I N S I D E N E S S

[Anonymous No.13749338]

Nick Land BTFO forever.

[Anonymous No.13749448]

>>13749338
Lacan > Deleuze > Land > Bataille > Spinoza

[Anonymous No.13750190]

>>13749338
So are you gonna share your understanding or is this just a pseud flex?

[Anonymous No.13750291]

>>>13729474
Does Land ever talk about Leibniz or just Kant?

>>13750190
I don't understand it I was hoping all the Landposters would start defending him and explain why he isn't blown out because the outside is actually superior to the inside, but I guess I don't need to understand it to be right. :)

[Anonymous No.13750315]

>Why might Kant characterize Leibniz as holding some version of the “transcendental realist” perspective that he also attributes to Newton? This characterization is puzzling, as we have seen. If we return to the conceptual matrix above, it is not merely that Leibniz considers space to be the order of the possible relations among objects, and therefore to be dependent upon objects and their relations; it is also the case that he explicitly adopts the common early modern view that relations are ideal in the sense that they are somehow dependent upon the mind.[16] So prima facie, if space is a relational order, or dependent upon relations, and relations, in turn, are dependent upon the mind, then it seems that space is itself dependent upon the mind. Thus Leibniz appears to deny that space is real in a Kantian sense. Denying that space is real can be equivalent to denying that space is absolute; but Leibniz’s relationalism, coupled with his familiar early modern view of relations (an independent metaphysical thesis), seems to entail that space is also not real in the sense that it is not independent of the mind. In what sense, then, can Leibniz be called a transcendental realist? Prima facie, it is unfair to interpret him in this way.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/#KantCritLeib


Land is a psued shitter who misunderstood Deleuze.

lmao I just realized he probably couldn't into maths. calculus needs to be mandatory for the arts

[Anonymous No.13750366]

Reza would enjoy that quote I'm sure

[Anonymous No.13750461]

>>13750366
Is the the fabled "discord" chat?

[Anonymous No.13750494]

>>13749448
Yeah I would describe this as more of a critical attack on Lacan's Otherness. Still unsuccessful, but interesting.

[Anonymous No.13750637]

Does anyone actually understand what’s even being said in that pic? I can’t understand a single sentence.