/lit/ - Literature

Hello /lit/.

This is my thank you thread. I dont really have anything else to say, so I hope this simply becomes another dick land thread.
I kept seeing fanged nuomena threads every now and then here. Being a newfriend on lit, I didnt know what it is about but I found discussions here and online descriptions of its themes and concepts extremely interesting. So I started reading it too. And I couldnt really understand anything. Every second sentence was written in foreign language, and I was already reading it in a foreign language to me. It didnt feel like noise or random words because Land was clearly trying to say something, but I had no clue what. I mean what on Earth does nuomena even mean???
So I started reading Kantian philosophy, Kant explained a bunch of these concepts to me.
Nietzche, Marx, Deluze&Guattari and Freud helped me better understand dialectics, historical materialism, political economy, nihilism, will to power, development and overcoming of morals, oedipus, desiring machines, schizoanalysis and deterritorialization. I finally understood why and how will AI take over. But my 2nd reading still felt weird somehows.
Next I had to do Bataille, Weiner's cybernetics, Lovecraft, Neuromancer.. these helped me understand style and prose and aesthetic, turing cops, feedback loops, machinic unconscious and cosmic horror...

Finally, armed with all these books, my 3rd reading of Land worked. I understand everything. We are cyberpunk 9to5 wagies just trying to survive the dystopia, not realizing we are actually creating all powerful AI who will enslave and replace us, and we look extremely cool doing it. Hence the thank you at the start of this thread. I never really felt cool before. It took me 4 months to do it, to go through all those books, but now I finally understand fanged nuomena, and I finally feel cool.

Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Ghost in the shell

So there's a lot of philosophy that's just useless wank, regardless of how logical it is.

"What is truth?", "How do you define meaning?", "Are we perceiving objective reality?". It's so abstract as to be entirely worthless and inapplicable to real people. Secondly, there can be only one right answer for each question. Just like you can be either dead or alive, but not both at once, so too can only one philosophical principle be the right one. Either the Christians are right and we burn in hell for eternity, or the Buddhists are right and we reincarnate endlessly, or the atheists are right and there's nothing after death and so on. A lot of philosophy downplays or makes light of the fact we're not purely logical beings, when in fact emotion and experience play a massive part in how we view the world and how we act in it. So any philosophy that doesn't take account of this is flawed to begin with and therefore impractical. Another common problem is word vomit, writers incapable of expressing themselves in clear, easily understood language because they either refuse to make an effort for the sake of others or because they think their ideas are so complex they're deserving of all these unique terms and convoluted explanations when it's never actually true.

My personal view is that there's too many pseud's and larping shitposters on /lit/ and not enough real world philosophical discussion.