/lit/ - Literature

>>15999565
Ask yourself, how did I post this?
Hypocrite.

>>15999565
cringe

>>15999565
He was right...wing. Bet he's a virgin too.

IS right... he's not dead...

>>16000008
>>16000048
>>16000049
>>16000117
t. Oversocialized normies

>>16000049
did you even read it? there's a section on cuckservatives in it

>>15999565
>he was right.
in what way?

>>16000890
He predicted the leftist takeover and how techology would enslave us

>>16000895
leftist takeover of what? the anti-technology movement that doesn't exist?

>>16000895
>leftist takeover
retard. actually read the fucking book before letting that shit flow out of your mouth

Nietzsche for poorly read quants

>>16000930
where does Nietzsche talk about environmental destruction?
environmentalism wasn't a thing in the 19th century as far as I'm aware.
even marx didn't see it

>>16000949
The critique of technology that proliferated in the early 20th century was indebted to Nietzsche. Kaczynski autists are unaware of this and that's okay, but they shouldn't pretend his book is innovative. It's a concise restatement of many arguments from that era.

>>16000982
tell me where Nietzsche speaks of it?

>>16000895
>>16000909
>>16000923
Ted actually goes into leftist takeover of revolutionary movements and the destructive quality of that mechanism repeatedly. This is from the introduction to Technological Slavery, for example:

>The political left is technological society’s first line of defense against revolution. In fact, the left today serves as a kind of fire extinguisher that douses and quenches any nascent revolutionary movement. What do I mean by “the left ”? If you think that racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, indigenous people’s rights, and “social justice” in general are among the most important issues that the world currently faces, then you are a leftist as I use that term. If you don’t like this application of the world “leftist,” then you are free to designate the people I’m referring to by some other term. But, whatever you call them, the people who extinguish revolutionary movements are the people who are drawn indiscriminately to causes: racism, sexism, gay rights, animal rights, the environment, poverty, sweatshops, neocolonialism…it’s all the same to them. These people constitute a subculture that has been labeled “the adversary culture.” Whenever a movement of resistance begins to emerge, these leftists (or whatever you choose to call them) come swarming to it like flies to honey until they outnumber the original members of the movement, take it over, and turn it into just another leftist faction, thereby emasculating it.

Recently, this happened to Occupy Wall Street, and it is happening to Black Lives Matter (which already morphed into 'Black Trans Lives Matter') as we speak.

>>15999565
>>16000212
>>16000895
>>16000949
>>16000998
Ted was retroactively refuted by Futurism.
The solution to the problems within Liberalism that Ted identifies is Third Positionism not some retarded fantasy about a reversion to a pre-industrial state.

>>16000998
I would say that those kinds of people are liberals and not leftists. and it's fine uncle ted literally gave me permission to call them what I want to call them
their inability to affect the world makes them turn to causes harmless to the ruling structures of the world such as gay rights or trans rights

>>16000998
He should call them Neo-Christians since that's what they really are. They are the same garrulous, low IQ masses who attended church every week because they are too weak-willed to conceive of living outside the herd but now living in an atheistic environment.

>>16001026
what do you mean by futurism

>>16001032
t. varg.
they are not christians. and they are not the masses.
"leftists" as uncle ted calls them are usually college students and rich kids with enough free time to be able to care about the stuff he talks about.

yes the masses are people who
"who attended church every week because they are too weak-willed to conceive of living outside the herd but now living in an atheistic environment."

>>16001033
The use of technology for noble goals as opposed to Liberal consooming, advancing and harnessing its power for the national interest.
Plus the artistic aesthetic of raw speed, force, and violence is fucking based.

>>16000998
I know, that's why his manifesto opens with a section on leftish psychology, but when you say he predicted "the leftist takeover", what do you mean? Takeover of what?

>>16001052
>they are not christians. and they are not the masses.
They are the heirs to Christianity's lowly witch-hunting ilk and in modern American institutions they are outnumbering everyone else. There would be no talk of their takeover otherwise.

>>16001101
try reading that quote again?

>>16001129
what's the "prediction"? usually predictions are made before the predicted has happened

>>16000949
Wrong Marx wrote extensively how capitalism would influence nature (in a bad way) and our connection to it.

>>16001053
>we will simply use the tech for noble goals

How does this refute any of the points made by TK?

Can you be more specific or recommend something to read?

>>16001026
Modern civilization and the industrial society is likely to collapse in the next 5-30 years, and some reversal would be inevitable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WPB2u8EzL8&list=LLURvfW1l2ReJhNSXgo8c2tg&index=3&t=0s

>>16001180
It's likelier that some of the billions living in worthless poverty-stricken countries will be eradicated before "industrial society" is touched.

>>16001156
>r noble goals
no such thing. technology will destroy the earth

>>16001204
No it won't.

>>16001195
>worthless
you are posting on a computer/phone made from rare metals mined in congo and assembled by 3rd worlders.
it's the 1st world that is a worthless leech that sucks the life out of 3rd world.

>>16001216
Are you being ironic?

>>16001142
It's not a prediction really, just an observation about a mechanism that repeats itself with many 'revolutionary'/social change movements. Leftists attach themselves and subvert the movement, making it focus on everything but the original cause. Because this happens time and time again, you could say that this observation has predictive value.

Slave morality towards technology

>>16001216
Thank you so much Congolese for being born in an area with metals the value of which wouldn't exist without the first world.

All his ideas were ripped from Marxist philosophers

>>16001269
das rite white boi

>>16001195
The cost of extracting oil is increasing, renewables are being adopted too slowly and are in general too costly to completely replace liquid fuels, this means that current levels of consumption cannot be sustained, but current levels of consumption are necessary to do work, like farming, which is growing costlier due to widespread crop failures and soil degradation. Considering that more than half of US workers are living paycheck to paycheck with very little savings, an increasing cost of goods and inflation would cause a collapse.

>>16001216
Yes.
Thank you slaves for being born near some metal and thank you other slaves for assembly.
Clearly the world would suffer without them

>>16000909
>>16000923
Good job proving his point

>>16000998
BLM have always been anti white Soros puppets and the second they started criticizing the Jews the money stopped pouring in

>>16001026
>retroactively refuted
If you are going to use twitter meme terminology, at least use it right.

>>16001108
You fell for the antichristian psyop built on shitty rhetoric. Congratulations, you’re a certified midwit. You can go back now.

>>16001514
Yeah lets add an increase in the cost of extraction, the cost of production, the cost of goods, the cost of farming equipment, the cost growing food, the cost of clothes you wear, and see how well the United States, which is already struggling, does. There's such a thing as a real economy, and a lot of intellectual work, rather than the acquisition of energy and food, is being done in western countries, work that must be done so people can afford to eat, and work made possible by cheap cost of energy and food. Collapse is inevitable and Africa becoming an industry leader in dead nigger storage is going to save you.

>>16001272
Ironic because he is anti-marxist

>>16001701
isn't*

>>16001691
>midwit calling others midwits
Always. It fucking always works like this.

>>16001052
>believe in a creator, following the Christian tradition
>political views are literally just Massachusetts Puritanism taken to its logical conclusion
>thinkers and ideologues are the intellectual descendants of the Christian tradition, going back to the Puritans
>every belief is just Christian doctrine taken to its end conclusion
You're just the theological equivalent of a Republican. You don't actually disagree with anything they have to say, you just want to go arbitrarily far back in the past such that YOU were the edgy radical fighting for freedom and liberty and all that is just. You are just of the connection.

>>16000998
According to this quote leftists are not revolutionaries. They are, for example, people who want race reform. But what were the revolutionaries in the first place if not race reformers? Did the leftists infiltrate themselves?

>>16001744
That’s okay, anon. I know you are upset.

>>16001799

>>16001775
Almost every revolution in history was controlled by a small group of elites, revolution is never spontaneous

>>16001824
Quoting kneecha is the go-to reddit-tier midwit move. I leave the thread knowing I was right.

>>16001775
Ted's point is that all of these problems (in this case, race relations) are caused by Technological Society. Sweatshops, crime, racism, sexism, whatever, these are all symptoms of the Technological Society. The Leftist, then, says
>I want to CONSOOM and PRODOOCE
>but that results in bad stuff!
>I know, let's put a bandage on it! That'll fix it!
Thus, by reforming race relations, or feminism, or whatever, they can get rid of the deleterious effects of the Technological Society while still being able to CONSOOM and PRODOOCE for it. To put it another way, they want cheap T-shirts, but they don't want the Indonesian slaves to get upset at being forced at gunpoint to make them. Leftists thus destroy actual revolutionary (and thus, anti-Tech) movements in order to keep their cheap plastic crap.

>>15999565
was going to reply with about what >>16001026
>>16001053
said, if he's saying what i think he is.
Reverting to the old times would be incredible difficult and come with extreme hardship, only for modern society to eventually rise again. The real and permanent solution is to develop technology to the point where it can solve the problems with modern society. Not saying that that would be easy, but much more realistic and better than destroying the world.

>>16001845
You leave the thread like an arrogant midwit pretending to have read anything substantial on the matter. Now fuck off.

>>16001853
u mad

>>16001858
Yes, Christian faggotry does make me mad.

>>16001837
Ain't that the truth!
>>16001849
It seems like there are a few gaps in this line of reasoning. Many of these issues are only symptoms of the technological society in as far as they enable an exploiter class to always capitalize on the more vulnerable. Your green text indicates middle of the road liberal consumers who have been forced to confront the cost of cheap resources thanks to the information age; rather than leftist socialist/communist thinkers who would challenge this profit driven system.

>>16001862
That's okay. You outgrow that once you're in your 20s.

>>16001913
What the fuck are you talking about? Fucking babbling retard. You don't even know what the arguments against Christianity are, do you?

>>16001923
stop being such a fucking midwit, anon. it's for your own good

He is righter.

>>16001935
You're an abysmally ignorant pleb, just like Teddy boy.

>>16000008
>using technology means you can't criticize it lol

>life dominated by technological system bad, life led by natural order of existence good

Yeah obviously. At least with technology I can download as many free books as I want.

>>16001951
>using porn means you can't criticize it
what did (you) mean by this?

>>15999565
No he is a woke liberal
Yes I have been exploiting my workers for 3 years. I am gonna move inna woods after making fuck tons of $. Fucking hell I am a green man

>>16001957
>look how much I can consooom tho

>>16001907
Communists and Socialists are doing the exact same thing as vegans and feminists, however. The technological society, period, is the cause of the problems. The Communist and Socialist goals of fixing wealth inequality (whatever exactly that entails) is just as much of a bandage as free range chicken, or affirmative action. You're still trying to PRODOOCE and CONSOOM, you just don't want the bad things that come from doing so. You can never NOT have technology and the deleterious effects from it. You can't have cake without the calories. Even if you managed to get rid of the exploiter class (ignore any problems that arise from this, just roll with it), you'd still have problems resulting from technology. Even if you got rid of profit (again, ignore and issues that would result from this), you'd still have the problems resulting from technology.

This is why Leftism wasn't infiltrated from the get go: Leftism IS the infiltration. Any attempt, ever, at trying to make the technological society a better place is inherently attempting to co-opt revolution, which, if allowed to go as it wishes, will inevitably reach the conclusions of technological society being the problem. The very idea of "Well, technology, sucks, but we can make things better..." IS defense of the technological society and IS about preventing anti-tech revolution.

Ted covers this (why Communists are actually co-opting revolution) in more detail as well. Usually, when someone just wall-texts Ted's stuff, they include that portion.

>>16002000
So what is the actual solution then?

>>16000998
the whole «leftist» use is unprofessional but he is right anyways

>>16002022
According to Ted? Nothing, there is none. The Technological Society will eventually implode as it is rooted in exponential increases in the energy extracted from finite sources (that is to say, peak oil will kick in). Mass death will follow. A few will survive. Those few that survive need to know NOT to try and restart the technological society.

This is why Ted sent out the bombs. The NYT published his manifesto, and millions saw it. That's the solution: educate people, so when the collapse finishes off (we're IN the middle of a collapse, right now, according to every metric, not just Ted's) things don't get worse.

I am not necessarily endorsing this, because Ted's ideals are rooted in several moral and ethical ideals that I personally do not hold, I'm just explaining his thought.

It's also worth noting that Ted is critical of conservatives and the right, and in many ways would lump them in with the Left (an ethnostate is a bandage just as much as veganism).

>>16002066
>babby's first Spenglerian civilization cycle

>>16002000
I am again having problems understanding these definitions. Is the only revolution tech rev. or anti tech rev.? I know at least that without technology, slavery would be the order of the day and that is not preferable. Is the problem really the vehicle and not who drives it? Historically, most of the actual problems are caused by the exploiter class and the chicanery they utilize to maintain their control. The near singular vacuum of profits towards themselves are also indicators of the fraudulent nature of this system. Ignoring these issues might be central to the thesis you describe. The waste produced under a consumer economy is an extinction level threat, but what mechanisms are at fault? The devices themselves? Or the priority placed on shareholder profits?

>>16002128
you have to be 18 to post here

>>16002066
>Those few that survive need to know NOT to try and restart the technological society.
By this, do you / Ted mean that they must know not to restart this particular type of society and how it utilized modern technology, or modern technology in general? If the latter, this is a futile point to make, in my opinion. Modern technology always becomes ingrained in culture. To go back to your cake example, it would be like saying, "now that some people overate and made others go hungry, and the entire system destabilized and fell apart, we must learn to never bake another cake again." But this is impossible to execute in reality, because later generations, who no longer have the problem of wanting to overeat, will eventually wish to have cake again.

>>16002148
Yes, the problem is the vehicle, not the driver. The only revolution that matters is against technology. All else is just a defense of the technological society, which is just window dressing. The exact same problems exist under Communism or Fascism or Feudalism or any other -ism you can think of. We humans evolved to live as pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, and anything more than that WILL produce problems as we are fundamentally not capable of living any other way (without causing problems).

Yes, if you take this to its logical conclusion, you do run into similar problems that Tolkien foresaw, as the human hand IS a machine and IS, at its core, technology, as is the human mind itself (or rather, the human mind is incapable of NOT making technology). Ted doesn't go this far, but the natural conclusion of this is some kind of religious experience, such as Christianity or Buddhism, wherein we just sort of have to accept that we're living in a bad state and that you have to get out via a transcendental religious practice. Whether it's Samsara or Sin, the point is that you can never make it "better" just "arbitrarily less shitty".

>>16002177
Both. Ted wants a return to nomadic hunter gatherers and low-intensity herb gardens. While we cannot restart a fossil-fuel based society after peak oil (at least, one at all close to what we have now), the idea of a RETVRN TO THE NEOLITHIC is just obviously unworkable, and people will take what we've learned and use it to restart society, but using wind and hydro based rotary power, and hydro electricity. Ted wants to prevent that.

>>15999565
Ted was right about everything, except he didn't realize it is impossible to stop or prevent the advancement of technology. These are the last days of free men before DNA editing, chip implants, and AI perfect human manipulation come into effect.

Live your days free, for those in the future who will not know freedom.

>>16002241
>These are the last days of free men before DNA editing, chip implants, and AI perfect human manipulation come into effect.
Why would these things mean the end of freedom for all?

>>16002211
If alternative energy methods have a lower yield output then wouldn't they manifestly check against over-use? As far as anything disastrous in the tech society, the only examples I can think of are externalities shed by profit seeking entities; (pollution, social issues, resource abuse, political tampering, monopoly building), so why not eliminate these issues by means of a techno-government where the information and technological power is distributed. (updated communism) If it's all doomed to fail, why not try?

>>16002261
Not him but, if it's left in the hands of the corrupt rich and their political puppets, the abuse would be staggering and eternal.

>>16002261
>Doesn't realize the consequences of DNA editing personality.
>Doesn't understand that being monitored 24/7 through chip implants is a form of extreme social pressure with invisible threat
>Doesn't comprehend that with AI having perfect understanding of humans and information provided from chips/"enhancements" that it has complete control over humans
Technology will be the shackles of the future, not a single day will they live as a human. Instead they will live as a shadow human, a pretend being, a mockery.

>>16002276
A criticism of alternative energy sources would be that humans are simply incapable of using them a self sustaining behavior. Eventually, we'll pave the world to put up solar panels and windmills (metaphorically speaking). I do agree with the general point you're making however, and I think this personally is a result of Ted's immense IQ-induced-autism. This isn't so much a flaw as much as it is a blindspot.

Again, I'm not endorsing his anarcho-primitivism, largely for the reasons I've already outlined, I'm just explaining where he's coming form.

>>16002315
In good-natured sport I can only rebut that we have already paved the earth; to make parking lots :/
Some primitivism would be welcome, for instance; can you imagine a social system where-by we raise children in an impoverished, primitive state (loosely) only to then educate them into their responsibilities according to their flourishing brain development? Like a holographic take on the evolution process itself.

>>16002289
>>16002291
Sounds like poorfag cope.

>>16002406
>Thinks elites will escape the embrace of technology when even today shows they are already being consumed by it.
>Thinks the first ones who can afford to accept the mind virus, wont be the first ones to do so
You don't understand, there is no "master" of technology. It's not something that is controlled, it is the thing that controls.

>>16002451
Elites are those who are outside the grasp of the state yet have the money to live freely. They exist, regardless of how few of them there are, and they will definitely embrace the technology.

>>16002451
>>16002291
>>16002241
Extremely based. The Redditor "I LOVE SCIENCE AND PROGRESS" will never understand you though. These people were never free to begin with, just bugmen retards who willingly push for the death of humans.

>>16002157
t.17 year old that watched manhunt: unabomber

>>16002481
You're not free if you're poor. This has been the case since the dawn of civilization.

>>16002461
>Thinks this has to do with some kind of power struggle between groups of people.
>Stuck in a "us vs government", "us vs elites", "us vs [insert x]" thought pattern.
You don't understand, and I think you aren't even smart enough to comprehend the scale and reach we are barreling towards.

>>16002482
for your information I listened to at least half of his manifesto as an audiobook. so I think I am pretty qualified to talk about him

>>16002500
>t. has no idea what free is

I also read at least 3 articles about ted and skimmed his wikipedia page. trust me I know what I'm talking about

>>16002513
>Stuck in a "us vs government", "us vs elites", "us vs [insert x]" thought pattern.
That's what you just perpetuated here >>16002451

And it's the case. It's not us vs. government, though. It's the free vs. the unfree, freedom being directly proportional to wealth.

>>16002533
>that's what you just perpetuated here
Reading comprehension. So you just confirmed what I said before. You aren't smart enough to comprehend the scale and reach we are barreling towards.

>>16002241
>He doesn't want to offer his free will to the eternal borg
NGMI

>>16002526
Poorfag cope.

>>16002569
>Reading comprehension.
You mean you didn't use the word "elites" in that post? By even using that word, you admit that there is a division... which there is. Freedom is relative; not everyone is free. The brainlet is the one who fails to grasp this.

>>16001204

Earth must be destroyed, it is the natural cycle in our path to ascension. Nothing in the universe has always remained frozen in time, things change, things die to let new things be born.

Based thread. I need to read some Heidegger and Ellul now..

Redditor bugmen like 16002588 are the worst thing to ever come to 4chan. Even /pol/ has more interesting and intellectual posts.

>>16002608
So BTFO that you don't even click the post number. That's just fucking sad, dude. I'm tired of you arrogant little shitstains clogging up the fucking board, though; Ted is barely fucking literature.

>>16002585
Unbased.

>>16002588
>Freedom is relative; not everyone is free.
Here is where I leave, last (you).

>>16002595
>Earth must be destroyed, it is the natural cycle in our path to ascension.

one of the worst things about this system is the way gay nerd simulacra like WH40K have become full-fledged ideologies for cringe children like this dude here. we're never getting off this rock to consoom other planets, and thank god for it

>BTFO
>redditor bugmen 16002622 cannot even fathom people disliking and not wanting to engage with him because he is a nonhuman unable to think
Truly this site is lost.

Take the robopill and accept that technology IS the solution. Humanity is flawed and our destiny was always to give birth to machines which supersede us. The only issue I see on earth right now is that humans still exist. AI couldn't come sooner.

>>16002705
rootless disaffected gay nerd

>>16002705
>our destiny was always to give birth to machines which supersede us.
The ultimate cuck ideology, spending your whole existence to give up and die to a "higher" form. Take the humanitypill and celebrate existence.

>>16002749
>>16002754
lol mad cause your gf wants my robodick

>>16002814
>t. gives his GF to a chad because he was "superseded"

>>16002500
>>16002406
>>16002588
>"money = freedom"
>"cope cope cope cope"
hitting levels of brainless consoomer not thought possible.

>>16002814
>my robodick
Fascinating how you seem to cast yourself on the side of the winners in your little scenario. You're a meatbag like the rest of us, anon, and you're gonna stay that way.

>>16002862
>consumption BAD
So go starve yourself in the woods, faggot. No one cares about you anyway.

>>16001180
who is this guy, the talk seems interesting

>>16000049
He criticizes both liberals and conservatives in his manifesto. Please read it before commenting.

>>16001850
Read Anti-tech revolution.

>>16002985
don't worry faggot, you'll get consoomed by your dark gods after death. in the meantime, keep consooming, show them why you deserve to be next on the platter kek

>>16003331
You will never be as independent as the rich which is precisely why all your boasting about "true independence" is poorfag cope.

>>16003349
kek, the "freedom" of the wealthy is artificial and only ever operative within the bounds of a system that recognizes their value. drop them in the woods and see how far that i'm a true hooman being larp takes them. faggot.

>>16002990
B Sidney Smith

Pretty cool guy.

>>16001967
Technology is not a moralistic issue, no-one is arguing that turning on a computer is somehow wrong

>>16003366
What's artificial about being able to travel and live wherever you want, to fuck any kind of girl you want, to eat whatever you want whenever, to have all the best luxuries of materialism at your fingertips, to have the best guidance from the best educators in the world, to read whatever you want whenever you want, to build almost anything you want? Are you smart enough to even imagine what one could do with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, not to mention billions?

>>16003366
>drop a fish in the woods and see how free it is

We are all just wriggling in whatever niche we have carved out for ourselves, and we are never free outside that context.

The one thing I don't understand about TK's arguments (and I am pretty sympathetic to them, his writing has given me brainworms that I cannot escape) is this: Why do we privilege or wish to preserve the present conception of what is human? Who is to say that I am not just the last of my kind for even giving shit about this, and that humans who don't give a shit about this and who don't stress about this aren't just better adapted, more evolved?

One can pretty accept all of TK's premises and conclusions, and with one minor tweak (actually it is OK for a new "beyond" human entity to emerge), you are in accelerationist territory. This never sat well with me. Someone tell me why I should privilege the present state of humanity? Why should I be okay with some sick, twisted post-humanity, given that I will have long since been dead?

Basically, I feel like when I care about TK's arguments I am like the last Neanderthal, gnashing my teeth before the rock comes crashing down upon my skull.

>>16003409
>literally thinks consooming things=freedom
This poster has to be American.

He was right but also wrong, humanity is meant to advance, who cares if it makes us miserable, I don't give a single shit about "muh pleasure" utishitarian considerations, I want to expand my knowledge and see humanities knowledge expanded.

>>16003409
Everything you just posted. Put your aspiring entrepreneur in a system that doesn't recognize the value of green paper, and see how far you get.

>>16003409
He already explained what was artificial about that. It relies on infrastructure to support it. The same infrastructure that depletes the surplus of others just to cater to the hedonistic desires of the children of snake-oil salesmen (you now, everything you listed except best teachers.)

The best educators are pain and loss, so what does that tell us about people who were only ever born to win? (Think Epstein)

>>16000008

>>16003448
because the system is immoral and you should fight it in whatever way you can, whether by fighting its internalized dynamics in you or taking the direct route.

the people best adapted to the system tend to be the most amoral

>>16003449
cope

>>16003454
In ancient times you would be a slave calling out the Greek poets and philosophers as not free men because their life depended on the work of the slaves. However, they were able to pursue their artistic interests at their leisure, while the slaves couldn't do such a thing and didn't have the majority of the day to themselves, so what good is saying this?

>>16003450
>teleologizing the stranglehold of a techno-aristocracy as somehow "right" or "necessary" for man to evolve

Advance into what? Think carefully now. Try to give a concrete answer. If you can't, you're a literal microbe.

>>16003448
see>>16002754

>>16003462
>It relies on infrastructure to support it.
See >>16003478

Your interpretation is just slave morality.

>>16003478
Yes, civilization is built on the bones of humans and animals, no shit retard, that's my fucking point.

here's the good: you're not a self-made monad in a technological society, and never will be.

>>16003478
>cope
cope

>>16003484
acknowledging your dependency on forces outside of your control is not slave morality, it's anything but.

>>16003491
Way to miss the point completely.

>>16003507
The master being "dependent" on the slaves (which isn't always true, especially not nowadays) doesn't mean they enjoy the same amount of freedom (the slaves don't enjoy almost any at all compared to the amount the master enjoys).

>>16003522
master and slave exist in a relationship of co-dependency. both require the other as the condition of their livelihood. the only free man is one whose extracted himself from nigger monkey power relations that mutts like you so slavishly worship.

read Nietzsche or at least keep him out of your mouth you retard. yes, he did affirm waste and sacrifice, but not so you can convert forests into funko pops and listen to podcasts while eating brunch.

>>16003546
Read what I wrote again. It doesn't matter that they exist in "a relationship of co-dependency." They don't enjoy the same amount of freedom despite that.

>nigger monkey power relations that mutts like you so slavishly worship.
>but not so you can convert forests into funko pops and listen to podcasts while eating brunch.
Nice baseless strawman you've got there.

>>16003484
Criticizing and questioning a system is the same as finding moral high-ground as a vital (but replaceable) component at the bottom of it? What about utility? The greek art and philosophical example calls into question talent itself; and how much of it has gone to waste at the alter of nepotistic power mongering. What of your immorality? Is that somehow more virtuous at a time when the whole of the humanity suffers for the sake of manifestly criminal families and groups? Our species future is at stake and you clutch your pearls for the un-meritocratically selected brats and psychopaths who are steering this ship into disaster?

>Itt: people don't understand a slave is still free for he can choose how his body and mind act
>Literally unable to process what technology is bringing in the future and how it related to freedom of choice
Why are /lit/ threads full of fucking brainlets all the time?

>>16003573
So what? The fact of the dependency is there. He who exploits benefits from that exploitation, you blew it wide open, Sherlock.

Let's see these masters go a month without food, let's see these monads they're made of.

>>16003467
>the system is immoral

>>16003482
>take the humanitypill and celebrate existence

I kind of get it, but these aren't really arguments or answers so much as value statements.

The system is immoral because it harms the present human?
Was the Neanderthal extinction "immoral"?
Is it immoral to raise livestock, full stop, no matter how decent the conditions?
Celebrating humanity presupposes that I privilege the present conception of what it is to be human -- but WHY should I?
And suppose one believes that celebrating humanity involves celebrating a process of becoming, what then?

The answer to this might just be to take it on faith, and that's fine, but I'm having a hard time convincing myself that the following is false:

Homo economicus is to Homo sapiens as Homo sapiens is to Homo neanderthalensis.

I feel like the proper response is mourning, and anything else is cope.

>>16003581
It's just Americans, they unironically think freedom means eating burgers, watching avengers, and drinking coca cola.

>>16003479
>Advance into what?
You can't advance "into" something, that's not what the word means retard.

>>16003573
>Nice baseless strawman you've got there.
kek, next time you do a roll call of all the benefits of wealth, try not to make it sound like what some teenager from California wants to be when he grows up

>>16003608

>>16003607
kek, this faggot is going to martyr the whole human species so he can becoom. why do you reify processes we're fundamentally in control of so obnoxiously? we can always unplug these machines, it's just the population bloat that prevents a mass unplugging from being feasible. these problems are always formal, conditional, not absolute. you sound like a pseudo-Hegelian.

>>15999565
He just copied other peoples' ideas... Also he tortured animals, was incapable of holding down a job (even in a business owned by his own brother, what a loser!), had no frens and was afraid of girls. Sounds like a typical 4channer, tbph, no wonder you guys worship him...

>>16003619
So, growth for its own sake? Bloat for its own sake? Just like a microbe, right? Like clockwork.

>>16003576
The suffering of a slave class is necessary for culture. This is an unavoidable conclusion that you all seem very scared to face. My problem with the polemics against technology have little to do with their validity (for we are obviously heading towards disaster) but with their latent moralism (implying that if we destroy all technology and rid society of any slave class, we won't also destroy all culture as well).

>>16003604
>So what?
So the rich are freer than the poor. That's what that means.

>>16003608
>freedom means eating burgers, watching avengers, and drinking coca cola.
No, it means >>16003409

>>16003624
>continues fighting the strawman
>no argument
Are you enjoying yourself?

>>16003673
>The suffering of a slave class is necessary for culture.

then maybe culture deserves to be destroyed. THAT seems like the conclusion you're very scared to face.

>>16003581
>These slaves can read! Let's kill them!
> Literally unable to care what problems this bring in the future.

> why is everyone a brainlet but me?
Because you are not teaching us anything.

>>16003607
>Still stuck in the cuck ideology
The Neanderthal extinction was immoral for the Neanderthal.
It is immoral for the livestock to be raised.
WHY should you? Because you are human.
"Becoming" is a cuck ideology that you have fallen for.

Will you fight, or die like a dog? You decide.

>>16003701
>being intentionally obtuse for the sake of being an antagonist baiting faggot.
2/10 made me reply.

>>16003697
Beauty should not be destroyed for the sake of ugliness.

>>16000049
He mogs you to oblivion. He was a typical jock Chad in his youth

>>16003640
I'm not talking about, nor do I intend to reify, machines or the singularity. I'm talking about giving a shit about the environment at all, or wanting to preserve anything about what we presently consider to be human. The terminus or end point of what we're becoming could be living in an ancap wasteland where everyone is still biologically, if not psychologically, identical to the present-day human. It could just be bugmen.

What I'm saying is, if the people who exploit resources without a second thought are always going to kick my ass, how am I any different than a Neanderthal?

What I'm saying is, if becoming eusocial bugpeople crawling on the termite Earth is actually where the weird feedback loop of evolution (or whatever you want to call it) is taking us, on what grounds do I complain?

Most people in the anti-tech sphere are materialists (TK is, all the indomitistas are, the wildists are, and so on). But materialists don't seem to be able to answer why the present man is better than the bug man. It requires something transcendental. And where does that come from? What are people's answers to that? Is it just faith? I'm OK with that, I just want to know how other people are thinking about it.

>>16003581
Mutts have corrupted the meaning of the word in their never ending quest of self masturbation and hedonism.

>>15999565
Nah, he was shortsighted. All of the problems he mentioned with current technology will probably be fixed with future technology.

>>16003673
I just don't know what you mean by "culture". Geographically, culture has been expressed so many different ways. Then the word suffering is used; but the toil and working of lower classes has never been so wide-spread and stratified (with no upward mobility) as it has been now. This coincides with a time where there more millionaires and billionaires than ever before.

>>16003740
Ugliness is beautiful.

>>16003709
>>16003640
By the way, I'm actually on your "team," (or put another way, I'm a would-be member of freedom club) but this is an opportunity for me to struggle through some doubts I have, and I'm going to take advantage of that.

>>16003738
Free to choose death at the hands of slavers when they might not even kill you but torture your children instead is not even the farthest definition of freedom. But by all means flex your brain justifying slavers and pillagers.

>>16003802
>I just don't know what you mean by "culture".
It finds its expression in the arts. Look there if you're not sure about the culture of a particular time period and geographical region.

>>16003815
Then you should challenge the opposition in good faith of your convictions, win-lose-or-draw. Carrying water for the devil out of subterfuge is still carrying water for the devil.

>>16003740
Beauty shouldn't be built on a foundation of ugliness, either.

>>16003756
>I don't intend to reify
>What I'm saying is, if becoming eusocial bugpeople crawling on the termite Earth is actually where the weird feedback loop of evolution (or whatever you want to call it) is taking us, on what grounds do I complain?

>>16003841
>

>>16003843
I didn't want to assume your meaning at this moment. But it sounds like you think the derivative (and few) works of aesthetic achievement are worth the wholesale squandering of human potential when the actual debate is whether or not the patron class should be at all responsible for the leeching they do. If you love art so much, why help the ones who cheapen it?

>>16003861
>Beauty shouldn't be built on a foundation of ugliness, either.
It has to be. It's like hot and cold, they are inseparable.

>>16003756
>And where does that come from? What are people's answers to that?

the answer is to refuse and dam the evolutionary momentum that is creating a pseudo-life out of the metals of the earth (machines), and recruiting legions of disaffected nerds to proselytize for it. it just astonishes me how a self-styled free generation is such a slave to market forces, which is basically what all this boils down to: a reification of market forces, which is how you get Land and his kitsch squad ontologizing these forces as booga wooga cthulhu bullshit

>>16003860
I'm not trying to do this in bad faith, but I can see how I might have.

>>16003861
I shit you not, I thought reify was descended from rex, and have always interpreted it as "elevate the status of" or "put something on a pedestal" as opposed to "make it real or concrete."
However, now that I know this, what's so bad about reifying something that is a real threat? Trying to ask in good faith, I understand that it's /lit/ and you'd probably rather call me a retard, that's fine, too.

>>16003899
what ugliness is the sun founded on? can you even comprehend haecceities outside the culture industry?

either way, this reality is debased if it can't generate love without terror and suffering.

>>16003740
How many painters and sculptors, writers and philosophers died upon the grindstone of others profits? If this beauty is bought with the excessive suffering of others, maybe you have only put lipstick on a pig?

>>16003925
I apologize if I insulted you then, but there's a difference between recognizing the threat and reifying it. reifying implies an element of inevitability, teleology. this is the simple truth: we don't HAVE to do a goddamn thing, none of this is necessary or preordained. is it necessary to keep this bloated system functioning? absolutely. is it ontologically necessary? Nah.

>>16003649
>growth for its own sake
Yes. Cope, utishitarian cumbrain schizo. You forgot to take your heroin shot for the "pleasure" btw.

>>16003947
Kek, mutt coper admits he's a virus. Nice.

>>16003945
Thank you, I can understand how spinning the words that way implies inevitability, which is kind of like posting with the intent to depress people rather than inspire opposition (which is not something I wish to do in the future).

This also further clarified the meaning of the word "reify" for me, so thanks anon.

>>16003931
The sun immediately destroys anything that gets close to it. It can damage your eyes just by looking at it. Eventually, it will also die, killing everything in its orbit along with it. It is hardly only a generative force.

>>16003932
You can keep grasping at straws for an argument, but the reality remains the same. All creation requires some kind of sacrifice, all beauty ugliness, all culture slavery.

never understood Ted's fans, Vargtards and those who larp that we're domesticated
even if all that is true, what are you going to do? Dwell on it for years and moan about it on this site?

>>16003581
I had no hope in society, but if I did I lost it reading this thread. Imagine equating active freedom of choice by your own being, with consoomer nonsense. Actual and visible intellectual decay in live action.

>>16003899
Nice pop-Taoism, bro.

>>16003967
kek, I didn't ask you what threat the sun poses to life, I asked you what is the equivalent of a slave caste for a star? there isn't one. if there is, it's extremely mitigated and will never serve you as a justification for this system.

>>16003931
Not him but; yes, this reality is debased. I also think you are having the wrong argument. The suffering is real, period. The downside of solar beauty is that is untouchable and utterly destructive, btw. It is the human perversion of love (and other things) that dooms us. Cult leaders and slavers can whip you until you love them. But the upside of suffering is love is that much more the sweeter, having tasted the wretchedness of cruelty; and this might even be mandatory to have a rounded and genuine human being.

>>16004011
so... suffering equips us to be more well-rounded participants in a fundamentally debased reality. I think you can understand why I'm not exactly seeing the light, here.

>>16004008
>what is the equivalent of a slave caste for a star?
Do you think the sun burns on nothing? Do you think it won't take everything it has given back eventually? Nothing exists which only gives.

>>16004035
that's exactly my point you clown, it burns itself, while the wealthy you're defending are burning everything around them for their podcast brunches

>>16003971
>Dwell on it and moan
That sounds like an excellent start...

>>16004041
Beautifully put.

>>16004041
>it burns itself
It still must burn. It still needs to sacrifice. The endless number of hydrogen atoms sacrificed to its will are redeemed in its power to heat the solar system. The slaves are the hydrogen atoms. What you seek is the death of everything because you're unhappy to be a hydrogen atom.

>>16004062

>>16002516
>half
>listened to
>audiobook
ngmi

>>15999565
He's right about some things and wrong about others.
He's right that technology has many negative effects on people, that one's so obvious I don't even want to go in depth on it.
He's also right that increasing technological capacity leads to increasing centralization.
I think he's wrong that increasing technology leads to fewer real jobs. That strikes me as just being an extension of the "muh AI" shit pseuds spew. The industrial revolution "automated" many simple jobs, but the result was that the complexity and depth of industrial chain increased so that more jobs were created. I think his dystopian future of concentrated power and wealth in a small few with most people jobless is unlikely if not impossible, though it's worth asking if it's a big enough problem that perhaps we should take radical steps to avoid it anyway.
His construction of the "power process" is pretty great. I actually quite like it.
I think his concerns about education are well founded but I don't think they derive fundamentally from the industrial system. The rigid (I think it's called "Prussian"?) education system we use now in the States is pretty fucking old, and the reform process has been slow and gradual. I don't know if it's getting better but I do think his quips about the future being indoctrinating children into "computer nerds" en masse are unfounded, even if they're somewhat true now.
ISaiF's criticism of consumerism is ABSOLUTELY BASED and the book is worth reading simply for those sections. I'd consider it extraordinarily meh (though I did kek heartily at his criticisms of left/right wingers in the US) except that his critique of consumerism is wonderful. Given the simplicity of the book it's a beginner-level blindpill, and I'd recommend it just for that.

In conclusion I'd give it a 7/10. It's nothing profound, but it's worth recommending just for the sections on consumerism. I also think it's difficult to read the text and then say "Yeah he shouldn't have bombed people". I don't agree with him so obviously I don't think you should bomb people, but he's right when he says that he needed to generate a large enough public interest to justify publishing his work in major media journals. So as a manifesto (which should theoretically justify your actions to the public at large) it's extraordinarily good, even if it's okay-at-best as a philosophical treatise.

>>16004031
You have to live with yourself don't you? Are you some born-again evangelical who has (magically) been transmogrified into a better being? There is no point to surviving antagonistic forces if not to learn from the experience, because even human enemies will serve you better than human friends. We are trapped in this evil sphere and MUST produce goodness for own sake.

>>16004056
Once again, that's precisely the point: stars short-circuit the necessity of sacrifice by sacrificing THEMSELVES.

No one would be unhappy to be a hydrogen atom if they were being sacrificed to a star. Is that what is happening today though? Are the wealthy stars, or are they the parasites of stars?

>>16004084
I don't disagree vOv.

>>16004076
You called this "beginner blindpill."

You got a recommended next read? Preferably not from the "blindpill chart."

>>16004076
As far as the education system being a product of industry, look up the General Education Board as founded by john d. rockefeller and his mind-set of "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers". This has been instrumental in forming educational standards across America.

>>16004090
Your outlook is false. You're trying to picture a reality where sacrifice isn't needed, but it's simply not the case. Did the formation of the sun not ultimately rely on the destruction of other formations? What do we know about its formation? What we do know is that it requires an immense number of atoms to burn through; it requires fuel, some kind of an expense. We know that the sun is a highly destructive force that will eventually sacrifice the solar system to itself when it dies. The exchange is inevitable.

>Are the wealthy stars, or are they the parasites of stars?
Stars will be stars. They won't be anything else. You can use language to convince yourself that you aren't what you are, but you are still what you are. In human societies, the masters sometimes have a change of hands, but the ancient masters and the ancient slaves were genetically distinct races, races that have mixed over the millennia. All of us have the blood of both in us, though not in equal degrees. Underlying your resistance against what I'm saying is that old master's will to dominate in you. In you is the same tendency that you fight against.

>>16004101
I'm not an academic so there's not much I can point you to. There's pic related, which I've started reading but am only partway through.
I think a lot of "blindpill" philosophy can really just be called anti-materialism and basic awareness, so if you find books opposing materialism that's often a good start, then just pay attention and think about how and why things are constructed the way they are in day-to-day life.

>>16004159
>Looking over the wiki page on the GEB
>All the quotes are "This group helped black people and did XYZ charitable action"
Always good reasons to be suspicious. Thanks anon, will take a look.

>>16001180
I always see this video posted in these kind of threads, thanks anon it is good

>>16004161
No, the point is to minimize sacrifice by internalizing it, instead of making it the prerogative of a handful of thermodynamic robber barons and their vampiric lackeys.

Yes, no system is without its excrement, but there are degrees of exploitation and quantity of that excrement, that degree today being absolutely unjustifiable.

I'm not "what I am", ancient civilizations have always tried to model themselves after the example of stars, where sacrifice is acknowledged but compensated for by the generative power produced by that sacrifice. Like the Egyptians.

What is the contrast between Kaczynski and Heidegger? Is the problem of technology in the enclosed standing-reserve attitude toward its Being? Or just one just rid of technology, for it makes space for "progressive" superstructures, thus declining the authenticity of Dasein?

>>16004212
>No, the point is to minimize sacrifice by internalizing it, instead of making it the prerogative of a handful of thermodynamic robber barons and their vampiric lackeys.
If you minimize sacrifice, you minimize life. A smaller sun can't sustain the same solar system. And how much does it need to be minimized before everyone on earth is content? Where do we stop? Why should life strive to minimize itself?

>Yes, no system is without its excrement, but there are degrees of exploitation and quantity of that excrement, that degree today being absolutely unjustifiable.
What degree IS justifiable? Who will determine this?

>>16004161
Do atoms experience suffering at all? Why trivialize the suffering of living breathing human beings to the atomic level?
>Underlying your resistance… is that old master's will
Surely not the resistance of a free being to the yoke of a master.
>Stars will be stars
Implying wealth is actually meritocratic.
Counter example: George W. Bush
>Your outlook is false
Be wary of your own projections

>>16004244
Since we've already established life entails sacrifice, why are your arguments based on it being an intrinsic good? Yes, minimize life, for god's sake, because now we see what life does when it rules a planet. Why assume the capability for global technological domination automatically implies nobility?

>>16004249
>Why trivialize the suffering of living breathing human beings to the atomic level?
Why trivialize the immense cultural value created from human suffering? If we do this, we should then ask that the sun stop creating heat for our solar system.

>Implying wealth is actually meritocratic.
I'm not implying that the system is perfect. However, the idea was to make it meritocratic, and for the most part it has been working that way. But the greater point I'm making is in regards to the polemics against technology and culture.

>Be wary of your own projections
I'm not projecting there.

>>16004222

>>16004306
>>16004292
>>16004244
You two have fallen victim to your own shit analogy. Neither of you seem to understand much of physics, yet you insist on using thermodynamics as a lens for your weird conversation about "sacrifice."

Worse still, you've degenerated into pansychism (kind of like Skrbina did, so I guess talking about TK does this to people).

Anyway you both suck and you killed the thread sage

>>16004350
>Neither of you seem to understand much of physics
What don't I understand in regards to this conversation? My argument doesn't even rest much on physics.

>you killed the thread
It deserved to die.

>>16004350
Kek, come back when your arguments for defending the Leviathan aren't trivialities like "life requires sacrifice for my podcast brunches". You aren't a star, faggot.

>>16000930
Ted is far better than Nietzsche.
At least he lived by his philosophy and didn't contradict himself constantly within his own book.

>>16004419
>Ted is far better than Nietzsche. At least he lived by his philosophy

>>16004392
>>16004380
>being baited by a retard who uses "poorfag cope" as an argument after you saw him use it
>>16004350
>bating and killing the thread, then blaming it on others
VERY COOL THREAD.

>>16004440
In what world is "rich people don't enjoy a greater degree of freedom than the poor" not poorfag cope? Not one that has anything to do with ours, I assure you.

>>16004423
well he did, didn't he?

>>16004222
Dont expect any of these retards to gicr you an answer

>>16004456
>haha look at me I can bait and shitpost!
(you)

>>16004222
At root I don't think there is one. At root they both identify the problem as a slant of mind, technicity as opposed to technology.

>>16004423
Nietzsche proclaimed a will to power, how one of the worst things Christianity introduced was solitude.
So he spent his years in solitude doing absolutely nothing to impose his will on the world.

Ted on the other hand railed against the industrial society and tried to escape it.
Only when it forced itself into his life did he retaliate.

>>16004524
Nigger, what? Nietzsche didn't spend his years in solitude and his books are highly read up to the present day.

>>15999565
>another daily Marx/Unabomber thread
Stop

>>16004548
He spent the vast majority of his life secluded from the outside world.
>books are read highly
And? He failed utterly in life.
By his own works there is nothing after death, so his will is gone with him.

>>16004558
>thinking this is a unabomber thread
This is a shitpost containment thread for 1 nigger to bait others into meme arguments about nothing. look its starting again >>16004524 >>16004562

>>16004562
I repeat: nigger, what? Have you even read his Wikipedia page? I don't think you've even done that much.

>>16004588
I have, he was a pathetic philo-semite who wrote 'philosophy' to cope with the horrendous cards that fate dealt him.
But of course he didn't write philosophy as that's only an interpretation of the 'truth'.
Except that he has the truth.

>>16004617
Sounds like he called you out and you're bitter over it.

>>16004630
He had serious father issues, and had a real hang up over Plato.
Plus his whole women issue.
Imagine proposing to a woman, twice, to be rejected.
Once through someone who had already proposed to and been turned down by that said woman.

>>16004649
So what did he call you out on?

>>16002631
The universe must be known. Humanity's death is the death of all thought. We must escape to other planets and if it is to consume them, so be it. Your dressed up anti-natalism is still ridiculous.

>>16003463
the people tedposting don’t offer any solutions though, just constantly bitch and complain while enjoying the comforts of the same technologies they rail against

>>16004840
for me it's the post-scarcity technoreclusion

>>16005445
Some options sound ok. But only those that constitute the expanse of sapient intelligence throughout the universe can be moral, whether that is by consequentialism, deontological or virtues.

>>16005889
>Phaedo
>blooming loving life affirming
Nigger what? Half the book is about how you should prepare for death and that the body exists to cuck your judgements at every turn.

>>16006007
>By logical necessity, the soul is immortal.
Nothing positive or uplifting about it.

>>16006394
Yea I don't think it's very "blooming loving life affirming" being a monk and disregarding life because "lol I'm going to see the gods after I die, later fags". In fact its the exact opposite of life affirming.
Also
>He actually took Plato's theory of recollection and forms seriously.
Imagine falling for "2+2=4, thus recollections, thus souls, thus innate knowledge, thus forms, thus immortality". Possibility the worst argument Plato ever made.

>>16002066
>The Technological Society will eventually implode as it is rooted in exponential increases in the energy extracted from finite sources (that is to say, peak oil will kick in). Mass death will follow. A few will survive. Those few that survive need to know NOT to try and restart the technological society.
I'm playing Death Stranding right now and this is pretty much the plot.

>>16006478
It's amazing how zoomers fail continually the grasp the subtlety of the argument.

I'll break it down: a soul can only perceive the rational structure of the universe if it is, in some way, consonant or continuous with that structure. Where's the problem?

>>16006621
I already said that with:
>thus innate knowledge, thus forms, thus immortality
The entirety of Plato's arguments stem from "2+2=4 thus recollection, thus etc.", without recollection everything falls on its ass. Except recollection is the worst and most dogshit argument Plato ever put forth.

>be 200IQ math genius
>remain an anglo so you still don't understand the difference between liberalism and leftism

>>16003467
>because the system is immoral
So Uncle Ted is a preacher after all.

>>16003292
You should actually present your counterargument instead of saying it's hidden somewhere within a book.

>>16006663
As the person absorbs and exercises this knowledge, they come to find their identity with the rational structure that is the basis for it: they recollect their immortality in and through their perception of an immortal structure. Again, where is the problem?

>>16005889
What did you do to the chart you mong
Awful edit

>>16006689
>bro recollection, whats the problem?
Actual brainlet.

>>16006724
It's based on a very simple Platonic principle: like can only perceive like. I can only perceive these immortal, rational laws if my soul, itself, is immortal and rational. Have you read Plato or are you just going to keep memeing like a nigger?

>>16006689
>>16006724
I should clarify before you write a useless reply, yes I understand what your saying. No, it's not an argument to recite what Plato's recollection is.

>>16006734
>>16006732
Fuark i was too late

>>16006734
Based on the principles of the philosophy itself, it is indeed an argument. How can the irrational perceive the rational? Tick tock meme nigger

>>16006747
Prove recollection exists.

>>16006753
2 + 2 = 4 kek

>>16006732
>I can only perceive these immortal, rational laws if my soul, itself, is immortal and rational.
Why?

>>16006769
Another Plato nigger btfo. Ez clap.

>>16006774
Because, according to Platonism, the like cannot know the unlike. That faculty in me capable of perceiving these laws must exist in some form of identity with them, or else there can be no explanation for how that knowledge occurs in the first place. And I'm talking about the nous, not the "soul" taken as a personality.

>>16006788
>gets asked an actual question
>doesn't even acknowledge it

Another frog nigger bites the dust

>>16006810
>Entire conversation is about how Plato hinges everything on recollection with thus strings, yet his only proof for recollections is 2+2=4
>Plato nigger keep reciting Plato as if like Plato is his God, Socrates is his Jesus and Phaedo/Meno are the new/old testament
>Gets butthurt and admits defeat at a simple request to prove recollection
Another frog, 4u

>>16000049
Worthless cunt detected

>>16006866
based

>>16006804
>or else there can be no explanation for how that knowledge occurs in the first place
Biological instinct.

>>16006478
Dangerously based.

>>16006879
You can also just argue that Forms don't exist, since their proof relies on recollection theory itself.

>>16001026
Futurism is fucking gay sci fi bullshit. You're not going to be George Jetson you fucking aspie faggot.

His entire thesis hinges on the opinion that surrogate activities are inherently less satisfactory than nonsurrogate biological goals, and even that they are so unsatisfactory that they produce mental ailments. This, after much thought, I do not believe. I believe that the problem most people have is not one of too much surrogate activity, but instead of too much low level mental activity. Humans need outlets of meaningful CREATION and ART and other higher order activities, but they instead fry their dopamine receptors.

Were Kaczynski's world to come to pass, sure maybe people would be happier, but they would be happy in a low mental state, creating no art, expressing no humanity. Those people might as well take Soma; their simple pleasures are animalistic and base.

>>16007069
>expressing no humanity
All they would be expressing is humanity.

>>16007104
Only an ancient form of humanity.

>>16007140
>only in it's purest original form
That's the point.

>>16007158
There is no purest or original form. It would be an older and simpler, dumber form.

>>16007104
>>16007140
>>16007158
Is hunting and gathering "pure" humanity? It's the most base, the most animal, sure. Humans also drew cave paintings. Humans have an innate need to create; that is what distinguishes pure humanity, not gathering food like every animal does.

>>16007299
Ted only defines the surrogate activity. He doesn't really lean that much in either direction and if anything just says there's an excess or surrogate activity. What takes up most of your life should not be surrogate activity.

>>16007315
>What takes up most of your life should not be surrogate activity.
Surrogate activity just means artistic pursuit. If your whole life consists of artistic pursuits, that's fine, in fact that's ideal.

>>16007342
It does not "just mean" artistic pursuit. Read the literature if you're going to involve yourself in a discussion about it.

>>16007359
That is essentially what it means. The marine biologist example Ted gives boils down to an artistic pursuit. It's what you might call trivial, but also self-expressive, based on personal fancy.

>>16007404
It doesn't. Might as well say everything is an artistic pursuit at that point.

>>16007449
Not everything, just everything that he defines as a surrogate activity. He considers such activities as artificial goals that we give ourselves once our survival needs become easier to maintain. Those activities are artistic pursuits. Our real work, as far as the artists in antiquity were concerned, began once our survival needs had been met. They saw in the labor of mundane survival only disgrace and lack of art, lack of anything higher.

>>16007466
>lack of anything higher
>higher
This means nothing. It's like saying you're pro-progress.

>>16007477
>This means nothing.
For you, maybe, because you aren't artistic. Ted wasn't either. That's why, once his survival needs were met, he saw no purpose in life, only "surrogate activities" and "artificial goals." For those with a rich inner world, there is definitely a higher state of existence to achieve than that of mundane survival.

>>16007486
>you aren't artistic
I play and compose music. I don't go around masturbating myself telling others I "elevate the world" or make it "richer". I don't feel the need to clutter my life with a bunch of passtimes. Why would I want to pass the time? I'm limited in the time I have.

>>16007516
If you really play and compose music, not because you're bored, but because you're compelled to express yourself through music, then you should see how Ted's idea of a surrogate activity is shortsighted and indicates his lack of artistic flair. Think about it. No real artist has ever agreed with the sentiment.

>>16007603
I play music because I enjoy hearing it. Just like primal man did as well. "Artists" are pretentious.

>>16007619
Primal man was shallow.

>>16007665
Don't care. He was more of a man than you.

>>15999565
no, heidegger was

>>16007675
Okay Mr. Insecure.

>>16000895
>blocks your path

>>16007686
Okay Mr. Saysnothing.

>>15999565
>Future tech this, anti-industry that
Can't I like both?

>>16007705
>Saysnothing
For you. It's like talking to "primal man," an animal.

>>16007731
Don't care lol.

>>16007685
wrong

>>15999565
The only line of this manifesto that was correct is the very first one.

>>16007516
>I'm limited in the time I have.
All the more reason to not spend it on mundane things like gathering berries or building a shelter like Ted advocates for. What he calls surrogate activities include some of the most fulfilling and worthwhile activities.

>>16003409
what does money mean when the judgment day comes?

>>16008316
There is no judge
There is no judgment day
All songs end, that doesn't mean some aren't worth listening to

>>16000008

Kaczynski is right and truly radical. The most important voice of our times.

>>16007694
Camatte is great. Parmenides, Marx, Camatte. But theory is of no use, it is a product of alienation.

>I'm so glad I spent my life fighting industrial society

ahem:
>fuck technology!
>fuck capitalism!
>fuck industrial society!
>fuck niggers
>and fuck jannies!

>>16007010
>instead of creating forward thinking solutions we should just revert back to some arbitrary point of development in the past
>i would totally be an epic warlord if not for modern society... ugh...

>>16001945
hey sean

>>15999565
yes he was. most people who don;t think so haven't read his work, or haven't read it carefully enough to understand it. The most important insights are on the autonomy of technology, laid out in the sections on the objective factors of history. He's pretty much the ultimate materialist. He's marx without the naive utopianism and with far better knowledge of evolutionary processes and complex systems. Not to mention a far far more logical mind.

Ted's view is so stupidly flawed. He thinks technological society and its goals are artificial and that only survival truly fulfills, but survival in technological society is a far greater challenge, and a far realer challenge for humans now that we have made it this far, a fact that necessarily naturalizes technological society in history. I can't possibly see how he's right about anything.

>>16010395
>the only alternative to living in industrial society is being a warlord

>>16008094
Passtimes are not fulfilling. They are literally just to pass the time. Lounging around in my yard is more fulfilling than any passtime.

>>16008094
>building a shelter
>mundane
>not fulfilling

>>15999565
Sure industrial society has nothing to do with non communal property of the means of production, profit, and exchange value.

>>15999565
>One image and three words is all took to get a 300 reply thread.
Fuck this dumb ass board lmao.

>>16011781
It's a garbage OP but there's plenty to discuss about Kaczynski

>>16003463
is that dave rubin?

>>16011781
/lit/ loves Ted. What do you want?

>>16012088
Er, not James so much

>>16012098
>Chad Haag

Is Haag a meme or is he worth dipping into?

I find TK's writing to be very "crisp" (sort of like how Anglo philosophers or Thomist autists express themselves). Haag seems to be more of dense word thicket schizoposter.

>>16011284
What he calls surrogate activities includes all artistic pursuits. It's a dumb label and you'd do well to disregard him on account of it.

>>16012252
I wouldn't place him as high priority. Read Ellul if you haven't.

>>16000998
It is really bizarre how quickly OWS went from "FUCK WALL STREET FUCK BANKS TOO" to "PANGENDER QUEER INDIGENOUS RIGHTS NOW"