/lit/ - Literature

>>11989595

I find these threads incredibly interesting but I feel like a lot of unnecessary jargon is being used here. My impression is that the whole topic could be described in a contrast between a monistic (Hegelian) metaphysics and a dualistic (Platonic) one. The main feature of a monistic metaphysics is that everything is understood as part of the same entity (e.g. the Stoics) or as part of the same process (e.g. Hegel). There is no opposition of forces - or, if there is, it is comprehended in a historical monistic process leading toward one and only one end, namely, there are no multiple ends, there is no possible derailment from history (in this sense, Hegelian metaphysics can be seen as a “historicized version” of Stoic metaphysics).

Accelerationists are on the side of the monistic metaphysics, ultimately believing that anything that happens is historically justified in the perspective of either some end or purpose that the world, intended as a process, ultimately has. Therefore technology is seen not as a detachment or derailment from history but as part of its natural evolution, and the effort of many of these authors seems to me just that of including technology and capital in a natural perspective as part of how things naturally evolve in the direction of the end of history. Now this is something that Marx himself, as starting from an Hegelian perspective, did - so I see the main innovation of these authors as including the new findings of informatics and our enhanced knowledge of economy into their philosophy, but I don’t really perceive any leap in terms of metaphysics here. That the human being was something to be surpassed was already said by Nietzsche - and in a sense by the Platonics in that they believed that to become his best possible self man should stop being himself and become god (namely, that evolution into something non-human or post-human was in order in our search for the good).

(1/2)