/lit/ - Literature

>>14647177
Burroughs is a weird inverse of this

>>14647177

>>14647209
wtf a charles manson shirt? not cool

>>14647177
>mentions Ayn Rand
>NOOOOO NOT A REAL PHILOSOPHER

>>14648957
>mentions Ayn Rand
Yikes

>>14647177
I think he was right and his manifesto was nicely written.

>>14647177
Although more restricted to here, there is the french man that is spammed here.
I fear saying his name may ruin the thread.

>>14648990
Based

>>14647177
>>14648990
He really was a brainlet and his manifesto was poorly written. You can tell he hasn't read and engaged with the luddite tradition, or even guys like Ibn Khaldun and Oswald Spengler. Ted is for basically for young boys who haven't read and think he's the only person in the world to say that technology is bad and leftists are dumb.

>>14649400
Cope harder, faggot.

>>14649414
>N-No, d-don't crush my pathetic loser virgin hero!

>>14649431
>hes a simp
Kill yourself lol.

>>14647177
Edward Jominim

>>14648957
>mentions Ayn Rand
Do Americans really?

>>14649400
>read ted
>read linkola
>read mein kampf
>stop

That’s the objectively correct path for anti tech teens

>>14647177
He never wrote me back

>>14649400
> Calls a man with 160 IQ a brainlet
> Claims that his ideas are invalid because he hasn't engaged with the "luddite tradition" even though he has read many of these writers
> Calls his writing poor quality without explaining why

The eternal pseud strikes again.

>>14648990
what did he say that Heidegger and Maurice didn't say better?

>>14650262
Would they really allow him to send letters from prison?

>>14650321
168* that's 1 in 100,000 whereas 160 is 1 in 10,000

>>14647177
Arguing about Ted is pointless. His domestic terrorism proves his philosophy false. He tried to live the anti-technology way, but felt the creeping dread of dying as an outcast from society and lashed out in an impotent rage. There are authors out there that have said what he thought better and minus all of his logical fallacies. Of course this is /lit/, and we have to deal with Ted threads daily, because we are edgy to the core.

>>14650751

>>14650766
So this is the Ad hominem OP mentioned?

>>14650751
>domestic terrorism proves his philosophy false.
>creeping dread of dying as an outcast
>authors out there that have said what he thought better
>his logical fallacies

literally everything said here is pulled out of your ass. the idea that you can just say "muh logical fallacy" about one of the worlds most preeminent logicians without a shred of argument or reasoning and expect people to take it seriously is reflective.

Congrats on your truly silly post.

>>14650794
huh?

>>14650351
actually it's more like 1 in 10,000,000

>>14650751
>His domestic terrorism proves his philosophy false
that is literally the actual definition of ad hominem, you know that right?

>>14650751
>is domestic terrorism proves his philosophy false.
I dont even agree with his worldview about technology, but if you honestly think this makes sense you are beyond saving. You could discredit any worldview by finding someone who believed it and did something violent or retarded in its name. This doesn't even qualify as thought, it's just some kneejerk social impulse.

>>14650336
pretty much everything.

but your comment stacks the deck. it's not an objective truth claim that is verifiable. it's a completely subjective statement and for the purposes of argument utterly meaningless. If one is emotionally or psychologically averse to someone, then no matter how much better their writing will be, they can always claim that they don't "write well." So, just sticking with the objective facts, niether of the authors you mentioned developed a scientific and logically rigorous theory of an anti-technology revolution distilled from the principles and dynamics of world revolutions. That's just one sliver of an example of what makes Ted unique. Ellul's writings on revolution were far more vague and unscientific. Ellul was more into a quasi-religious and spiritual revolution. Silly naive type stuff.

>>14650829
Huh

>>14650817
kek. this.

>>14650766
This is shooped

>>14647177
To be fair, his proponents often appeal to authority by citing the fact that he was a genius Berkely professor, so in that context pointing out his social problems makes some sense.

>>14650817
>>14650783

Except the intent of his domestic terrorism is directly tied with his worldview/ideology. It's not like saying Nietzsche's philosophy is retarded, because he lost his mind by the end of his life. Ted was of a sound mind and knew well what he was doing, so his act of violence is directly tied to his philosophy and cannot be ignored when discussing his "work".

>>14650873
His proponents refer to his works. Then the fallacy bugmen such as yourself make it their life mission to discuss anything but his works so his proponents react accordingly. You want to discuss the man instead of his ideas? Well discuss the fact that he's a literal genius in the most literal, banal, most accepted sense. Imagine thinking being a 168iq math genius is an 'appeal to authority'. No, it's nothing more than a guarantee of intellectual superiority. If you somehow disagree your brain is rotten with idealism.

>>14650929
>his act of violence is directly tied to his philosophy
Yes. I thought it proved his philosophy wrong? Which is it? Is it tied to his philosophy or fundamentally opposed to it? I don't get it.

>>14650929
Ted wasn't really of a sound mind you know.

>>14650321
>mediocre math prof
>barely engages with the luddite tradition in his writings
>thinks its not self obvious that the manifesto has a painfully grating writing style


>>14650929
not him but even if we say his terrorism was good, his ideas are still mediocre and he was a brainlet at the end of the day..

you have to be a neet man child to be impressed by ted

>>14650262
why would he? he's known to be a prideful asshole to everyone and will only write back to you to get you to buy him books and then will never respond

>>14650929
It's literally not an argument. If you disagree with his take on technology just explain why.

Lovecraft was a racist though.

>>14650973
>mediocre math prof
TK was solving problems at the frontier of mathematics when he was 24, just quit posting. If you're referring to the mediocrity of his teaching skills, then lmao. Oh, and he was the youngest math professor in the world at the time.

>barely engages with the luddite tradition in his writings
He starts anti-tech revolution explaining why he won't engage with the luddite tradition, should've read that before posting. There is a "logical fallacy" in thinking ideas are legitimized by past events and academic tradition, but I'll leave you bugman the pleasure of finding your beloved fallacy yourself.

>painfully grating writing style
True, the writing style is bad. And? You were going to make a screenplay out of his manifesto? Kek, idealism has corrupted your spirit.

another day, another pleb filtered.

>>14650751
>his domestic terrorism proves his philosophy false
I believe you are assuming that the terror acts were a result of a disastisfaction with his life caused by him rejecting the world, and this somehow implies that his criticisms against technology are all false. This doesn't follow. Ted also doesn't advocate in much detail any way in which one should live, only that the modern world has deprived us of some key components that were present in the past and that it overall isn't healthy to the human mind. He never argues to actually go out into the woods and live alone the way he did.

Also, Ted began his campaign after normies and industry began to encroach around the surrounding area of his home, not out of some feeling of being an outcast.

>>14650973
How do you know he was a mediocre math prof? He was a math prof who quit early in his career because he was disillusioned with it, not because he wasn't good at it. If he was mediocre then why did two other math professors at the school call him to a meeting to convince him to not leave his job?

Why is it "self obvious" that the writing style is grating? That's a subjective assertion that doesn't address the substance of the writing at all.

Again you call a man with a genius level IQ a brainlet.

Your arguments are so weak that I'm thinking you might be a false-flagging tedfag

>>14651028
This.

>>14651028
>TK was solving problems at the frontier of mathematics when he was 24

what's his legacy in mathematics?

the rest of your post is a cope and i don't need to address it...mumford is 100x better than this hack

>>14651056
you act like he was a genius mathematician when really he was just a incel who excelled in high school...in other words he's barely above NPC asians who are smart in youth but then fizzle out in adulthood

>>14651203
>MY author is better than YOUR author
why are you still posting hahahaha

>>14651212
>you act like he was a genius mathematician
He was a genius mathematician who solved problems at the frontier of mathematics, at age 24. He had an iq of 168.

Here you did not grasp this well enough, I'll reiterate: He was a genius mathematician who solved problems at the frontier of mathematics

Take a good look at this bugman who thinks genius mathematician = famous mathematician. The type of person to think that netflix shows are bigger proof of someone's ability than actual achievements in their field. Terminal phase consumerist mindset.

>>14651241
>He was a genius mathematician who solved problems at the frontier of mathematics

Which problems? What's his legacy?

>>14651203
>legacy in mathematics

huh?

>>14651339
> pretending to be retarded when it's convenient

What are his achievements in the field of mathematics?

>>14651352

>>14651352
you absolute idiot. ted left mathematics because it is of no benefit to the human race, and only can contribute to the growth of technology which he reasoned was destroying the earth. the point is he had enormous potential, and could have made a nice famous comfortable career, but he left all of that in pursuit of truth and principles.

"In 1917 Einstein wrote: “Our entire much-praised technological
progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the
hand of a pathological criminal.”15 It is therefore difficult to conceive of
any altruistic motive for Einstein’s scientific work. Einstein must have
realized that any advance in physics would be likely to have practical
applications and therefore to contribute to the technological progress that
he had compared to an axe in the hand of a criminal, yet he continued
his work in theoretical physics until very late in life16—even after he had
seen the development of nuclear weapons, to which his own research had
contributed. So why did he continue his work? It may have been a kind
of compulsion. Toward the end of his life he wrote: “I cannot tear myself
away from my work. It has me inexorably in its clutches.”17
Whether it was a compulsion or not, Einstein’s scientific work had
nothing to do with any desire to benefit the human race. In an autobiography18
that he wrote at the age of 67, Einstein described his reasons for
devoting himself to science. As a small child he was already oppressed by
a sense of the “vanity” or “emptiness” (Nichtigkeit) of hoping and striving.
This suggests a depressive and defeatist mentality. Einstein moreover
seems to have been too delicate a child to face the workaday world, for he
saw at an early age what he called the “cruelty” of the busy effort (Treiben)
that was necessary in order to make a living. At first he tried to escape
from these painful feelings by becoming deeply religious, but at the age of
twelve he lost his faith as a result of reading scientific books that disproved
the tales of the Bible. He then turned for solace to science itself, which
provided him with a “paradise” that replaced the religious paradise he
had lost.19
It thus appears that, for Einstein, scientific work was not only a
surrogate activity, but also an escape from a world that he found too harsh.
In any case, it is certain that Einstein turned to science solely in order to
satisfy his personal needs; nowhere in his autobiography did he suggest
any ways in which his research might improve the lot of the human race."

--Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery" (2019) p. 272

>>14651369
so he was a math prof like all the rest?

>>14651375
> he was a math genius, but he didn't actually do much because he was so much smarter than maths!

lol aight...he left it to regurgitate mumford and ellul for NEET midwits

>>14651352
"In my experience during eleven years as a student and teacher of mathematics, professors and students talked about what was going on in various fields of mathematics, about who was doing what kind of research, and about the actions and personalities of particular mathematicians, but I never heard professors or students say anything about whatever benefits their work might bring to the human race—except on one single occasion:
During my second year at Berkeley, I notified the mathematics department that I planned to resign at the end of the academic year. Some time thereafter I received a phone call from Professor X, a big wheel in the department, who said that he and another big wheel, Professor Y, wanted to talk with me and ask me to reconsider my decision to resign. Eventually I met with X and Y in the latter’s office. I had been looking forward to the meeting because I expected it would give me an opportunity to air my feelings about the pointlessness of mathematical research. In response to my effort to explain those feelings, Professor Y tried to justify mathematical research by asserting that it helped “the starving children in Asia.” This was a catch-phrase commonly heard at the time (circa 1969): Americans were supposed to feel sorry for “the starving children in Asia,” and our country was supposed to do something to help them.
I told Professor Y that I didn’t believe my research was doing anything for the starving children in Asia. He seemed taken aback. “You mean,” he replied, “you don’t think your work helps the starving children in Asia!?”
My work was in an area of pure mathematics that had no foreseeable or probable connection with practical applications of any kind. Y’s field was symbolic logic. If a man were genuinely interested in helping “the starving children in Asia” he would go into agricultural research, or economics, or the sociology of “underdeveloped” countries, or another field that had some known relationship to the plight of starving children. He wouldn’t choose symbolic logic or pure mathematics on the wildly speculative assumption that his work might one day find an application that in some way would help starving children. Y’s parroting of the hackneyed formula “help the starving children in Asia” was clear proof that he had never given any serious thought to the question of how, if at all, mathematics-
related research would benefit the human race. He had chosen
symbolic logic simply because it served his personal needs. Then, when
he was challenged (probably for the first time in his life) to explain why
mathematics-related work was of value, he could think of nothing better
than the platitude about “starving children in Asia.”

--Kaczynski, ibid, p.331-332

Kaczynski left mathematics when he realized that revolution to collapse the industrial system was the only logical, moral, and necessary step humanity could take to avoid disaster.

>>14650262
>mfw a math wizz cant into philosophy and conjures an innawoods solution to the question of life
>mfw i have no face

>>14651388
no you idiot, because he was more courageous and principled. do you realize how circular your logic is???

It is as if you were to say: "look at that tsarist commander, obviously he wasn't even that great because he never was promoted to tsarist general!" When he didn't advance to become a tsarist general because he joined the revolutionaries to overthrow that entire system.

>>14651388
Ted was a Mumford fan?

>>14651472
lol. no.

Jack the ripper is behind her
russellcrowe188

>>14651421
so why didn't Ted just get a job doing something more meaningful like helping engineer dams in asia or some charity or something?

>>14651653
because only the collapse of industrial civilization will avert catastrophe. in other words reform of the industrial system in such a way that it does not completely eliminate freedom in the short-term and lead to the destruction of humanity and the biosphere in the long term is fundamentally impossible. You are free of course to rationally disagree with all of this, but this is the central core of his argument and he has written two books and thousands of letters and essays expanding on and arguing why this is and why an organized revolutionary movement to force the collapse of the industrial system before it does any more damage is the only viable option---beyond simply hoping for a spontaneous collapse.

ITT: edgy children who don't understand the difference between an author and a terrorist who wrote a manifesto.

>>14651726
>implying he only wrote the manifesto
Holy homogay

>>14651726
>Implying you can't be both.
>Implying using terroristic means somehow invalidates a man's arguments.
I think I'm implying you're a faggot bro.

>>14651472
probably not since he didn't actually read luddite writers because he was too much of a midwit but mumford did his critique of technique better

>>14651445
but youre literally using his achievements in math to prove that he's a genius, but when those achievements appear to be literally nothing you say thats proof he was a genius

yike...ted fans really are emotional teens

>he left it to regurgitate mumford and ellul for NEET midwits
Further proof that TK is right about 'thinkers' and academicians being more interested in originality and the socializing aspects of intellectuality (gaining credibility and respect among their peers aka engaging in socializing to alleviate their neurosis) than striving for the accomplishment of their goals.

>but mumford did his critique of technique better
Perfectly encapsulates my previous point. More interested in posing with the perfect neutered 'critique' than actual problem solving. Peak domestication.
"We're in a cage but let me explain to you what exactly makes this cage a cage and not a fence or wall. Leaving this cage? Huh, n-no.. I'm not interested in that.. Let's wait until the 31st when my salary comes in"
If you were an invested reader of either Ellul or Mumford, I do not see why you would despise TK so much, since, like you said, it is nothing more than the regurgitation of these two authors. You said it yourself, so explain why TK is of lesser worth? Mumford and Ellul are hacks too? The lack of awareness is strong.

>>14651816
>but when those achievements appear to be literally nothing
In three years of being a professional mathematician, TK solved more problems than 99% of mathematicians ever will in their entire life. It is clear that you have no experience or knowledge of the field of mathematics. TK is lauded as a mathematical genius even according to academia's standards of genius, I fail to see how someone's random opinion of a particular mathematician undoes this reality.
You have completely surrendered your soul to the artifices and expectations of society. Turn off the TV, this is the real world. A genuine, genius mathematician is not legitimized because Neil Degrasse Tyson, or various reddit philosophers brought them up on your favorite TV show.

>>14652012
> problem solving

ted's manifesto reeks of delusion...dude thinks some kind of anti-tech revolution is possible...incredible yike

> You said it yourself, so explain why TK is of lesser worth?

how illiterate can you be? he's a watered-down version of better luddites with better arguments and better writing and none of the stupid errors that ted made that make NEET teens love him so much...you're fucking retarded

>>14652071
you can't cite any major achievements and instead you resort to a base kind of strawman attack...w-well if you don't care about his achievements then you're reddit!

stop worshipping this pathetic loser

>>14651816
this is just silly. based on the available info we have of him, he was objectively a genius. your confusing intellectual capacity with intellectual accomplishment. there is enough available evidence to show that Ted was an exceptional genius based on intellectual capacity even before continuing a career in mathematics.

Also, no one is trying to "prove" that he was a genius based on his early credentials, they are just trying to counter ad hominems that people throw out about Kaczynski by showing that these are baseless and counterfactual.

>>14651388
>>14651816
>>14652174

>>14652174
again, your logic is circular. you set the standard by which someone should be judged a genius as having solved exactly the kinds of problems that you think they should solve over the course of a career, and then when they don't because they reason that other work is more important (for the future of the human race and biosphere) you deem them not a genius. If you are going to reason that way, then you can "prove" anyone not a genius that doesn't fit your expectations.

>>14652174
You're obsessed aren't you. Lol, imagine if I went around sperging for over 2 hours (!!) in threads about authors I dislike.

Anyways, you haven't addressed a single argument so far. Not a single one. Not the slightest clue showing that you have read his works. Not one single word, sentence, argument or semblance of thought mentionning Mumford and Ellul content. Not a single proof you have read them either. Thank you for proving OP right. You're just mad that the technological question is equated with TK: like some anon said earlier, more as some kind of knee jerk social impulse than any real cogitation on your part.

Clearly since you've been in here posting for hours, you ought to share with us at least ONE of your disagreements with TK. There is no cope-out here, you've been with us for literal hours, you clearly have the time and energy to discuss these topics, plus you seem highly invested and interested in Mumford and Ellul, the inquiries surrounding Technique should be kid's play for your enlightened, mature mind.

>>14652276
this.

>>14651369
two jokes in this one lmao

>>14651816
Ted read Mumford. He makes no mention of many authors in ISAIF, but he does in his other books.

>>14652252
dude was a mediocre mathematician, just accept it

>>14652276

>You're just mad that the technological question is equated with TK

i'm not mad but this is precisely the problem...that the luddite question is equated with a midwit hack like TK who did nothing to further the cause other than to kill some normies to promote his hack manifesto and get NEET losers to think he's the end game of all philosophy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI6rX96oYnY

>>14650973
>he's known to be a prideful asshole to everyone and will only write back to you to get you to buy him books and then will never respond
Really? O damn. Source?

>>14653138
the midwit hacks are the thinkers who came before TK. TK's two books are groundbreaking and flawlessly written. speaking of the manifesto, the manifesto is the most concise, lucid, and comprehensive summary of the industrial world situation. nothing mumford or postman or ellul or any of those supposed tech-philosophers have ever written comes close to the level of conciseness and comprehension of the manifesto. name me a manifesto, like the communist manifesto is for marxism, that so perfectly and logically encompasses the whole of the situation yet does it in a brief and very easy to read manner (like a manifesto should). news flash: you can't.

look, i get it, it's inconvenient that someone so controversial as the unabomber could also be the best thinker on the subject. it makes it difficult to discuss anti-tech ideas in polite society if he is the prime example of anti-tech ideas. but you have to call a spade a spade.

cope.

>>14647189
I feel like Burroughs gets “called out” more these days but yeah, in a world seemingly dedicated to destroying reputations Burroughs is curiously less scathed than men who did far less.
Maybe because he’s gay/pedophile?

>>14653188
amazing that no one knows about this yet you all suck his dick...everybody from his editor, to zerzan, to guys on /lit/ who write to him know this...ted is an asshole and uses people for his personal gain}

> the midwit hacks are the thinkers who came before TK. TK's two books are groundbreaking and flawlessly written. speaking of the manifesto, the manifesto is the most concise, lucid, and comprehensive summary of the industrial world situation. nothing mumford or postman or ellul or any of those supposed tech-philosophers have ever written comes close to the level of conciseness and comprehension of the manifesto. name me a manifesto, like the communist manifesto is for marxism, that so perfectly and logically encompasses the whole of the situation yet does it in a brief and very easy to read manner (like a manifesto should). news flash: you can't.

this is satire, right? the dude literally thinks there's no such thing as paid shills because he saw some undergrads getting uppity on a california campus and boils everything down to a brainlet version of nietzsche and freud

>>14653319
mean to reply to you as well, dork

>>14653453
well, good luck with everything bro. i frankly don't care about your irrational and unfounded opinions about someone. all that really matters is if you support a revolution to force the collapse of the industrial system. if you do, then you're still ok in my book. if you don't, then your a fool. only the collapse of the industrial system will save you.

>>14653453
(this will be decided in your lifetime)

>>14651028
>another day, another pleb filtered.
Yep, I'm thinking he's pretty based.

>>14653781
this

>>14651028
You think the writing style is bad?? How so? I agree completely with Dr. Skrbina:

"Kaczynski's writing style is perfectly suited to the task. he is clear, precise, and articulate. he writes in a commonsense manner, largely free of technical terms. When he does introduce precise terms, he is generally careful to define them. he is respectful of the reader. He writes to a broad audience. He is methodical and meticulous. Clarity and precision are of utmost importance, befitting the severity of the situation."

He also can be quote humorous at times, especially when discussing leftists and technophiles and the media, and he uses very clear metaphors sometimes as examples.

So I'm genuinely interested to know what you think is wrong with the writing style.

>>14653319
Hes getting Capitalism, Fascism, and Technology mixed up

>>14654022
No, I don't think so. Read the essay "Stay on Target"

>>14650336
Nothing, but he "said" it a lot louder.

>>14653492
>a revolution to force the collapse of the industrial system

one of the stupidest ideas that ted ever had...proves how he only perceived the tip of the iceberg...major yike from me

>>14650262
forprisonersrights.com

He is only allowed to send 4 letter a month currently

>>14655787
Cringe, please provide some reasoning for your argument.

>>14655848
Are you at least getting paid for the shilling?

>>14655787
Well, enjoy wallowing in your own misery and filth while better people at least try to save the world.

>>14650262
i'd rather write to stallman

>>14651020
Who cares lol

>>14656773
99.9999% chance that Ted's response would be 1000x more intelligent and insightful though.

>>14656773
Stallman? Guy fucked himself by allowing feminists and trannies to penetrate open source.

>>14657329
>open source
lol FSF is not the same as open source

>>14647177
the fact he was a schizophrenic tranny is relevant though since his writings are about his subjective world views and opinions

>>14657370
wow, you're stupid.

>>14657391
schizophrenia and gender dysphoria both alter your perspective with schizophrenia being in fictional ways how would this not effect his writing? can you actually explain what I'm wrong about or can you just throw insults you can't justify?

>>14657402
you are sooooo stupid. you read the writings. if the writings are valid and correct, then it doesn't fucking matter if ted was verified the most crazy lunatic in the world by all of the psychiatrists put together. they are still valid and correct.

>>14657418
you know philosophy isn't objective though? have you read his writings he recalls personal life experiences and predictions based on his interpretations of others which could be altered due to his/her mental illnesses

>>14657418
>doesn't realize that TK was trolling psychiatrists because he hated how they acted as socially relative power-brokers.

>thinks TK is mentally ill because one court-appointed psychologist trying to get him off the death penalty said so, and her only rational was that he lived in the woods, while dozens of psychologists have visited him in the prison and confirmed that he's perfectly sane and the diagnosis was ludicrous and political

dude, you should actually read his works for once instead of regurgitating mainstream media.

>>14657402
>>doesn't realize that TK was trolling psychiatrists because he hated how they acted as socially relative power-brokers.

>>thinks TK is mentally ill because one court-appointed psychologist trying to get him off the death penalty said so, and her only rational was that he lived in the woods, while dozens of psychologists have visited him in the prison and confirmed that he's perfectly sane and the diagnosis was ludicrous and political

dude, you should actually read his works for once instead of regurgitating mainstream media.

>>14657427
lol! This is so much fun! Iove stupid people!

is your belief system falsifiable or is it a faith of yours?

How can we tell...oh, I know: under what conditions would you admit that the validity of his arguments are not affected by his personality?

>>14655973
its the publisher. his name is Alex

This board is so rude

>>14661106
fuck you cunt