inmostnight asked: How did Land and Brassier ruin philosophy and academia for you?
I could have chosen a better word than ruined, but Brassier’s discipline and Land’s derangement were a corrupting combination to absorb at the time. The resultant position I developed, some kind of malnourished obscene accelerationist mysticism, was a confused attempt to reconcile the depressing conclusions drawn from their works.
Studying “nihilism” in a university setting felt impure. The entire academy seemed crippled by the terrifying prospect that there would be no such thing as philosophy within the next few years in Australia. Academic philosophy is economically unsound, offers no moral guidance, no solace for mortal fear, and no practical advantage in war, and therefor the courses seemed directed toward protecting students from realising their long term career ambitions may be in trouble as funding cut after funding cut depleted staffing and resources across many universities in the nation. The question of the value of philosophy was one that became important to clarify, but also seemingly impossible. I was to ask this immediately upon reading Nihil Unbound, and finding the conclusions deeply unsettling, I resolved to take a break from studies until I had a resolution.
I still don’t. I suppose I concluded that the glorification of purity may be more terrifying and isolating than contemplation of the void, but it’s also nourishing, leads to less sleep hysteria, and is occasionally joyous.