/lit/ - Literature

>>19280734
>"let's use difficult words so it seems intelligent"? am i simply too stupid?
if you have to ask I'm sorry then...

>>19280737
i am also familiar with the phenomenon in pic rel and have attended university where the shit professors would use similar language to hide their lack of understanding and make questioning harder

>>19280734
>i skipped through half of editor's introduction
>am i simply too stupid?
Yes, you are too stupid. But you could stop being a dumb nigger. Go and read, stop acting like a lazy americunt.

>>19280747
Overrated phenomenon. Criticizing something for being "difficult to read" is just blaming others for your own failure at language. There are plenty of books on stem topics and such where they must be written in am autistic way because the concept is very precise and easy to overlook.

>>19280734
>couldn't it have been written in an easier way?

>>19280789
if it could be written in a simpler, more impactful way, it's not my failure at language but the author's. we are being taught to make our language more convoluted than necessary since primary school. hard to imagine this doesn't impact some people into adulthood.
>there are plenty of books on stem topics
this is not a book on stem topics

>>19280734
He's just saying that you have to take HRT to help Capital.
What happened to the guy translating Gender Trouble into plain language?

>>19280734
Here's a tldr:

Mark Fisher, "Terminator vs. Avatar"
>What, then, is Land’s philosophy about?
>In a nutshell: Deleuze and Guattari’s machinic desire remorselessly stripped of all Bergsonian vitalism, and made backwards-compatiblewith Freud’s death drive and Schopenhauer’s Will. The Hegelian-Marxist motor of history is then transplanted into this pulsional nihilism: the idiotic autonomic Will no longer circulating idiotically on the spot, but upgraded into a drive, and guided by a quasi-teleological artificial intelligence attractor that draws terrestrial history over a series of intensive thresholds that have no eschatological point of consummation, and that reach empirical termination only contingently if and when its material substrate burns out. This is Hegelian-Marxist historical materialism inverted: Capital will not be ultimately unmasked as exploited labour power; rather, humans are the meat puppet of Capital, their identities and self-understandings are simulations that can and will be ultimately be sloughed off.

>>19280734
God damn, you sound fucking stupid. What are you, first year phil? Go and read, you nigger.

>>19280747
based and true

>>19280747
Non-fiction writing peaked in the 1930s before descending into gatekeeping jargon.

>>19280789
>Iou–wAnt–It––to–be–out=theRe–––AnD–It–Is–––
>=≡some–soRt–of–stRAnge=pAIn–behIInD–
>IouR==IIs–––keep–RubbIng–them––lIIk=–thAt––
>AnD–theIll–DRop≡out––(mummI–sAID)––It–Iooks––
>As–If–Iouv–been–CRIIIng–––423–=–Its–woRse–thAn–
>Iou–thInk––AnD–even–If–IoU–tRII––to–feel––Con
>fuseD––IoUR=skIn=–Is––hoRRlblI–suRe––
>soCket=()=skIn=–spReADIng=out––ACRoss––the–
>InsIID–of––=IoUR=––oUtsIID–––WICh–Iou–CAnt–
>see––Due–to–the––pAIn–In––=≡=––IoUR=skIn–If–
>Iou––hAve–to––meet––CuR–It–mIIt–As–well––be–
>now–oR–soon––AnD–IoU–Do–––(uDu=uno≡=–)––––
>(#=goes–tChh–IoU–neeD–It–f°R)–XIl#–
uh-huh.

Consider the cover of the book, even. Jake and Dinos Chapman, a couple of opportunistic wind-up merchants. I can imagine Land pissing himself laughing that people wade through this.

>>19280734
>>19280747
>>19280806
>be in academia
>use academic language
The only one lacking understanding is you. That being said, philosophers are often poor writers but that has nothing to do with the vocabulary. That except in the op is easily understood, if you don't know what a word means you can easily Google it instead of making a thread on /lit/

>>19280921
I'm a bit stuck with his academic language.
>Kur khalucta. Khecta. Kurkete koto hula. Kurtete.
>Kartete. Karaguna. Kharta charta.
>Catecru.
>Zone-one. O Gigacivilization meets no concrete equivalent. Only resistance.
Could you google khalucta for me?

>>19280938
>google
Go read secondary literature on the CCRU if you want to understand that, you dumb nigger.

This is all accfag talking to himself.

>>19281009
great thanks, which book explains it?
or maybe you could explain it to me... if you're defending the book you must be pretty familiar with it, right Anon?

>>19281074
I'm not defending shit you dumb nigger, I think Land is a shitty re-write of Deleuze, nothing more. Nor is there a book, what the fuck do you think philosophy is? go and search for an article, you dumb cunt.

It’s not really worth it, but you do really need a large amount of preliminary reading to get Land.
I repeat: It is not really worth it.

You've not read it, have you.

>>19281126
You've not read it, have you.

>>19281159
This, but with all philosophy desu

>>19281198
I have, I wasted about five years reading Land's pre China work. On his last essay on FN he even states how useless his shit is.

You're correct anon. Reading all that shit is useless anyway. You will not get a deeper understanding of life. You will reason yourself out of everything Land tells you anyway, unless you already believe in it.

Xenosystems was great. Never gonna read the academic shit that Land himself has disowned. If you want to be an accfag that's your problem.

>>19280734
You need a background in continental philosophy to appreciate Land’s prose. His schizobabble is purposely prolix and convoluted to convey complex ideas in a simultaneously lucid and nebulous or ambiguous manner. A lot of the first essays are just abstruse because of vocabulary though. Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest is actually pretty basic and should be fairly transparent if you have any background in post-modern continental philosophy. If you can’t make it past the introductory essays you need to read more because it only gets more convoluted and abstract.

>>19282558
>Kant, Capital, and the Prohibition of Incest is actually pretty basic
This.
Op, you are either fucking stupid or lack any kind of background in academic philosophy or are an anglo that has never seen the philosophy outside of your tradition.

>>19283093
>Op, you are either fucking stupid or lack any kind of background in academic philosophy or are an anglo that has never seen the philosophy outside of your tradition.

i lack any sort of background in academic philosophy and i think it stinks. i literally cannot imagine a reason to delve into that world other than to seem a certain way. it appears to me as (useless) math for people who would really like to do math but for some reason can't. and the fact that the author himself said it's worthless certainly doesn't help. i just don't see the relationship to the real world and it's not interesting in itself. and it stinks of university.
i'm going to have one more go at Land tonight and start GEB tomorrow, i saw it mentioned here today and it seems interesting. this "academic" stuff just seems really deep into some meta-meta-meta shit i don't care about.
english is also not my first language so maybe the words don't have the emotional connotations they should for me and that's why it seems so empty.