it’s definitely enriching in the fact that it’s quite clear about adding certain insightful formulations, and they tend to be time-oriented. The Heideggerian translation of the basic critical argument is that the metaphysical error is to understand time as something in time. So you translate this language, objectivity and objects, into the language of temporality and intra-temporality, and have equally plausible ability to construe the previous history of metaphysical philosophy in terms of what it is to to make an error. The basic error then, at this point, is to think of time as something in time.

source:
https://vastabrupt.com/2018/08/15/ideology-intelligence-and-capital-nick-land/

hegel, marx, and heidegger still loom over basically every philosophical question we can ask today. questions of time, technology, and capital. add computer technology and the possibility of artificial intelligence and you can give all of these rocket-boosters. maybe the primordial forces of modernity as we currently understand it.

it seems, in other words, like an entirely worthy task of the one big cybernetic brain we may be in the early stages of creating. new politics for a new world. a disarmingly post-individualist world (however much we seem to laud the idea of being a CEO with fuck-you money). and as dark as these guys get, it's surely better than the infinite rage and mimesis created by our attachment to the way things used to be.