Nick Land

[Anonymous No.12256815]

Wtf is this pseud bullshit. I made it halfway through and so far its just bs or am I a brainlet?

Someone redpill me on this? Or the whole Nick Land posthumanism / accelerationism thing

[Anonymous No.12256842]

>>12256815
It's just the latest in a long line of bullshit from the linguistic turn of continental philosophy. Read Wittgenstein instead.

[Anonymous No.12256901]

>>12256815
Depends though. Is there anything specific that you're looking for before delving into the book?

[Anonymous No.12257120]

>>12256901
I agree. I think you have to have an aim or something you're looking for before you dive in to it. You also have to have a pretty wide understanding of the philosophers Land is basing his work on, he kind of leaves it up to the reader to find what he is reffering to. He assumes the reader has already read all that he has read, he's not very pedagogic. So before diving in, get a grip on Deleuze, Bataille, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Marx, Kant, Hegel, Freud, Gibson etc. You'll find something if you look

[Anonymous No.12257245]

Accelerate retarded cocksucker

[Anonymous No.12257325]

>>12256815

nick land is a rationalist. intelligence runaway (infinite mind) is the theoretical immanentization of what perhaps is the pure essence of the Rational. for land, cybernetics = nature/nature's god. everything is technology. nature IS systematization. capitalism is not merely an economic system; it is a substrate of cybernetic efficiency enhancement

in his creative writing, nick land plays up the horror and destiny/fatalist aspects of his beliefs. his idea of general AI takeoff, for example, would inevitably result in human extinction (if not via a catastrophic failure state resulting in systematic holocaust, then definitely thru a gradual tapering via natural section). and there is nothing we can do about- cybernetic systematization is immutable and baked into nature.

to me, he's just a lesser hyperrationalist lovecraft. also think he will one day probably be thrown off a tower in shanghai by some unhinged ecoterrorist

[Anonymous No.12257477]

>>12256815
Is it cyber-Lovecraftian horror-fiction that uses the language of philosophy, or is it a philosophy of invisible horrors that invoke the cyber?

Read and decide for yourself.

[Anonymous No.12257485]

>>12256815
He is a terrible writer who tries to make it seem cool by using Lovecraft and references to Western esotericism in his work, look at someone like Eliezer Yudkowsky for the same content but presented intelligently and non-pseudy

[Anonymous No.12257522]

>>12257325
Jesus Christ...

[Anonymous No.12257527]

>>12256815
I think he made a big mistake using Deleuze, who is a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.12257538]

>also think he will one day probably be thrown off a tower in shanghai by some unhinged ecoterrorist

I think I found my purpose in life. To give Land acceleration and teach him a lesson about terminal velocity.

[Anonymous No.12257541]

>>12257325
>also think he will one day probably be thrown off a tower in shanghai by some unhinged ecoterrorist

Ha, that sounds like it could be the start to some interesting cypberpunk fiction that Nick would probably like.

>Coldsteel bio-prosthetic hands drenched in neon acid rain wrench the once-upon-a-time-author’s cube-door from shattering poly-synth hinges and push inside finding their target unaware and unprepared in the bleary hours of a neo-Shanghai morning. Pounding rain and a far off siren are the orchestral backing as man-made-Machine crushes the fragile figure of machine-making-Man, their final tribute to an absent surrogate father-fugitive.

[Anonymous No.12257544]

>>12257485
yud is the ultimate pseud, you have to be kidding

[Anonymous No.12257882]

>>12257325
>also think he will one day probably be thrown off a tower in shanghai by some unhinged ecoterrorist
A movie scene that I will never be able to see.

[Anonymous No.12257909]

>[D]ripping our dark poisons into the milk of idealism might easily be the most practical difference we can make. Soaring words and rallying cries have already done far too much. It makes sense to take a step back, into skepticism, humor, undistorted proportion, and the hypothetical mode, before advancing further down our tracks … wherever they lead.

What did Nick mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12257928]

>>12257909
People like him are simply obsessed with the sound of their own thoughts. There is no value to be found in such men. And the fact of his popularity, here or outside 4channel, is evidence displaying how shallow the standards for intellectualism have become. I am genuinely astonished you can actually make a living writing tripe like he does, and wonder why more people aren't taking advantage of such a system.

[Anonymous No.12257970]

>>12257477
If this is a summary, of all three "philosophers", I will not be reading any of them. Egregious, truly. Kant, supposedly a genius, positing the existence of something which he claims is unknowable, and therefore cannot posit the existence of at all. Creating some false construct he called "the mind", wherein he said space and time exist in distorted forms, not realizing all to be in consciousness, and no "mind" as such. Marx is a genius, nothing else to say on him. Deleuze, probably a modern hack who other modern frauds have crowned their king, and lastly there is Land, an absolute joke who would do better off writing YA-fantasy fiction than to dally in the intellectual realms, as he clearly has no content and desires only to write aphorisms that aspire to Nietzche's grade.

Oh, Plato. People are too arrogant to simply read and reflect on your comments, no, philosophy is trendy for them, no different than their favorite television show, wherein they are content to transition from changing system to system, despite reality never changing.

[Anonymous No.12257975]

>>12257970

[Anonymous No.12258011]

>>12257970
>Kant waz rong its consiousnez not mind

[Anonymous No.12258019]

>>12257970
>reads Critique of Pure Reason
>WHY IS KANT CRITIQUING REASON REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.12258203]

>>12257970
I agree with you about Kant. He has no basis for positing the existence of his famous "noumena", and greatly damaged his standing as a "logician" for even doing so (in my view anyway, academics be damned).

[Anonymous No.12258244]

>>12256815
My my, what a cover.

[Anonymous No.12258270]

>>12258244

[Anonymous No.12258272]

>>12257970
based

[Anonymous No.12258306]

>>12257970

You must be a pretty incredible intellectual to have the gall to launch into a criticism of three of the most important figures in the history of philosophy with a declaration stating that you've never read any of them and have no intention of doing so.

I'm personally much too stupid to be able to formulate a priori opinions on those kinds of things based on less than 500 words of a 4chan screenshot.

[Anonymous No.12258336]

>>12258203
Berkley BTFO
>In the analytical part of the critique it is proved that space and time are only forms of sensible intuition, and therefore only conditions of the existence of the things as appearances, further that we have no concepts of the understanding and hence no elements for the cognition of things except insofar as an intuition can be given corresponding to these concepts, consequently that we can have cognition of no object as a thing in itself, but only insofar as it is an object of sensible intuition, i.e. as an appearance; from which follows the limitation of all even possible speculative cognition of reason to mere objects of experience. Yet the reservation must also be well noted, that even if we cannot cognize these same objects as things in themselves, we at least must be able to think them as things in themselves. For otherwise there would follow the absurd proposition that there is an appearance without anything that appears.

[Anonymous No.12258586]

>>12258306
You're right that I judge too pre-emptively, and yet, as someone who considers themselves a logician, and understands the nature of logic, certain mistakes can be pointed out even before delving into the specifics of an argument, and can be seen right from the outset. My critique of Kant, for example, is where he even has the information to speak of a "noumena", which he claims one can have no information of. From what, then, does he posit the existence of such an entity?

If my eyes are shut, and a giraffe stands in front of me, I have no information by which to know of there being such a creature ahead of me, and therefore would not be able to speak of such either. Similarly, if my eyes are closed, and a wall is in front of me, I can speak neither of a wall being there, nor of the color it possesses, or any physical details of it, or anything else about it.

Don't be deluded into thinking that by long-explanations, overarching laws of logic can be collapsed. They cannot. However detailed an explanation given, it still falls under the guillotine of the fundamentals of logic.

Kant: There's something out there, which do not know of and can never know of!

Person: How then, do you know of it, and are presently speaking of it? How do you speak of a "something" which you have no knowledge of, and claim cannot ever have knowledge of?

It's logically nonsensical, and therefore, automatically incorrect. If I asked Kant to give me a single property which this Noumena possesses, he'd be unable to, thereby reminding us that we are speaking of a "nothing" to which we've wrongly given the label of "noumena" to. I expect much better from a supposed "genius" logician of Western philosophy. I'd rather not waste my time reading people who I feel I can refute even without any extensive reading of them.

Not to mention, I don't think Western philosophers have understood, like the Eastern ones have, that consciousness is behind everything, including the mind. So when I read of Kant's construct of a "mind", I don't know to what it is he even refers to, since it is consciousness which contains everything, and not the thinking facility which is observed by consciousness.

If I am wrong, however, refute me here and I will humbly correct my position.

[Anonymous No.12258672]

>>12258586
Oh, and regarding Deleuze, let's simply say that I have no respect at present for modern-day academia, and am therefore highly skeptical of who it holds to be its heroes in today's or yesterday's era. Not to mention, I have seen many young, pseudo-intellectuald flock to him, by which I mean individuals for whom intellectualism is for the embellishment of their character and not something which is pursued for any genuine understanding to be received from it. I am familiar with the follower, and therefore feel I might know something about what the leader is like as well. Regardless, I acknowledge I don't know of Deleuze, and I won't speak badly of him or his ideas until I've read them, even if I suspect (rightly or wrongly) his value to be inflated by the contemporaries who worship him.

Land, now, from what I've been shown of him, I don't think I will ever peruse further. This might be my own error, but I will stand by it in the case of Land.

[Anonymous No.12258687]

>>12258586
you are a retard if you think Kant just oopsied on the rules of logic. We cannot exert the existence of a noumena, but we can assume that appearances are based upon something which appears. What it is that appears we cannot postulate, but we can assume it exists, and therefore we use terms like noumena. The only other conclusion Kant could have come to is solipsism (which is retarded).
>If my eyes are shut, and a giraffe stands in front of me, I have no information by which to know of there being such a creature ahead of me, and therefore would not be able to speak of such either
it's painfully obvious you have never read Kant, please just stop.

[Anonymous No.12258695]

>>12258586
You are an ignorant idiot who thinks he can just regurgitate most common talking points as his critique of Kant. Turn off the PC, bby

[Anonymous No.12258750]

>>12258687
No, we cannot exert the existence of "something" that appears, if we haven't even a single attribute to ascribe to it that thereby allows there to be a "something" at all. Kant's very position is that it is UNKNOWABLE, so I ask you HOW he KNOWS there is an "IT" at all. Tell me where the "known information of something unknowable" came from. It is, as far as I see, and unless you can refute me, entirely a violation of logic.

And no, solopsism isn't even somewhat related here. I'm merely speaking on the nature of epistomology, and the logic underlying it.

And what is even meant by appearances? What exactly is being referred to here as "appearing"?

>>12258695
I've never read any criticisms of Kant, my critiques are my own. I'd prefer a refutation, rather than an insult.

[Anonymous No.12258880]

>>12258750
not those anons, but i think i get what you're saying

[Anonymous No.12258900]

U Kant touch this

[Anonymous No.12258954]

>>12258750
>>12258687
This was one of the key points of contention in the 1780s and 1790s (and beyond)

Regardless of whether it's inherently logical or illogical (whatever that might mean), Kant at least did think a "something" was causing his representations. To him, the world is not a plaything we generate. We cannot change the world according to our whims. There is clearly (to Kant) a "something" out there. Beyond that though, Kant thinks we can't know it in itself.

It's helpful to think in 18th century terms about this rather than modern common-sensical terms. Kant was not thinking about giraffes and different sorts of material "things" that might be behind our representations. For possible alternatives to "the thing is pretty much what it looks like," Kant was thinking more in terms of Leibnizian visions of a timeless/spaceless metaphysical world wherein there is no such thing as a "particular giraffe," only a concept of giraffeness, or perhaps not even that, perhaps only a smaller set of core concepts, knowable only to God, visible in their true colors (so to speak) only to God's mind. Against metaphysical theories like this, there were many sceptics and "common sense" sceptics at the time, respectively promoting either frightening and nihilistic scepticism about knowledge of verities (universals, types, genera, laws, etc.) at all, or unsatisfying (especially to an 18th century rationalist logician) sorts of "well we'll never know things in themselves or with real knowledge, but we seem to be doing okay anyway" epistemic naturalism/pragmatism. So, Kant was not arbitrarily promoting some kind of phantasmic idealism like Berkeley. He was trying to combine the old Leibnizian certainty about universal metaphysical verities and formal/rational lawfulness with the new scepticism about how particular entities and experiences relate back to those things. His solution didn't satisfy many but that's at least the sort of thing he was going for.

And in practice, yes, Kant pretty much thought there was just a goddamn giraffe there. He was just also a rationalist theologian by training (by our standards anyway), so he thought that ULTIMATELY in some sense it MIGHT all be a dream in God's universal mind where temporality is a projected stage upon which the monad-like concepts of giraffes and humans are doing shit we can't even imagine and so forth. To avoid bickering and navel-gazing about the latter possibility, he simply said, "we can't know that for sure; so let's work with what we DO have: newtonian physics and math."

[Anonymous No.12258977]

>>12258586
Reason can determine that something logically MUST exist, even if you have no empirical evidence for it. This is the insight of Kant's synthetic a priori, not a violation of the laws of logic but a restoration of them against a crude empiricism like your own.

As for "everything is consciousness", Kant would say that more accurately everything is consciousness for us. We cannot logically make statements about "everything" because you can't experience "everything" as we find ourselves within time and space which create logical limits for what we can experience.

[Anonymous No.12259252]

kantposters are some of the best posters on /lit/, even if I do think everyone sucks this goblin's dick too much

[Anonymous No.12259379]

>>12258270
based Chapman brothers

[Anonymous No.12259382]

>>12258977
hmmmmm a good post

[Anonymous No.12259392]

>>12258750
>And what is even meant by appearances? What exactly is being referred to here as "appearing"?
convenient you skipped the one comment in the thread that was actually quoting Kant lmao
>>12258336

[Anonymous No.12259419]

Can we go back to Nick Land pls

[Anonymous No.12259433]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7bPhZEDVns

[Anonymous No.12259490]

>>12258977
You've misunderstood me friend, I'm not any kind of empiricist. The example I gave above, regarding the giraffe, was not meant to be taken literally, but applies to the mind in the abstract sense. That for the mind to know of something, well, it must have something of which it knows. Number is an innate construct, for example, which Kant understood. This means that should I stand there with my eyes closed, I can still count to a thousand if I wanted to, because I have the elements of Number in myself to "think in". While I couldn't know of the giraffe, I can always know of the number three. Similarly, I have many other innate logical axioms which I need no empirical data for, and rather, can only understand empirical data by their existence within me. A=A, for example. Counter to this innate information, there is sensory information, which speaks of its own kind of data. If I could reach out and touch the giraffe, even with closed eyes could I now, through the sensation of texture, know that something exists there, despite not knowing what. The question then, is what class of data Kant's noumena falls under? It is neither innately known, nor is it sensibly derived. Therefore, of what form is it, and how did Kant come by it? To repeat, one can only think by having information of that kind to furnish one's thoughts, like I said with Number. A person can think with Number at any time they wish, for the information is innately-supplied and always-present. Even without three objects in front of me, the number Three is always with me. Meanwhile sensible data is contingent on its being sensed, but once sensed, is available as data, of the sensible kind, to furnish one's thoughts with. But Kant's "noumena" seems to be neither of these. If we let Noumena = N, then we have created an external label, which should carry an internal attribute as its content. For anything to be anything, there must be at least one attribute it possesses that allows there to be a "something", else we speak of void, which cannot be spoken of, as there aren't properties to communicate. But if there is not even a single attribute which given to this Noumena or N, then it is merely an empty label, and we are not speaking of anything but void. This is my position on Kant's "Noumena".

Regarding consciousness, I will say that firstly we are not in space and time, but space and time are in consciousness. And second, I would say that I align with nondualism and the notion of Atman = Brahman, wherein one understands themselves to be a single Unit of the entirety of Reality itself.

Also I want to apologize for being rude earlier, and I am not trying to insult Kant or anyone who follows him, nor Deleuze or Land. I sincerely apologize for my rudeness in my initial comment. I simply have personal criticisms with what I presently know of them.

[Anonymous No.12259502]

>>12258586
>consciousness is behind everything, including the mind
>as a logician I can tell he doesnt even have the information
>Deleuze is a hero of academia

There's no point in refuting someone as illiterate as you are. Dumbass will never learn.

>>12259419

Let's all stop responding to low quality bait and do what this guy said.

[Anonymous No.12259504]

>>12258954
Thank you for this background. I won't claim to have fully grasped it, since I'm not familiar with the history of Kant and related philosophical thought, but it was an interesting read for me. My only response to it is firstly that I believe that one's reasoning must perfectly adhere to the logical principles on which it rests, and that all information is of a kind and a source, which I elaborate on to the poster below. Secondly, if you have understood and especially experienced Nondualism, you will understand you were yourself the objects you all-along spoke of. There is nothing you know of which is separate from yourself, anymore than a dream can be separate from the one dreaming.

[Anonymous No.12259528]

>>12259502
If I am wrong, respond to the comment I left above yours. It's easy to insult, but if I leave genuine criticisms of mine, you should try and show me where I err. Prove to me you understand the philosophies you follow. Also, consciousness isn't behind everything? You mean to say your thinking-mind, which you are aware of, exists prior to the awareness? You realize awareness or consciousness is the very knowing-function which lets you know of anything at all, right?

[Anonymous No.12259533]

I keep playing the lottery in hopes that I'll win and have some money in order to hide or squirrel away for when automation begins and the rise of AI I can at least disappear within a mansion

[Anonymous No.12259594]

Bump.

[Anonymous No.12259620]

>>12259490
What you are describing is part of the basis of Kant's critical project in the first critique. The distinctions between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. In simple terms a priori= knowledge independent of experience, such as A=A, and a posteriori=knowledge that requires some experience (there is a giraffe). There is also another distinction of types of knowledge called the analytic/synthetic distinction. Analytic statements are true by virtue of the self-contained content of the statement (all bachelors are unmarried), and synthetic statements are true because the content of the statement relates to something in the world (cherries are red).

In the pre-Kantian view, which you seem to share, all a priori statements were thought to be analytic. In other words, reason alone without experience could tell us nothing about the world. Kant introduces the synthetic a priori in the forms of space and time as a priori forms of perception, as well as the categories of understanding (quantity, quality, relation, and modality). In other words, objects as they appear to us are subject to our a priori knowledge of space and time. Objects are necessary subject to the faculty of rational knowledge.

If we now ask 'What are these objects?', we can see immediately that to reply 'things in themselves' would be contradictory. How could a thing, such as it is in itself, be subject to our faculty of knowledge and be governed by it? In principle, this can only happen to objects as they appear, that is to say, to "phenomena". (So, in the Critique of Pure Reason, while a priori synthesis is independent of experience, it applies only to the objects of experience.) Thus we can see that the speculative interest of reason bears naturally on phenomena, and only on them.

Noumena are a logical consequence of this thread of reasoning, the alternative being that phenomena simply arise from nothing, as in >>12258336 "appearance without anything that appears"

[Anonymous No.12259628]

>>12256815
i just like it cuz it's fun to read. cool words and imagery

[Anonymous No.12259690]

>>12259620
Thank you for the lengthy explanation. I understood the basics of the analytic-synthetic, and a prior-a posteriori, but it is his argument from space and time which I am not grasping. I think it's because I differ with him on what space and time even consist of at all, as I do not hold there to be any separation from the things known and the one knowing them, with neither distance nor distortion separating them. But I won't comment any further in this thread then without simply familiarizing myself with the expositions given. Thanks again.