/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12903593]

What sort of philosophy should I read before I dive into the acceleration sphere

[Anonymous No.12903761]

I can throw at you some meme chart but basically a lot, if you really want to read him just go for it though. If you don't understand anything read more of diverse literature and then try again. If you want.

[Anonymous No.12903966]

>>12903593
just read moldbug

[Anonymous No.12904019]

Spinoza-->freud-->deleuze

you're not going to understand everything but that's basically the bare minimum.

don't bother with land. he's pop philosophy

[Anonymous No.12904103]

>>12904019
>most prominent right accelerationist is pop philosophy
get with the times, grandpa

[Anonymous No.12904117]

>>12903593
read as >>12904019 said or just straight up Land and go backwards picking the ones of your interest like:
Land > Deleuze > Bataille > Hegel > Baudrillard > Lyotard > literally whatever just enjoy it, you're not a philosophy undergrad

just remember: it doesn't really matter as long as you enjoy what you're reading

[Anonymous No.12904118]

>>12904103
That’s because he’s alive and people can engage with him. In 100 years, he will be that one esoteric crazy philosopher that edgy future kids quote. He’d be like a worse version of Diogenes of Sinope.

[Anonymous No.12904389]

ENHANCE

[Anonymous No.12904576]

>>12903593
Marx

[Anonymous No.12904655]

>>12903593
Hi, Nick.

[Anonymous No.12904658]

>>12903593
Already three threads up, stop spamming the board, Nick.

[Anonymous No.12904670]

Successfully slid the other thread, nice work.
But let's continue on. Post one important insight from these writings, and counter some of the arguments made against accelerationism.

[Anonymous No.12904685]

>>12903593
Just read pic related. Better ideas, was the original theory, and no meme language.
>Change, roaring through society, widens the gap between what we believe and what really is, between the existing images and the reality they are supposed to reflect. When this gap is only moderate, we can cope more or less rationally with change, we can react sanely to new conditions, we have a grip on reality. When this gap grows too wide, however, we find ourselves increasingly unable to cope, we respond inappropriately, we become ineffectual, withdraw or simply panic. At the final extreme, when the gap grows too wide, we suffer psychosis—or even death.
>To maintain our adaptive balance, to keep the gap within manageable proportions, we struggle to refresh our imagery, to keep it up-to-date, to relearn reality. Thus the accelerative thrust outside us finds a corresponding speed-up in the adapting individual. Our imageprocessing mechanisms, whatever they may be, are driven to operate at higher and higher speeds.

[Anonymous No.12904697]

>>12903593
If you don't understand accelerationism why do you have the standard shilling meme on your computer?

[Anonymous No.12904699]

>>12904685
I've always wanted to read this, but keep putting it off. Does it still hold up? I get weary about reading books about the future from 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.12904752]

>>12904699
I would say it is, just look at the chapter titles to get an idea of what is discussed, they're pretty clear. From "Communes and Homosexual Daddies"
>Two pressures are even now softening up the culture, preparing it for acceptance of the idea of childrearing by men. First, adoptable children are in oversupply in some places. Thus, in California, disc jockeys blare commercials: "We have many wonderful babies of all races and nationalities waiting to bring love and happiness to the right families ... Call the Los Angeles County Bureau of Adoption." At the same time, the mass media, in a strange nonconspiratorial fashion, appear to have decided simultaneously that men who raise children hold special interest for the public. Extremely popular television shows in recent seasons have glamorized womanless households in which men scrub floors, cook, and, most significantly, raise children. My Three Sons, The Rifleman, Bonanza and Bachelor Father are four examples.

The book was well ahead of its time. And I think it is mostly interesting in that the discussion follows similar critiques as today, even with robots and AI, suggesting that our situation hasn't changed all that much. There are a few memes as well, but the book is mostly about the theory of change. And there are multiple books in the series, the most recent being 2006, I think.

[Anonymous No.12904811]

>>12903593
there is a huge extensive bibliography you have to read before getting into modern philosophy then land. Philosophy is a journey and its way more enjoyable and cherishing that way, think reading the last book in a series to just get to the action or watching the last episode of a series(GoT for ex.) because the parts giving atomosphere and explaining the up entailing action is boring and you just want to see action. This faults plain simply because yes, you'll be able to see/read what you want but because you skipped everything else you will be helplessly confused and the action will be mundane compared to someone that watched or read the series as a whole. Think about it. Your lack of knowledge is very apparent in respect to your question, do you want to know about cybernetics,philosophy of technology,futures of choice,just cool shit about capitalisms future or do you want to know about accelerationism? Because philosophy of tech. is a vast and various subject and accelerationism aswell;left or right accelerationism,Yuk Hui's philosophy of tech or Lands observation of capitalism's future? Horrorism Ccru predictions? Lands early stuff? Bitcoins,blockchains and manipulated reality in lands new book? Maybe artifical time and its creation essentially forcing us to lost contact but yet questioning what time line were in? Like dude there is an extensive bibliography to read which would throw a windmill of topics at you and from there you can roam freely, "accelerationism"(philosophy of tech.) is not a new thing by anymeans what-so-ever universities have begun even teaching philosophy a tech long ago just to put it in perspective.

But of-course this doesent help your conundrum by any means at-all. If you have no philosophy background I suggest you to take a step back and start on s1e1 and Cram them in for your sake. So plato,aristotle,(skip religion because robots is goal right?),medieval philosophy, etc etc and maybe jump past all the bs modern stuff right onto deleuze and read his critiques of his predecessor philosophers;you prob wont understand shit because its deleuze so read the deleuze dictionary book(on mobile) then continue from there onward --->>>12904019 . Alls im going to say is to understand Land is to understand deleuze to the uptmost and to understand deleuze is a beast of its own. Also don't make new threads asking for advice on where to start go to the archive and bring up the old cybernetics threads they are WAYYYYY more helpful and informative than anything you will get from /lit/ now a days. And yes if you are so determined you can read about accelerationism while reading your classic philosophy, reading blogs,articles and the introductory books can only help albeit it'll be quite dazing.

Anyways who knows maybe you'll lose interest in your goal to read accelerationism before you get there, a journey is a journey because it is a journey otherwise without it being a journey what would it be? Certainly not a journey.

[Anonymous No.12904903]

>>12904811
>people dedicate decades studying philosophy
>philosophers dedicate a decade to writing dissertions in fields to their choice
>philosophers study their field of choice and write amazing books for academics and people interested alike

Book gets shilled here:
>so i can just read this to understand it?
or
>what do i read to understand this
or
>I don't understand, why?
Like seriously? Sure go ahead read it, but why make thread that has been made a million fucking times theirs another cybernetics thread up right now and four fucking million in archive. Just get to reading and stop finding ways to be complacent

[Anonymous No.12905132]

What can I do to accelerate right fucking now anons?

[Anonymous No.12905247]

>>12904019
replace marx with spinoza