What are some philosophers like Ted Kaczynski that aren’t domestic terrorists? I don’t want people to think I have no credibility
What are some philosophers like Ted Kaczynski that aren’t domestic terrorists...
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Who cares what people think?
Ellul. But TK is leagues above the rest. Caring about what others think is a sign of oversocialization. People don't need to adhere to anti-tech thought, in fact they won't. You can't talk a dog out of leaving his master, such is the outcome of domestication.
Read autopsie de la révolution for yourself, and la société technologique and others if you wish to argue with credibility.
Sean Goonan
This. x10.
Read Ellul and, unironically, Wittgenstein. Read The Philosophical Investigations along with "Notes on Frazer's Golden Bough" and "Culture & Value".
People are willing to overlook flaws if the work is good enough. Half of Hollywood is composed of open creeps yet everyone loves whatever shit comes out of the consoom end.
John Zerzan.
Lewis Mumford. He's leagues above TK and Ellul.
Lewis Mumford was absolutely sad lasted by Ellul, though.
Read Rosseau
Where can I read TKs complete works?
He's a Platonist, isn't he? He condemns the luxuries his fellow men are enjoying as unessential, even though the difference between a surrogate activity and one that authentically fulfills the power process can't be observed.
It can’t be observed but it can be recollected
>credibility
LOL. Dude grow some balls, every truly serious revolutionary ideology has been vilified and mocked as lacking credibility. You might as well just say you want something acceptable to polite society. If that’s the case fuck off.
Based
This
Holy shit how did he get away with it?
He’s just too based and speaks uncomfortable truths. He can get away with it because he’s not a cuck
These have to be fake.
>Caring about what others think is a sign of oversocialization
I've come to understand this is the essence of what being based is: either through ignorance or through full cognizance.
>He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
>~Aristotle, "Politics"
The opposite would be Perlman who was a pacifist. His basic idea is that militarisation is inevitable in these movements. Perhaps it is something like Heidegger's idea of enframing, in that technology itself forces any opposition movement to adopt the very technology it is against? I don't know, it's been a long time since I read that book.
Also interesting is the book Direct Action, which gives an account of this militarisation, having to live not only as an exile but as the most extreme militant. Security makes these people turn into something like intelligence agents. From this perspective is it even possible to overcome technology?
Why no Derrick Jensen?
en.wikipedia.org
I know for a fact that the second one is in “Can Life Prevail?”
Nice user
This book changed my life and how I saw prey vs predator relations to the Earth
This makes Cioran's edginess seem like mere child's play.
>Credibility
Dogshit prize
What about the concern that teds ideas are tainted with something that made him a mass murderer? Maybe i should not listen to him or others like him because he does not seem different to other things i hate like the military industrial complex. Or is the jist of his philosophic thought that we should destroy with technology because technology destroys us?
Well, the standard functioning of technological society kills 30-40 million a year. That's without counting all of those who will die in the future due to all of the atomic idols it has left behind.
>muh people killed
We have to remove ~90% of the Earth’s population to remain viable long term, so these arguments won’t fly
John Gray is a conservative philosopher who writes on similar themes. Recently finished a book of his essays and I was very impressed, particularly with his "an agenda for Green conservatism".
Don't worry the zombie plague is coming, have faith. I'm negan.
The point is in regards to violence. Modern man fears violence, yet is completely unaware that his technology imposes an endless and ugly form of sacrifice. All of these people die in banal misery.
Care to explain yourself, Negan?
Because he's an emotional child and a leftist--not a real revolutionary.
this.
Pentti is real committed to his message. Too bad he's unironically a total schizo.
this. but his message isn't revolutionary, and as Ted illustrates in the first two chapters of his book "Anti-Tech Revolution" it can't work on fundamental logical grounds.
Ironically, Pentti's "message" will likely be used by the technological system in the near future to try and control more human behavior and "preserve" more "nature" to the extent that it must preserve some natural systems in order to maintain itself.
>Ironically, Pentti's "message" will likely be used by the technological system in the near future to try and control more human behavior and "preserve" more "nature" to the extent that it must preserve some natural systems in order to maintain itself.
Please elaborate.