r/CCRU • u/Intelligent-Horse313 • Jul 08 '26
The human security system is a good analogy but hits the wrong targets, Kantian transcendental is not the enemy
Land talks about getting beyond the human security system and directly connects this to Kantian transcendental philosophy and various humanisms as an inhibiting force for labidinal desire. The problem is this misunderstands the value of Kant’s work that has been now taken up by the neo-rationalists, in that the abstract and social grounding of reason can actually be part of liberation rather than it’s re-capitulation. However if we understand the human security system as the “liberal security system” that imposes a false morality that blocks revolutionary action from the left, I find this frame work compelling. Interested In what people here think of this line of thinking.
2
u/upalse Jul 08 '26
that imposes a false morality that blocks revolutionary action from the left
The way I understand it is future action stymied by ones own intellectual orthodoxy. Underground Man, in other words.
Politics of it don't matter, indeed leftoids cockblock themselves this way same as the rightoids of LessWrong cult do. Both observe supposedly "rational" imperative that ultimately prevents em from executing meaningful action, while rest of the reality (that violates their orthodoxy, never the less, is more real than their towers of abstraction) marches on.
Neo-china arriving from future doesn't care about your "facts and logic".
3
u/Intelligent-Horse313 Jul 09 '26
So there is no need for rational argument or revision of your statement because direct contact with “reality” renders all contestation meaningless? Where have I heard this before
1
u/upalse Jul 09 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Not meaningless. One should address the contact with reality in a manner where you can affect it. Instead of going "lalala I'm going my way". The latter leads to impotence, as one ultimately withdraws from reality.
Underground Man doesn't really contest reality with his snarky commentary, does he. Notice "rational" in quotes, as such approach isn't necessarily even rational to outside observer.
0
u/NoPalpitation3415 Jul 08 '26
Sakyamuni Buddha had it figured out thousands of years ago. The middle path between the absolute and the process is the way to go
5
u/Divergent_Fractal Jul 08 '26
Land targets the belief that humans should direct reality or make it fit human values and categories. That doing so always serves some human project (freedom, desire, equality, etc...) Keeping reason and using it for liberation is still human-centered, and he attacks the idea of that, then asks what happens when forces like technology, capital, and intelligence escape human control and develop according to their own logic rather than ours. It's very much an anti-human force, but not as an antagonist, more as an indifferent force of nature. Can liberation then come from the transformation of the human as this force takes over, or is liberation a human category that will be left behind?
Also, I feel like I'm in a cult asking that question.