What the fuck is this bullshit? Is this actually what continental philosophy is like...

That was for fun the econ degree was for jobs

I got yelled at by Marxists a lot in poliphil classes

also philosophy a more Veeky Forums degree than literature

Tbqhwyall telling a dude who claims to have a BA to stick to memes and start with the greeks is pretty funny.
But we should just tell OP he needs to read some McElroy and properly work on his reading comprehension.
Also Nietzsche said some stuff in BGE about how for an author being understood is horrible, so you might as well consider it intentional.

Jesus christ, so many shit posts.

Land is basically as extreme as continental, or any philosophy for that matter, can get, if he were a drug he'd be some kind of weird research chemical. While he comes out of the continental tradition, he hardly qualifies as traditional philosophy. In fact, he did his hardest to break out of traditional philosophy. A lot of his stuff is bordering on performance art or some kind of lovecraftion fiction but sometimes it's accidently brillaint, although terrifying as hell.

Btw, OP, have you really not any continental philosophy during your degree? I'm not an anglo, so while our faculty is "continental" we still have a decent amount of courses on analytics, although not so much of that hardcore formalized logic stuff.

>Land is right about literally everything
Except the actual existence of the Filter, because there's plenty of other explanations for FP. He's one of those cases where everything he says has flawless internal consistency, but the actual premises are fucked.

god just shoosh

I read a good amount of historical philosophy but as far as I can remember anything on my syllabi published after frege was explicitly analytic

>you will never get away with publishing your neuromancer fanfic as philosophy

Not OP, but I could have easily received my BA without learning of a single non-analytic philosopher. I recognized this as a deficiency, so took electives on Nietzsche, Plato, and Existentialism. I also had some exposure through English, polisci, and sociology courses, but it was embarrassing how poorly the professors understood philosophy and how sloppily it was applied to their fields with such transparent bias.

Jeez, that is kind of insane. No wonder so many anglos are so ridicously misinformed on continental thought. I mean, most conty departments aren't going to teach russell but at the very least the 20th century analytic moral philosophers, some analytic phil of science and all this anglo theory of mind / cognitivism stuff is huge.

What the fuck is this bullshit? Is this actually what the modern novel is like? I'm a few weeks from graduating with a BA in Literature and I've never had the displeasure of reading such a mess of literary expression. I read through Gravity's Rainbow and the fundamentals of sado-anarchism before flipping through and finding that he just writes comic book fanfiction for the last few dozen pages. His specific plots can't be isolated or analyzed because he insists on the most purple prose possible.

This isn't even literature, it's pulp fiction for people who can't write stories and find even the constraints of the contemporary novel annoying, so they publish in self-referential tomes using the most obscuritarian standards possible.

This is why Melville scholars still disagree on the fucking basics of his world view. No Austen or Twain or Zola scholars have to do that because they didn't do literature by having four page asides about castration anxiety when their/central/ point has yet to be made clear.

Jesus I know it's a meme book but why is this associated with literature

What the fuck is this bullshit? Is this actually what painting is like? I'm a few weeks from graduating with a BA in fine art and I've never had the displeasure of viewing such a mess of puerile expression. I looked at 0-9 and Study for Skin before flipping through and finding that he just paints flags for the last few dozen pages. His specific subject can't be isolated or analyzed because he insists on the most banal expression possible.

This isn't even painting, it's decoration for people who can't paint figures and find even the constraints of contemporary abstract expressionism annoying, so they paint in self-referential canvases using the most obscuritarian standards possible.

This is why Kokoschka scholars still disagree on the fucking basics of his world view. No Sargent or Cole or Church scholars have to do that because they didn't do painting by having four series about the identity of signifier and signified when their/central/ point has yet to be made clear.

Jesus I know it's a meme painting but why is this associated with fine art

It's not insane if you don't see Continental philosophy as a valid topic. Its like criticizing the lack of homeopathy in a medical degree. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that position but thats how its seen.

wew

What the fuck is this bullshit? Is this actually what art film is like? I'm a few weeks from graduating with a BA in Film and I've never had the displeasure of viewing such a mess of drugged-out expression. I watched through I Stand Alone and Irreversible before flipping through and finding that he just shoots a sex scene from the inside of the woman's vagina for the last few couple shots. His specific claims can't be isolated or analyzed because he insists on the most half-baked, dorm room philosophizing possible.

This isn't even cinema, it's pornography for people who imagine themselves too smart for pornhub and find even the constraints of modern television annoying, so they film using obnoxious styles using the most obscuritarian standards possible.

This is why Resnais scholars still disagree on the fucking basics of his world view. No Kubrick or Scorsese or Spielberg scholars have to do that because they didn't do cinema by having four minute-long shots about DMX-tripping when their/central/ point has yet to be made clear.

Jesus I know it's a meme movie but why is this associated with cinema

You are a low functioning autistic

Enter the void is actually really really bad

this is a bad film though, and not nearly as unconventional to its respective medium as Fanged Noumena is
something like Brakhage or Jack Chambers would be more apt

>Brakhage

This is sweet, thanks user.

youtube.com/watch?v=XaGh0D2NXCA

check out Dog Star Man, The Act of Seeing With One's Own Eyes, Anticipation of the Night, The Dante Quartet, and Window Water Baby Moving

this is true at least because I didn't know "obscurantisme" is supposed to be rendered in english as obscurantist and not obscuritarian, but too late

>This is why Nietzsche scholars still disagree on the fucking basics of his world view.

Literal will-to-system retard.

Let me guess, you're one of those faggots who insists that people "define their axioms/terminology/etc" at any and every given opportunity, because you're a brainlet who's incapable of nuance.

My objection is not so much that you dislike FN/Land, but that you brought Nietzsche into it, you fucking retard.

I know you're memeing, but these are actually very valid points.

I used to think Nietzsche was bullshitting me when he said he uses style to alienate the /wrong/ readers, as I find him so clear and concise most of the time. But now it seems quite obvious, when people like OP put him in the same category as actual obscurantists, just because of the sheer amount of content he can contain in, say, an aphorism.

I'd like to say the problem is that Nietzsche is above you and Land is below you, OP. But I think that even Land is above you, afterall, you need to be somewhat adept and knowledgeable about the deceptive tactics of mysticism, in order to convince so many people (and even convince that you're on the same level of 'obscurantism' as a canonical great).

>I'm a few weeks from graduating with a BA in Philosophy
kek. Nietzsche was right that courage is what is lacking in the philosophical poverty, not ignorance. Or maybe you just did one of those meta-mathematics curriculums, which shouldn't really be worthy of the name.

>just learn to read mysticist and self-admittedly obscurantist texts and I swear guys you start to see the truth in A Thousand Plateus or Of Grammatology, but certainly not before you've already grown accustomed to the methodology of wholly uncritical truth-seeking

vs

>Here are my actual claims about ontology shorn of flair or literary sensibilities laid out as premises and conclusion. Here's my reasons for holding those premises and why the conclusion follows. Here are some objections I anticipate and my responses.

>Land is basically as extreme as continental
This is just a straight up fucking lie, Land doesn't even begin to approach to extreme end of obscurantism.

>buy some meme tier aut-right bullshit
>is this what continental philosophy is like?????

I don't know how a single thread attracted so many newfie's, If they haven't heard of Ccru they've been browsing entire days, or If they think Land is unusual among continental philosophy they've read literally none.

Not what I was advocating at all, I explicitly assumed mysticism as empty bullshit. Not surprising people like you can't tell the difference between N. and mysticism, you have no subtlety.

Also, your assumptions about the fallibility of language and systematizing are centuries behind even the mainstream.

Veeky Forums should have a seperate /phil/ board

More like /sffg/ should have been punished for posting their charts all over reddit flooding Veeky Forums with unread plebs.

nick land is fucking stupid and no one takes him seriously in professional philosophy. he is a laughing stock

t. philosophy phd student. of the continental variety too

in fucking what universe are derrida and deleuze mysticism

You admit that getting into parts of the continental tradition requires an acquired ability to digest bullshit, but you still think it's something to praise?

I'm not saying Land, Nietzsche, Debord, et al don't have worthwhile critiques of culture and philosophy, Nietzsche has doubtlessly proved his literary merits, I'm just saying as far as the ability to identify specific truth claims, the project is flawed in a fundamental way. Especially if this is endemic of what's published in European philosophy departments.

Neither side of the argument said that, as far as I can see.

Please gimme some shit that's more "obscurant" than insane amphetamine driven, barely coherent rants that are half weird techno cyber fanfiction.

What? Yes, Land is fucking unusual among continental philosophers. None of the usual big names tried to break philosophy in the way he did. Except maybe Laruelle but he's doing it in a very timid, academic way compared to Lands insane ampetamine performance art.

>professional philosophy
>continental philosophy phd student
When attempting to post bullshit on Veeky Forums you should at least know the basics.

t. art and film illiterate

>Please gimme some shit that's more "obscurant" than insane amphetamine driven, barely coherent rants that are half weird techno cyber fanfiction.

Baudrillard you stupid fuck. Like holy fuck, this is French theory 101

>None of the usual big names tried to break philosophy in the way he did
You know a group of British philosophers literally broke the entire philosophy field into two and reduced continental philosophy to the blogosphere right?

>You admit that getting into parts of the continental tradition requires an acquired ability to digest bullshit, but you still think it's something to praise?
For a start, I think the analytic-continental dichotomy is layman/unprofessional bullshit. Being able to tell bullshit from profundity (both seem to challenge idiots, as shown from the hilarious comparison of Nietzsche to Land) requires you to be able to digest enough bullshit to discern its character, so yes, I think those who complain about it rather than find obscurantism hilarious or a sympathetic/useful red-flag are idiots and lacking character.

>I'm just saying as far as the ability to identify specific truth claims, the project is flawed in a fundamental way. Especially if this is endemic of what's published in European philosophy departments.
Firstly, philosophy (like everything) is hierarchy, so the highest level is not going to be found in publically-funded bodies such as academia. That's your first mistake, a plebeian expectation. And secondly, your (also) plebeian expectation that truth claims within a great work need to be easy, not difficult, to identify.

There was no need to bring a canonical great writer into a discussion of Nick Land. Stop laying your dirty hands all over things.

I've read some Baudrillard and I'm not a fan of his style of writing, though I think he does suffer a lot from translation. But no way he's as bad as some of Lands stuff. You fuck.

oh, you're a pseud

Seriously though a vast majority of Lands stuff is easily understood if you read it in context, which he provides a shitton of.

Meanwhile Baudrillard is literally unintelligible, he never defines anything, never expanded on his work from the 80's and provides zero contextual clues, and absolutely doesn't suffer a lot of translation, If anything his translators make him easier to understand than the original French.

>Meanwhile Baudrillard is literally unintelligible, he never defines anything, never expanded on his work from the 80's

there is a neat book he wrote late in his life called Passwords. He takes words that have been central to his writing and spends a few pages on each of them. It's like a glossary for baudrillard. It's a fun read.

Also, the Perfect Crime and Impossible Exchange do very much expand his earlier work on simulation. If you're asking for books that expand texts like The System of Objects, I think he mostly moved on from those very early texts.

>being a reading idler brainlet

yet another Anglo who is too stupid and linguistically challenged to understand the richness of continental tradition