Redpill me on nick land, wer ist er und was war sein Einfluss auf die Philosophie?

Admit it though, is famous for the novelty of his apocalyptic ramblings not his legitimate work.

Why do so many legitimate academics consider him an influence then? (Brassier, Fisher, Plant (xenofeminism as a whole), Negarestani, Grant, a good portion of the Speculative realists from Mellisoux to Harman (and the entirety of the dark enlightenment movement, if you want to count nonacademic intellectual movements))

>Badiou
replace this with Jameson

Attached: jamesonblam.jpg (680x345, 89K)

Er ist interessant aber es gibt keinen Grund, ihn so ernst zu nehmen. Er macht spaß. Das ist alle.

I agree with both, I would also add fisher, zadie smith, zupancic etc but I listed who I listed since I find them more important

To be honest, after reading through quite a few behavior psychologists and early 20th century philosophers, it’s not hard to understand Lands philosophy. It has been widely predicted that man eventually outdoes himself in the grand scheme of things, and that man himself is not the controller but the controlled. Of course, since we’ve become dominant of our environment, we are now indeed the controller of the controllee, but that does not free us from the aspect that we are bound by universal contingencies which guide and force our hand in the form of
mathematics.

"Nah" and "cope" are not refutations. Stop using them, you bunch of childish poseurs.

>I won't pay attention to your argument because I don't like a word you used
classic r*ddit

All of this is Marx 101. It's in the 1844 manuscripts and in Capital. Is this really what Nick Land is about? I ask because I haven't read anything of him but all of what you guys mention seems very familiar to someone who has read Marx

Marx thought that productive forces become our master but that we will become liberated from those forces and return them to their natural state as means to human ends. Nick Land thinks history is liberating the productive forces themselves, there will be no revolution, there will be no human future.

>Nick Land thinks history is liberating the productive forces themselves
Fair enough. Seems an interesting reelecture of some chore marxists statements. Where should I start?

>Seems an interesting reelecture of some chore marxists statements
I would say its really revolutionary with lethal consequences for today.
As I mentioned earlier, anyone that would like to participate or educate themselves on the nature of ideology we live in now must get at least somewhat familiar with Land.

Unironnically start here youtube.com/watch?v=lrOVKHg_PJQ

This is where I disagree with Land (I’ve never agreed with Marx) that humanity will come to an end. Only in the sense that we currently know will humanity cease to exist. To say we will create an AI that is capable of competent replacing humanity only frees humanity from the contingencies of being ourselves. In a sense, usurping our own need of humanity with something else sets of truly free.

Thanks user.

youtu.be/Zxsyi5znCo0

holy shit this is worse than I ever could have imagined

yes and what does fame have anything to with the author?

>Only in the sense that we currently know will humanity cease to exist
what does this mean though? how far can we deviate from the human before it's no longer human?

An AI is only one possible scenario. We don't need to create an AI for humanity to be replaced.

Deleuze for Gibson embryos

HAHAAHAGAHAHAHA

In what sense are we human other than that we think, therefore we are? We’re relatively just as inhuman and animal as much as we are separate from the rest of nature. In all reality, we aren’t human, it’s just contemporary representation of the dominant form of consciousness. AI is human, human is AI, and humanity can’t replaced be AI, unless by accident. And if you reference the use of machines in which take the place and need for human involvement in production and services, yes we don’t need AI. But as I’ve stated in an earlier post, freedom from old humanity begets a new freedom for contemporary humanity.

nick land is a pussy faggot cuck who collapses the acceleration of difference in the dialectic. he is SCARED of people like me.

This reads like someone trying for a Baudrillard word salad thing but who lacks the linguistic competence to make flow like it actually means something worthy of obscurantism. It's a bunch of short staccato declarations with every second word swapped for some clunky scifi synonym.

Really fucking retarded. Only today could this man be taken for a serious philosopher.

>we aren’t human
so, wait then who cares?

>Baudrillard word salad
brainlet

Attached: Jean Baudrillard.jpg (1408x792, 213K)

I remember he didn't post on Twitter for four days and you were all certain he had been killed by the Chinese.

>In what sense are we human other than that we think, therefore we are?
stupid dumb cartesian scum

His style is really obnoxious, he comes across as an ur-pseud.

Anyone and anything that wants to avoid death, the ultimate annihilator of freedom.
Hawking was considered “human” as a lump of flesh voiced by an interpreting computer program. You’re a bitch to my philosophy.

"""your""" philosophy is from some 400 year old french cunt who didnt even make the argument you think he did

>no more testicle torture Mr. Ping!

Attached: ddppxmxu0amnjgh.jpg (620x419, 31K)

I have his Fanged Noumena book, I find it really obnoxious.

He should publish his Dark Enlightenment blog into a book, that was much better and less skitzo