[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 124 KB, 606x954, oo0fl3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16903271 No.16903271 [Reply] [Original]

Do people actually agree with his thoughts and positions in this text, or is it only meme'd ironically here?
Any books that delve into this subject in a more professional/detailed manner?

>> No.16903298

Most agree with his sentiments and some of his conclusions but his explanation of why man cannot be happy in industrial society comes up short, even if there's a grain of truth to it. You'll still inevitably see many ideas that echo several of Ted's in the respected authors on the same subject.

>> No.16903310

>>16903298
Can you name a couple of authors with similar opinions?

>> No.16903326

>>16903310
Ellul

>> No.16903330

>>16903310
Read Ellul's Technological Society.

>> No.16903340

I feel like Thoreau has somewhat similar sentiments in Walden, I think he would be disgusted with the modern way of life

>> No.16903377

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3_kUaYFJA

:) just joking glownigger

>> No.16903402

>>16903326
>>16903330
>>16903340
Thanks a lot I'm checking them out

>> No.16903440

>>16903402
>>16903271
If you're looking for someone who shares Ted's sentiments regarding how industrial society has poorly affected human life as well as the ecosystems, but without the slightly less "hateful", you should check out Murray Bookchin. I'd suggest taking a look at "Our Synthetic Environment."

>> No.16903467

While we're on the topic, any writers that focus on the impact of the tech phenomenon/media environment to the individual's mind? I know Baudrillard supposedly does.

>> No.16903480

>>16903271
I think most people would find it hard to disagree with the manifesto. If you're looking for more on the subject time of people have tackled the technology question: ellul, mumford, heidegger, grant, and so on. Really the reading is endless because it ties into a lot of the poppsych/self help books that try to help people cope with the dominance of technology in their lives.

>> No.16903521

>>16903271
His concept of the power process is actually really enlightening. His criticisms of current industrial society has merit but I don't agree with his conclusions about revolting against the industrial world. I also don't get his issue with surrogate activities

>> No.16903528

>>16903480
His section on the power process and oversocialization is weak. It's not a crazy theory, but he fails to substantiate it, and it is weird that autonomy is supposed to be an optional part of the process when the removal of all human autonomy by tech advancement is one thing he ends up proving well. The manifesto is a success to the degree it motivates others to explore the topic, but it is lacking taken by itself.

>> No.16903557

>>16903467
Marshall Mcluhan and Guy Debord. Debord's stuff is more targeted towards the collective consciousness, but his ideas can pretty easily be applied to individuals as well.

>> No.16903560

>>16903271
Lurk moar. Also this >>16903330 and anti-tech revolution.

Btw is there any fiction on the topic?

>> No.16903883

>>16903271
I read it years ago, definitely feel his sentiments and i'd generally agree with it but I would have to read it again to make a more detailed criticism.
>>16903467
Marshall McLuhan talks about the influence of media. Erich Fromm also covers the psychology of individuals in industrial societies and reminds me of certain ideas in isaf, though he takes it in a different direction.

>> No.16904147

>>16903528
>The manifesto is a success to the degree it motivates others to explore the topic

thats the point of manifestos though. i think he even says in the book that the manifesto is basically for brainlets that would never read The Technological Society or any deeper work about technology

>> No.16904161

>>16903521
>I also don't get his issue with surrogate activities
Does he have an issue with surrogate activities?
>I’ve never said that surrogate activities “must be abandoned.” Also, the line between surrogate activities and purposeful activities often is not easy to draw. See ISAIF, §§40, 84, 90. And surrogate activities are not peculiar to modern society. What is true is that surrogate activities have come to play an unusual, disproportionate, and exaggerated role in modern society. …In any case, I don’t see that anything would be accomplished by attacking surrogate activities. But I think that the concept of surrogate activity is important for an understanding of the psychology of modern man.

>> No.16904261
File: 21 KB, 600x315, 1596197472760.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16904261

What has always been funny to me about Kaczynski's manifesto is that had he not called out the Lefty Cuck by name and had we expunged some parts about "identifying with large corporations or ideology as a substitute for real power process", this exact Lefty Cuck described on that text would hold his manifesto as the new Das Kapital and considering an inspiration for revolution against 'da evil gabitalist system'

>> No.16904306

>>16904147
The Communist Manifesto was enough to incite insurrections by itself. I agree that it's still a success in a way though, even if he had fixed those flaws it's unlikely the result would have been any different.

>> No.16904310

>>16904261
leftist are literally
>the first line of defence
for the system.
He himself says this.
There is no "actual leftist" or "dillusional leftists" there is techno-slaves and those who oppose it. Stop using such stupid terminology.

>> No.16904354

>>16904310
>ctrl-f "leftist"
>132 matches
He literally uses this exact word and then goes on to describe their belief and moral system, which is identical to the thought and value framework today's leftists claim to belong to, 25 years later.
What are you on about?

>> No.16904405

>>16904354
Clearly he didn't read it lol.

>> No.16904569

>>16904354
Did you alao read his definition of leftists? Did you also read his criticism of """conservatives"""? You're supposed to read the whole manifesto, not just the first couple of pages retard.
>>16904310 is actually right

>> No.16905053

>>16903271
I haven't read Kaczynski yet (getting to it) but I have read Linkola, who I understand has a similar worldview. I agreed with most of what Linkola had to say, but I am admittedly too sentimental and emotional to accept some of his colder logic.

>> No.16905118

>>16905053
Ted wants to blow up and kill the techno worshippers; near all the other "an-prim" LARPers all condemn his violent methods and ideas

>> No.16905175

>>16905118
Linkola didn't commit any violent acts imself but he briefly praises Kaczynski in "Can Life Prevail" alongside a glowing endorsement of the 9/11 hijackers for killing "worshippers of the Dollar"

>> No.16905349

>>16903467
Plato and Pythagoras. Not meming.

>> No.16905369

>>16903467
>>16905349
Also read C.S. Lewis the abolition of man.

>> No.16905403

>>16903271
It gets memed because he is largely correct, and while some individual points he makes can be attacked as not being substantiated enough, the general idea he presents is hard to refute.

The main criticism lies in that what he himself cites a source of displeasure (of which I agree) need not necessarily apply to most people. I believe that it does, and so did he, but there is no hard evidence. There is hard evidence that there are major, major issues with industrial-technological society, and an argument _could_ be made that these problems are not inherent to the system (i.e. rejecting the fundamental reasons for unhappiness that Kaczynski cites) but there is no way to accept those reasons, and at the same time argue for a solution within the system itself.