/lit/ - Literature

it's important to realize that Ellul wasn't a bleak person even though he wrote things that could be described as very pessimistic. I don't remember where he wrote about it, but he talks about how he is not an optimist (believing in human progress and all that) but that he is still filled with hope which for him was God’s love and redemption for the whole creation (he was a universalist). Maybe you should read he's theological works which he wanted to be read in a dialectic way with he's sociological works. "Presence in the modern world" is probably the best start for he’s theological work here he shows, he's sociological and theological thoughts most clearly in one book. Maybe you’re not a believer and I totally understand that even though I strongly wish for you and everybody to find peace with Christ. If you don’t find or don’t have hope in Jesus redemption for creation as Ellul or other chrisitans have I would say to you too at least find hope in something even irrational things which for Ellul even faith in God was. Sorry for my english I read a lot but I never write in english so I write like a neanderthal. I wish you the best and hope you find hope anon : )

>>19700433
>I don't see how you can live in modern society after finishing this without wanting to kill yourself or move to the countryside.
read uncle Ted and realize there is no escape

The only way out is an anti-tech revolution. Read Kaczynski and if you're a genius like most of 4chan is, then you will know exactly where, why and how Kaczynski is wrong and the logical steps to go beyond his shit books for underaged tranny ubermenschen materialist loser etc...

Jünger is better.

>>19700645
I have read Presence, I'm not religious or live in a country that is/was Christian. Nobody in my life has ever expressed religious or spiritual views, I feel like I have to move to a village in the middle or nowhere or something to even get a glimpse of what he's trying to say. I feel like the bugman everyone always jokes about.
>>19700767
>>19700749
I've read Kacyznski which is what led me to Ellul, I think he's far too American with his ideal of rebelling against the whole world, becoming anarcho-primitivist, etc. I assume that one has to adopt an entirely different frame of mind based on spirituality and belief to break out of modern day thinking but I literally have no idea how to do it IRL.

elull is bluepilled on everything that matters

>>19700873
>I think he's far too American with his ideal of rebelling against the whole world, becoming anarcho-primitivist, etc. I assume that one has to adopt an entirely different frame of mind based on spirituality and belief to break out of modern day thinking but I literally have no idea how to do it IRL.
ok cool. You will be cringe nitwit like Linkola, or you will try and actually follow through on what you are saying and go down the Heidegger route and you will find yourself so blackpilled you will feel worse than you did at the beginning.
Ted might be a STEMlet, but at least he wasnt all doomer about it.
>too american
kek

>>19700873
Kaczynski indeed suffers from being american but I think it is good for us. i'm french and the left revolutionary tradition is just old and dusty and stuck in century old fetishism, even when you think it's not it really is. I'm close with many decolonialists who think like you, but being a radical materialist it seems retarded to me, to think that we can "adopt an entire different frame of mind" seems ludicrous. We cannot, we can only change the current material conditions and witness the changes that will occur as a result. This is what consciousness and awareness is in reality, a reactive machine that allows us to witness movement a posteriori. Frame of mind, consciousness is a product of our environment and not the opposite. That's why you have no idea how to do it. Kaczynski truly is the latest iteration in political materialism.

I think anyone can read Kaczynski and operate right away. He went beyond ideology.

>>19700433
Take ideas as what they are: abstractions created by a part of the psyche. Your body is beyond it. No dualism in the embodied mind. You are separating yourself because the society we are born made you like that. Anti tech books are born from the same divine source as those of technocrats. Truth coexist with lies. They are the same thing. Learn to live with lies and you will free of them. Learn to cope with the fabricated internal monologue. This book was a product that helped lived his author. Nothing wrong with it but remember not be so blinded by discourses. The electrical man needs to be annihilated in the abstract plane through engagement with the eternal truth of breath and focus. If you achieve the necessary self control nothing will interact with you living sanely in the only world we have.

The distrust of technique dates back to the greek distrust of techne over physis - nature, so it's an early metaphysics and not theological. oh no not efficiency! though maybe if we had a world less 'dominated' (read: not dominated by the 'right thing') by technique and efficiency, you faggots would stop asking for a single book to reinforce your ideology

>>19700922
>>19700916
The truth is that I hate society being obsessed with technique but I want to keep all the technology I enjoy, video games, tv, even books I get from Amazon. I hate all the propaganda about how our time is the greatest, people have never lived better and so on, but I can't help but consume everything that's been given to me. If someone told me to throw all the corporate goods I've purchased away I wouldn't be able to do it. I'm a self aware slave who doesn't want to be free, that's why I think you have to completely abandon everything in city life and go to a village, I just think the ideal of global violent revolution to be impossible in the present.

>>19700985
cool.
now stop posting and never make threads again.

>>19700991
Ok

>>19701009
not him but basically chill out - if philosophers have been raging against 'technique' in its forms for thousands of years and we still get away with doing it without the full wrath of god wiping us off the face of the planet, or some metaphysical collapse that tears apart the structure of the universe, it's probably fine. btw literally every form of enculturation is 'propaganda' - there's no way around it. language is a technique. technique is just how we get around the physical world

>>19701029
I thought the whole point was only after the Industrial Revolution did technique become the primary way of thinking. It hadn't been for thousands of years because technique existed alongside other ways of viewing the world (spiritual, metaphysical). The example of the Ancient Greek olympics vs the modern olympics, even if they were questioning it it wasn't dominating their society.
>btw literally every form of enculturation is 'propaganda'
I don't think this is how Ellul uses the word, he talks about how propaganda is entirely submissive to technicians nowadays and disagrees with people defining it as just changing the way people think about ideas, but instead calling people to action (work hard, progress society, believe in facts, and matter only, be good). There are definitely some cultures which don't have this kind of propaganda but are quickly melting into the global technical mindset.

>>19700433
Now you go and read Ellul’s spiritual works. Christ is the key to get out of clownworld / technological society

>>19700947
Wrong.

>>19700433
What makes it most blackpilling is that it's entirely descriptive. Ellul only makes his horror known in a cursive manner, i.e. indirectly, but after you read you can't help be feel the same way.

>>19700873
Nobody is a bugman, thats just the way we view people who don't express thoughtfulness or consideration in the way we do. A lot of people talk up religion or spirituality but in most Christian societies today I believe most don't follow any actual structure, they just use religion as an excuse to reinforce their own natural way of thinking. Example being that most catholics where I am don't actually follow any teachings, there is no structure to their faith anymore it just lines up vaguely with what is most convenient for them. Kaczynski is a meme for people who don't actually read. Just read the people who influenced him for a more coherent philosophy

>>19700433
>>19701225
thanks, now I don't have to read it because I know it's bullshit.

>>19700433
checked
it makes me want to move to an amish commune

>>19703166
this is what i liked most about ted's writings
he doesn't use unnecessary euphemisms or beat around the bush like most other writers
are there books of similar style that you know of?
i hear that the open conspiracy might be and i'll start reading that soonish

>>19703589
There's a tech chart with most good tech books on it.

>>19704455
Fuck you.

>>19700433
Take the redpill: https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/red-pill-or-blue-pill-variants-inflation-and-the-controlled-demolition-of-society/

>>19700433
>ultimate
there is no "ultimate" anything.
mentioning that something's "the ultimate" "the best" "THE one" etc. is always a sign of stupidity
>blackpill
it's one of about 5 thousand books written in the 20th century abt how society became worse
just read moar

>>19700985
I love modern times, how things are, tech and all, wealth should just be spread more equally.

>>19700873
>I assume that one has to adopt an entirely different frame of mind based on spirituality and belief to break out of modern day thinking but I literally have no idea how to do it IRL.
grampa heidegger lived in his hut and went for walks. going for walks in the woods seems like a good start towards some form of reenchantment.

>>19704462
Ok

What I find most puzzling about Ellul is that he rarely mentions the element of power struggle and political consolidation as the factor advancing technique more than anything. Technique is an agent of necessity, which is why the most highly technicized nations happen to be global superpowers or those involved in global conflict at the time. When two massive powers are competing, everything else falls in pursuit of efficiency since that's what allows you to gain an edge over your enemy, as we saw with the atom bomb. The question isn't so much "Does technique promote itself?" like he spends most of the book addressing (the answer is obviously yes), but "Is it possible to imagine a world without technique?". He mentions this only briefly but it's the more important question I'd say

>>19705523
people can't imagine a world without cars, nevermind technique lmao

>>19700790
Why?

>>19704455
can you post it?

>>19700433
>move to the countryside
Why don't you?

>>19706651

>>19705523
He's a marxist

>>19700911
How so?

>>19701029
>it's probably fine
>if technology doesn't cause immediately civilization collapse it's probably fine
Impossible to have a more brainlet take than this

>>19700767
Please elaborate. Where does Kaczynski go wrong? It's not that I think he's right about everything, I'm curious about what you have in mind.

>>19707581
Too expensive and difficult. You can't build a simple cabin without planning permission which will get rejected anyway. If you're rich you can buy somewhere rural but people live in the city in shitholes because it's cheap and they need money because country living has been cut off for them.

>>19700767
>The only way out is an anti-tech revolution
And then what? Live in the woods and eat berries until the sun dies?

>>19707581
its full of idiots because most hardworking sincere types get brainwashed into city life
those who don't make it are left behind in the countryside

>>19700433
Elliot Roger's My Twisted World is the ultimate blackpill.

>>19701225
yikes

>>19700922
>This is what consciousness and awareness is in reality, a reactive machine that allows us to witness movement a posteriori. Frame of mind, consciousness is a product of our environment and not the opposite.
Agree
>I think anyone can read Kaczynski and operate right away. He went beyond ideology.
You just contradicted everything you said before

>>19711725
Blackpill? More like blackcomedypill. The book is hilarious.

>>19700947
>The distrust of technique dates back to the greek distrust of techne over physis - nature, so it's an early metaphysics and not theological
Where in the Greeks is this sentiment expressed?

>>19711477
For me it was the necessity that the revolution be international. It's like the communists, you can't have communism until the non-communists are defeated, but a state of communism leaves you immensely susceptible to attack from organized states. It's even truer with technology,

>>19710536
Imagine a sociology professor trying to explain modern society without reference to race. You can't do it. Instead you'll get numerous ornate intellectual constructs without any empirical grounding and the worst of overwrought french philosophy.

I've read it expecting great things, and don't think anybody else should

>>19700433
if you had actually read this you wouldn't write something stupid like "move to the countryside"

>>19709374
a marxist would have made class struggle the centerpiece of his critique ya dingus

>>19712699
>Ellul's three primary sources of inspiration were Karl Marx
KYS

>>19712084
It isn't Just some marxist crittheist making up shit.

>>19712681
Why?

>>19712001
Did he ever realize how comical he sounds? Did he ever entertain the thought that he might not have been rejected because of his looks but because of his personality?

we aren’t killing the planet, we will kill ourselves, the earth will recover and last many moons (if that’s even left) after our species existence

>>19711591
universal heat death.

>>19700873
>becoming anarcho-primitivist
he's not anprim, you understood nothing

>>19705677
Cars are the ultimate cuck. I always say I fucking hate cars and the sickening look of asphalt and people look at me as if I said I hate trees. In fact if I said I hated trees and the birds in the sky I would get more approval.

>>19715189
I feel you completely.

>>19700433
Ellul is explicit that he is not some luddite criticizing technology itself but rather the utilitarian and instrumentalist ideological assumptions that underlie "modern society", whatever that vagary means to you. imo the book is rather hyperbolic and overgeneralizes as most continental narratives tend to. If you want actually good social science read anthropology or something.

Don't read Ted. Even most neo-luddites hate ted, because he's a retard. If you must read him do it to the tone of revelry and mockery. It's what he deserves.

>>19700873
The grass isn't always greener. There's beauty in urban environments and ugliness in rural ones. Literally just go outside--it doesn't matter where you live--and you'll get a glimpse of what he's trying to say.

>>19712776
Yeah, and he refutes and amends him. Problem retard?

>>19715189

Do you own a car?

>>19715391
How?

>>19715313
>If you want actually good social science read anthropology or something
Disgusting

>>19715407
Yes and I do my best to avoid using it.

>>19715189
This. FUCK cars.

>>19715361
>There's beauty in urban environments and ugliness in rural ones
You couldn't be more wrong about this. Urban environments are always disgusting, no exception. Rural environments are only ugly by the amount of urbanisation they contain.

>>19703536
This is why I'm reading The Screwtape Letters as well as the Bible. Church at this point (or at least all the churches I can find) is so far removed from the Bible that I feel I must take my religion into my own hands.

>>19711540
I've found some nice pieces of land for extremely cheap, 40 acres for >$30,000. Mostly woods but there is enough there to make a cabin no one will care about because its in the middle of a 40 acre plot.

>>19715674
What's wrong with anthropology?

>>19715973
What I don't like although I fully understand it, is that even when the Church itself is nice, and the gatherings feel like actual Church, outside of that context the people involved live pretty much like everyone else. I don't mean this as NORMIES REEEEE but man, I wish it didn't all result in a Church-flavored Facebook timeline because I really dislike the whole social media things and I'm not going to participate to it for the sake of joining in. There's nothing Christian about it.
That said I'm in such a bad spot because I understand that if my relationship with my Church and Church-going people is just whatever happens in Church, I'm going to compartmentalize religion to those events. I don't want that to happen.
The religious threads here are getting axed so I'm sorta fucked. I have nowhere to go IRL and religious online communities mostly suck.

>>19715701
The problem with this line is that cities can be and often are obviously beautiful and you'd have to be massively treecucked to think otherwise.

>>19717312
This isn't true. There are individual things that are beautiful in cities, like a monument, but everything surrounding that monument will be filthy and ugly. We're in not in Victorian times anymore.

>>19717362
It is far better now than it was in Victorian times. No trash service, no running water, horses propelling everything, coal burning being the main source of power. A Victorian city would have smelled of shit, human and horse, and of coal smoke. It would have been covered in soot, bird shit, trash, corrosion from the carbonic acid content of rain, and night soil. A literal trash heap, where people lived. Which isn't to say that modern cities are beautiful, but they are a hell of a lot nicer than they were at any point previously.

>>19717434
Are you telling me that the paintings are fake?

>>19717446
Just wait til you hear about the movies, anon. It's bullshit all the way down.

>>19714550
because technique is a total system, you don't get to opt out of it because you want to just like how you didn't have a choice about opting in to begin with. therein lies the problem

>>19711663
i've never heard that one before

>>19715313
>social science
>Anthropology
both kiked from the top-down

>>19715989
>Mostly woods but
Woods is the best thing you could hope for
Land without woods means you can't rely on your surroundings nearly as much for things like fires or building supplies.
>>19717239
Boas's influence denied Darwinism as an influence in anthropology, as it would've meant not every society was exactly the same in value.