/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18503274]

I can understand Brassier and I still think he has a tendency to overwrite like a motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.18503280]

>>18503274
Never heard of him. Looks like a fag.

[Anonymous No.18503291]

>>18503274
He doesn't overwrite in an obfuscating way though, it's more that he's waving his dick around, so while annoying sometimes it's not that bad.

[Anonymous No.18503333]

>>18503291
Exactly, actually. He's no obscurantist.

[Anonymous No.18503452]

>>18503333
Portentous 3s
I wonder if he is ever going to write that follow up book to NU. Doesn't really look like it does it

[Anonymous No.18503814]

>>18503452
Read his recent paper on The Human. I have no doubt he's been writing one if not two books though he may have scrapped the Sellars one. Certainly it's annoying as someone who read his first one ten years ago.

[Anonymous No.18503843]

>>18503814
I think a 'positive' philosophy of nihilism, which is what he suggested, is kind of inherently ridiculous. NU is just tearing apart other systems by pointing out contradiction. Also Brassier is clearly not entirely nihilistic, that review of Land's nrx stuff that tried to paint his transgression as somehow dissonant with nihilist project was pure humanist/progressive dogma.

How was Human paper, what is it about?

[Anonymous No.18503845]

Most philosophy is pretty straightforward for me today but Sellars filters me hard. Am I brainlet?

[Anonymous No.18503946]

>It is not only what is represented that is represented as existing at a particular location in space and a particular point in time; representing itself is located in space and is actual in time—but a noumenal space and time that, although conceived as partially analogous to the space and time proper to perceptual experience, possess their own distinctive structures to be uncovered through some future alliance of physics and neurobiology.

Oh no no no we got too cocky brassierbros

[Anonymous No.18503969]

>>18503946
Nihilism isn't all it's made out to not be clearly :)

[Anonymous No.18503982]

>>18503946
This is right though, or in any case is only way to salvage Kant.

[Anonymous No.18504018]

>>18503982
It is, but it's just funny seeing Brassier of all people hope le science will prove him right

[Anonymous No.18504049]

>>18503274
I have only read his introduction to Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, even that was a little bit obfuscating.
But he is a fellow nihilist so I can't complain.

[Anonymous No.18504096]

>>18503946
>noumenal space and time...possess their own distinctive structures
I hate Kantians so much bros. This incoherent mixture of pseudo metaphysics and muh critique was fully present in Kant as well, le transcendence, le categories which are blatantly metaphysical propositions pretending not to be by dividing reality into two realms, one of which cannot be known(except lol when we transcend) and another which because its le phenomenon we can just utter facile phenomenonological drivel about without considering larger context because we've decided larger context is metaphysical dogma. Germans should unironically be fed to lions, Hume and Berkeley alone, who are retards in the Cartesian tradition of muh reality is le doubt, completely eviscerate Kant, he did not even sort of address their points, and the entire structure is just a fucking meme from day one because there is absolutely no reason to privilege unexamined human experience and reason's self sufficient le critical bootstrap over other metaphysical concerns which underlie logical and phenomenonological and ontological disputes, like the fact that people argue is more important than what they're arguing about, while argument itself depends upon the very principles they are trying to discard with argument, while lying that they are examining the underlying principles when they are saying there can be no principles at all because asking if there are principles means there arent any, even if you can't make a coherent statement about them without asking. They are literally pointing at and describing the world and then saying there is this magical other thing we have to take into account because some artefact of my mind supposes it exists and this thing is like totally different 5han ajyghinv we can know because I say do. It's like a tiny toddler throwing a tantrum because if he doesn't suckle at the breast then milk isn't actually important because he can just die.

[Anonymous No.18504109]

>>18503843
https://docdro.id/JEe4b7S

He's recognized the weaknesses of that book, at first apparently through Sellars. Since then he has been integrating Plato, Hegel and Marx on negativity and reason (Peter Wolfendale tried to call Ray, Reza and himself "neorationalists"; I don't think they are as interesting). Land I find boring to give any more thought to.

The danger for Ray is remaining too comfortable with the French and Marx. He has been sufficiently dialectical to write his first book, and to see the inadequacies of its "nihilism" as well as of eliminative materialisms and naturalisms. Sellars does not seem to go beyond a kind of truce of Kantian dualism updated with "naturalism" and some Hegelese. He does well to take up Plato and Hegel and even Marx to some extent but the conclusion of the paper is not encouraging. It reveals how naive and dead-end/rearguard the French/Anglo-'naturalist'/'materialist'/'nominalist' approach is. All that work just to come to the end of the last page when even in the same paragraph he says "The 'tremendous power of the negative' that Hegel attributes to 'the pure I' is also rooted in a ‘thing’ that is not any recognizably human subject or self, precisely because it is neither a monad nor a dyad"—the same sentence ends—"it is the inhuman offspring of repetition and reproduction." That seems grossly unimaginative if not dogmatic to me.

[Anonymous No.18504208]

>>18504109
go on