Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other...

>why would I formulate an argument to someone's fantasy of what an author writes about? insane.
Nothing I wrote is fantasy. Ted wrote that and states right there that he finds it repellent despite the fact that the only societies that don't work in that fashion are the ones that didn't grow or advance in any way for thousands of years and are currently in the process of being culled, i.e., the only societies that don't work on that fashion are the ones that eventually go extinct. You still aren't providing any argument to what I wrote.

>It is a mistake to to think of ISAIF as being anti technology.
Right, but it's clearly anti-technophile, technophile being that of the industrial technophile, the person who satisfies the power process via industrial technology. What he is against is technology that he can't control, which is perfectly reasonable, but anyone reading him should take note that there are people who can control modern technology and what he is writing isn't a matter of math or logic but of personal suffering and moralizing.

>the person who satisfies the power process via industrial technology
Yeah I agree that's the weaker part of his argument. He wrote some counterargument for this by saying that they don't really control technology or they are unthinking types who don't have a strong desire for autonomy but he can't really prove that these people are in a small enough percentage of the population and the ones who'd be better off without technology large enough to justify a worldwide revolution. His arguments are still valid for certain people though, and it is a lot of people which explains why he is so popular. I do think that whether he is writing out of ego or personal suffering is irrelevant.

your second paragraph is fantasy, completely made up. TK never said anything remotely like this. Read Ellul if you can't stand TK because his take on what is technique/technology and where you draw the line between industrial tech and "low-tech" is 100% ripped off from Ellul. Honestly just read Ellul.
> anyone reading him should take note that there are people who can control modern technology
absolutely not, it's one of his main arguments. The elites don't decide which discoveries will be made/implemented. No, they ask the scientists/engineers for advice on what is the most efficient way to govern through technological means. See? It's the scientists who are calling the shots - and these people don't decide which discoveries they'll make, it just happens and they give the tools to politicians. But that's the old way, nowadays technocrats are coming to power because it is more efficient this way, one less step. Politicians will soon be a thing of the past.

no it's one of his strongest arguments. read my comment below yours. nobody steers the technological vessel. nobody decides which discoveries will be made. nobody is in control of anything technological, at best they can further increase their power but they are NOT in control. A discovery made tomorrow could comletely topple the current hierarchies. Nobody is in control.

>no one today can or does control modern technology
Want to know what's fantasy? This is.

of course he is defending his view. that's not a cope.

this is completely wrong, both in your interpretation of Ted and the historical reading Ted is not against technology meaning ways of doing things better. he is against industrial society, technologies that force us to participate in large cooperative systems that take away freedom and removes things from our control.

fires, glass, carts, hand tools, etc are all great pieces of technology that don't require factories and dependency on a giant system. you can make them yourself or one specialist can.

factories, cars, electricity, insurance, x ray machines, Netflix , etc are all technologies that require social organizations to function.

the reason why your reading of history is wrong is these technologies have only been around for about 100-150 years. almost everything before that was like the small scale technology

cars, x ray machines,

> scientists are calling the shots

imagine believing this

not an argument

lmao, this is my first time using that bugman line, but you didn't address my argument though.

1. Do scientists decide which discoveries will be made?
2. Are discoveries GUARANTEED not to topple current hierarchies?

Then how can technology be possibly controlled??
The very nature of technological DISCOVERIES is that they are unpredictable. Two questions and your shit opinion has been refuted.

>1. Do scientists decide which discoveries will be made?
No, the analysts and financiers do.

>2. Are discoveries GUARANTEED not to topple current hierarchies?
No, but they are measured so that the probability that they will is lower.

>Then how can technology be possibly controlled??
By placing the control in the hands of those with money and incentivizing the increase of money which results in incentivizing cooperating with the analysts.

It's not civilization that has a degree of unpredictability about it, by the way, but life itself. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say—are you saying life is undesirable?

Wow. Damn. How can someone be this retarded?

This has to be the biggest failure in logic I have ever witnessed in my life. Following your line of thought, cavemen ought to predict every possible discoveries, as should we. Therefore discoveries cannot exist as we conceptualize them before we even bring them into existence. Holy shit.

>Following your line of thought, cavemen ought to predict every possible discoveries, as should we.
How did you get that from my post? It's the other user who is making a case against technology because there is an element of unpredictability in the development process (which he wrongly labels as a "discovery" process).

>he is against industrial society, technologies that force us to participate in large cooperative systems that take away freedom and removes things from our control.
In all societies, it is only ever the most privileged members who have that kind of freedom. This is how it was when we were cavemen in tribes, and this is how it is now. Any other reading of history is wrong; any conception of a past society where everyone in it was equally and absolutely privileged is wrong.

factually wrong but once again if people would read Kaczynski before posting we would save a lot of time. Reality is a lot more nuanced, and Kaczynski spend quite some time hammering this down, that primitive life is NEITHER equal nor is it absolutely brutal like you fantasize.

Kaczynski's works are dry and tempered, just like the academics he bombed, ironically. But people don't even read and think his works will ressemble his bombing spree. No. He was a mathematician, more rigorous in his research than any of us will ever be.

People quote the manifesto (written for literal retards, it's a manifesto) out of context and try to stick arguments to it that TK never articulated once in his life. But we're used to it, TK threads exist solely for dishonest, lazy "readers" to project their own fantasy of what Kaczynski ought to write about. We've gone over this already.

>factually wrong
Point to a society where that wasn't the case then. Criminals, by the way, aren't part of society, so their existence doesn't at all negate what I said.

pygmies
generally, primitive tribes living in temperate climates with plentiful ressources are fairly equal

I'm not talking out of my ass, no need to ask for sources or arguments whenever I post by the way. Like I said, if you had read TK, you would know. It is not my duty to inform lazy people who come to Yea Forums to shitpost but don't even read the books they talk about. If you want to discuss then at least come prepared.

>generally, primitive tribes living in temperate climates with plentiful resources are fairly equal
Not only is this hilariously wrong, but you're basically telling me that these tribes are living the best out of everyone, which is also hilariously wrong.

>I'm not talking out of my ass
Then why say this?

The gems of kaczynski have to do with his views on technology but on mankind, society and psychology itself

>>in order to protect his ego, which was trampled on by engineers and scientists
What kind of cringe brainlet argument is this?

Kaczynski graduated from Harvard University and University of Michigan in mathematics. He became one of the youngest math professors ever at UC Berkeley, of all places. He had absolutely nothing to prove.

Probably because he cut his career short to live in the woods, build bombs, and write his manifesto.

>graduating from Harvard means you're immune to some of the most common pitfalls of the ego
It doesn't. Much greater minds in history have succumbed to the ego even worse than that, even.

Okay. Why would one of the top rising mathematicians of his time give a shit about engineers?

Stop humiliating yourself kid. Apart from telling me I'm wrong I've seen absolutely no substance from your posts. You could directly tell Kaczynski he's wrong about that, but I find it hard to believe that a genius who spends his life stuck in a cell going through anthropology books could be 'hillariously wrong' on every level. saged your juvenile ass.

Oh, and:
>Criminals, by the way, aren't part of society
«Il n’y a pas d’autre monde. Il y a simplement
une autre manière de vivre.»

Honestly how I feel about TK as well. Read the manifesto with no apprehension, stayed for the pure, unadulterated anarchism. Those pathologically unidealistic like ourselves found solace in Kaczynski's writing. When freedom truly is what you value most, you don't waste time with ideology and ideals.

this

Attached: 1 Book-Ad-11x17in.png (792x1224, 1.03M)

Just because he was a "rising mathematician" doesn't mean he felt immersed in the culture he found himself in, or felt a kinship with the elite members of industrial society.

He was present witness at the free speech riots at Berkeley and sperged out.
He didn't have affinity for the over-socialized types that saturate academia.

He should have had the sex

Not all elite members of industrial society are "over-socialized types that saturate academia," and he knew this. What I'm saying is that he was motivated by resentment.

He doesn't write butthurt though, that reading oozes Wittgenstein ruler, which is to say it reports more about the measurer than the subject of measurement.

>He doesn't write butthurt though
Which is the genius of it. However, his "logic" is not really logic, it's all moralization at the end of the day, which is the clue that that's where he was coming from.

It models a causality, how is it not a logic?
He was just a boomer who wanted the kids and machines off his lawn.

It's not logical because of the issue with the vagueness of how he applies certain terms, like "technophile."

>a human can have any level of meaningful control over (the future of) the world
the originator is not the popularizer is not the user is not the producer is not the creator is not the trader is not the improver is not the destroyer

>internal locus of control, primacy of the will, causality at the boundary of consciousness

That denotes technology as a prothesis to the power process, ie upcummies on social media for obvious example. Technology has undue influence of human belief encompassing thoughts feels and acts, if him as a source is an issue try out Jacques Ellul, who Ted mostly cribbed.

>it's all moralization
LOL, read beyond ISaiF. Anti-Tech Revolution has a bunch of chapters directly related to morality.

As always, people have NOT read Kaczynski or project their own intellectual failures onto his works. You guys are doing better work than we could ever do, running circles around the subject, never addressing the issues, content, and ideas put forth by Kaczynski. Throwing insults, making up arguments.. It helps showcase to those who are not familiar with his ideas just how infallible is analysis is - never read a counter-argument to his ideas. Just like Ellul was quickly forgotten and compartmentalized for eventual academic studies - you will only hear about his papers on propaganda, which are intrinsically linked to his entire work on technology - but somehow gets drowned out in favor of a cleaner, sterilized version that does not confronts the fundamental values and nature of western civilization.

If anything, your claim of 'moralization' only showcases your own intellectual shortcomings - you couldn't understand the rationale behind is work. I'll wager that you are an anglo.

Fitch and madison should republish technological society by elull. The mass market is shit and the text is small asf

so you smart huh
>conduct sexual intercourse

He’s a psychopath, fuck who would of guessed he was a narcissistic with work ethic, meaning high testosterone levels climaxed to the point where he’d figure out and work to conjure demonic power to kill people, absolutely demonic, woah, tell us OP how’d you know Ted Kaczynski was a narcissistic egotistical non sympathetic psychopathic genius.

If you can't grasp how Ted is a moralizer then read Nietzsche's objection to Descartes's famous statement.

That's a strawman, introducing moralism instead of approaching any provided claims about the machinations.

Both quotes in the OP are moral statements. The assertion that technology is a prosthesis to the power process is a moral statement in the same way that Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" was a moral statement.

Ted masks his morality in a false application of terms and he acts as if he's talking from a position of truth, much like those who agree with him, when he isn't doing so any more than the technophile who fulfills their power process through technology (i.e., their will is inseparable from the technology; the power process for them is inseparable from it; they aren't able to fulfill it without technology). His conception of technology isn't any more logically valid than the conception of technology as a communion of a certain will with the world (the relativist's conception of technology; the idea that technology is only technology from the point of view of the person who can understand it and use it).

Robin Hanson debunked his retarded collapse theory.

overcomingbias.com/2018/01/kaczynskis-collapse-theory.html

>Kaczynski isn’t stupid, and he’s more clear-headed than most futurists I read. Too bad his low mood leans him so strongly to embrace a poorly-argued inevitable collapse story.

Attached: Robin Hanson.jpg (600x600, 107K)

It's an auxiliary relationship, not one of virtue. Contorting that is a transhuman cope.

But things like language aren't a form of technology, and he isn't against all "technology", he specifically took issue with the Industrial Revolution and the effects of that (hence the very title of his manifesto). He also did address the points you bring up.

I do agree that he was motivated by resentment and some of his ideas are more emotional than he lets on, specifically some of his ideas about society, "leftists" and the like. I'd say if you're going to really get into Ted it would be a good idea to actually read about his life, what his family (especially his brother) said of him and some of his letters and stuff as it illuminates how emotional he was about some of these things. His analysis of technology and its effects on society are spot on, though this largely borrows from Ellul, but you can start to see how life events informed other things.

People arguing with intent and effort about Kaczynski's life story, his works being born out of resentment, moralization etc..

But not a single sentence, not a single word addressing his ideas, the content of his work. As always.

>It's an auxiliary relationship, not one of virtue.
Man, you don't understand anything about the will. Never rode a motorcycle before? If you don't become one with the bike in a very real sense, you'll kill yourself on it and definitely won't ever know what it feels like to go on a real joy ride. Any piece of technology we spend an incredible amount of time with, especially when we are passionate about whatever it is that it enables us to do, forms a relationship with our will that is beyond an "auxiliary" one—even something simple like a pair of glasses.

No controversy. It is when the "choice" becomes compulsory and it does in time. The exponential complexity and data smog impairs and even prevents the pettiest decisions and disintermediates humans entirely.

>It is when the "choice" becomes compulsory and it does in time.
Which is a further indication that the relationship was never auxiliary, but symbiotic all along.

>The exponential complexity and data smog impairs and even prevents the pettiest decisions and disintermediates humans entirely.
Translation: when technology becomes too complex for my brain, I start rejecting it, and my pride prevents me from admitting that I'm simply not intelligent enough for it.

Nigger do you see other people around you? They don't even have a sense of immediate space , locals can't be asked for directions like it's the 90s, and that is only from the GPS introduction. It's not enlightening tech, it actually dumb you down and why people working in silicon valley raise children without screen presence.

>people don't have their brains clogged up with information that their phone can just navigate for them instantly anymore
So what?

A cognitive filter to driving was removed, that generates motorist frustration and turns folk passive. Predictive typing is another illustration in vocabulary damage.

You write like a retard and also didn't answer my question.

I have trouble agreeing with the sentiment that his analysis of technology and its social effects is "spot on" when he asserts that some technology is bad because it does things that all forms of technology do, like create systems of cooperative dependence. You can't point out a piece of technology that doesn't do this in some sense.

>Just because he was a "rising mathematician" doesn't mean he felt immersed in the culture he found himself in, or felt a kinship with the elite members of industrial society.
I agree 100%. But where does "ego" come into play? I don't think he felt that his self-worth was threatened by scientists and engineers, but rather his very existence by degrading the society that he lived in.

>The history of civilization all the way down to the tribe is that of the technophile succeeding over the technoluddite—you could practically say that the definition of civilization is "the success of the technophile over the technoluddite" and you wouldn't be wrong in the slightest.
Pic related

Attached: chadtranshumanist.png (1400x650, 228K)

Ted Kaczynski never existed.

>>Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.
Literally the definition of power. It's zero sum.

>But where does "ego" come into play?
He reveals his hurt ego in passages like the two quoted in the OP. If it's not scientists and engineers who hurt it, it's the capitalist elite in general.

okay keep telling yourself that

>I've seen absolutely no substance from your posts.
Have you seen the Pygmies?

>I find it hard to believe that a genius who spends his life stuck in a cell going through anthropology books could be 'hillariously wrong' on every level.

He is in a supermax lmao

>He reveals his hurt ego in passages like the two quoted in the OP. If it's not scientists and engineers who hurt it, it's the capitalist elite in general.
... but how? Doesn’t seem like his “ego” is being hurt to me. Seems more like he thinks the drudgery of modern life sucks the spirit out of existence, and that it’s only going to get worse with technological progress. Those sound like valid reasons to be concerned to me. Where are you getting “hurt ego” from?

He was upset because no gf

okay, since I was unable to get a coherent answer, I will file OP’s post under “butthurt pseud” and “worthless psychoanalysis” then

But it's true look it up

okay? how does that prove him wrong?

Very repellent is a guy in the woods who mails bombs, now fuck off

It proves that he's a blubbering baby driven by cvmbrain ego like any other degen.

>Where are you getting “hurt ego” from?
He attacked people, started writing belligerently against society, got imprisoned for it, and also wrote passages like the two quoted in the OP indicating that he had a problem with living under another's rule. There are millions of people across millennia who live day after day doing things like shining other people's shoes and they are happy and content with their small lives; so what was his problem? It could only be one thing, which was that his ego was inflated. If he never got into Harvard maybe he would have never come in contact with more prestigious existences than his, never done what he did, and he would have lived a simpler and more content life.

not really. it’s usually the cumbrains themselves who make fun of heterodox thinking as a supposed cope for not having enough sex.

society doesn’t seem as healthy as you make it out to be, with declining happiness and increases in divorce. you’re acting as if everything is okay and there cannot be any logical reason to critique society when that’s far from the case. again, you are attacking the person and not the argument, divining psychoanalytical motives out of thin air which are not supported by any biography of Kaczynski and his personality, values, etc.

again, if Kaczynski wanted to be an investment banker or an engineer, he was well-equipped intellectually to do so. instead, he chose the math and specialized in a field that’s extremely “pure” and has little real world applications. that career choice doesn’t cohere with the motives of a materialist, so I dont think Kaczynski was one. and even if he was one, that doesn’t mean that his arguments against the technological society are immediately wrong.

>again, you are attacking the person and not the argument
When the argument is regarding society's state of health, the arguer's state of health is relevant. Society doesn't seem as healthy as I make it out to be? It doesn't seem as sick as he makes it out to be either. Far as I can tell, which you did nothing to debunk, is that he was a resentful, egotistical prick, much like many others who get into Harvard. Not to mention, he gets very simple but immensely important things wrong (see for example).

>again, if Kaczynski wanted to be an investment banker or an engineer, he was well-equipped intellectually to do so.
We don't know this because he never tried. But it doesn't matter anyway, because he wrote the nonsense that he wrote.

>the arguer’s health is relevant
not really. if there is poverty, should only the rich people be allowed to discuss it?it’s a given that people who are unhappy are the most likely to complain. the standard shouldn’t be that you have to be a virtuous messiah in order to be taken seriously, but rather that there is reason to complain in the first place. and as I mentioned earlier, society clearly isn’t as healthy as you make it out to be.

>much like many others who get into Harvard
... what? could you name 3 other people like that?

>we will never know because he never tried
This is a bullshit answer. He never tried because it’s not who he is.
>In 1996, vice chairman at Berkeley, Calvin C. Moore said, given Kaczynski's "impressive" dissertation and publications, he "could have advanced up the ranks and been a senior member of the faculty today."[43]
Kaczynski walked away from a lucrative job at a prestigious university because realized it was one the engines helping to create a world that he hated. Remember, the “unabomber” title came from his choice of targets, “university and airplanes.”

>Kaczynski walked away from a lucrative job at a prestigious university because realized it was one the engines helping to create a world that he hated.
Then why'd he write bullshit like what's quoted in the OP?

>Then why'd he write bullshit like what's quoted in the OP?
What do you mean? I'm not sure how your question follows from my response, and his motivations seem pretty obvious to me, but I'll do my best to respond anyway.

He abandoned his career because he believed in a certain ideology. He wrote his manifesto because he wanted to communicate his beliefs to other people.

>What do you mean?
I mean that I'd like to know why he wrote those lines and how else you could psychoanalyze him from them besides that he was resentful.

>and how else you could psychoanalyze him from them besides that he was resentful.
That's the secret right there. You're begging the question by assuming that psychoanalysis is the best way to understand his argument. It's not. I think you may have swallowed too many Yea Forums memes if you can't fathom any other way to tackle his arguments.

I'm not begging the question. Those are HIS words. You're AVOIDING the question, which is why I stopped responding to every little thing in your posts.

>Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.

This holds nothing of value to the reader and doesn't even make sense. As the other user pointed out, power is a zero sum game. It is generally understood as such and that aspect of it isn't regarded as a refutation of it except by moralizing Christians. Ted is demonstrating a neo-Christian point of view with this line which can only be psychoanalyzed in one way (as far as I can see, since you refuse to provide an alternative): that he was resentful of the society that was depriving him of his opportunity for power.

>It has been suggested, for example, that a great development of the service industries might provide work for human beings. Thus people would spent their time shining each other’s shoes, driving each other around in taxicabs, making handicrafts for one another, waiting on each other’s tables, etc. This seems to us a thoroughly contemptible way for the human race to end up, and we doubt that many people would find fulfilling lives in such pointless busy-work.

Again, this holds nothing of value to the reader and doesn't even make sense. The service industry is unbelievably old and the majority of its members were never so miserable in it. This undermines the happiness of the service worker and also the happiness of the beta who enjoys being a part of a chain of command. This also wrongly asserts that everyone wants to be and ought to be seeking an alpha status in society. It is, once again, a neo-Christian point of view, as what it suggests underneath is the idea of equality and equal rights for all, which, once again, can only be psychoanalyzed in one way: that he was resentful of the society that was depriving him of his opportunity for power.

whatever helps the cope

But he had the power dawg

>Again, this holds nothing of value to the reader and doesn't even make sense. The service industry is unbelievably old and the majority of its members were never so miserable in it.
I think you are missing the context. When it comes to service jobs, there's a difference between being a skilled chef and making knick-knacks on Etsy. Historically, most service jobs are meaningful in that they provide something that is useful that otherwise could not be provided. A masseuse, a musician, a taxi-cab driver, etc. all find meaning in their work because there is skill in what they do, and what they do provides value to society. In a future where all of that can be done effectively by robots, all of those industries will be moribund. Those skilled in their work will find themselves unable to feed themselves and their families, unable to work a meaningful job, and unable to gain the respect of their peers for working said meaningful job.

Now, Kaczynski is saying that one potential solution could be that the government would step in and mandate a human monopoly on service industries. I don't know about you, but even in today's society, people do not feel "fulfilled" when their livelihood depends on government largesse. Ask any person who falls down on their luck and has to apply for welfare benefits... it makes one feel like a useless failure. We also have examples of government-mandated "busy-work" survival programs like National Workshops of 19th century France were also failures in that they did not provide their workers with any sort of life satisfaction, even if it did keep their bellies full. Finally, you are forgetting that service jobs, in general, are not for everyone. Maybe somebody would rather be an engineer, an electrician, a craftsman, etc., somebody who CREATES things of value.and leaves things behind for the next generation. Even the most humblest of men can make their mark on the world by working in a productive trade. The technological society would leave these people with no recourse.

So what would be left with? A futuristic world where we spend our time making up things to do? A hoax cottage industry economy where everybody's line of work is obsolete or useless, which everybody is aware of but collectively puts up with in order to cope with existential ennui? Maybe a low IQ person might be able to handle that, but most people wouldn't without contemplating suicide. In finding "nothing of value" in Kaczynski's claim, you're missing the point that humans are, by nature, conscious and existential beings who crave meaning. One of the salient points of TISAIF is that technology robs us of the ability to find meaning in what we do. Martin Heidegger makes similar warnings in his own writings too, so these ideas aren't new and are likely to be obvious for anybody who is observant, thoughtful, and able to see the potential dangerous that the future may bring.

(1/2)

>Those are HIS words.
So Kaczynski says you should psychonanalyze him instead of evaluating each of his propositions and then evaluating the sum of his propositions to best understand his argument? Huh. That's weird. I must have missed it. Care to point that out to me?

>Very repellent is a society in which a person can satisfy his need for power only by pushing large numbers of other people out of the way and depriving them of THEIR opportunity for power.
>This holds nothing of value to the reader and doesn't even make sense
How does it not make sense? It's clearly an anarchist position. Technology enables the creation and expansion of state power, which in turn leads to the oppression of both individuals and out-of-power communities.

>that he was resentful of the society that was depriving him of his opportunity for power.
He had an opportunity for power, an education at an Ivy League school and a clear path to senior faculty at one of the most prestigious universities in the country. He chose to walk away from it. I seriously don't understand where you're getting this perspective from, since it doesn't match Kaczynski's biography at all.

>(as far as I can see, since you refuse to provide an alternative)
I have provided an alternative... not using psychonanalysis to discredit the person making the argument and instead choosing to critique or debunk the argument itself. Besides, your psychoanalytical argument is specious at best and relies on wishful thinking to explain away the lack of evidence in Kaczynski's life choices to justify your interpretation.

>You're AVOIDING the question, which is why I stopped responding to every little thing in your posts.
I'm not avoiding any question, and I've been as forthcoming as one can be. You call everything Kaczynski writes "useless to the reader" because you are too dogmatic to read him charitably. All I am doing is stating that psychoanalysis is not a valid way of evaluating arguments and that you should try examining his premises and his logic instead. I don't understand why you find this style of debate to be so repulsive. Ideally, shouldn't reason alone be the gold standard in a debate?

(2/2)

>When it comes to service jobs, there's a difference between being a skilled chef and making knick-knacks on Etsy. [...] In a future where all of that can be done effectively by robots, all of those industries will be moribund.
The person making knick-knacks on Etsy, first of all, chooses to do so—they are, like people in the past prior to industrialization, pursuing the trade which suits them, so that they may ensure the survival of themselves and/or their families. The only thing that has changed is that the transaction now takes place over the internet, so the satisfaction of the buyer will only come through when they leave a positive review or place another order; the transaction is more abstract, but it is still there. If one isn't able to realize the satisfaction of the buyer from such an abstract transaction, that is not grounds for asserting that this line of work is mere "busy-work" that is fundamentally unfulfilling and that the value of people's work has been taken from them. So, here we do have an alternative, finally: it's not resentment that motivates such statements, but ignorance towards how fulfillment is now derived in more abstract societies.

>I don't know about you, but even in today's society, people do not feel "fulfilled" when their livelihood depends on government largesse.
This is just a rephrasing of the quote in the OP. But people can and do still feel fulfilled even when their livelihood depends on "government largesse" (or alms given out by a monarch and similar situations), not to mention, many beggars don't even look for "fulfillment" or care about it and are simply lazy and want to do as little as possible. You are talking about peasants here, the poorest of the bunch, not the middle class; such people, generally speaking, either don't even consider their own "integrity" and "pride," or they lost it, in which case, they have little room to complain about their situation.

>Finally, you are forgetting that service jobs, in general, are not for everyone.
I never said that they were, but the accusation was that no one could find value in service jobs anymore once robotic automation kicks in, and that's not the case, nor should it be. We also have to keep in mind that not everyone can be a creator in a world where there are limited resources and "creation" is really "transformation" of existing resources, and this is independent of the social, political, and technological structure of civilization.

>So what would be left with? A futuristic world where we spend our time making up things to do?
Creating things that matter to us, you mean? Sure. What's wrong with that? Aren't you saying that there are people who would prefer to be creators? Well, you have the opportunity to create things now. But if no one wants the things you create, you're just creating things for yourself, which means you're just masturbating and you're not even really a part of society and aren't concerned with it.

>So Kaczynski says you should psychonanalyze him instead of evaluating each of his propositions and then evaluating the sum of his propositions to best understand his argument?
He doesn't have to. You should be psychoanalyzing everyone you read and come in contact with, because you can learn things about their arguments that might be hidden in them.

>How does it not make sense?
Because power is zero sum.

>He had an opportunity for power, an education at an Ivy League school and a clear path to senior faculty at one of the most prestigious universities in the country. He chose to walk away from it.
He didn't regard it as an opportunity for power, clearly. He likely viewed it as a "surrogate activity." Which means he definitely could have been resentful towards people who he considered to be in the actual positions of power in society, and that would explain why he wrote that. Nothing you're saying properly explains why he did.

>I have provided an alternative... not using psychonanalysis to discredit the person making the argument and instead choosing to critique or debunk the argument itself.
That's not an alternative psychoanalysis.

>You call everything Kaczynski writes "useless to the reader" because you are too dogmatic to read him charitably.
Calling two quotes useless doesn't mean calling everything he ever wrote useless.

>Ideally, shouldn't reason alone be the gold standard in a debate?
No, because it's not reason alone that enters a debate. Our personal convictions and feelings do as well.

You haven't addressed the core of what makes work meaningful and why a technological society would render it meaningless. Pretty much 100% ignored it while nitpicking everything else in an unsubstantial way. I'm floored at how hard you can miss the point.

>You should be psychoanalyzing everyone you read and come in contact with, because you can learn things about their arguments that might be hidden in them.
Psychoanalysis is interesting, sure, but it's not at all important to evaluating an argument. Either the argument is sufficient or it is lacking. There is nothing "hidden" to investigate.

>Because power is zero sum.
When there is no state to exert influence over somebody else, there is no power to worry about. Again, you missed the point that Kaczynski is an anarchist.

>He didn't regard it as an opportunity for power, clearly. He likely viewed it as a "surrogate activity."
What is your evidence for this claim?

>That's not an alternative psychoanalysis.
That's right. It's avoiding it entirely. I don't get why you think this is some kind of sacrilege.

>Our personal convictions and feelings do as well.
But they don't determine what is correct. So why bring them up?

-- --

Anyway, I'm done belaboring my points since it seems that you have a particular way of addressing thinkers that prioritizes psychonanalysis of their life over following the reasoning behind their arguments, and you have a knack of nitpicking supporting points while failing to address the crux of the argument. You are stuck in your ways, and it is not worth arguing you any further.

>The more I read of Ted Kaczynski, the more it becomes apparent that his work is one giant cope in order to protect his ego, w
Cringe

Bringe

>You haven't addressed the core of what makes work meaningful and why a technological society would render it meaningless.
Because this hasn't been clearly stated yet. People, even Etsy sellers, continue to find their work and/or their lives meaningful; is that not itself a rejection of your claim? How could anyone find such work meaningful if, according to you, a post-industrial society renders such work meaningless?

>Psychoanalysis is interesting, sure, but it's not at all important to evaluating an argument.
I disagree. The psychology of the thinker provides context for the thought. You're building an evaluation without the context as far as I'm concerned.

>When there is no state to exert influence over somebody else, there is no power to worry about.
Huh? So before the state, there was "no power to worry about" in the world? Other tribes, other beasts, diseases, all forces of nature—they never existed? Suddenly, life became a power struggle only when "the state" came into existence? Ridiculous.

>What is your evidence for this claim?
My reasoning for the claim is his example of marine biology being a surrogate activity for someone. An entire scholarly enterprise more or less dismissed on a strangely utilitarian anarchist basis and the injection of such meaninglessness in other people's passions suggests, to me, the possibility that he didn't consider his professorship meaningful, which means he didn't see it as an opportunity for power.

>That's right. It's avoiding it entirely.
So then don't make the claim that you provided an alternative, because you didn't, and until you do, I have no reason to consider my assertions wrong.

>But they don't determine what is correct. So why bring them up?
But they do. Obviously you aren't very well read on the continentals.

>You are stuck in your ways, and it is not worth arguing you any further.
Lmao. Baby gonna cry? I wouldn't be "stuck in my ways" if you actually gave a fucking argument, but you don't, you avoid it instead. If you can't handle a debate you shouldn't be trying to engage in one.

Attached: absdahsahahaha.png (609x575, 92K)

>Ready words without read thoughts: The response
Yea Forums summarized

Anarchists are mentally ill historical revisionists.

>NOOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST IGNORE PSYCHOANALYSIS, FEELINGS ARE MORE REAL THAN FACTS THEMSELVES!!!

Attached: D07C09F3-FC9D-45F6-84B1-DC040E93FF13.jpg (1080x1020, 72K)

Nothing Ted or his defenders have said has been factual so far. Again, he's a moralizing conman.

Those quotes make more sense than 99% of the shit that is pushed towards me. Ted is based.

His facts are only correct if you accept his axioms about the unfulfilling nature of modern work, which does not seem to be the case in reality.

well, you're retarded, so....

we're not at catastrophic levels yet, but it seems that at least a substantial minority of people find their work meaningless in a modern service economy, at least in the UK

Attached: meaninglessLabourYouGov.png (482x713, 29K)

That's when you work towards finding a better job

what if there aren't enough meaningful jobs to go around

Then we've solved scarcity and you can go grab a drink :)

so we solved scarcity during the Great Depression? let's go back

oh so Ted's just outdated, got it.

sounds like you're just butthurt that you made another profoundly stupid comment out of the many that you've made in this thread.

society inherently does not have enough meaningful jobs for everybody, and it's only going to get worse when automation kicks into full gear.

The problem isn't the lack of meaningful work but the overabundance of useless people.

Just trying to wrangle with your stupidity ;)

so you think that society has enough meaningful jobs for everyone? you don't think that's wishful thinking?

You think we're still reeling from the automation brought about by the industrial revolution?

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

people need to earn a good job

That doesn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it. Do you think there are enough meaningful jobs for every person who is deserving of one?

sure

another brainlet, kaczynski isn't talking about any societal collapse, he is talking about the dystopia we're living in right now and that is only going to get worse.

the dystopia that nobody else agrees we're in?

I agree we are in a dystopia. Our situation is analogous to Omelas but millions of times more reprehensible.

>Consensus as truf
leaf and stay leaf
A life of crime earns more than le gig economy, someone can't into spreadsheet but can read and write gud

>I agree
yeah, you're an idiot.

a life of crime gets the police on your ass

what is a meaningful job/work?

No one knows. Anarchists intentionally employ ambiguous terms to confuse their opposition.

That isn't very kind of you. If you think you are living with a better understanding then you ought to share it with me so I can better understand the life.

Why else does Ted-sama use his days read fan/hate mail and books?

>Ted-sama

Attached: d90.png (644x800, 15K)

serve God/ the divinity or something greater. I guess.

There is no job or work that is intrinsically meaningful. The only thing that matters is having love and good community. Being in society is in direct contradiction with all of us having love and community. That is why we must live in a way that is most natural for human beings.

>There is no job or work that is intrinsically meaningful
yeah, everybody's different.

>Providing an accurate selfie
Pwned

>Pwned

Attached: 1514653620200.jpg (665x800, 157K)

I think my wording has caused you to miss my point. Any job that you do that helps what truly matters is a meaningful job. The most meaningful job would be one that isn't simply a means to an end - it is something you find direct value in. For me, that would be living in a community constantly surrounded by friends and family doing what we need to do as together as we can do it.

now you're just pulling a no true Scotsman fallacy

What do you want me to say? That a meaningful job is something other than one that lets you do meaningful things in the most meaningful way?

We need a discussion of what is meaningful.

>What do you want me to say?
Not a fallacy for starters ;)

>We need a discussion of what is meaningful.
Start by saying something meaningful

Why did you ask "What is a meaningful job?"

I didn't, but that is a nebulous term.

>There is no job or work that is intrinsically meaningful.
Agreed.

>The only thing that matters is having love and good community.
Oh... so now there is work that is intrinsically meaningful? Which is it?

Just realize that with modern medicine the population increases at a near-catastrophic rate per year which demands the benefits of industrialization to sustain it. The work you are doing, as artificial as it might seem, is not artificial at all. You are still serving something greater.

OP is a dumb pseud or a mediocre troll, and all of you are stupid for taking the bait. the statement that Ted was "jealous of engineers" as the motivation for his manifesto is probably one of shittiest hot takes I've read this summer, and that's putting it mildly because to painstakingly describe how retarded that sounds is not worth my time

>increase population, increase production to sustain pupulation, keep grow, and progress. and so on.

So nowadays meaning is all about producing and consuming.

but it's true

you need to consume to survive, so, yeah

survive for what?
to consume more. hell yeah.

Yeah and it's almost like the entire point of society arose out of a natural tendency to want to make that process more brainless so you could focus on fun hobbies. Unfortunately, Ted had autism so he couldn't do that...

your spiritual void gives me the shivers.

t. NPC

>who needs food when you have jeezus

lmao

Beings and technology are two different things although some would disagree. The threat of the industrial revolution is that technology takes care of itself, rather than biological beings taking care of technology.

As opposed to what?

This is a definite plausibility but with gennetic engineering and transhumanism we might be able to change that (thank you Elon Musk).

>The threat of the industrial revolution is that technology takes care of itself
But that's the whole fucking point of civilization. Why do you think the earliest tribes adopted agriculture? It was so they could do less work and have more time to do more enjoyable things.

this is so deep. So the whole point of it all is to have more time to play minecraft.

What was the point if not to spend more time committing to what we love?

Well according to Ted himself worship alone doesn't cut it so I don't really know what else it is you're looking for...

Ted's work makes perfect sense if you allign it with an anti-capitalist view, although he himself hates leftists.

There is SOME truth in this (it's not clear what you mean by "align").

He says that capitalism is an inevitable outgrowth of our current level of technology, and that it won't be replaced with some other system until the technological environment changes to favor that different system. In simple terms, it's a symptom, not the root cause. The essay by him that you need to read is "Stay on Target" which is in his new edition of the book "Technological Slavery"

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution_3b.jpg (4800x7200, 3.52M)

>It was so they could do less work and have more time to do more enjoyable things.
This is an extraordinarily naive viewpoint. But unfortunately it is the viewpoint of the modern majority. Even most popular historians and anthropologists today would disagree with this completely (for example, Jared Diamond and Noah Harari).

Do you really think people outside civilization are the ones pressed for time? If civilization was so great, why was it forced on them at gunpoint? Come on dude.

this. he had (has) CONTEMPT for scientists and engineers because they were (and are) promoting the growth of the industrial system.

He has very little respect (and admiration/envy) for their intellect. He has even written that he can't stand scientists and their "fuzzy logic." It makes sense when you realize that he was one of the worlds foremost mathematical minds who was praised for his uniquely superior logical abilities by his peers.

this. though the situation is obviously far more complex.

Attached: Technological Slavery.jpg (1737x2700, 238K)

So provide an alternative viewpoint rather than make an appeal to authority.

>If civilization was so great, why was it forced on them at gunpoint?
Who said it was great for everyone equally? In order to have enough time to pursue what you love, you need things taken care of for you.

And notice how feeble all of his arguments are for why Kaczynski's collapse theory is "poorly argued."

>You should be psychoanalyzing everyone you read and come in contact with, because you can learn things about their arguments that might be hidden in them.

This is just ridiculous. Totally absurd. I shouldn't even have to point out why it is, but unfortunately this line of thinking has become pretty common. It's a perfect example of how debased intellectual life has become today, and beholden to political correctness and conformity.

This is an entirely IRRATIONAL position. It makes no sense whatsoever. You examine the arguments for their truth value on reason and logic. That's it. Period. Any psychoanalysis just introduced bias. Psychoanalysis corrupts and muddies the truth. For one thing, the "psychoanalysis" is largely a product of the social norms of the dominant society. For another, "psychoanalysis" only distracts attention away from the reason and logic.

but ted himself discredits leftists with a psychological argument.

I'm pickle rick

picklel rick

The truth is in the body. It's not independent of it.

The discussions around Kaczynski on this board should disabuse anyone of the idea that serious and meaningful discussions and debate can be had here. Yea Forums is largely full of 90 IQ retards who don't read and don't know philosophy or literature but pretend they do.

Yeah im waiting for the trumptards to leave also

It's not engineers per se; it's the capitalist elite he despised and resented. He acknowledged their work as preventing him from exercising his "power process" (which he should have just used will to power for, an already established philosophical term, but of course he was a pseud who barely read philosophy / had to contrive things to gain readership).

He literally plagairized Jacques Ellul, you illiterate.

So Ellul was the pseud? Good to know.

best analysis ITT

>Who said it was great for everyone equally? In order to have enough time to pursue what you love, you need things taken care of for you.
That's an unacceptable position for a person who wants to claim they are leading any kind of good life.

Why?

Because if your good is necessarily dependent upon bad then how can that good actually be good?

Good and evil, there is never one without the other.

If your claim is that that good cannot exist without unnecessary suffering, then I disagree. Do we torture our babies so they can appreciate keys being jangled in front of their faces? Do we think of how nice it is to not be crying about our raped, dead mothers while we play with our friends? No, of course not! We are busy being in the moment.

>engineers and scientists
He was the youngest math professor at Berkley when Berkley still mattered.

Robotic automation may eventually reduce the amount of suffering necessary for more people to live luxuriously. However, it will still only ever be the people who the elite care about who will benefit from it.

bump

NO!!! He is not intending to discredit their ideas by discussing their psychology. He discredits their ideas on their own merits through reason and logic. He then hypothesizes that the reason they so fervently believe irrational ideas is due to emotional (psychological reasons). He then proceeds to examine the social conditions that lead to those psychological conditions. His discussion of the psychology of leftists is not meant to DISCREDIT leftist ideas. Come on dude.

Ted addresses this in ISAIF. Automation and genetic engineering will only strengthen the system and further dehumanize us.

this. it would be funny, if what were at stake weren't so desperately serious.

That's utter nonsense. He goes far far beyond Ellul. Just to take two examples, Ellul never analyzed the conditions of technological society by comparing primitive hunter gatherer society, nor did Ellul establish any theoretical model for revolution against the technological society by analyzing prior revolutionary movements and distilling universal principles for changing a society.

It's funny how Ted is better at applying "psychoanalysis" properly than the pseud OP. i.e., using it to see how somebody came to believe something after refuting their beliefs through logic and evidence.

"The system" includes the elite and everyone they care about. It will only dehumanize the weak, who aren't very human to begin with.

The system IS dehumanizing the elite. The "elite" are some of the most spiritually poor people on the earth. They are slaves to the system just like the rest of us. Think of how little time a politician has for love and those things that make a human smile and laugh.

>politicians
>the elite
lol. They're pawns. You don't actually know who the elite are—they are the happiest people on earth today, by definition.

I don't think a person can truly be happy or in harmony with the good or god or nature (or whatever you want to call it) whilst being as ignorant as it would take to be elite.

"Berkeley" but you are correct.

*Berklee, Kaczynski liked to play the flute

A person isn't a member of the elite if they aren't happy. There's many happy people today—they tend to be Asian or interested in Asian culture and products—and you'd have to be extremely sheltered to think otherwise.

My point is that a person cannot flourish (whatever that means) while living in the system. In order to be a happy elite, one must possess such childlike ignorance that they couldn't possibly have a thoughtful, meaningful life.

lol

Their lives can't be meaningless, because the meaning of the system is to allow the elite to live above it, aka they're the meaning itself. Their lives also can't all be thoughtless, because they are the only ones who have the idle time for extensive thought, and there are plenty of thoughtful individuals out there.

Childhood is idolizing the Unabomber. Adulthood is idolizing /Pol/ Pot. What the Unabomber did was send out a few bombs. He was a gnat trying to kill an elephant. What /Pol/ Pot did was empty out the (((cities))), force a return to a pre-industrial agrarian society and kill off the oversocialized intellectuals. He did everything the Unabomber wanted to do in an entire country.

Attached: Virgin Unabomber Chad Pol Pot.jpg (1185x462, 124K)

>The meaning of the system is to allow the elite to live above it...
Can you show this to me via someone's writing? I haven't seen that in Ted and obviously, don't believe it myself. All I mean to say is that these people must either be completely ignorant and therefore not living full lives, or they are aware of what it takes to sustain their existence. In the latter case, they know somewhere in their hearts that their existence is sustained by suffering. Therefore these people truly are not so rich where it matters most.

>Can you show this to me via someone's writing?
Do you mean you want it further explained, or you want it demonstrated in the writing itself? For the former, I'm not sure who to refer to you on this. For the latter, there are many critics and columnists you can seek out if you look hard enough who will demonstrate that there are people living off the fat, for just one example. And not everyone living off the fat is necessarily going to be a writer. This category includes anyone who inherited their wealth, stole it, or earned enough to do as they please. You think no one has an abundance of wealth and little responsibility? You've never met a kid with rich parents then, or a criminal who got away with it, or an entrepreneurial genius who figured out how to have their cake and eat it too.

>All I mean to say is that these people must either be completely ignorant and therefore not living full lives, or they are aware of what it takes to sustain their existence. In the latter case, they know somewhere in their hearts that their existence is sustained by suffering. Therefore these people truly are not so rich where it matters most.
Where's "where it matters most" and why does it matter most? By the way, there's no existence that doesn't require suffering to sustain it, unless you strictly mean human suffering. You eat and breathe, don't you? That means you live off the energy of something else and cause its annihilation. But even deeper than that, we all live today, on this earth, in this galaxy, at the expense of so many past deaths, so many now-extinct species, so many could-have-been existences... Anaximander thought that life itself was a type of repentance. I disagree, but I can understand where that outlook might stem from.

But to get back to the topic, there is really nothing about the current system that prevents such elite members from existing, is there? Can you point to the mechanisms that prevent it? If someone happens to amass wealth in some way, could they not live above the system then? What about someone like Markus Persson? Yes, he may be depressed, but that doesn't mean everyone who achieves wealth is depressed. He was depressed BEFORE he was wealthy. But he has so much wealth now that he can live completely above the system, and so could his kids even, and their kids, if they weren't stupid in how they handled the money. There are many people with enough money to live without the system's fingers up their ass, is what I'm saying.

Attached: self-reliance.png (1762x808, 1.48M)