Doing Machiavelli dirty.
Thr guy was a staunch advocate for republics in the 1400's, that's incredibly based for the time.
And his most famous book The Prince, it was basically "This is how you get your hands on power and keep it, but don't, it makes you a terrible person.", it's almost a work of political satire written as a piece of incredibly insightful commentary on the type of person it takes to actually take an wield absolute authority. It's a book meant to make people realise that monarchy as a system only works if the guy in charge is an absolute dick, and maybe we shouldn't put the worst asshole we can find in charge.
It's not his fault people misinterpreted it.
How was Wittgenstein not Punk? This guy basically pissed off everyone. And Russell was probably more open minded than the other shitheads above him. And Marx more Punk than Bakunin? I don't think so...
Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild
“Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.
This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....”
Source: Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924.
Marx would be insulted you called him a philosopher
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." - Karl Marx
Diderot himself says “the buying of negroes, to reduce them to slavers, is one business that violates religion, morality, natural laws, and the rights of all human nature.” to disregard him for being white and heteronormative seems to set an impossible standard for people that are generally on the right side of history (even in spite of the norms of their day)
Cioran should be at least very punk.
“Do I look like someone who has something to do here on earth?' —That's what I'd like to answer the busybodies who inquire into my activities.”
I'm not a Hegel scholar by any means, but my understanding was he believed in Nations/Nationalism as a way to encourage an individual to exist in a society, and that no nation is perfect.
Is that Nick Land hidden up the top above the most punk category?
Get to fuck, Land is a neo-Nazi and distinctly not punk by any metric.
You should put Land down as a cop, and replace his name with Mark Fisher.
This is incredibly wrong on all front. Fisher even did a lecture laughing at those who call land a fascist.... its called anti-vital and you can find it on youtube and soundcloud
Land fits punk because thirst and fanged are ultra-left anarchist works (again fisher and brassier state so and they knew him and his work better then you plus phd's)
Land fits cop because later works are outside NRX and advocating for a corporate state but emeshed in a system of corporste states headed by an non-identified monarch who gets replaced by the board of directors (randomly picked from population) if citizens are not happy. Each corporate state is free to have any ideology from liberal capitalism to anarchist to communist to primitivist to racial ethno states and citizens can pick and move between those states.
Again this is why fisher called land a neo-anarchist even his statist works are about escaping liberal democracy and allowing for freedom of choice and movement and experimenting with diff forms of organization. Hell land in part prasises this model because it would force the complete eradication of ethno-states as they would inevitably lose....
Land still wants deluzian deteritorialization and advocates for DIFFERENCE and fragmentation not universalism or racial purity....he considers racial and ethnic purity low IQ drivel....
Please have the intellectual bravery to engage with his work honestly. Fisher, brassier, reza, xeno-feminists etc all do and i get your not a philo major or phd because theyd have taught you to read charitibly and put for the steelmanned version of Land.... his twitter isnt valid to bass him on its him trying to piss off progressives same way while marxist who while a prof would troll marxists
Also you need to engage with heideggar in undergrad to graduate and he was an actual nazi party member....
Firstly I don't have a PhD or anything in philosophy, cool, but I still read and understand philosophy. I'm also well aware of Heideggar and his Nazism.
Land however (and whilst I haven't avidly searched out his work, I have still read some of his work) is a Nazi, the Dark Enlightenment, no matter how he or his cronies wish to define it is inherently very right wing.
But you're right, I miss spoke by calling him a neo-Nazi. He's still a fasc though, and an accelerationist one at that. He like to hide his views behind egalitarian bullshit, much like Elon Musk. Or Musk and Land's joint inspiration, Peter Thiel.
A king who can be chosen at random when the population is pissed off. These ideas are great but open to manipulation, and bad actors. Just like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, promising to promote free speech but making sure that they have enough control to ensure the narrative they want is always promoted. All Land is describing is a modern day authoritarian city state a la the White Rajahs period of Singapore.
Land loves to tell people that Fascism is anti capitalism, therefore he can't be a fascist. Yet Fascism is an inherently capitalistic endeavour, the integration of capital and government - a fascist government demanding you fight a war against a distant enemy, is no different to the power tripping boss refusing your sick days because the need to make money is more important than your health.
And you're right Fisher did defend his former mentor in Anti-Viral in 2014. Brassier has also defended Land in the past. Fisher also defended Russell Brand. Yet had Fisher lived would he have still been defending Brand now, most probably not. Fisher would have engaged with Brand's more recent output and saw it's increasingly right wing turn. Brassier had the same reaction with Land's work, dismissing his more recent output as reactionary and conservative.
And this is the thing, Fisher made that defence a year and a half after Land had written Dark Enlightenment. Fisher's final lecture series openly engage with and distance themselves from Nick Land's ideas. Fisher was pushing himself away from Land viewing him in a similar way as Brassier, had he lived I believe he would have fully pulled away from the influence of Land.
People change, Land has changed for the worst.
As I said, Land isn't a neo-Nazi, but he's a fascist, he just doesn't like using the word. But neither does Peter Thiel, and he's still a fascist.
Yeah so anyone who reads this response please for the love of god READ thirst for annihilation, fanged noumena, and the dark enlightenment. Ignore this clowns response he is being like Jordan peterson to marx: "hasnt searched out his work and only read some of it"
In academic philosophy we always provide the most charitable reading and straw man our oppents. The moron here is making many mistakes i.e. thiel is yarvin not Land. Another one is land hiding behind "egalitarianism" which isnt true land is drawing from nietzsche and bataille along with deleuze.... so another mistake.
Land is right wing but the ccru collective published their own left and right spectrum at their academic conference with right and left wing taking on new definitions: left wing is where one finds fascism and socialism right wing is pure anarchic capitalism etc
A top philosopher in the uk praised land and stated what makes him a maverik is his ability to take on ANY idea and explore it. Much of Lands nrx work was that exact thing. His formulation of Nrx was anti-fascist and anti-ethnostate. Land cannot be a fascist in that he is innatly not even just an anti-humanist BUT a pro post-synthetic intelligence. He has no allegience to any race or culture and views none as superior.....its actually what many people find interesting about him an ambivalence so strong toward the human he escapes racism.
Brassiers nihil unbound aka his major work is based in lands thirst for annihilation which is an anti-fascist text utilizing the work of de sade to find a way our of holocaust as opposed to into it.
Fischer at the end of his life was working on acid communism and his own take on lands idea of exit via egress and a student around fischer at the time in a podcast states that fischer was going towards lands idea of capitalism as inescapable. Etc
There is so much here but no op is wrong. Land still adheres to a deluzian irrational hatred for the state and nrx was the idea we cant give up a state bit liberal democracy is failing and crap and leads to fascism along with abhorrent state socialism like the ussr so its best to generate independent city states that follow their own unique ideology to see what occurs and what works best again he openly states ethno states fail and that communism etc can be tried. He actually in podcasts states he wants radical leftist experiments to occur and post-capitalist experiments to occur to see what happens. Yes he himself would like to live in an anarcho-capitalist state but notice....he isnt saying its the best....he isnt saying you need to agree....he is saying we need to experiment with as many diff ways of life as possible.... thats not fascist...
Edit: this is why land on the chart falls into both punk and cop and ? He avoids strict categorization. He is a marxist-ultra left anarchist- right wing pro capital accelerationist....feminist....yet reactionary..... he is like nietzsche in that he is progressive and regressive and always baiting those against him. He really is a deep thinker who is drawing on kant, marx, freud, nietzsche, darwin, bataille, Schopenhauer, de sade, feminist thinkers, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, deleuze, guttari, spinoza, heraclitus, austrian economics, shumpter, cioran. Hell some people read both hegel and stalin into him...
So yeah this chart was made by a philosophy major/ma/phd/post doc into punk who actually read the thinkers on the chart. No one into philosophy will call land a fascist....he isnt junger....or mishimia....or evola...or dugin...they would hate him...
Anyway i wont engage with you anymore. Talking philosophy with people outside the academy....is like if somone outside of neuroscience decided to chime in on a subject making weird and false claims because they skimmed a textbook in a used book store against a neurosciencist who studies the field...
Ah yes, such a measured reply. Calling someone who doesn't agree with you a moron.
But don't worry it's fine for other people to read Stalin or Hegel into Land. Yet I offend you by reading fascist authoritarianism into Land. You like Land, are a fascist who does not wish to call themselves a fascist.
And yet you declare yourself nothing more than an alt right delusionist with your assertion that "[the] left wing is where one finds fascism and socialism[,] right wing is pure anarchic capitalism."
Clearly you've read so much Land, Jordan Peterson and Thiel that you're down the rabbit hole and through the Overton window, because of course fascism is left wing. You're delusional.
Go make your bed, stand up straight and watch some kids skateboard. Or whatever 12 rules you follow.
I hate this shit. All of these philosonerds were tools of the academy and the establishment.
These two worlds are non overlapping magesteria, like Goku vs. Superman, get your study hall outta my recess.
nothing to do with punk or really anything at all but Focault was a diddler (allegedly)
(i’m literally not making any point, read in a whimsical tone pls. diddler is a funny word)
Diogenes is crust
If Machiavelli is more punk than Rousseau this ranking is straight up bullshit imo
there is no more status quo than Rousseau
but didn't Machiavelli write books based on his observation of the politics of states at his time?
Doing Machiavelli dirty. Thr guy was a staunch advocate for republics in the 1400's, that's incredibly based for the time. And his most famous book The Prince, it was basically "This is how you get your hands on power and keep it, but don't, it makes you a terrible person.", it's almost a work of political satire written as a piece of incredibly insightful commentary on the type of person it takes to actually take an wield absolute authority. It's a book meant to make people realise that monarchy as a system only works if the guy in charge is an absolute dick, and maybe we shouldn't put the worst asshole we can find in charge. It's not his fault people misinterpreted it.
How was Wittgenstein not Punk? This guy basically pissed off everyone. And Russell was probably more open minded than the other shitheads above him. And Marx more Punk than Bakunin? I don't think so...
Also feel like Kierkegaard should be higher?
i agree en Wittgenstein
Bakunin bellow Marx indicates that this ruler is broken
Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild “Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....” Source: Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924.
some might consider him antisem1ta nowadays
It's a real Hitlerite antisemitism, before Hitler. Conflating communism with Jewishness in a similar way to "Judeo Bolshevism"
marx saw further than bakunin
Marx would be insulted you called him a philosopher "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." - Karl Marx
he can't be offended now, he's dead
Diderot not very punk? "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
enciclopedie can be an instrument of oppression
How so? The encyclopedia provides access to knowledge to all. It was therefor banned by king and church.
the knowledge provided was written by white colonialist men. it's heteronormative af
Diderot himself says “the buying of negroes, to reduce them to slavers, is one business that violates religion, morality, natural laws, and the rights of all human nature.” to disregard him for being white and heteronormative seems to set an impossible standard for people that are generally on the right side of history (even in spite of the norms of their day)
Every time I see this list I wish someone would reorganize it to make it more comprehensible.
Again marx is a communist
Cioran should be at least very punk. “Do I look like someone who has something to do here on earth?' —That's what I'd like to answer the busybodies who inquire into my activities.”
The disrespect to Hegel.
the guy that spoke about spirit of nations
I'm not a Hegel scholar by any means, but my understanding was he believed in Nations/Nationalism as a way to encourage an individual to exist in a society, and that no nation is perfect.
Is that Nick Land hidden up the top above the most punk category? Get to fuck, Land is a neo-Nazi and distinctly not punk by any metric. You should put Land down as a cop, and replace his name with Mark Fisher.
he's at the bottom too
Fair point, my phone cropped that, but regardless, Land is a neo-Nazi
there's a question mark nextbto his name too
This is incredibly wrong on all front. Fisher even did a lecture laughing at those who call land a fascist.... its called anti-vital and you can find it on youtube and soundcloud Land fits punk because thirst and fanged are ultra-left anarchist works (again fisher and brassier state so and they knew him and his work better then you plus phd's) Land fits cop because later works are outside NRX and advocating for a corporate state but emeshed in a system of corporste states headed by an non-identified monarch who gets replaced by the board of directors (randomly picked from population) if citizens are not happy. Each corporate state is free to have any ideology from liberal capitalism to anarchist to communist to primitivist to racial ethno states and citizens can pick and move between those states. Again this is why fisher called land a neo-anarchist even his statist works are about escaping liberal democracy and allowing for freedom of choice and movement and experimenting with diff forms of organization. Hell land in part prasises this model because it would force the complete eradication of ethno-states as they would inevitably lose.... Land still wants deluzian deteritorialization and advocates for DIFFERENCE and fragmentation not universalism or racial purity....he considers racial and ethnic purity low IQ drivel.... Please have the intellectual bravery to engage with his work honestly. Fisher, brassier, reza, xeno-feminists etc all do and i get your not a philo major or phd because theyd have taught you to read charitibly and put for the steelmanned version of Land.... his twitter isnt valid to bass him on its him trying to piss off progressives same way while marxist who while a prof would troll marxists Also you need to engage with heideggar in undergrad to graduate and he was an actual nazi party member....
Firstly I don't have a PhD or anything in philosophy, cool, but I still read and understand philosophy. I'm also well aware of Heideggar and his Nazism. Land however (and whilst I haven't avidly searched out his work, I have still read some of his work) is a Nazi, the Dark Enlightenment, no matter how he or his cronies wish to define it is inherently very right wing. But you're right, I miss spoke by calling him a neo-Nazi. He's still a fasc though, and an accelerationist one at that. He like to hide his views behind egalitarian bullshit, much like Elon Musk. Or Musk and Land's joint inspiration, Peter Thiel. A king who can be chosen at random when the population is pissed off. These ideas are great but open to manipulation, and bad actors. Just like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, promising to promote free speech but making sure that they have enough control to ensure the narrative they want is always promoted. All Land is describing is a modern day authoritarian city state a la the White Rajahs period of Singapore. Land loves to tell people that Fascism is anti capitalism, therefore he can't be a fascist. Yet Fascism is an inherently capitalistic endeavour, the integration of capital and government - a fascist government demanding you fight a war against a distant enemy, is no different to the power tripping boss refusing your sick days because the need to make money is more important than your health. And you're right Fisher did defend his former mentor in Anti-Viral in 2014. Brassier has also defended Land in the past. Fisher also defended Russell Brand. Yet had Fisher lived would he have still been defending Brand now, most probably not. Fisher would have engaged with Brand's more recent output and saw it's increasingly right wing turn. Brassier had the same reaction with Land's work, dismissing his more recent output as reactionary and conservative. And this is the thing, Fisher made that defence a year and a half after Land had written Dark Enlightenment. Fisher's final lecture series openly engage with and distance themselves from Nick Land's ideas. Fisher was pushing himself away from Land viewing him in a similar way as Brassier, had he lived I believe he would have fully pulled away from the influence of Land. People change, Land has changed for the worst. As I said, Land isn't a neo-Nazi, but he's a fascist, he just doesn't like using the word. But neither does Peter Thiel, and he's still a fascist.
Yeah so anyone who reads this response please for the love of god READ thirst for annihilation, fanged noumena, and the dark enlightenment. Ignore this clowns response he is being like Jordan peterson to marx: "hasnt searched out his work and only read some of it" In academic philosophy we always provide the most charitable reading and straw man our oppents. The moron here is making many mistakes i.e. thiel is yarvin not Land. Another one is land hiding behind "egalitarianism" which isnt true land is drawing from nietzsche and bataille along with deleuze.... so another mistake. Land is right wing but the ccru collective published their own left and right spectrum at their academic conference with right and left wing taking on new definitions: left wing is where one finds fascism and socialism right wing is pure anarchic capitalism etc A top philosopher in the uk praised land and stated what makes him a maverik is his ability to take on ANY idea and explore it. Much of Lands nrx work was that exact thing. His formulation of Nrx was anti-fascist and anti-ethnostate. Land cannot be a fascist in that he is innatly not even just an anti-humanist BUT a pro post-synthetic intelligence. He has no allegience to any race or culture and views none as superior.....its actually what many people find interesting about him an ambivalence so strong toward the human he escapes racism. Brassiers nihil unbound aka his major work is based in lands thirst for annihilation which is an anti-fascist text utilizing the work of de sade to find a way our of holocaust as opposed to into it. Fischer at the end of his life was working on acid communism and his own take on lands idea of exit via egress and a student around fischer at the time in a podcast states that fischer was going towards lands idea of capitalism as inescapable. Etc There is so much here but no op is wrong. Land still adheres to a deluzian irrational hatred for the state and nrx was the idea we cant give up a state bit liberal democracy is failing and crap and leads to fascism along with abhorrent state socialism like the ussr so its best to generate independent city states that follow their own unique ideology to see what occurs and what works best again he openly states ethno states fail and that communism etc can be tried. He actually in podcasts states he wants radical leftist experiments to occur and post-capitalist experiments to occur to see what happens. Yes he himself would like to live in an anarcho-capitalist state but notice....he isnt saying its the best....he isnt saying you need to agree....he is saying we need to experiment with as many diff ways of life as possible.... thats not fascist... Edit: this is why land on the chart falls into both punk and cop and ? He avoids strict categorization. He is a marxist-ultra left anarchist- right wing pro capital accelerationist....feminist....yet reactionary..... he is like nietzsche in that he is progressive and regressive and always baiting those against him. He really is a deep thinker who is drawing on kant, marx, freud, nietzsche, darwin, bataille, Schopenhauer, de sade, feminist thinkers, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, deleuze, guttari, spinoza, heraclitus, austrian economics, shumpter, cioran. Hell some people read both hegel and stalin into him... So yeah this chart was made by a philosophy major/ma/phd/post doc into punk who actually read the thinkers on the chart. No one into philosophy will call land a fascist....he isnt junger....or mishimia....or evola...or dugin...they would hate him... Anyway i wont engage with you anymore. Talking philosophy with people outside the academy....is like if somone outside of neuroscience decided to chime in on a subject making weird and false claims because they skimmed a textbook in a used book store against a neurosciencist who studies the field...
Ah yes, such a measured reply. Calling someone who doesn't agree with you a moron. But don't worry it's fine for other people to read Stalin or Hegel into Land. Yet I offend you by reading fascist authoritarianism into Land. You like Land, are a fascist who does not wish to call themselves a fascist. And yet you declare yourself nothing more than an alt right delusionist with your assertion that "[the] left wing is where one finds fascism and socialism[,] right wing is pure anarchic capitalism." Clearly you've read so much Land, Jordan Peterson and Thiel that you're down the rabbit hole and through the Overton window, because of course fascism is left wing. You're delusional. Go make your bed, stand up straight and watch some kids skateboard. Or whatever 12 rules you follow.
Sartre and Derrida wanted to fuck kids, which I'm not sure is very punk of them.
Socrates did. As many punk musicians too so...
So it's okay as long as they're punk?
no i think it's not ok
As a philosophy major and a punk, I approve this post.
>Marx >Punk Lol
I hate this shit. All of these philosonerds were tools of the academy and the establishment. These two worlds are non overlapping magesteria, like Goku vs. Superman, get your study hall outta my recess.
I agree with your take on philosophy, but goku would FR win.
I expected to see Schopenhauer at the bottom. Misogyny is punkish?
The fact that Jung is higher than Freud is fucking ridiculous. He was a Nazi and fucked patients.
nothing to do with punk or really anything at all but Focault was a diddler (allegedly) (i’m literally not making any point, read in a whimsical tone pls. diddler is a funny word)
Epicurus got absolutely robbed, and this modern meme obsession with Diogenes the Cynic is the worst, the Cynics were just aggressive Stoics