/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16859209]

I just finished reading pic related. What now? It seems to me he is largely correct.

[Anonymous No.16859273]

Action. Start sabotaging industrial society and spreading the word that it will collapse. Even if it's a small thing, look for ways to harm industrialism.

[Anonymous No.16859279]

>>16859209
Get memed again

[Anonymous No.16859304]

Start talking to people about the dangers of technology. Dont go full red pill and make sure you are talking to someone smart enough to understand

[Anonymous No.16859370]

>>16859209
There’s nothing to do, it’s too late for us. There’s no way back

[Anonymous No.16859386]

>>16859370
That's not true. Resources are being depleted and pretty soon it will have a major affect on the global economy. That is the time to strike. You just need to prepare before then

[Anonymous No.16859397]

>>16859209
Read a better writer on the same subject.

[Anonymous No.16859487]

>>16859397
Can you recommend any?

[Anonymous No.16859502]

>>16859487
frankfurt school

[Anonymous No.16859540]

>>16859209
Are these threads generated by an AI? I swear I've seen the exact same template
>Just read X and he is correct. Books like X?
A million times, specifically in relation to Kaczynski

[Anonymous No.16859574]

[Anonymous No.16859647]

>>16859209
So what's the synopsis? Will ubi become a thing? Because I'm loving not working. I've been studying, reading, making digital art and music, working out, banging, just having a great time.

[Anonymous No.16859689]

>>16859647
That's good for you, but for most people these types of surrogate activities are not enough to attain fulfillment.

UBI would be an even greater disaster, stripping us to an even larger degree of autonomy. At the risk of putting words into Kaczynski's mouth, implementation of UBI would lead to greater depression, anxiety, and lack of purpose. Of course, this can all be fixed with more medication, so as to help humans cope with what the system requires. Perniciously, this seems on the surface a morally good act. Who would refused the depressed anti-depression medication? The danger we're in now is that UBI might become an unavoidable future, as technological advancement pushes people out of employment.

[Anonymous No.16859727]

>>16859209
>It seems to me he is largely correct.
Kacynzski establishes no framework in which industrial society can be overthrown and repressed. The advantages conferred by industrialization allow for defectors from the anarcho-primitivist world order to overthrow said order. At no point in ISAIF does Ted suggest a means by which industrial society may be permanently repressed, and thus one is left to imagine that his idea amounts to a mass religious reawakening that shuns industrialism as a matter of course, rather than by institutional means. Even that would require periodic Salem Witch Trials, since you can’t guarantee absolute obedience to such a reawakening.

Modernism is here to stay.

[Anonymous No.16859762]

>>16859727
Have you actually read ISAIF? He specifically talks about this. He is not interested in "repressing" industrial society. There is no need to enforce obedience to any ideology. He calls for the destruction of large-scale technology, after which it will be difficult for it to re-emerge, and even if it did it would take thousands of years, and hence a problem for far, far future generations. No system can say that it will solve problems a thousand years into the future, much less predict them.

[Anonymous No.16860199]

>>16859762
>Have you actually read ISAIF?
Yes.

> after which it will be difficult for it to re-emerge
This does nothing to address the critique I raised. The most capital intensive aspect of the industrial revolution was research and development. Are you going to take out a communication grid engineered to survive a nuclear exchange? Because that’s what it would take to destroy that knowledge. You can host Wikipedia on machines that would fit in your pocket.

[Anonymous No.16860220]

>>16859209
read the new one

[Anonymous No.16860234]

>>16859540
It's a thinly disguised call for validation. They don't actually want to discuss the material

[Anonymous No.16860247]

>>16860199
Soon it will be irremovable brain chips.

[Anonymous No.16860269]

There is no next
You are complete
Deal w/it somehow or write a better work.

[Anonymous No.16860324]

>>16859209
Read some real philosophy and realize how misguided he is in his ramblings even if he makes some agreeable and interesting observations. So start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.16860427]

>>16859540
that's because nobody can point out where he's wrong, and the implications of him being right are extremely difficult to come to grips with. so you get people asking each other for their thoughts about it. these threads aren't bizarre or strange; it makes perfect sense that they get spammed.

[Anonymous No.16860473]

I'd recommend Ishmael, one of my favourite short books of all time.

>talking monkey good

[Anonymous No.16860930]

>>16860427
>that's because nobody can point out where he's wrong, and the implications of him being right are extremely difficult to come to grips with.
Yeah, really just this. All I can think is that I should fuck off of this society or kill myself before >>16860247 which cannot be that far away considering the degree of compliance by the populace and the rate at which sci-fi becomes real

[Anonymous No.16860963]

>>16860930
Uncle Ted's critique is that freedom is what will be lost due to the progression of technological society. Yet there is still the question if freedom is even valuable or real. I find Ted's pessimism to stem from an anthropocentric system of values. Its quite interesting to read im in conjunction with Land

[Anonymous No.16861055]

>>16859487
Jacques Ellul

[Anonymous No.16861101]

>>16860963

Might be noob question but which Land are referring to? Just googling Land book obviously isn't very helpful

[Anonymous No.16861312]

>>16861101
Nick Land. Often memed on /lit/. Check out his essay Meltdown but be aware his prose is heavily rooted in the continental tradition and can be overwhelming (intentionally)

[Anonymous No.16861326]

>>16860963
No, he argues from a utilitarian point of view actually. People would have happier lifes without technology. One reason for that is the fact that it suppresses their freedom which results in powerless anxiety amongst other things.
But you've got a very interesting point. The conclusion ted ended up with is based on the idea that we should set the feelings of humans to the highest priority. But what if the goal of life is actually to gain as much insight on the most important questions we have, such as "Why are we"?

[Anonymous No.16861482]

>>16859727
This isn't even the biggest problem with the Manifesto. The biggest by far is that he fails to convince anyone NOT already on his side that Industrialism was a mistake. The totality of proof he offers is that (1) mental physical and social ills are more common than ever, and (2) it is impossible to become satisfied in an Industrial environment due to the 'power process'. For the first he writes a litany of problems but doesn't justify it (What if these are more reported now due to advanced surveying techniques? What if they existed in some form before?) or adequately relate it to technology, and for the latter he gives us a new term to equate with man's happiness yet cannot complete the theory. Why can't surrogate activities be fulfilling? How do you know traditional activities fulfilled us to a deeper degree? Ellul was right in pointing out that primitive man is bound by other restrictions on his freedom ("Primitive man, hemmed in by prohibitions, taboos, and rites, was, of course, socially determined") while Ted relies on the image of uncivilized life as utopia to have any persuasive power. It is a shame the manifesto is so flawed at its core when he gets many things right despite this, mostly in the latter half of the book.

[Anonymous No.16861492]

>>16859502
He said better

[Anonymous No.16861514]

>>16859209
Read Anti-tech revolution, Technological Slavery. Far more comprehensive than the manifesto.

>>16860963
>I find Ted's pessimism to stem from an anthropocentric system of values.
Of course LOL peripheral ontology is covert capitalism. the copernician revolution is not a scientific discovery but a destruction of the social and ontological framework. it is purely negative. science = capitalism, historically speaking.

>>16861482
The manifesto is a manifesto. He wrote it in three days. It's weak. I don't see people discussing the communist manifesto in reference to the works of Marx.

[Anonymous No.16861570]

>>16861514
>I don't see people discussing the communist manifesto in reference to the works of Marx.
Watch Jordan Peterson

But seriously it should have been better. Reading the communist manifesto you get the sense Marx has a powerful theoryーRead ISAIF and you will notice he fails to justify his argument. It may still be a positive for anti-tech skepticism, but he probably turned away many for his lack of sophisticated proof. A manifesto should be a nice encapsulation of your ideas with no obvious weaknesses after a single read. I was motivated to read other authors rather than more of Kaczysnki, but if the others are genuinely better then I will give Anti-Tech Revolution a try.

[Anonymous No.16861622]

>>16861326
Your post is interesting and all but what the fuck is that image

[Anonymous No.16862169]

>>16861622
It's a Ted Funko Pop.

[Anonymous No.16862370]

>>16861570
I wouldn't agree he fails to provide proof. We should be careful in what sort of freedom he desires. It is the freedom of a small community of individuals to decide their own fate, which primitive man very much could do. He protests much more that it is the distant stranger that now imposes restrictions.

I also doubt that increases in reporting could explain the incredible rise in mental health issues in the west.

He also doesn't claim that surrogate activities can't be fulfilling, they are undertaken precisely because they are fulfilling. Their existence is required simply because the system has robbed humanity of pure power processes. It is true that he does claim, without evidence, that they are not AS fulfilling as pure activities, and as proof he points to the obsession with youth, lower birthrates, and increased rates of mental health issues. Another piece of evidence is that people engaged in surrogate activities are never "finished". Primitive man who once he has set up his abode, farm, and secured a living now feels he can move onto raising a family, and then accept old age once he has raised his children. Compare this with modern man engaged in surrogate activity. He never feels this first stage of his life is complete. He also laments the fact that we cannot fulfill our biological needs with any form of autonomy. For the vast majority of people, we have 2 options for satisfying our biological needs. 1) Engage with system, display obedience, collect our paycheck, etc. or 2) become a welfare leech, again surrendering our autonomy.

[Anonymous No.16862410]

>>16859209
You sit and wait. Human society is speeding toward a threshold of environmental and social disaster. Like past cataclysms it could bring about radical change, possibly in a more "primitive" direction. However, this train will never stop if the current order survives the passage of that threshold. Technocapital seeks to subvert eschatology in order to bring about perpetual acceleration.

[Anonymous No.16862471]

>>16862370
>Another piece of evidence is that people engaged in surrogate activities are never "finished". Primitive man who once he has set up his abode, farm, and secured a living now feels he can move onto raising a family, and then accept old age once he has raised his children. Compare this with modern man engaged in surrogate activity. He never feels this first stage of his life is complete.
I don't remember this in the manifesto, is it from his other work? In any case it seems clear that there are two main points to his claim: Technology is bad because it restricts freedom (which is true) and bad because it traps us in an unfulfilling lifestyle (yet to be determined). What I mean to convey is that the flaw of the manifesto is that it's not enough to wake up the masses, which was its goal. If you are going to use a bombing campaign as a footstool to promote your ideas, they better be presented competently or the reputation of evil you'll obtain will outweigh the power of the message conveyed, as we've seen. Ted's central idea that uncivilized life is more satisfying might even be correct, or at any rate that we should have consciously stopped developing technology alongside science once it had stopped serving our interests (as some writers suggest). Most normalfags will just read the book, think "My life is alright so this is ridiculous," and nothing changes. I'm not sure how to remedy this problem though besides a stronger theoretical framework. Maybe he could give examples like, "In hunter gatherer societies all you had to do was murder an animal, gather fruit, and then everyone could sit around and eat and have fun and enjoy life." Or point to the growing elimination of human traditions and how they tie into a sense of perpetual childhood. Or the new religion of science. I'm not sure if anyone has written a dissection on the popular belief of infinite technological growth as a way to utopia, but if they have I'd like to read it.

[Anonymous No.16862499]

>>16859689
Yeah I could see that happening. But now that you mention it there feels like there would be a large incentive to actually implement it if you wanted to control the population. The thing you haven't thought about is even if you get UBI you can still work. And the people who want to will. Pretty easy solution to the lack of "purpose". Finding purpose in work is pathetic by the way but just throwing that out there

[Anonymous No.16862667]

>>16862471
No, that's from the manifesto. I also don't think he intended the manifesto to be read by the masses. He predicts large social unrest in the near future (~100 years) and that during this time those dedicated enough to the cause to have read the manifesto seriously, would then use it as an opportunity to present an alternative to the masses, and help bring the system down. I think the very fact that we're discussing his ideas were his goal.

He would also strongly object against the idea that you can "stop technological development once it has stopped serving us" even being possible. We haven't succeeded so far, and in his words any reform would not be strong enough to stand up against the general historical trend. Furthermore, no clear stopping point would ever come. Each and every step would be justified, and only when looking at the complete whole would we realize that we'd gone too far, and then we'd just be back in the same position, needing to burn the system down, but now the consequences for doing so are even worse.

>>16862499
>even if you get UBI you can still work
Of course I can. At least at the start. One danger is the unpredictability, and irreversability of the decision once it has been made. Furthermore UBI would only really be necessary once people have been pushed out of work by technological development, hence they couldn't actually work even if they wanted to. Sure, they can engage in art, and the like, but I think you're a fool if you believe the person who gets pushed out in the next ~50-100 years will be the same type of person who would find the same fulfillment in life by painting or somesuch.

[Anonymous No.16862805]

>>16862667
>We haven't succeeded so far, and in his words any reform would not be strong enough to stand up against the general historical trend.
Ellul argues this is what the Ancient Greeks did in their golden age. They had advanced in science beyond what their use of technique showed, implying they saw the hazards of advanced technology and chose not to pursue it in preference of the higher calling of science (including philosophy). I don't know enough of Greek history to substantiate this, so I will just post the quote
>"The rejection of technique was a deliberate, positive activity involving self-mastery, recognition of destiny, and the application of a given conception of life. Only the most modest techniques were permittedーthose which would respond directly to material needs in such a way that these needs did not get the upper hand.
The Greeks disdained manual labor and material needs. They used technology to siphon out the lesser desires of man to focus on the higher ones. To them, technology was means to an end, which is fulfillment of base desires so one can focus on the higher pursuit of wisdom. In a sense, we inherited this idea as well, but the key difference is the Greeks were quite reluctant to introduce new elements into their society due to a cherishing of harmony and balance (which we didn't inherit), so the natural flow of human life wasn't upset. But can we really pause in tech advancement indefinitely? The answer to me is, obviously not. Perhaps in one civilization, but the tech can carry over to others, and it would require a mass agreement to put tech advancement on a standstill, which is completely ridiculous given the advantages to military strength it affords alone. So it's a very difficult situation.

[Anonymous No.16862990]

Hopefully billions of people are tricked into “uploaded consciousness” sooner rather than later, leaving the planet for those of us who actually care to live here. A small group can fuck off to Mars or whatever to live in metal boxes and continue advancing the species. We can only hope it all happens before the earth is paved in solar panels and onions monoculture

[Anonymous No.16863063]

>>16862667
You can do literally anything. Think of a thing. You can do that instead of work if you're on UBI. You're getting caught up on painting. Anyways the MAJORITY of jobs aren't even necessary. I know you think you have purpose being a wage slave but you've been indoctrinated and socialized. Sure a minute sliver of people actually may have the luxury of finding their lives purpose in the work they do. But the vast majority roll out of bed, face traffic, sit in a cubicle, and get micromanaged all day so they can afford their frosted flakes You're thinking like a boomer when our current situation has evolved into something vastly different.

[Anonymous No.16863074]

Can I write him a letter somehow without ending up on a list? I don't live in the US btw. I fear that he dies before I have asked important questions

[Anonymous No.16863086]

>>16859273
What if we support industrilization to see if it collapse?

[Anonymous No.16863151]

>>16863074
Idk with not living in the US but I would try to make it look like a school project. Teachers have had their students write to ask him questions and it’s the most innocent pretense I can think of. In fact /lit/ should get together and send our letters from a fictional 8th grade civics class lol

[Anonymous No.16863293]

>>16863074
Idk. Why don't you use a fake name or something? I think hundreds of people write to him. Some reporter fag with the same surname wrote to him to ask him questions about the television series that was about the bombings. If normies like that dude are writing to him I'm not sure how much it matters. If you get asked questions about it just tell them that you were doing research for a writing project or something.

[Anonymous No.16863304]

>>16859209
The 19th Amendment and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.16863369]

>>16859209
I finally caved in and read this after months of you people shilling it over and over.
There's no way the absolute state of the average urban sprawl leftist has been exactly the same since 1995. His description was too accurate

[Anonymous No.16863405]

>>16863369
>There's no way the absolute state of the average urban sprawl leftist has been exactly the same since 1995. His description was too accurate

He pinned them down pretty good. The main change is that leftist ideas have metastasized to a greater degree now. The seeds of what you now see in popular culture were sown in the universities, which Kaczynski had considerable experience in, especially having taught at a university that is notorious for such things.

[Anonymous No.16863451]

lol
walden, you spastic.
HAHA

[Anonymous No.16863529]

>>16863369
They've been like that since the 60s. I think the New Left was a psyop created by the CIA to get them to not focus on supporting the USSR, and now the white guilt shit is still hanging on. Really until leftists drop it they'll have no chance of getting anything done.

[Anonymous No.16863767]

>>16863293
>use fake name
>he replies
>reply gets sent to wrong person
where is the point?
My best bet would be to pay some craigslist crackhead to print out a letter you send him per mail and he sends it to kaczynski and later forwards the response per email again

[Anonymous No.16863909]

>>16859487
Linkola

[Anonymous No.16863910]

>>16863063
Dude read the fucking manifesto instead of garbage posting. I never defended being a wage slave. He (and I) argue against wage slavery, you fucking imbecile. The only difference is that you think UBI is the solution, which I disagree with. I have no doubt I could find satisfaction under UBI, I doubt MOST people could. MOST people want to work, and not in the sense of modern wage slavery, but that sure beats not being able to perform ANY work. Realize that the system that created modern wage slavery, and all its horrors, is the same that created UBI. The purported solution will bring even more ills.

[Anonymous No.16864066]

>>16863767
>reply gets sent to the wrong person

You'd still put your address, anon.

[Anonymous No.16864145]

>>16864066
I don't know but I would assume the glowies are smarter than this

[Anonymous No.16864375]

>>16864145
I heard he doesn't reply to all letters, some letters doesn't get to him because if they contain violence or criminal talk the prison trash it, so don't mention the bombing a lot or talk about his crimes in a fed posting way.

[Anonymous No.16864396]

>>16864145
>>16864375
also ask people who sent him and got a reply from him because they know better, I remember some guys on instagram talked about what to write to get a chance of a response like "introducing yourself in the letter" "have good hand writing, the date of the letter and name, address" and stuff like that so ask someone who got a reply.

[Anonymous No.16864865]

>>16863910
>Manifesto? Pulling out a straw man argument? Pathetic lol.
Now, having more money = the solution.
Yeah I'd say that's about right.
>I have no doubt I could find satisfaction under UBI, I doubt MOST people could.
You doubt most people would find satisfaction getting their basic human needs met? Yeah, but I'M imbecile right?
Most people are poor living paycheck to paycheck, you understand that right?
You can still work getting UBI, I know you forgot already.
It actually allows you to be able to work doing what you love, you're being supplemented so you're able to pursue goals, start businesses, pursue hobbies and skills without the burden of selling your soul and time to your employer.
> Realize that the system that created modern wage slavery, and all its horrors, is the same that created UBI
So in other words Capitalism created UBI?
That's admitting the complete failure of pure capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16864915]

>>16863405
>The seeds of what you now see in popular culture were sown in the universities
It is interesting how the manifesto's part about leftism went from a lesser known thing in the 90's to the front and center of mainstream american debate.

[Anonymous No.16864952]

>>16859209
I'm midway into it. I agree with p much all it's criticism but his solution seems p retarded and completely unachievable to me.

[Anonymous No.16865059]

>>16859209
>What now?
Start thinking. Reexamine your life. Have you experienced the power process? In my case it was a few times, though it was more abstract than a clean power process where a starving hunter would be successful in catching an animal. Think about your options. Reduce and give up as much surrogate activities as possible. Can you fuck off into the woods? Then do it, I can't, I will have to leave my country first.

[Anonymous No.16865103]

>>16865059
>Can you fuck off into the woods?
Everyone needs to stop getting this message out of him. If you abandon society you're making things worse in the long run by giving it control over you, and reducing the amount of people who dissent to it making the overthrow of the tech system increasingly less realistic.

[Anonymous No.16865106]

>>16859209
It's interesting to me how much he, somewhat tangentially and unrelated to the main argument, dedicates a section of the tract to "owning the libs." It's telling to that a 25 year old manifesto so accurately anticipated the etiology of leftism into the future.

[Anonymous No.16865112]

>>16859209
nothing you just continue living with technology

[Anonymous No.16865150]

>>16862499
why is finding purpose in work pathetic?

[Anonymous No.16865272]

>>16862990
That won't work. The system did not, does not, and will not tolerate inefficient assets. Efficiency is the guiding principle of the system. Therefore ineficiency is fundamentally opposed to the system's values.
The degree of assimilation and integration that the system requires is always increasing. Assimilating and integrating individuals into the system is a technical problem. Therefore it is only a matter of time until these techniques are mastered and humans subdued. 4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system etc..

There is no refutal of Kaczynski. The weak points of ISaiF are addressed and corrected in later works. Every thread is the same, every day goes by and not one refutation. The few technologists who dared publicly address his works have all vindicated him(Kurzweil, who Kaczynski openly names and critique, has admitted that TK is right. The MIT magazine published an article in 1998 admitting that the manifesto is right etc..)

>>16865106
It's strategy. It filters out non-revolutionary assets from the movement. Debord called himself a strategist. He produced many interesting concepts, but eventually none of them are as real, radical and actualized as the anti-tech revolution.

[Anonymous No.16865297]

I will reply to every point raised as counter-argumentation or rebutal of Kaczynski's Anti-Tech Revolution and Technological slavery, and other various essays he has published following the release of Industrial Society and its Future.

[Anonymous No.16865356]

>>16865297
Unless you're the guy responding earlier, scroll up. There's plenty to address.

[Anonymous No.16865413]

>>16865297
let's say we all somehow return to a pre-industrial society and live in the woods as our ancestors did

what the hell do we do when we are inevitably invaded by a powerful nation like china, who want our resources?

[Anonymous No.16865640]

John zerzan is like kaczynski in some ways read his shit, pic related

[Anonymous No.16865746]

>>16865297
I know Ted is aware of this problem at least to an extent so I'm curious what he thinks about it. The problem is of coordination: the idea of a worldwide anti-tech revolution springing up in a single moment is impossible, so if there is revolution it has to begin with a relative minority of the human race opposed to the majority who want to keep things the way it is. They will also have to use all available technologies which give them an advantage in combat, propaganda, etc., if they have any chance at not immediately being wiped out. Assuming the revolution actually succeeds in taking control of literally all of human society across the globe, it will have had to make extremely substantial use of technology to get to that point. It seems unlikely that the people who find themselves in a position of power at that point will be willing to surrender their power, so even if 99% of the revolution commits to destroying all technology, the 1% that doesn't then has an enormous advantage and would be able to seize control. In the far more likely option, the revolution never succeeds in taking control of all human society, and so will have to remain technological or will be destroyed.
Basically, technology = power, so unless you can count on the coordinated action of 7 billion people, an anti-tech revolution seems like an oxymoron.

[Anonymous No.16865991]

>>16865413
The anti-tech revolution must strike every node the system requires for its maintenance. It cannot possibly succede locally. The anti-tech revolution is not a revolution of consciousness, on an individual, collective or universal scale; it purports no other motive than the destruction of industrial society. It is pragmatic and rational. Efforts should redirected entirely towards the achievement of concrete goals. That is the extent to which the anti-tech movement subjects itself. Anything beyond that is not representative of the anti-tech movement, it is to be regarded as highly suspicious, as potential systemic reappropriation of revolutionary effort. Therefore there is no scenario in which the anti-tech revolution will not incapacitate, and in turn precipitate the collapse of industrial society worldwide.

If you believe material goals to be achievable through material means then there is no refutation to the idea of the anti-tech revolution. Once again, the anti-tech revolution does not claim to be anything other than the almost tautological statement above. The analysis, the philosophy, the intellectual framework upon which the necessity of the anti-tech revolution arose is of no interest to the revolutionary. Therefore your true question is: How? How can it work?


>>16865746
You are right. There is no answer to that that is either 1. satisfactory 2. foolproof enough that making it public would not neuter its potential.

Revolutionary methods must be foolproof, by essence, what is revolutionary cannot be reappropriated by the system. Every movement in history has failed. Early organic christian communities abolished history and technology. The Church eventually replaced them. Antifascists lined up and shot the communist revolutionaries who abolished money in Catalonia. The two most radical movements of history were dismantled from the inside. There were radical but not revolutionary. They never actualized. The anti-tech movement will most likely end up giving power to another group, but unlike every other movement so far it is critical of itself and conscious of récupération. That's why Kaczynski autistically and systematically goes over every detail.

Kaczynski also points to one relevant aspect, that if some group manages to remain in control of technology, their influence will be greatly diminished. I don't care if some elite group reside in their bunker with led lights for eternity. I also believe one thing, that once industrial society collapses, we wake up from the nightmare. We never go back. The endless piles of industrial filth will remain here for tens of thousands of years for the future generations to see. The nightmare analogy is really clever. It's real until you wake up. It nevers seems like you can escape. until you wake up.

[Anonymous No.16866155]

>>16859574
How is man and technics critical of technology?

[Anonymous No.16867717]

>>16861326
agreed, but still the utilitarian ethic of human "happiness" is still rooted in humanism. Leaving aside the questions of what happiness even is or if it is even possible, what I took away from Uncle Ted was that humanism needs to be questioned far more than we are often willing to do. Obviously because we are trapped within our subjective meat prisons, our limited perspective on the nature of things will always bring us a victim perspective. It would be interesting to read Ted from a Spinozian perspective.