/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22935245]

Should Ted Kaczynski’s writings be taken seriously on a philosophical level?

I understand that many philosophers have raged against the development of technology but I’m asking specifically about Kaczynski. Should philosophers read his writings and take them seriously? Or should we dismiss them as crazed ramblings of a reclusive madman?

[Anonymous No.22935283]

>Should philosophers read his writings and take them seriously?
No

>Should we dismiss them as crazed ramblings of a reclusive madman?
Yes.

His mindset is no different to Leftists, which he bemoans in his own work. If we just do away with guns/modernity/the state/thing i dont like then everything will be better and nobody will reinvent the wheel.

Look in to technics, how technology is distributed and used in society. Read Spengler and Darre for more. Ted himself has all the hallmarks of controlled opposition in that the very means of protest his people advocate for are of absolutely no threat to the system. I belive he calls that the systems neatest trick.

Now authoritarian-nationalism paired with a back to the land movement? That could be a threat, don't look in to that anon.

[Anonymous No.22935594]

Ted is a genius. Unfortunately most readers will get filtered because they literally cant comprehend the text or think of the bigger picture with such low IQ

[Anonymous No.22935606]

>>22935245
>should
never happen because of the bomb stuff

[Anonymous No.22935624]

>>22935594
How is he a genius?

Can you, a supposed genius, explain to me, an average working man, why his manifesto is not a psyop to neutralize far-right, back to the land romanticism. Which is a phenomenon that happens with regularity every century.

[Anonymous No.22935659]

>>22935245
a true philosopher would never read anything because all writing is the crazed ramblings of madmen

[Anonymous No.22935754]

>>22935283
>Now authoritarian-nationalism paired with a back to the land movement? That could be a threat
You’re delusional.

[Anonymous No.22935761]

>>22935283
You’re correct yet for the wrong reasons.

[Anonymous No.22935905]

>>22935245
David Pearce's writings should be taken a lot more seriously than Kaczynski's.

[Anonymous No.22936057]

>>22935245
he's a philosophical ben shapiro, and only seems deep because he's directly comparing himself to complete retards ( leftist political activists). He himself is just an activist of an ever so slightly higher caliber. His writings are no more crazy or revolutionary than charlie kirk's "campus battlefield"

[Anonymous No.22936130]

>>22935754
>>22935761
Im glad you provided reasoned and well thought out rebuttals.

[Anonymous No.22936149]

>>22935283
>then everything will be better and nobody will reinvent the wheel.

Yeah, you didn't read him.

[Anonymous No.22936205]

>>22936149
I notice you omitted the first part of my sentence, which is clearly the more important part.

[Anonymous No.22936215]

He was literally a prophet of the Lord.

[Anonymous No.22936247]

>>22935905
>he's naive
>neurotech will save us
lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.22936252]

just read jacques ellul, thats where he stole most of his ideas

[Anonymous No.22936257]

>>22935624
Wny do you, an average working man, as you call yourself, even take your own views seriously? At least have the accompanying humility that should follow such a claim to understand some ideas are, sadly, beyond you. Why do you pretend to be rational when you lack the very capacity to be so(which you admit in an attempt to get back at that guy)?

[sage No.22936409]

>>22935245
He would be a literal nobody (by his own calculation) except for the fact that he murdered people. Look up American Airlines Flight 444. The dude was a psychopath who just wanted to inflate his own ego by killing people, he targeted commercial flights filled with random members of the public. Forget about him.