/lit/ - Literature

Jacques Ellul had a more coherent philosophy than Ted Kaczynski. Don't get me wrong, Ted had some good writing but his writings palled in comparison to Ellul.

>>21718857
Read Ellul.

>Ellul
Having read The Technological Society I will say that it offers some interesting anatomization of complex, technological society and opened my eyes to some things but I feel like he falls hard at the task of analyzing the evolution which lead to such a state. This seems like a glaring oversight for a Marxist but it is the case. The fact is that inevitable historical pressures, Darwinian from without and Malthusian from within, drive cycles of intensification and increased complexity which, if successful, lead to massive, complex technological societies. Ellul seems to reify 'technique' as a bogeyman which drives itself and the rest of us with it, when in fact this is just a recapitulation of the same tune sung by every civilization since the dawn of time, just this time it has reached stranger heights.

>>21659514
>God’s judgements are not machines which roll implacably on according to set principles. They are not the blade of a guillotine blindly separating the inseparable with the brutal neutrality of cold steel. God’s judgements are living things which are adaptable, which can be formed and deformed. They are pronounced, but a means of escape is left open: “I do not desire the death of the sinner, I want him to repent and live....” If judgement has been pronounced on the city, it is because it is a power of death for man. Even in this condemnation God is trying to bring about man’s salvation. And if man is condemned with the city, it is because he has become a part of her. But God leaves a way of escape. What he wants is for man to separate himself from the city. Change the judgement? No, never, because it was decided in advance, in terms of the existing situation. But God includes in the fact of his judgement even the decision man is yet to make — a decision made within God’s secret judgement, of which we never see more than the one aspect he announces by the prophets and makes manifest in his acts. Man can, then, choose to include himself in the condemnation of the city, or he can avert the destruction of the city by removing it from the great whole which the cities make up and making it into a community of men on the order of other human groups, acceptably gathered together before God.

>>21644069
Marcuse's metaphysics lead to Nazism
>The triumph of Marcuse merely points to the sterility of the sexual liberation. What he means by “Eros” is never clear to begin with: sexual activity (in the Freudian genital sense), or an aesthetic-sexual mixture of art, sex play, and creative effort, or the whole domain of instinct (which returns us to the age-old problem of reason versus instinct), or else “everything oppressed by civilization.” How does one conclude that revolution will occur through Eros and also will liberate it? Of course, the vibrant call for sexual liberty and uninhibited emotions would appeal to young people. But is it not plain that this licensed pan-sexuality, made out to be the highway to revolution, is among the most effective propaganda weapons (the kind that hits below the belt, as Hitler himself put it) and also the most demagogic form of deceit? To redeem spontaneity by that means is senseless regression in terms of revolution—“Post coitum animal triste”: that is all we can expect of it, unless an iron fist clamps down on the rampant irrationality, the results of which we have already seen. We ought not to forget the vast irrational movement of our time which produced public festivals and mindless emotionalism on an incredible scale: National Socialism. The practice of “classifying,” and thus dismissing, Nazism should stop, for it represents a real Freudian repression on the part of intellectuals who refuse to recognize what it was. Others lump together Nazism, dictatorship, massacres, concentration camps, racism, and Hitler’s folly. That about covers the subject. Nazism was a great revolution: against the bureaucracy, against senility, in behalf of youth; against the entrenched hierarchies, against capitalism, against the petit-bourgeois mentality, against comfort and security, against the consumer society, against traditional morality; for the liberation of instinct, desire, passions, hatred of cops (yes, indeed!), the will to power, and the creation of a higher order of freedom. When I read the following: “The mob disclaims all responsibility, either for those who join it, or for what will happen tomorrow. Their actions and words are free of traditional restraints. They believe what they are doing and saying is simply the truth at the moment. ... I do not represent anyone; I think what I say voices the feelings of the students as a whole. ... He is a reflection of them just as they are the reflection of science." It takes me back thirty-five years to when I first read Alphonse de Chateaubriant's Te Deums to Hitler.

>Look like a greedy banker
>Hate greedy bankers

This man's writings on Christianity are equally as confusing as they are elucidating. I have no idea how I'm supposed to apply my faith in Christ if we are free, if judgment is not Christian, if there are no rules, etc.

>>21324567
>Thus the first step is taken through the gate of revolution, which forms the premise of liberation. Liberation theologies form the next step, based, of course, on a theological argument: if God is the Liberator, the gospel is a gospel of liberation. But God intervenes in history only through human hands. Thus humankind must liberate itself. At this point, no need bothering with anything further: we can safely sail on the high sea of human political actions. Liberation is a human affair. That is, it has to do with all oppressed people, believers or unbelievers. If they are oppressed, that suffices. Politics is the means of liberation. We abandoned nonpolitical slavery along the way This is a strange development, yet fundamentally understandable: humanity is alone on the earth, so that its future depends on its own efforts. What if, by some chance, tragically, people were evil, weak, and corrupted? What if, by some terrible chance, they were basically sinners, as the Bible says? Such a thing is inconceivable! It would mean instant suicide. At this point, without remorse (psychoanalysis helps us here), we explain the purely illusory and mythological origin of this "notion" of sin. No, people are neither corrupted nor sinners. They are basically good. Only an erroneous understanding of the biblical text could make us believe otherwise. Humanity is merely alienated, stripped of its essential being by economic and political structures. Simply by eliminating this alienation, humanity will return to its essential nature (we gloss carefully over the fact that such alienation must have its source in other people, who must not be as good as all that; but we must quickly forget this).

>>21234208
>As Genesis shows us, the origin of sin the world is not knowledge, as is often said (as though God were interdicting our intellectual development, which would be absurd); it is knowledge of good and evil. In this context knowledge means decision. What is not acceptable to God is that we should decide on our own what is good and what is evil. Biblically, the good is in fact the will of God. That is all. What God decides, whatever it may be, is good. If then we decide what the good is, we substitute our will for God's. We construct morality when we say and do what is good, and it is then that we are sinners. To elaborate a moral system is to show oneself to be a sinner before God, not because the conduct is bad, but because, even if it is good, another good is substituted for the will of God.

>>21063283
Not what Ellul believes.
>There is no question of union with God. Jesus alone is in total union with God. Such union is brought about by the fact that God comes (down) to us, not by our spiritual intensity or psychological action or by any attempt to climb up to him. The idea of a possible union with God is ruled out by the revelation of cherubim guarding against any return to Paradise. As I have often said, there is no possible ascent to God, or access to him. But this is what mystics passionately seek. They want union with God. They have discipline. They follow a path to the inner void where the soul is filled by the holy spirit and access opens up to God. This is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. The antithesis is even more radical if one accepts the common etymology whereby “mystic” comes from muein, to be mute or speechless. How can this be when God’s work is wholly that of the Word? God himself speaks, and he calls upon us to bear witness by the Word. There could hardly be a greater contradiction. In fact all mystical experiences are ineffable, and Paul is totally against anything of this kind. If we follow Jesus, it is not a matter of looking up to heaven (“Why do you look up to heaven?” etc.) but of being on earth and concretely living out the will of God that was done in Jesus Christ.

>>20951021
Because he realized early on that technique would become the dominant milieu of the modern era. Here's an early article that summarizes his views on technique.
https://ellul.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Elluls-1962-Article1.pdf

>>20742196
>Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

>>20695932
>Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

>>20691520
>Likewise, Mumford demonstrates at length that the sole conceivable and real finality of "technics'' is the augmentation of power. There is absolutely no other possibility. This brings us back to the problem of the means. Technology is the most powerful means and the greatest ensemble of means. And hence, the only problem of technology is that of the indefinite growth of means, corresponding to man's spirit of power. Nietzsche, exalting this will to power, limited himself to preparing the man predisposed to the technological universe! A tragic contradiction.

>>18981865
Mass literacy was only ever introduced so that the masses could absorb propaganda more easily. Education has never been geared towards elevating intelligence.

Good afternoon posters.

best ellul translators? particularly for the technological society?

>>18754286
Ellul

Discuss neo-Luddism and the technological society.

Neo-luddist discord

https://discord.gg/nE37Bq

The irony is not lost on us

is there a discord for discussing his work?

>believed in universal salvation for all independent of action
>believed that the bible did away with morality entirely
>believed that Christ was an anarchist
>disliked commies yes, but also disliked fascists and nationalists
>despised catholicism
I've seen a lot of right-wingers and tradcaths talk about this guy, but it seems like none of them read any of his books. Ellul is basically a modern day Luther as far as I can tell, but even more radical. Why do nazis and tradfags talk about him? He was opposed to everything they stand for.

>solves marx