Is this the most significant work of philosophy in the 21st century? Are there any critiques of Fanged Noumena/Early Land that doesn’t boil down to misunderstanding Land or an auto-defensive humanism? In the wake of LLMs and the realization of AGI inching closer and closer, are there any modern writers equally relevant?
>>25274278nobody takes it seriously. it was just a bit of a laugh.
is that a penis?
how does land differ from bog standard neo-liberalism?
>>25274296it is a penis isn't it?
>>25274278>auto-defensive humanismImagine typing this out while discussing and supporting a theoretical development that entails the end of all life on earth, including you.
>>25274326There is a lot of Bataille and (a Battaillean reading of) Nietzsche that goes into land’s anti-humanism, but for practical purposes his most relevant observation is that we’re past the threshold of deciding our fate. This is part of a broader trend in accelerationism being more-so a descriptive philosophy than a prescriptive one. Any kind of future or progress at this stage is the same as encroaching onto the techno-capital singularity (this helps to explain his neo-Calvinist angle as of late). The question now is when do we get there.
No.
>>25274278Now that we are seeing what AI can do it's looking kinda....outdated. Like I really don't want to just sit back and let sapient AI exterminate us. I think most people are going to be pessimistic about technology.
>>25274278Ellul did it better and he did it first
>>25274429Fatalism deserves to be taken out back and shot to the side of the Beast itself.
>>25274429Land is dumb for assuming life won't persist beyond the singularity Besides that, yeah, he's pretty smart
>>25274326Humanism has been BTFO since Spinoza
Xenosystems is more important and essential political philosophy for the 21st century
>>25274429>we’re past the threshold of deciding our fateWere we ever? If everything has led to this
Somebody sell me on this guy, whats interesting about him? I still havent made it past Bergson, which after I wanted to read Heidegger, then Focault then Baudrillard
>>25274688He’s more relevant now than ever, it’s a perfect time to get into Land. Also, for what it’s worth, he has a very distinct style of writing that I am quite fond of. (Though I’ll grant techno-philosophical jargon maximalism isn’t everyone’s cup of tea)
>>25274703I dont get the techno stuff really, what does that have to do with philosophy? i might skip heidegger and read land next if his stuff is short since being and time is supposed to be big
>>25274278>Is this the most significant work of philosophy in the 21st century?no.land's significance is purely aesthetic. NRx devolved into a farce after it rolled over for populism. the techbros who are his current audience namedrop him because they like the image of having a dark wizard on their side, not because they actually understand anything he said.the most significant work of philosophy in the 21st century is project lawful. i'm kind of shitposting, i'm not sure i actually believe that, but it's more defensible than making that claim for either fanged noumena or xenosystems.
>>25274707>Eliezer YudkowskyYou can't be serious. That guy makes Land look like Aristotle
>>25274704Technology is at the intersection of Capital-as-intelligence (and the further implication of inhuman intelligence) and deleuzoguattarian machinic ontology. Stylistically, FN era Land was very inspired by sci-fi writers like Ballard, PKD, and Gibson.
>>25274717what have you actually read by him that led you to make that assessment?
>>25274735HPatMoR and the Sequences
>>25274498he needs to believe this because he saw deeply enough into the unavoidable future, with an intact enough sense of selfhood and compassion, that understanding there will still be biological humans living in that future would have driven him irrecoverably insane. real philosophers are usually pretty sensitive.>>25274429>past the threshold of deciding our fateisn’t that the literal definition of fate?>more descriptive than prescriptiveI think what you’re trying to say is true and necessary to understand, but you’re expressing it very poorly. it’s axiomatic to continental philosophy that these are impossible to disentangle. especially once you understand heidegger.>>25274642if you can understand heidegger, he makes a compelling case that this is the wrong way of looking at it. the fact that what you said is true now, doesn’t mean it was always true. that’s how fate works.
>>25274759>if you can understand heidegger, he makes a compelling case that this is the wrong way of looking at it. the fact that what you said is true now, doesn’t mean it was always true. that’s how fate works.should I read heidegger before land? or will heidegger after land be more fulfilling?
>>25274296Leave it to you to see it, faggot.
I suppose I could admit that Meltdown is an entertaining read.
>gramps is scared of computers the bookno, its ridiculous in its true meaning.
>>25274278We are only a quarter into the 21st century. How has the "dust settled"?
fraud
>>25274278It's among the most significant without any doubt - there are a few philosophy books written by living authors that have had the same diffusion and that have been tangential to political/philosophical discourse circulating in the highest spheres of world power.Moreover, even beyond its diffusion, it is a book of merit when it comes to its philosophy. The first half of the book is brilliant and fresh, if you have a preparation in continental philosophy. Once you know a bit of Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger and especially Deleuze most of the "schizo" prose not only makes perfect sense but it's actually pretty brilliant. Also one of the few books that seems hellbent on liberating writing from robotic academic standards when it comes to research: it's a very good example of what philosophy can be as a speculative subject and as a language practice, and of what people could do as philosophy today. The only problem is that it actually requires some culture to get into it, hence lots of readers take it as this anon >>25274292 . The only reason readers in the anglophone world treat this as some sort of esoteric philosobabble is because analytic philosophy established supremacy in the 1950s in the US and England and, besides one or two token continental scholars, most philosophy departments do not really read anymore the writers with whom Land is engaging - some of them classic continental philosophers, some of them French continental philosophers. There is engineered illiteracy in the anglophone world around many of the authors he mentions because, when properly interrogated, they can inspire strongly antisocial behaviour. Land's greatest value, and the one that will be measured beyond his temporary alignment with what's now the alt-right, is in having reintroduced books like Anti-Oedipus in the anglophone intellectual discourse - which will have consequences beyond intellectual spheres, some positive, some less.
>>25275930can i read it without having read deleuze or heidegger but the rest?
>>25274759Perhaps I was being too opaque earlier, but what I read in Land is the idea that techno-capital has so thoroughly established itself, at this point in time, as the surface of the economy of desire that any attempt at its negation must be immanent to it, i.e. it must be dialectical, which is untenable in the D&G tradition (both metaphysically and materially). Thus, there is nothing really actionable that can be done to steer us away from the “techno-capital singularity”. We can only ride the wave.
>>25275972Yes
>>25275268AGI will be coming in 2027, maybe even by the end of this year if the superexponential growth shown by Mythos continues. After that, human intellectual labor will be obsolete in short order, and then ASI will bring an end to biological life as a whole within 0-3 years. So unless a philosophical masterpiece releases very soon, the 21st century is essentially over already.
>>25274278AI-2027, HPMOR, Singularity Now, and the Roko's Basilisk LessWrong post will be the defining works of the 21st century, unfortunately.
>>25274278Most of these writings are from the 1990s
>>25276079Philosophy's truly dead huh? And both analytic philosophy but more importantly its allowance of science to talk about things it can't answer even though it cant, killed it.
>>25275930>There is engineered illiteracy in the anglophone world around many of the authors he mentions because, when properly interrogated, they can inspire strongly antisocial behaviour.Listen retard, you are already privileged enough to be literate. This is permitted. Back in the day it wasn't permitted. If you were "antisocial" or simply unproductive you and about a thousand of your friends would have the meager contents of your head spilled all over your quarters by Centurion Chaddeus and the guys he commanded who were all so buff they made Plato look like You. So stop trying to drum up literature that will inevitably dismantle this nice peaceful society that is the only thing keeping jackboots from making you forgotten history.
>>25274278what do I have to have read to understand this?
>>25276134need to know this too
>>25276193>>25276134To get the most out of Fanged Noumena, I would Recommend:Kant’s first critique World as Will as RepresentationNietszche book of your choice (BGE or GoM are both good)The Accursed Share Basic Grasp of MarxAnti-Oedipus
>>25276527Nice. I dont think I'm capable of reading Anti-Oedipus but the rest seem fine
>>25276087>back in the daysthe lower form of post. Read more.
>>25276618I've started Anti-Oedipus after beginning Fanged Noumena, which actually put it on my map as something worth reading. You need some basic understanding of concepts such as territorialization and de-territorialization, but the passages he quotes from D&G give you enough context to figure out what he's trying to do with them, usually. It won't be obscure to read just because you haven't read Anti-Oedipus if you have a grounding in all the rest, I think.
>>25276908I might try Fanged Noumena anyway without studying Deleuze we'll see about it
>>25274718>Market as intelligenceF. A. Hayek inspired by Ludwig von Mises did it first and better:https://home.uchicago.edu/~vlima/courses/econ200/spring01/hayek.pdf
His twitter is literally the worst possible /pol/ tier rambles.
>>25274278It’s arguable that the more virulently anti-human polemics of his earlier works haven’t aged all too well. Capitalism is AI, sure, but skynet apocalypse is one possible future amongst many on the way to full AGI. To believe it wholesale is to be dogmatic about a process we scarcely understand. That also goes for the ridiculous fantasy of fully-automated-luxury-gay-space-communism, in which machines with IQs infinitely larger than our own facilitate our every need.Whatever happens, I can guarantee it will be weirder than we can scarcely imagine.
>>25274278We're barely a quarter into the 21st century. The dust will not be settled for another few centuries at least (if humans are still around).
>>25277709this is likely true, hume came like 40 years after locke or something and Kant came like 10 or 20 years after hume
>>25277709True.If we draw an example from the 20th century, this far in, most of philosophy was dominated by tedious Neo-Kantians, like Wilhelm Dilthey, Weber, among others. They have not left a worthwhile legacy in Philosophy today. The most revolutionary thing of the 20th century up until that point was Husserl, even that was in its early stages.The only great cultural criticism from that point was Oswald Spengler.Give it time, it's only 2026, the greats like Heidegger, Derrida, Gadamer, Ellul, Mumford, Marshall McLuhan, among 100 others I'm forgetting are just young people, babies even.
>>25277709in a few centuries, heck in a few decades, no one will care about philosophy because ai will be answering everyone's questions regardless of whether they are truthful, thinking will be akin to manual labour, it's optional, you don't have to do it like we do today because its delegeteable to superior machines, you retards are still stuck in the old ways of seeing things, this will be the end of human culture as we know it
>>25277766>Give it time, it's only 2026, the greats like Heidegger, Derrida, Gadamer, Ellul, Mumford, Marshall McLuhan, among 100 others I'm forgetting are just young people, babies even.Its always crazy to think about how true this is. People that I would consider Gen Alpha or some other future Gen are going to come up with a crazy level of thought in the future. I find it more interesting than science, since its one thing to give the future generations more resources and more raw knowledge, but its another thing for the future generations to just see and produce complete new and interesting thought and perspectives.
I don't think so. Nick Land is more valued for the aesthetic aspect of his existence. Like he's a living embodiment of avant-garde 90s cyberpunk. A Nick Land guest lecture at your party for poly Stanford alumni makes you feel like you have a thread connecting your job to cool jungle music and Serial Experiments Lain. The real defining thinkers of this century so far are the TESCREALs, unfortunately. Scott Alexander and Big Yud could probably rally a pretty successful death cult. I don't think Nick Land could.
>>25275930Go to bed Nick. Get a real job.
>>25278581>Scott Alexander and Big Yud could probably rally a pretty successful death cult. I don't think Nick Land could.who?
