Can I get away with just reading this?

[Anonymous No.12691277]

I've read most of philosophy up to marx just by reading essays, it may seem dumb but I find the concepts easy to grasp after reading 3-4 essays by said philosopher. I wanna learn about accelerationism but every fourm post here about Land reccomends a fuck ton of shit for no reason. I just wanna be able to read FN to understand the terminator philosophy or if anyone can link some essays on accelerationism and NRx. So is it possible lit? Will I be able to understand endgame philosophy in a weeks time max?

[Anonymous No.12691287]

Fanged is a meme, read phylundhu instead.

[Anonymous No.12691294]

someone post the pasta

[Anonymous No.12691321]

>>12691277
>I wanna learn about accelerationism but every fourm post here about Land reccomends a fuck ton of shit for no reason
>for no reason
lord grant me strength

[Anonymous No.12691334]

>>12691321
Most of us were all like this. Don't even bother.

[Anonymous No.12691496]

>>12691321
>>12691334
To be fair people do reccomend alot of bullshit when it comes to this, cant blame OP. People make out accelerationism to be so much more complicated than it is for the purpose of preserving them and only them understanding.

[Anonymous No.12691548]

>>12691321
I'm not saying im not willing to read whats reccomended I just think its not neccesary. Why would I read anything thats not directly relevant to the thing I want to read?I'm asking which books or essays about accelerationism would be good to help me out. No point in reading nietchze,kant,marx when I want to learn about a specific thing.

Sure you can say that I wont understand what would be discussed in terms of the thoughts and ideals brought up in said book about accelerationism, but why would it be so difficult to maybe google such terms and read a couple pages about it to grasp it then continue on with the chapter. Im not reading a mountain of fucking philosophy that I have a already have a basic of understanding of when I can learn throughout the way in a book that'll skip the bullshit and introduce terms that I need to know.

[Anonymous No.12691573]

>>12691548
okay, but it's like saying I Want To Learn About Cathedrals. just teach me about Cathedrals, i want to get to the Essentials of Cathedrals.

there's a lot in a cathedral. there's theology, there's architecture, there's history, there's philosophy. there's a whole intellectual genealogy in that stuff, and the more you know about where a given concept or idea comes from, the greater your view on the whole thing. i personally think reading about Land is a pretty good way to explore the rest of that stuff. if you just read Land essays and those alone you're going to come away with the impression that he was just some demented drug abuser who went nuts. he did abuse drugs and he did go nuts. this much is true. but behind him is a whole world of other guys with interesting stuff to say, and if you have no idea who they were, or the contexts in which they wrote, or the rest, you're going to wind up sounding like Peterson when he goes off on some idiotic tirade about Reprehensible Neo-Marxists he cannot be bothered to understand except by referencing some third-rate book by an objectivist.

the process cannot be rushed, rushing it leads to the production of Culture Warriors. don't be a Culture Warrior, there are enough of those already.

[Anonymous No.12691578]

>>12691548
just try reading FN and see if you get it, the first few essays shouldn't be too bad
plenty of links at /r/theoryfiction

[Anonymous No.12691631]

>>12691496
This.

[Anonymous No.12691637]

>>12691277
OP start with what interests you and go from there by following the cited texts that sound interesting or the reference material.

But basically no if you don't want to read any "outside material" you will only ever have a shallow understanding of Land and barely a glimmer of the philosophical context

[Anonymous No.12691648]

bro just dont even read the book just
say things like the words in this image
just look at dis pic and say some of the sentences a couple times so u remember dem
voila u got it bro


>>12691573
>if you have no idea who they were, or the contexts in which they wrote, or the rest, you're going to wind up sounding like Peterson when he goes off on some idiotic tirade about Reprehensible Neo-Marxists he cannot be bothered to understand except by referencing some third-rate book by an objectivist.
yup