[ 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: 19 KB, 340x255, kaczynski[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597780 No.5597780 [Reply] [Original]

It's truly a shame he went schizo and did the whole bombing thing. A lot of his manifesto is actually fascinating, and with his fairly prominent position in academia he could have led a serious technoskeptic movement at a time when we desperately needed one.

technoskepticism/neo-Luddite thread

>> No.5597789
File: 48 KB, 375x375, George-costanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597789

>>5597780

>> No.5597796

>>5597780
his anti-tech stuff wasn't as interesting as his anti-left stuff.

>> No.5597798

>A lot of his manifesto is actually fascinating
I read it and it's really not. What exactly did you find so fascinating in it?

>> No.5597805

>>5597789
this

>> No.5597809
File: 44 KB, 600x451, can't spaghetti the marinetti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597809

>>5597780
You would have never heard of him if he didn't commit radical acts. Everyone knows the Unabomber, nobody knows John Zerzan.

Also, actually believing a peaceful, conventional technosceptic movement could have any effect would be extremely naive. Technology is our defining factor as a species and it has made us incredibly powerful. Good luck getting people to give up instantaneous worldwide communication and infinite entertainment because you like the woods.

>> No.5597811

>>5597809
>You would have never heard of him if he didn't commit radical acts
So he was successful

>> No.5597822

>>5597798
I think it's impressive in context. I think what he says about psychiatric medicine (anti-depressants in particular) was ahead of his time. He wrote the Manifesto ten years before prozac hit the market.

>> No.5597824

>>5597811
No, neo-luddism and radical environmentalism is less relevant than it was 20 years ago

>> No.5597829

>>5597789
/thread

>> No.5597834

>>5597811
He was successful in making his ideology known. He was also successful in instantly defaming it. But it doesn't matter one way or the other, technology is much too attractive to ever be abandoned on any large scale.

The only people with enough incentive to do so have to be threatened/forced into doing so because the alternative would be even worse. But that is limited to little groups like the Amish and will never be a mainstream thing.

As far as I'm concerned, if an ideology is certain never to achieve its aims it's best to abandon it completely. Why spend your life in false hope and frustration?

>> No.5597839
File: 137 KB, 1024x585, alex jones.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597839

>>5597822
>I think what he says about psychiatric medicine (anti-depressants in particular) was ahead of his time.
Every conspiracy theorist ever since the introduction of anti-depressants has been warning about the dangers of taking the pills, kaczynski was years behind

>> No.5597838

>>5597809
I don't expect it to prevail, but I would like for it to at least enter the conversation. Other than dystopian musings that everybody (rightly) brushes off as nonsense and the occasional viral video about how everyone's always on their phones (which people will Like and Share and agree with and then quickly ignore), nobody reflects on the negative effects of technology.

>> No.5597843
File: 29 KB, 350x250, le cia guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597843

>>5597822
Good chance he had first hand experience.

>> No.5597845

>>5597839
Uh, no. Antidepressants didn't hit the market until the 90s.

>> No.5597847

>>5597824
And even more important.

>> No.5597852

>>5597838
Which negative effects do you have in mind?

>> No.5597861

>>5597852
I made a thread about this before and the responses were fantastic, let me find it.

>> No.5597868

>>5597861
>>/lit/thread/S5517827#p5517827

>> No.5597870

>>5597809
If there was a way to go back, perhaps it would be better. I believe he even implied in the manifesto that the effort was futile and it was already to late. Remember that the title is bleakly "The future of industrial society".

Surely though he brings up some pretty serious problems with the way we're going. Some of the things that are already reality today, even I (without having any more conservative views than the next guy, well maybe..) find downright perverse.

“Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy then gives them the drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction It is already happening to some extent in our own society. Instead of removing the conditions that make people depressed modern society gives them antidepressant drugs. In effect antidepressants are a means of modifying an individual's internal state in such a way as to enable him to tolerate social conditions that he would otherwise find intolerable.”

>> No.5597878
File: 71 KB, 960x375, 1411242330279.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597878

>>5597870
This is also reminiscent of something Oscar Wilde said (at least in this picture)

>> No.5597879

>>5597870
Personally I'm holding out for the oil crash in the next 40 years or so that will send us back to the dark ages.

>> No.5597896

>>5597870
Antidepressants are manufactured because they are profitable. The manufacturers don't give a shit about modifying their consumers threshold for social conditions. Kaczynski was just to stupid to realize capitalism and its social structures are the problem, not industrialism itself.

>> No.5597898

>>5597879
Not going to happen. We will succumb and expand fracking and off-shore drilling, maybe fight a war in the Arctic. y the time it really becomes an unmitigatable problem we will be moving onto alternatives (solar, wind, nuclear, even fusion if this Lockheed Martin business isn't Fleischmann–Pons 2: Electric Boogaloo).

>> No.5597916

>>5597898
I'm not sure. I'm a strong believer in Spengler's historical cycles, and in my opinion the soft living that modern technology has given us is incompatible with how human society naturally develops. We may well find an alternative to oil, but it's impossible for me to say how society will look in 200 years if we do.

>> No.5597921

>>5597916
>there is such a thing as natural and unnatural human behaviour

No wonder you like Spengler, you lack critical thought.

>> No.5597924

>>5597896
And who prescribes antidepressants in order to fight depression? As you point out the corporations don't care what you do with them, it is the government that stands for substituting natural happiness with chemical happiness. So how can you say it's capitalisms fault? I think you have an ideological inclination, my firend.

>> No.5597929

>>5597809
futurist pls go
back to your house to smell food

>> No.5597930

>>5597921
A dog will piss to mark its territory. But I'm not going to get into an argument.

>> No.5597931

how do we take down skynet?

>> No.5597934
File: 31 KB, 285x399, move.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5597934

have fun getting murdered by the MAN

>> No.5597937

>>5597780
>neo luddites
If this exist then all those fags shouldn't be here.

>> No.5597939

A lot of his manifesto is fucking pathetic. Impotent whining, juvenile excursions in the night where he breaks windows and pours sugar in gas tanks...people just tend to cherry pick the saner bits, they make him look way better than he actually was.

>> No.5597940

>>5597930
A human will pretend his antics transcend nature.

>> No.5597943

>>5597924
If the government is assigning you drugs, you should probably take them. It's not a usual situation but you are probably a danger to yourself or others. Please be safe ~_~

>> No.5597944

>>5597870
>Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy

What utter nonsense.

>> No.5597947

>>5597937
I don't get how these guys could still be so angry about Looms.

>> No.5597948

>>5597924
I'll preface this by saying I am an American libertarian so I am naturally inclined to blame the government for everything, but you're wrong.*Doctors* prescribe antidepressants, and people usually want them. Sure there are (pre)teens who are prescribed SSRIs and all sorts of drugs without any sort of meaningful informed consent, but this is largely a social problem, not a state-created one.

>> No.5597949

>>5597944
>What is communism

>> No.5597951

>>5597939
Did you read it? Give us one of the juvenile bits and please note that we're talking about his manifest "The future of industrial society", not his mad raving in his diary. Also note that I'm not denying that he went mad eventually, I'm just saying he had a lot of valid points.

>> No.5597952

>>5597937
Is this the "hurr but you're talking about this using computers and the internet" argument? Because that is totally asinine.

>> No.5597957

>>5597944
Really?

You think participation in an industrialized commodity-driven society is A; suitable for everybody and B; not being forced upon every one of us here, with no alternatives offered?

Do you really think that?

>> No.5597963

>>5597943
What are you even talking about?
>>5597944
And you? Is your imagination impaired? What's your point lol?

>> No.5597964

>>5597952
I don't know if you are a luddite. I was talking about the fact if there were real luddites posting in this thread, then they shouldn't post here. Simple as that.

>> No.5597969

>>5597943
Literally the only way to get Anti-depressants is if the government(or the extension of it) decides you should have them.

>> No.5597970

>>5597964
Are you basing that on the argument I suggested you were making?

>> No.5597972

>>5597970
Nope. I'm repeating my post, because it seems you didn't understand it.

>> No.5597975

>>5597969
legally that is*

>> No.5597977

>>5597969
What extension of it? Are you suggesting all psychiatrists are agent of the state?

You're really going to have to elaborate.

>> No.5597984

>>5597972
No, I guess I didn't. And still don't. Why shouldn't they be posting here?

>> No.5597991

>>5597984
Because they are against all of this.
>computers
>internet
>software

>> No.5597994

>>5597969
What's your point? Antidepressants aren't easily available enough to consumers? If antidepressants were over the shelf there popularity would dramatically spike.

>> No.5597995

>>5597991
Nuffin' stoppin' 'em from being Hypocrites.

>> No.5597997

>>5597995
Well that's right.

>> No.5598001

>>5597870
His prose is rather poor.

>> No.5598004

>>5597991
So it's exactly what I was suggesting.

Operating in accordance with an existing system, a system you were born into, is not necessarily enthusiastic support of that system. Just as Marxists will go to the store and buy groceries and clothes, the 21st century Luddite may take part in things that contradict his philosophy for the sake of a comfortable, functional life.

>>5597995
this, basically

>> No.5598013

>>5597977
They don't exactly get to choose whatever they want. They are operating in accordance with government regulation. You can't just start selling drugs. Read what I was replying to.
>>5597994
Read it in the context of what I was replying to, please.

>> No.5598018

>>5597930
Our idea of dog behaviour is based on observing dogs. Our idea of human behaviour should be based on observing humans, not wishful thinking.

Whatever you see people doing is natural human behaviour. There is no such thing as unnaturalness.

>> No.5598021

>>5598013
Well that's true, but government regulation here is constricting the prescription and use of antidepressants, not encouraging it.

>> No.5598029

>>5598004
>Just as Marxists will go to the store and buy groceries and clothes, the 21st century Luddite may take part in things that contradict his philosophy for the sake of a comfortable, functional life.
Marxists have a problem with the structural relations of the system itself not the commodities. Marxists generally work towards political change. Luddites claim to fundamentally oppose modern technology itself but still engage with it and generally don't even have political programmes. Seems like a bigger level of hypocrisy.

>> No.5598035

>>5598021
But let's not slip away from the main point. The government endorses the use of anti-depressants to treat depression, the idea did not magically pop into peoples head so that they went and demanded it from their doctors.

>> No.5598037

>>5598018
Without diving into a metaphysical debate here, we can employ a bit of pragmatism and identify human behavior that contradicts healthy (in a very literal sense of the word) human behavior and evolutionary tendencies in humans. With technology, this is mostly social behaviors.

>> No.5598040
File: 43 KB, 460x300, futurists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5598040

>>5597929
Sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my noise machines.

>> No.5598052

>>5598029
Not really, you can't separate yourself from industrial society today. You'll quite simply go to jail if you went out into the woods and started hunting and fishing to survive. So you would label anyone who won't go to jail for what they believe a hypocrite?

>> No.5598054

>>5598037
Healthy behaviour isn't more natural than unhealthy behaviour.

>> No.5598053

>>5598035
I don't think so. The government *permits* the use of anti-depressants to treat depression.

>>5598029
But the principle of faltering on their ideology for the sake of a more comfortable life is the same.

And technology is part of a larger system that demands its use. Could you live in the 21st century without email, phones and the internet? Maybe. Kaczynski did for awhile. But it's awfully hard, and it's a lot easier to succumb to the system and do things you would not ideally like to do.

>> No.5598060

>>5597957
you can leave

>> No.5598062

>>5598035
>The government endorses the use of anti-depressants to treat depression, the idea did not magically pop into peoples head so that they went and demanded it from their doctors.
WTF point are you trying to get at? Independent corporate research and state sponsored research claims antidepressants are safe so the government allows it. Antidepressants are drugs and fall under the supervision of the law.

Antidepressants were advertised like crazy back when I used to watch TV.

>> No.5598065

>>5598060

How?

>> No.5598067

>>5598053
Allright, still you gotta look at what I was responding to, we aren't even debating the central point. He said if the government were issuing me antidepressants I should take them and he acted all startled. I proceeded to inform him that there is no other way to be issued meds, implying that he was being retarded and should go to bed. Then it snowballed on me because people don't read the post-references for whatever reason. Deal?

>> No.5598070

>>5598065
Go to Alaska, Canada, Siberia, the Amazon, Africa, the mountains, wherever the hell you want that doesn't have major human habitation

>> No.5598073

>>5598018
>>5598054
You are arguing semantics here. Healthy behaviour is natural behaviour because it is the behaviour that helps the creature survive and thrive in nature.

>> No.5598076

>>5597822
Most of things he complains against were already big when he hit adolescence. You may believe he's game-changing, but that's probably because you have been exposed to little criticism of modern life before him.

Also this >>5597843. Being used as test subject in a sadistic experiment is sure a great intro into the tricks of having a technopower rule your life.

>>5597845
Before anti-depressants they were narcotics and other similar chemicals, who were used a lot in the nineteenth century (codein was discovered in 1832, fo instance). Anti-depressant are merely a more efficient, mass-producted upgrade of those.

>>5597870
Valéry said something to the effect of the Kaczyinsky extract in this post (something a bit more general actually) in some of his essays on the state of intelligence in the twentieth century. Those were written circa 1945 I think, perhaps even before.

I'm not saying Teddy wasn't right on most things, but it's startling that he became the sole (not the most, the sole) well-known defender of this position when he's saying what various smart people have been saying since almost a century.

>> No.5598077

>>5598060
Literally no, what country allows you to leave the social contract and live on your own terms.

>inb4 durr go to mars durr

>> No.5598079

>>5597845

Maybe SSRIs

>> No.5598080

>>5598052
Maybe you just secretly enjoy the comforts of the modern world and don't really despise technology as such but the social order? No? You're just confused and misdirecting your anger.

>> No.5598085

>>5598062
Dude don't read half of the discussion and pop in like you know whats what. Read this
>>5598067

>> No.5598087

>>5598073
>Healthy behaviour is natural behaviour because it is the behaviour that helps the creature survive and thrive in its environnment.

FTFY

>> No.5598089

Let's talk about how he wanted to undergo a set change operation before he went crazy

>> No.5598091

>>5598080
Literally what? Do you understand your own writing?

>> No.5598092

>>5598087
Again semantics.

>> No.5598098

>>5598070

Are you kidding me? Almost all those places are either part of industrial society or becoming that way. I lived in Canada for three years and it wasn't a worker's paradise.

>> No.5598099
File: 32 KB, 341x400, marx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5598099

>>5598089
>set change operation
u wot m8?

>> No.5598100

>>5598089
I had a set change operation last week when I moved to a new city. But I would phrase it differently

>> No.5598112

>>5598076
What he says about antidepressants is very much like things I have read and heard from critics after him and unlike things I have read from really anyone before him. I doubt that he was original in these thoughts, but I think he tapped into a social attitude that ballooned after his time. Who should I read that spoke about antidepressants before him?

>> No.5598125

>>5598073
>Healthy behaviour is natural behaviour because it is the behaviour that helps the creature survive and thrive in nature.
Why do you think survival is the goal? Nature isn't teleological. If you were to argue that you can observe in nature what nature /ought/ to do, you could make all kinds of silly arguments.

For example, I could reason that the vast majority of species that have existed have gone extinct. Therefore going extinct is more natural than not going extinct. Therefore unhealthy behaviour is natural.

But even if I were to accept your highly problematic notion that what benefits survival is natural, I could still argue that a lot of very dangerous and unhealthy activities could help someone find procreative success. Even if you accept your stunted brand of ev psych you still shouldn't say "these behaviours don't serve my simplistic idea of evolutionary purpose so they are unnatural" but "how do these existing behaviours make sense within my evolutionary perspective".

You're trying to make nature fit your ideology. Like a Stoic.

>> No.5598130

>>5598077
None, it would be an extension of the social contract for it to allow you. So, go live in the wild without telling anyone.

>>5598098
If you want to escape modern technological society, live in the wild. It's natural.

>> No.5598132

>>5598112
It's not just antidepressants though. It's the underlying attitude towards humanity and nature. People of modern character don't value the natural order of things so it's not such a big crime to instill artificial happiness through chemicals. They are practical that way.

>> No.5598138

>>5598125
I'm not either of the people in this conversation but this is a great and relevant article
http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/polymorphously-perverse-nature/

>> No.5598140

>>5598130
But I would go to jail as soon as someone happened upon my camp, no?

>> No.5598146

>>5598130
>If you want to escape modern technological society, live in the wild. It's natural.
A life of isolation is not natural.

>> No.5598149

>>5597845
Venfelaxine introduced in 1994 - and tricyclics antidepressants have been around since the 50s. It's true SSRIs didn't come until the 2000s.

>> No.5598152

>>5598146
Your missing the point, bring friends if you like, doesn't matter to the discussion.

>> No.5598155

>>5598130
>>5598146
All you people who appeal to nature deserve to be shot. It's 2014, stop reasoning like a bronze age peasant.

>> No.5598161

>>5598155
I was not making an appeal to nature. He said living in the wild is natural, but leaving your community behind and living in isolation is assuredly not natural.

>> No.5598172

>>5598155
It's not appeal to nature, are you retarded. I know u just read /pol/s sticky but jeez don't get to excited. This is not that, now be on your way.

>> No.5598177

>>5598161
There is no such thing as unnaturalness.

>> No.5598190

>>5598172
The appeal to nature is implied because 'x is not natural' is used as an argument against doing x.

>> No.5598194

>>5598177
>The point
>You missed it

I'm depressed, I take anti-depressants.
I'm depressed I come around.

Which is natural?

>> No.5598200

>>5598140
You're right, we are forced to participate in industrial society by the virtual monopoly industrial societies hold on land ownership. The only way to escape would be to buy land away from a country, which would cost much more than simply buying money within a country. Practically speaking though, you could probably survive unmolested in the wild for many years. The vastness of places like Siberia can scarcely be overstated.

I don't know if they would make you pay a tax on land in Alaska's wilderness for example, assuming you didn't do anything but hunt and fish all day. Probably.

>> No.5598206

>>5598194
All behaviour is equally natural, so to call a behaviour 'natural' or 'unnatural' is meaningless.

>> No.5598208

>>5598190
But you haven't followed the discussion. Anti-depressants artificially mask the problem, ergo they are an unnatural solution. Strawman is what ur doing, look that one up.

>> No.5598213

Obviously there are other ways to use the word natural, why do you think there is a word for it?
Read
>>5598208

>> No.5598215

Why are people getting so upset about anti-depressants? I love the idea, but it's a shame they don't work. Uncle Ted helped me realize that there's no "cure" for my "depression" because it's not a "mental illness" - it's a healthy response to the "shitty" "society" that I live in. [probably it was a useful evolutionary trait sometime in the past and is now outmoded -- trying to cure "depression" would be like trying to cure "extroversion" or something similar -- likely impossible unless you give someone a brain transplant.]

It would be nice if you could pop a pill and suddenly stop being miserable but they haven't made strong enough pills yet. In the mean time, either help them make stronger pills or move to Montana.

>> No.5598219

>>5598208
Technology usage is a defining feature of human nature. It's not artificial, it's who we are. It's no more artificial for a human to use tools than it is for a squirrel to store nuts in the ground or for a chimp to poke for insects with a branch. Stop making arbitrary distinctions.

>> No.5598224

>>5598215
We could all ignore our problems and live like the fat blobs from the latter half of WALL-E.
>Hedonist, be gone

>> No.5598227

>>5598206
>artificially mask the problem
Well, what's the problem? If it's depression, then problem is a demonstrable physiological disorder of the brain. Correcitng a chemical problem chemically is not "artificially masking the problem."

But the real problem is not each individual's depression itself, it's the greater social order that has created the pandemic. And yes, antidepressants do shield that problem.

>> No.5598228

>>5598215
If by "society" being "shitty" you mean "your parents" being "shitty"

>> No.5598231

>>5598213
>Obviously there are other ways to use the word natural, why do you think there is a word for it?
The word natural has its uses, but they certainly aren't to make an unjustified distinction between behaviours you like and behaviours you dislike. Calling the use of antidepressants unnatural is as silly as calling anal sex unnatural.

>> No.5598232

>>5598215
Except your view of depression is totally unscientific.

>> No.5598234

>>5598219
I get your point but you put no personal value in it so I can't meet it. Do you think "feeling good" is all that matters? If not then we are in agreement.

>> No.5598240

>>5598227
>But the real problem is not each individual's depression itself, it's the greater social order that has created the pandemic. And yes, antidepressants do shield that problem.

Dude, this is all I've been saying. Read back a few replies before you post.

>> No.5598248

>>5598240
Sorry, it's hard to keep track of everybody. Best I can tell there are 5 people having two conversations here.

>> No.5598250

>>5598231
Semantics, I won't debate them with you. Do you think "feeling good" is all that matters?

>> No.5598252

>>5598248
I feel you.

>> No.5598257

>>5598250
Well, it's a toss-up between that and making other people feel good.

Choose one.

>> No.5598258

>>5598232
It's funny how people always say this (especially when they aren't scientists and don't have any personal experiences with "depression" - plus the bit about it being an evolutionary trait is well established scientifically). Show me the overwhelming scientific support for anti-depressants. Last I checked they're only rarely a little bit better than placebos.

Why are so many people who have "depression" unable to be cured (myself ostensibly included)?

Have you even read any of the literature? Start with Listening to Prozac and move on from there. Stop fanboying the "depression is a legitimate medical disease" mentality. Go to reddit if you want everyone to talk about how your "depression" is real and how you should go see a psychiatrist and talk to your family about it. Everyone has depression these days! Wow.

>>5598228
What? There is nothing not "shitty" about going to work and coming home and wanking and repeating it all over again. Throw in the commute and chores etc.

>>5598224
Are you one of the ones who makes a distinction between "artificial" happiness and "true" happiness? Anti-depressants "mask" the condition, etc. Depression is part of the "human condition." I hope you grow out of that. There is no such as thing as "artificial happiness."

>> No.5598272

>>5598234
I don't really buy into generalised notions of what matters at all. There's stuff people like and stuff that they dislike and other people like and dislike other stuff and so they quibble and fight about this. But I don't think there is any profundity or significance about what people like and dislike.

Neo-Luddism is just personal preference pretending to be something more than that, and so are all other ideologies. So I won't pretend to make valid normative statements in this discussion, I'm just attempting to point out some flawed reasoning that irks me.

>> No.5598274

>>5598092
Semantics always matter. Only in such a braindead shithole can "semantics" be considered a priori a moot point.

And here it matter, because the environnment in question can be artificial.

>> No.5598277

>>5597796
You know you're not dealing with a sophisticated thinker when the main dichotomy in his work is set between "anti-tech stuff" and "anti-left stuff".

>> No.5598278

>>5598250
Semantics are relevant if people get their concepts tangled up to the degree that they start making arbitrary categories and attaching actual consequences to them.

>> No.5598279

>>5598258
Agreeing with you for the most part, but I'd postulate that if you were able to say; cause pleasure by direct electrical stimulation of the brain, without the stimulus being linked to any sort of advantageous or gratifying activity with which to contextualize said pleasure, then that would be a sort of "artificial happyness".

>> No.5598283

>>5598258
>What? There is nothing not "shitty" about going to work and coming home and wanking and repeating it all over again. Throw in the commute and chores etc.
That's your life being shitty, not society. Maybe try, oh I dunno, using the funds provided by your shitty job to do things that aren't shitty, like everyone else does?

>> No.5598284

>>5598258
I'm not saying antidepressants are the ultimate cure, I am saying that depression is demonstrably a physiological condition with observable effects on the brain and a demonstrable hereditary element.

>> No.5598287

>>5598248
I would add though that if you believe in the existance of pre-existing chemical inbalance you must also believe that there are natural and unnatural states.

In reality chemical inbalance is as "unnatural" as differences in personality or intelligence between individuals. There is no distinction, and what we choose to "treat" is completely arbitrary. It is wrong to think you are "restoring" a chemical balance by doing this, you are in fact changing the state of a persons mind to better fit the circumstance.

>> No.5598292

>>5598278
Which is why I added a question so we could get around our confusion. How considerate of me.

>> No.5598294

if singles, suicide. plz god plz

>> No.5598296

>>5598283
No one I know enjoys his/her life.

>>5598284
I agree, since pretty much everything is physiological. I'm not a dualist.

>> No.5598298

>>5598292
Your question about what matters to me personally has no relation to my pointing out of this false distinction.

>> No.5598301

>>5598112
Not antidepressants specifically, but as I said Valéry in his essays on Intelligence noted the how the industrial society create artificial needs to which people react like they would to do a light poison-by getting used to it and absorbing it as part of their daily diet.

You can probably find similar stuff in most criticism of post-1950 capitalism (the situationists for instance). Any work on advertising (Marshall Macluhan perhaps) could also be of interest.

>> No.5598305

>>5598301
Great, thanks.

>> No.5598306

>>5598294
huzaah

>> No.5598310

>>5598296
>No one I know enjoys his/her life.
no wonder you're depressed

>> No.5598311

>>5598258
>Are you one of the ones who makes a distinction between "artificial" happiness and "true" happiness?
As if that isn't the norm? I am not so devoid of morals and ambition that I would be content living a completely internal life. Do you in all honestly believe we should live like hedonists? I didn't pick the WALL-E reference for no reason u know.

>> No.5598318

>>5598310
every smart person I know is depressed

>> No.5598322

>>5598298
So you're the intellectual equivalent of a grammar nazi, you just came here to nitpick without interest in the discussion at hand. Congratulations, if you wish to debate the topic is: Hedonism, yes or no?

>> No.5598324

>>5598318
That's the bad type of smart person. Try to find smart people that don't hate themselves.

>> No.5598331

>>5598311
I can't follow you. I don't know where hedonism is coming from. I don't remember WALL-E.

All I was saying is that if you have a person who's consistently miserable and there was a pill that could cure it, then that would be a great thing. there's nothing hip about being miserable, although people certainly like to pretend it's cool.

>>5598318
This is such a frustrating and stupid cliche. Anyone who says it immediately outs himself as a teenager.

>> No.5598336

Guy who recommended Listening to Prozac - do you have anything more recent? It's very dated, considering the subject matter.

>> No.5598337

>>5598324
I have never met one.

>> No.5598345

>>5598331
But why is that person miserable? There is external cause. We should fight the cause and the cause is not depression. Depression is the symptom. Unless we make the goal: happiness at any cost, in that case we would be hedonists. With me?

>> No.5598346

>>5598331
I'm not saying all smart people are depressed, I agree that's a retarded cliche. But the vast majority of "smart people" in my social circles (I'm 19, 18-24 year-olds) are depressed.

>> No.5598348
File: 17 KB, 220x193, 220px-Of-natural-history-cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5598348

Just wanted to chime in that Sleepytime Gorilla Museum have a great avant-industrial album thematically concerned with Industrial Society and Its Future and is definitely worth a listen.

>> No.5598349

>>5598345
With hedonism, you can make the claim that short term pleasure may lessen or deny long term happiness, and therefore isn't always immediately desirable.

>> No.5598350

>>5598346
Why wouldn't there be truth to that. Seem reasonable that smarter people would have more trouble fooling themselves that everything is fine.

>> No.5598355

>>5598350
Seems reasonable that smarter people would be more capable of improving their lives.

>> No.5598356

Seriously though, lets talk about his sex change operation he wanted.

convicted unabomber Ted Kaczynski first had fantasies
about murder after he was unable to summon the
courage to talk to a University of Michigan
psychiatrist about his desire for a sex-change
operation.

This comes from court-appointed Dr. Sally
Johnson, who interviewed Kaczynski at the court's
request to determine his mental capacity to stand
trial. Kaczynski also related to Johnson dreams
in which "some psychologist... would either be
trying to convince me that I was 'sick' or would
be trying to control my mind..."

No further information was related about
Kaczynski's feelings about his gender or whether
he made further remarks about it. Dr. Johnson's
47-page report was submitted to the court in
January.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/family/marriage/minister.in.lesbian.ceremony.to.be.fired-05.09.98

>> No.5598358

>>5598322
It's not nitpicking when it alters the entire discussion. When people justify or condemn a certain thing based on it's naturalness it's a nonsensical debate in the first place.

I guess sound reasoning can ruin the fun though. As to your question, I think engaging in normative ethics is a futile and nonsensical endeavour.

>> No.5598359

>>5598349
Sure. But if we had a way of plugging into the matrix and being happy forever, would you do it?
I wouldn't, it's a nihilist outlook, I believe there is a responsibility to make more of life i.e. existentialism, i.e. all of secular morals.

>> No.5598365

>>5598355
seems reasonable that smarter people would realise that life itself is a business that doesn't cover the cost no matter how much you improve it.

>> No.5598368

>>5598345
I don't know why the person is miserable. Why does it matter? Why is treating the "cause" any different than "merely" treating the "symptoms", if ostensibly the end state of the person is the same: a functional, "happy" person. Are you going to argue from an essentialist point of view and say something like "but it's not about happiness, it's about being enriched or living through the human condition" or something like that?

>>5598346
I have observed a trendy nihilism among the age group. I wouldn't call it "depression" (I hate that word). It's more like "man, the world is so evil and stuff, there's nothing we can do. it's all pointless and hopeless." This observation comes from the internet of course, since I don't talk to people offline. Maybe most of them are actually miserable and anxious and want to kill themselves but don't because it's too dramatic and kind of silly etc. Maybe a lot of them "grow out of it" and then get married and have kids and put them through the same ordeal. that would be kind of funny. Or maybe you've hit the jackpot re: friends.

>> No.5598370

>>5598359
Why is there such a responsibility?

>> No.5598372

>>5598368
>It's more like "man, the world is so evil and stuff, there's nothing we can do. it's all pointless and hopeless."
It's not really that. At least, it's a lot more articulate than that. Some struggle with gender identity issues, one took abandoning his faith very badly. But I suppose a lot of it boils down to what you said.

>> No.5598375

>>5598368
>considering the world evil
>nihilism

>> No.5598381

>>5598358
Well it's not necessarily just normative ethics that's just the way I phrased it to get around our conundrum. It is also the central question to all of secular morals, Nietzsche talked about morals post-god and came to similar conclusions. Even without a heavenly reward there is reason and responsibility to make life about more than hedonism.

And yeah it's nitpicking because you completely chose on your own to alter the discussion, I was perfectly on point except I used the word natural, to which you are allergic. Mind you, it is perfectly fine to use the word natural if the context is clear. Lots of big names use the word, ur to good for them?

>> No.5598391

>>5598368
Congratulations you are a hedonist, case closed. Oh, and you don't know what nihilism is.

>> No.5598395

>>5597969
with the type of paranoid-schizophrenic delusions you seem to have, it might not be a bad idea for you to request some medications...

>> No.5598409

he's written more things besides "Industrial Society...", like a critique of Hakim Bey and a sort of follow up of the "post-left" anarchist camp

I'd like to call myself a luddite but it's not like I'm doing anything to merit it, besides trying to consume less, learning practical skills and tending a small farm in my backyard. is there a chance for the world to go back to a pre-industrial state? maybe, but it's far more likely that the environmental disaster will continue intensifying, forcing us to keep up technologically just to survive. in that aspect I think the "bright greens" are closer to reality rather than the shack-in-the-forest types.

either way, make that compost, folks

>> No.5598412

>>5598391
Well, you've convinced me! Oh god I'm a hedonist! Shit I've been cornered! I guess I'll have to go kill myself now.

(Also, the reaction is considered nihilistic by them - doesn't mean it's "legitimate nihilism" - "read between the lines", yeah?)

>> No.5598415

>>5598370
I'll be the first to admit I haven't gotten that far. To me it seems intuitively true that even if you had the chance to hook yourself up to an IV and take a happiness-pill you wouldn't do it.

How about you, would you do it?

The central problem is that we don't have a society that allows both kinds of people.

>> No.5598423

ITT: the naturalistic fallacy.

>> No.5598425

>>5598395
Nice
>>5598412
Well you are, I just genuinely mean that if that's your standpoint there is nothing left to debate. Therefore, without irony, case closed.

>> No.5598427

>>5598423
ITT: A faggot who read a Wikipedia page

>> No.5598433

>>5598423
Scroll wheel, retard.
Besides naturalistic doesn't mean what you think it means. You mean "appeal to nature" or something to that effect.

>> No.5598453

>>5598232
>>5598215
He's right though, depression is indeed a mental illness, what makes you think you know more about modern psychology than trained professionals and researchers?

Although it is true that most antidepressants are virtually as effective as placebos when treating moderate or lighter depression.

>> No.5598459

>>5598381
When you clear these things up and think critically about them you realise all normative statements rely on the same fallacious thinking. There are no arguments in favour of any behaviour that don't rely on wrongly assumed premises. Any argument as to what people ought to do is just as senseless.

>> No.5598461

>>5598453
he's already conceded that it is a physiological issue, he disagrees with the classification as "illness" and not just a certain type of wrongly pathologized personality/temperament. He's not some Szasz-ist

>> No.5598467

>>5598461
lol "conceded" makes me sound like an asshole

"agreed"

>> No.5598479

I don't have a bias against reactionary thinking but I didnt think his paper was all that fascinating. Obviously human life is getting more and more atomized and purposeless, but he didn't seem to have solutions to the problems he vaguely articulated

Being brilliant in one intellectual arena does not make you brilliant in all of the other ones. On the other hand, if more people were at least willing to entertain reactionary thought, than our society would be less shit

>> No.5598486

>>5598479
*then

damn it

>> No.5598487

>>5598459
>There are no arguments in favour of any behaviour that don't rely on wrongly assumed premises.
>Wrongly?
It is true that we cannot say what is good without defining what we want to achieve. Still absolute morals have a place in the discussion if we determine that we are going to function and progress as a species and as individuals. It is easy to relativize everything but the fact remains that we must take an absolute moral stance in order to live anywhere close to the life we live now.

>> No.5598492

>schizo
He says in manifesto he bombed people to promote his manifesto. He wasn't crazy.

He was a genius who became foolish obsessed with nature and started pushing ideas that even a child can see are crazy. Who the fuck wants to live like wretched tribal niggers?

>> No.5598501

>>5598487
I'd say you don't need any stronger stance other than that you prefer to live this way. Because ultimately all moral stances are just that.

>> No.5599128

>>5598415
>To me it seems intuitively true that even if you had the chance to hook yourself up to an IV and take a happiness-pill you wouldn't do it.
Heroin_IV.exe