/lit/ - Literature

>>9644266
For me I suppose it depends on how much the term Capital figures in your mind and shapes the way that you look at the world. For me it happens to be a lot.

I read a lot of continental stuff - Marx, Freud, D&G, Frankfurt School, Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc. It's what I cut my teeth on. Land is to my mind a major figure in that line of thinking and is taking the thinking of capital on from where D&G left it. If you're interested in how this process of automation/industralization/cyberneticization is transforming and changing the civilizations and even the planet on which we live, he's an interesting read.

On top of that he's also a very faithful reader of Kant, who I can admit I don't have a ton of knowledge of. He makes me want to go back and read Kant, which is never a bad thing. Especially since lots of people sort of assume that all things Enlightenment were basically demolished by Nietzsche and so there's no need. Land kind of makes Kant interesting again for continental weenies like me. He makes a lot of philosophy interesting again.

Moreover there are all kinds of new and interesting movements in philosophy that are following on from the dark places that Land opens up. He's not solely responsible for it, but he's connected in to it. Post-humanism and so on involves lots of different sources and possibilities.

But mainly because I think he nails aspects of what our increasingly cybernetic/meme society is doing to itself. Even if he's wrong the portraits he paints of where things are heading are fascinating to think about, however dark. To me those darknesses open up spaces for interesting conversations.

And then there's Moldbug/NRx stuff if you want to go down that road also. So just a lot of interesting connections.