/lit/ - Literature

>>15036081
Dude you posted a paragraph the other day and I'm not even sure if its the same one but I'll say the same thing I said then–

You really expect me to read all that shit?

how does that btfo either accelerationists or speculative realists?

>>15036104
>>15036104
>Acceleration only appears to those who are blinded by the movement of irrelevant objects within the event itself. And pessimism towards the object is simply a means of maintaining the law of non-contradiction once it becomes overwhelming to the rationalist.
Accelerationists/speculative realists are simply romantic pessimists. Their relation to the occasionalist object is a contradictory one of delight and dread. However, they can only relate to it through a rationalised, automated sensory production - all of its qualities are forced out, yet they live on in what they 'repudiate as a sham.' It is effectively dead romanticism, or deromanticised romanticism: a secularisation of the metaphysical corpse of God.
The question of the object is one of force, and the relation to being and time that is formed within its dominion. For accelerationists the perception of speed is only an effect of their use of rationalising techniques within the most distant concepts, they do not see the form of the object, only its effects. In turn, they recreate this negative experience as a mystic totality. The pessimist nihilist pisses in the street and all of metaphysical and theological concern is drained through the biology of extraction. Similarly, the waste of capital, its derealised rational effects, become its very essence - and for the mobilised kantian this is all that is left from which to build a a transcendent aesthetic. The world formed by extraction.

Desubjectivised occasionalists merely exist within the contradiction of romanticised rationalism and the death of liberalism. They are its last true believers, hence the limits they attempt to displace historically and metaphysically to reinvigorate the corpse of the Leviathan.
For them, the Behemoth is just an occasion of the parasites that live on as the Leviathan decomposes. Metaphysical sarcophaga, Mainlander's descendents envisioning the recreation of the world in the law of the Blind Man.
Dead material must be formed of dead atoms, and nihilism the being which can never earn its death. Whereas being at peace necessitates non-movement, and yet a greater vitality, in even the tiniest objects. The question of our time has been reduced to the dead being of Siegfried or the detrivores.

"I had a dream last night,
It was such a worrisome dream,
A rosemary tree
Was growing in my garden

The garden was a graveyard
The flowerbed was a grave
Crown and blossoms
Were falling from the green tree

I gathered the blossoms
in a golden jar,
It fell out of my hands,
And smashed to pieces.

Out of it I saw pearls trickling
And tiny rose-red drops
What could the dream mean?
Oh, my love, are you dead?"

https://youtu.be/nkOiKy6sXfM
https://youtu.be/s7QdTG1J46Q

>>15036538
I’ll read this later, but you sound like you’re seething

>>15036538
Too much jargon and Latinate words here. the original post is OK, though

> The question of the object is one of force, and the relation to being and time that is formed within its dominion. For accelerationists the perception of speed is only an effect of their use of rationalising techniques within the most distant concepts, they do not see the form of the object, only its effects. In turn, they recreate this negative experience as a mystic totality. The pessimist nihilist pisses in the street and all of metaphysical and theological concern is drained through the biology of extraction. Similarly, the waste of capital, its derealised rational effects, become its very essence - and for the mobilised kantian this is all that is left from which to build a a transcendent aesthetic. The world formed by extraction.
What the fuck is this even saying

>>15036538
>Accelerationists/speculative realists are simply romantic pessimists. Their relation to the occasionalist object is a contradictory one of delight and dread.
And? They're not playing a game of truth. You sorely misunderstand what they are doing if you think they are trying to conclude some truth to their systems.

>>15036538
>>15036081
The Lord hath truly blessed me upon reading such based words of the Absolute. Allahu akbar.

Accelerationism is wrongly based off the precedent that one is seeing the future from the last; that by looking at the shadow of the being, one is analyzing the noumena of the being. You know it’s ‘there’, but it really doesn’t exist and is only a reflection of your own actions and is only a unification of the phenomena and Absolute. Exteriority is an abstraction of the interior and is a derivative of God.

This Absolute unites both universal and individual experience, stepping beyond mere subjectivity into a higher experience of pure unity. While different paths to this truth are possible, truth itself is preexistent and enternal rather than a synthesis of dialectical opposites that play out over history, as Hegel argues;
Not everything that exists is real, and not everything that is real exists.

Also, considering that every philosophical system is a given perspective and part of the whole, every explanation of the whole is circular because the whole itself is a circle. You’ll never find a direct answer to the questions of Being - every attempt to view the being directly leads to a consideration of something else: the properties of the being, it’s formal structure, an abstract concept, and so on.
We do not need to see everything, but we do not also need the know “the thing in itself” without having the ability to grasp the whole. That which is present can also be absent; in the particular case, the Idea of beauty is no longer present in what ceases to be beautiful. It is present in the original of the image embodied in the morphe (shape), and so that which provides us the criterion or reference point for the various perspective that we open up in investigation of the nature of the Being.
>>15036570
>I’ll read this later, but you sound like you’re seething
You sound like a fucking faggot.
>>15036830
>And? They're not playing a game of truth.
Leftists home the claim to moral high ground in the effort to fully exterminate dissenting opinion as a literal “war to end all wars.”

>>15036081
Bro you already posted this and got no (You)'s, so please fuck off, or at least break up this goddamn paragraph, you fucking retard.

>>15036081
based and Schmittpilled

This posts seem to be grasping something important while at the same time are almost verbal diarrhea. Is that guy saying something substantial or is this just trash?

Are you just writing this bitter wall of “philosophy” with a text generator and then editing it so it almost seems to make sense, OP?

>>15036570
>>15037573
>>15037995
>>15036086
>absolutely assmad trannys

>>15037995
>>15038005
>can't recognize the thinker responsible for post 9/11 America
baka desu

>>15036081
nearly all of Speculative realists are not occasionalist. Graham Harman, for example, always give a favor of Bruno Latour because he thinks Bruno gave an insightful answer to the problem of Occasionalism involving God.
Quentin Meillassoux is not a occasionalist too. His concept of Cartesian Absolute is very different from common god because he did a clear distinction between metaphysical and speculative, saying some metaphysical is not speculative. He is not an occasionalist because of this distinction.

>>15037995
*These

>>15037573
Never posted it. It was a different quote.
>>/lit/thread/S15024884
But in any case, popfagging is especially queer considering how shit this place has become.

>>15037995
It's important.
Difficult yet simple. It's our distance from these ideas that makes them difficult, rather than any inherent complexity. The ideas require other senses, observation of further distances.

>>15038033
You'll have to explain this one. How is Latour not an occasionalist? Not involving God, but in the secular occasionalist sense.
I think you misunderstood the point and instead attempt a critique of minor points.

>>15036830
So if they have no interest in truth why should they even be considered?
You sorely misunderstand what the purpose of thought and communication is.

>>15037440
Thanks for your comment. I think I'm too tired to comment properly right now. It's my birthday so I was out celebrating as best I could. Perhaps I can reply tomorrow.

Was Carl 'in' with any high ranking Nazis or was he more like his colleague Heidegger? I know he really facilitated the legal process by which the
Third Reich was established he never seems to come up that often as a figure in the party. Which I guess would explain why he was mostly left alone after the war to hang out with Jung.

>>15038033
retard

>>15036788
>Latinate words
So it's based.

>>15036788
For context, this is what the other side looks like:
>Unilateralization hamstrings dialectics. A unilateral duality is a structure comprising non-relation – the object X as unilateralizing identity – and the relation of relation and non-relation – objectifying thought as unilateralized difference between X and Y, identity and difference. Unlike more familiar instances of unilaterality in philosophy, which ultimately always retain two sides, the unilateral duality effectuated by determination-in-the-last-instance is a duality with only one side: the side of objectification as difference (relation) between X (non-relation) and Y (relation). Accordingly, where dialectics invariably orbits around the relation of relation and non-relation as apex of reflexivity – which is also the apex of idealist narcissism, since it converts every ‘in-itself’ into a ‘for us’ – the unilateral duality effectuated by determination-in-the- last-instance exemplifies an irreflexive and hence non-dialecticizable disjunction between objectifying transcendence and unobjectifiable immanence; one which embodies the non-relation of relation and nonrelation. Unlike every variety of reflection, whether transcendental or dialectical, determination-in-the-last-instance effectuates a unilateral duality with only one side – the side of objectifying transcendence. Since the latter is always two sided, i.e. dialectical, determination-in-the-last-instance effectively unilateralizes dialectics. Thus unilateralization cannot be dialectically re-inscribed.

>>15039007
They didn't trust him because he had worked for the republic.

>>15036570
That makes no sense

>>15036830
Of course they are, it is just a lesser form.
Stop reading trash and thinking you have anything to say.

>>15037995
In simple terms, this explains the turn towards immaterialism, the relation of the object, and something like the post-ironic mysticism that materialists now rely on to keep their rationalist systems alive. For example, Land's contradictory position of irrational hatred of Socrates while advocating for the mechanistic rationalism of Kant and AI. Or the other side, the leftists who have completely abandoned anticapitalist thought and instead attempt a reformation of its minor effects, its appearances - a completely irrational and yet somehow rational position. Both are effectively a reduced type of romanticism. And there is nothing separating this thought from the law of liberalism itself, yet such systems suggest that they are capable of an escape from modernity.

This is a mistake deeply ingrained within the modern era, a contradiction in which the ideas inform the law while denying its very form, even as they relate to it, and are instrumentalised by it. This creates the sense of inescapability so prominent in our time, and also explains the tendency towards leveling of organisations (the process by which politically and even religiously opposed groups begin to take on the same essence). Capital is seen as an all-powerful force precisely because the form is denied and the theoretical position causes this inescapability. Just as eating an apple only for its health benefits begins a condition towards sickness in the mind, negation and critique entrap themselves within the very limits they set up as a means of metaphysical escape. There is a reason why tilting at windmills is such an iconic figure of action in our time, it relates to our contradictory way of seeing the world and our means of being. The modernist accuses the theist of building up a shadow which becomes a god through law, yet this is precisely the relation to being that formed and created the modern world.

>>15041744
The materialised object itself becomes the replacement of the form, and this stems from the necessity of resolving the contradiction at the center of our era's form of being, or at least how it is perceived. Putting the cart before the horse is essentially the law formed by technical rationalism, we are always behind time, yet the material effects of our planning give us a sense that we are forever ahead. We both love and hate the cliche.

It is necessary to imagine the material world as a perpetuum mobile, as having a vitality beyond that of the metaphysical world, the heavens. This is a law of being for a species threatened in its very survival - at the point of starvation one experiences ecstasy. Achilles easily overtakes the Tortoise once the body is left behind in time.

In another sense, despite the law of technical rationality our perception and everyday life are completely absurd. A second law appears, as if the Netherlandish Proverbs were sentences of judgement through an endless carnival: To be able to tie even the devil to a pillow; one foot shod, the other bare; to shit on the world; what can smoke do to iron? The world is turned upside down. The clown destroyed our era from the very beginning, and only appears at the end. An epic poem for this age would be something like a Catalogue of Ships listing them all, each less funny than the last.

Rationalism creates its own inescapability, as its progression deprives itself of all sense. The schizophrenic is both hated and revered, he is something of the exiled aristocrat for the moderns. However, any attempt to analyse or become him only creates other mentally ill types. Asepsis of the mind causes sepsis within the body. Madness is the condition of form without gods.

>>15036538
More music please... More... I'm coomin...I need...moreeeee

>>15042070
https://youtu.be/Om0QydWrTao
https://youtu.be/sT8WenpR8NI

Based Schmitt

>Imagine the deprioritized a priori as if the human were never there. HYPERCHAOS.
Woah

I haven't read Schmitt yet but it seems like he's just uncomfortable with Romantic art and is invoking loads of terminology to explain why that art is actually immoral.

>>15044679
>>15036086
>>15036104
>>15036570
>>15037573
>>15038005
>I haven't read Schmitt yet
lit really is a speculative realist board

>>15036081
In After Finitude, Meillassoux defines correlationism as "the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other."
What's Schmitt's position of this

>>15044679
It's not really about art, he even says that the artistic aspects often have an incredible power to them. His position is not one of critique, which is perhaps hard to grasp in an age which is nothing but.
His question is essentially that which surpasses both rationalism and its reaction, its relation to being and law, and he identifies this within the political form of romanticism. Romanticism is not the contradictory law of Modern Europe itself, but a way of seeing this law.

>>15044846
Very well, although I don't really understand all the parts of your post. In part this is perhaps because the full range of meanings that German intellectual tradition attaches to "critique" (not to mention "dialectic") remains somewhat unintuitive to me. It's not clear to me that "critique" is the defining characteristic of the "age." I think that ultimately I will just have to go back and read Kant and Hegel from beginning to end. I'll be reading The Concept of the Political for a class soon though

>>15044994
I suppose one can think of it in terms of law and that which rests beyond it. Such thinking cannot allow ressentiment to take hold: the prosecuted, or the enemy, is even worthy of our counsel. Justice necessitates this.
Often the modern position cannot see beyond the ideas, or even the thinker, which is why thinkers become ideas in themselves, symbols replacing form. The endless stacks of academic journals which are little more than the exchanging of annotations to end notes are also representative here.
A few thinkers, like Schmitt, instead place those they are responding to within time as if they are mere actors within metaphysical laws. This allows the consideration of minor thinkers at a high level, similar to mythic thinking which grasps the incredible force in simple human events.
It is our relation to being and these laws that matter, just as the question of law may surpass the actions of the parties involved. Justice implies a relation to an even greater counsel, that which informs the friend and enemy.
From this point of view the prosecuted is not the end in itself, but a means, or even afterthought. The difficulty of law is that one must reduce either the prosecuted or the victim to an instrument, all while retaining their human qualities. The human must be left behind while deepening its wealth within the territory - a precarious position which requires both forcefulness and a gentle touch, decisiveness amidst deep consideration. King Solomon's Judgement.
Criticism is employed with this in mind, as in optical technologies which allow us all new perspectives from which to view the object. Critique becomes an end in itself when we are incapable of seeing the greater form, what intention had once been behind our deployment of technical or legal measures.

I hope that makes sense, it is quite a difficult position to grasp.

>>15044749
Basically that there is no escape from this in the modern period, it is its being in contradiction. And even the opposition to Kant falls into the same mode of thought, even deepens itself as the irrational is total relinquishment to the sovereignty of the technical idea.
In a sense, Romanticism was the exception to the Enlightenment, that which proved the power it held beyond its laws. Speculative realists are essentially a reaction to this without even knowing it, hence desubjectivised occasionalists.

"At the beginning of modern intellectual history, there are two major transformations that together form an interesting countermovement. In the Copernican planetary system — to whose revolutionary significance Kant was fond of referring — the earth had ceased to be the center of the universe. With the philosophy of Descartes, the convulsions of ancient ontological thought began. The Cartesian cogito ergo sum argument referred the person to a subjective and internal process, to his thought instead of the reality of the external world. Natural science ceased to be geocentric and sought its focal point beyond the earth. Philosophy became egocentric and sought its focal point in itself. Modern philosophy is governed by a schism between thought and being, concept and reality, mind and nature, subject and object, that was not eliminated even by Kant's transcendental solution. Kant's solution did not restore the reality of the external world to the thinking mind. That is because for Kant, the objectivity of thought lies in the consideration that thought moves in objectively valid forms. The essence of empirical reality, the thing in itself, is not a possible object of comprehension at all. Post-Kantian philosophy, however, made a deliberate attempt to get a grip on this essence of the world in order to put an end to the inexplicability and irrationality of real being. Fichte eliminated the schism by means of an absolute ego. As absolutely active, it emanates in the world and posits itself and its antithesis, the nonego. In contradistinction to this sort of systematic simplicity, Schelling's answer was uncertain. But it followed the path to external reality that was sought. It was the return to nature, only in a philosophical sense, of course. Fichte's "annihilation of nature" was opposed to Schelling's position. Fichte could not place the absolute in nature either, however, for he also started from transcendental critical philosophy. Thus he designated the absolute neither as subjective nor as objective, but rather as the point of indifference between the two. Absolute reason had two poles: nature and mind. Philosophical reality is neither the thinking intellect nor the external world, but rather an indifferent, absolute, third entity. To call it reason already manifests a dubious inclination to subjectivity."

>>15045370
And perhaps another way of saying it, both the Enlightenment and Romanticism are poles of transcendent secularization: 'the replacement of God with mundane factors.' This is the greatest paradox of modernity, it must deny the force of the formative and metaphysical world, while also creating an equal and opposing force.
Hence the return to premodern forms, theological and mythic thought, as the deadening of the material world loses its sovereign power. Kantian outlines of black holes and impossible objects.

Where to start with herr schmitt?

>>15045461
On Dictatorship and The Concept of The Political

>>15045370
That's very interesting read, and I want to read his theory on philosophy.
seeing >>15045471 this, On Dictatorship and The Concept of The Political is the first read.
I want to know how he refuted the recent movement of going back to pre-kantian, so the only translated book in my country, Political Theology, would not help. that exact quote is from Political Romanticism, so what should I read if I want to focus on refutation?

>>15036538
>>15036081
Thank you for posting

>>15045471
>>15045581
Political Theology is a good starting point as well.

>>15044679
I would compare his expression of romanticism to a kind of intuitive impulsivity

When the end of a world historical individual is attained, they fall aside like empty husks. They may have have gone through great difficulties in order to accomplish their purpose, but as soon as they have done so, they die early like Alexander, are murdered like Caesar, or deported like Napoleon. One may ask what they gained for themselves. What they gained was that concept or end which they succeeded in realizing. Other kinds of gains, such as peaceful enjoyment, were denied them.

The fearful consolation that the great men of history did not enjoy what is called happiness—which is possible only in private life, albeit under all kinds of different external circumstances—this consolation can be found in history by those who are in need of it. It is needed by the envious, who resent all that is great and outstanding and who accordingly try to belittle it and to find fault with it. The existence of such outstanding individuals only become bearable to them because they know that such men did not enjoy happiness.

>>15045630
Explain

bump

>>15045603
No problem.