>When the loud options are moralistic anti-technology on one side and managerial techno-optimism on the other, the vacancy is real. Into that space Land arrives, not with a program, but a jerry can full of accelerants. He offers a style of lucidity that makes refusal of justificatory exposure feel like realism, and he supplies different factions with the same transferable permission to burn what they already want to burn.>Land exploits that vacancy by treating contestation itself as pathology. The slow work of stating conditions, specifying stakes, tracking costs, and admitting defeaters is redescribed as security reflex and primate panic. His central gesture is substitution, the labor of justification gives way to the glamour of inevitability. He swaps arguments for accelerants, then calls the burn insight. Landian inevitability is counterfeit realism, a get-out-of-reply-free card stamped with ‘what is coming.’ If every objection is already a symptom, nothing has to be answered on the merits.>Thus, the space of the reasons is displaced by a regime of selection, time, capital, war, optimization, whatever can be invoked as an external criterion. Behind this move sits a familiar ancestor. Darwinian selection, abstracted into a metaphysics. The Landian trick is to treat selection not as a local operator but as a final arbiter. Whatever survives is taken to deserve survival. Whatever scales is taken to be true. This is how selection is promoted into a theory of justification, and it is also how resistance becomes illegible. If the arbiter is selection, then objections are not reasons, they are symptoms.Actually pretty good. I think the polemics lean a little too heavily on a dated caricature of Land’s thought, but the criticism of provenance as a substitute for justification is sound, imo. If you submit your ethical judgements to the invisible hand of technocapital then every criticism can be framed as a transient pocket of negentropic drag that doesn’t deserve an answer. Of course if in raising your metaphysics to the status of an ethics your position magically becomes immune from criticism, there’s definitely a problem there.
Now that's a name I haven't heard in a while.
two retards fighting
>>24981193Wrong
does the critique say anything about his methods of prediction or characterizations of the forces at play in the world? because it seems like it just attacks his morality which is secondary and entirely ignorable.
>>24981193They're both retarded pseuds (not real philosophers) so I don't care
>>24981891>>24982156This/thread
I don't think he's wrong but how is this even a critique?He's stating that Land is far more concerned with predicting than moralising/prescribing, ok so what? Land himself would agree with this>>24981891>>24982156>>24982777What is it about Land that triggers certain posters on here?
>>24982796He is a pseudo intellectual who wasted his intelligence writing bad philosophy and frying his brain with drugs. He lacks all the qualities his readers ascribe to him.
>>24982808people like you can never engage with him (because you know he's right) so you do these little faggot snarky mudslinging posts
>>24982811>t. Pseudo Intellectual
>>24982815and you're a real intellectual?
>>24982818I don't pretend to be one
>>24982822yet you pretend to understand Landgo ahead and give me a short summary of Nick Land
>>24981193it falls apart when you just reject Hegelian Monism/Absolutism.there's other Wills than Techno-capital at play; but this is the god that Land worships as he gives nominal lip service to God (probably hedging his bets; he's a smart lad)
Land has been in serious decline for some time now, he's had two strokes I believe?You can tell because he's gone full boomer in support of Trump to the point of coping about tariffs with lemure-larp.
>>24982936>You can tell because he's gone full boomer in support of Trumphe hasn't done this thoughNick Land hasn't 'declined' he just hasn't adapted his framework, he's been right about everything but then what's next? Who's the prophet of the 2030s?
>>24981193you can sort of tell it was generated by ai with all the contrastive framing sentence structure.Its not original -- it's a light re-edit of an LLM response
>>24982827>go ahead and give me a short summary of Nick LandNot that anon but I'll give it a shot.Lands philosophy boils down to accelerationism, a concept in which he predicts that the world is bound to end and all we can do is accelerate this process and begin a new , sort of dystopian, artificial intelligence as capital driven darwinian horror world. Also numerology bs.
>>24982901Land is the furthest thing away from a Hegelian, in any capacity. He inherits this from Deleuze. >>24983048He plays up the gothic angle for aesthetics, but his outlook on the future (as well as the CCRU as a whole) is essentially very optimistic and life-affirming, just in an inhuman way. Technocapital rips apart humanity and territorializes new frontiers of experience and possibility.
>>24983240>Land is the furthest thing away from a Hegelian, in any capacity. He inherits this from Deleuze.I don't get that from his work despite the protestations. He seems quite deterministic which emboldens his accelerationist views toward resolving this "dialectic" (or whatever calculating process you nominally want to call it). The will his abscribes to Techno-capital is all but Absolute in name.What am I missing here?What nuance that separates it?What cleaves?
>>24983267Also he shits on Schopenhauer while clearly dipping into his concepts of metaphysical Will and ontological pessimism.Again ironic.
>>24981193Land has always seemed like a man who wants to believe in God but can't. All his talk about inscrutable movements, and things surviving for a reason, feels like an attempt to jury-rig Providence back together. An invisible hand that isn't God's but functions as God.
>>24983284Because he has other gods.
>>24981193I don’t think Land (atleast the Land of FN) would really disagree with anything said here heavily. Landian accelerationism does not need to justify anything because it possesses no ethics or praxis. To think otherwise succumbs to the naive humanism he harps on for several hundred pages in FN. As far as land is concerned, capital’s total actualization at the cost of humanity needs as much justification as gravity or thermodynamics do. It happens because it simply does.
>>24983267Well, I suppose the first comment I’d make on this is that the trajectory of “techno-capital” and the metaphysical universe at large that Land charts isn’t towards any kind of unity or monism, but towards entropy and fragmentation (an immediate example of this that comes to mind is the forecasted destabilization of “human” in the advent of AI and body-modification). Another angle you may be taking is the almost domineering influence of techno-capital that seems to take on a dialectical logic, which is a fair concern to raise. In deleuzian terms, the socius in the modern era is the body of capital, and all production is organized in its framework. Thus, although there are NUMEROUS flows and desiring machines at work in the production of the actual, they are concretized in a manner that appears to be SOLELY attributed to the body of capital. The only direction the body of capital takes, and indeed all bodies take, is towards the full body without organs; deterritorialization towards a dynamic field of possibility, that again actualizes in different and novel ways. Materially and historically, this can resemble a sort of dialectic, but the metaphysical motors are fundamentally different. I recommend reading Anti-Oedipus on this for a fuller picture, it is a very rich text and my presentation of it is still quite feeble here despite my best efforts.
>>24983389ok but from a Deleuzian sense, you're just reframing metaphysics with Capital as the totalizing force; the Will moving it all in a particular direction.This all seems like a shell game here with names talking about the same thing but everyone wants to reframe it into their aesthetic.Whether it's Hegel's Absolute, Schopenhauer's Will, Deleuze's Body (Without Organs), or Nick Land's Techno-Capital.It's all the same metaphysic with a different aesthetic paint jobs to try to differentiate themselves as unique.Just like when someone says Nihilism is unique when it's actually just the Monism of Oblivion (i.e. All is and will be One with Nothing); a shitty theology.I'm not sure you people understand the philosophers you follow and how shallow all this stuff is.Chasing shadows in the Abyss...
>>24983415Another more concise, but also more opaque perhaps, answer on the subject of Capital/techno-capital and Will: It is a mistake to think of capital as possessing any kind of will, for capital is a body without organs (distinct from THE body without organs, to be clear). It is the anti-productive, the un-engendered, the unconsumable (hearkening to bataille here). The only “wills” at play are the flows and desiring-machines that are grafted onto the body without organs, their products etched and coded onto the recording surface of capital. Land certainly pokes fun at Schopenhauer, but he owes a lot to Schoppie through Nietzsche and Bataille, as do D&G. As for Hegel, I think you are playing fast and loose with terms.
