/lit/ - Literature

Should've just given him hormones desu. Maybe he would have become a catgirl instead of going on an autistic anprim spree.

>>14729026
Perhaps because those didn't serve a higher purpose.

>>14729026
To think that he could've been such an insightful thinker, all he needed was to get some pussy in his teenage years.

>>14729026
>TED
Professors literally show TED Talks in classes. We live in a society...

>>14729501
He is an insightful thinker

>>14729505
Not really, his ideology is pretty limited, you can tell he was isolated and in an echo chamber for most of his life. With proper tutoring he could've developed his ideas thorough is career, instead of that he became an incel.

>>14729026
>I don't particularly like marine biology
>therefore, all human activity that has a different purpose than survival in a primitivist society is unsatisfying

His critical points are somewhat OK, but are in actuality nothing but regurgitated Heidegger. His constructive points are so fucking stupid that I am amazed he managed to stay alive in a cabin.

>>14729169
>tfw no Ted catgirl gf

>>14729520
False. Can we please stop it with empty and vague insults and develop specific arguments please.

>>14729521
No, he’s not saying it is “unsatisfying” he is saying that it is far less satisfying. If surrogate activities were completely unsatisfying then they wouldn’t be practiced, so this is basically a tautology.

And his theories are very based and well argued. He’s a high level genius and that’s one of the reasons he lived so well off the grid.

>>14729026
Because it does not make people happy. Also assuming surrogate activities are actually pleasurable which isn't a given.

>>14729548
If he had actually talked to people, he'd know this is bullshit.
There's lots of people who find genuine meaning in their work, and live happy and fulfilling lives.

>>14729572
>i know how happy and fulfilled other people's lives are by talking to them
cope

>>14729026
MK Ultra, repressed homosexuality

Was there a UNABOMBER thread up yesterday? I searched him up on what I thought was a whim about 24 hours ago, ended up reading his entire Wikipedia article. What a tragic figure.

It does make me uncomfortable, though, the extent to which Wikipedia editors glorify him. It goes without saying the unique dissemination of his ideas were not "worth" the loss of human life it incurred.

>>14729606
>i have opinions and i want you to hear them
pseud

>>14729620
I'm sorry I made you think I'm dumb. What opinion do I have, specifically, that you don't have? How does your opinion differ?

>>14729633
You are dumb for thinking opinions and value judgements have any relation to intelligence. You are the first narcissistic pseud that entered this thread and starting talking about his feelings instead of the topic. The guy that wants a Ted catgirl gf is a better poster than you because he doesn't think he said something intelligent.

>>14729654
>talking about his feelings
bruh...you're seriously pissed I wrote that something "makes me uncomfortable?"

My friend, by attempting to distance yourself from your feelings and make your life 100% "intellectual," your feelings have subsumed you. Think about it--you've responded to a banal and innocuous turn of phrase with cloistered, attitude-ridden spite...You've become what you claim to hate the most.

>>14729672
>you're seriously pissed I wrote that something "makes me uncomfortable?"
Your post was
>*blogging*... I wish wikipedia editors spent more time condemning this guy instead of talking about facts of his life. Obviously here's the correct valuation of his ideas and "the loss of human life"

None of that has any value. It's not a matter of being 100% intellectual. It's a matter of not being 0%.

>>14729505
Not remotely.

>>14729701
Ah, I see now where your perception of me differs from who I actually am. No, I don't want Wikipedia editors to start expressing negative opinions about the dude (nor did I assert this). You could easily have just asked me,

> Do you REALLY want the Wikipedia article to outright CONDEMN him? Doesn't that seem biased?
to which I'd respond:

No, I don't. All I'm saying is, right now it seems biased FOR him. For instance, the "Reception" section dedicated to response to his essay contains 6 affirmations and 0 refutations to the ideas the essay expresses.

I read that, and immediately was like, Wait. This Wikipedia article asserts a literal 100% acclaim rate, with ZERO refutations?! Does this represent a balanced, UNWEIGHTED sample of responses to this essay? That's just the most glaring example that tipped my bullshit-meter.

>>14729742
>i was actually talking about wikipedia didn't mention arguments against him
Maybe you should state that. That detail didn't seem important to your post.

>I see now where your perception of me differs from who I actually am
You're still a faggot who decided it would be worthwhile to floridly describe his feelings. Just not as raging of one.

>>14729742
You just motivated me to check out its Talk page, and, thank God, I'm not the only one. Yes, as it turns out, feelings CAN be rooted in fact. Go figure.

>>14729770
i wrote >>14729772 before reading your reply.
>You're still a faggot who decided it would be worthwhile to floridly describe his feelings. Just not as raging of one.
Hey, I recognize you from the essay itself! Ted himself compares you to Leftists in paragraph 19!
>The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior.
Good for you. Now is the real question: is this unpleasant behavior "worth" your capacity to be strong?

why do anything if its just a surrogate activity

>>14729795
It's worth potentially watching people shitpost about their feelings in ted threads less; though that seems unlikely. I wouldn't be here if I found pseuds who think they have intelligent feelings virtue signaling to each other while semi-consciously attempting to reinforce social norms more pleasant.

>>14729520
all insightful thinkers of history have been incels tho

>>14729893
Isn't it ironic that my expression of feeling yielded a direct, productive, and fruitful revelation (the fact of the article's biased Reception section)--while all the while your expression of feeling did nothing but delay that revelation, and continues to cloud meaningful discussion?

There's this marked class of "intellectuals" who are so convinced feelings have NO place in casual discussion--while all the while their petty angst and egoism drenches everything they type. It deeply saddens me (uh oh--another "feeling" word! God forbid!).

>>14729572
from paragraph 40:
>...[Mainstream society's surrogate activities] are not always PURE surrogate activities, since for many people they may be motivated in part by needs other than the need to have some goal to pursue. Scientific work may be motivated in part by a drive for prestige, artistic creation by a need to express feelings, militant social activism by hostility. But for most people who pursue them, these activities are in large part surrogate activities. For example, the majority of scientists will probably agree that the “fulfillment” they get from their work is more important than the money and prestige they earn.
The last sentence is relevant to your point. The next paragraph claims it's still not AS fulfilling as "real" goals COULD be for them.

>>14729969
>my expression of feeling yielded a direct, productive, and fruitful revelation
no it didn't. what revelation do you think it revealed? if it was just the observation that wikipedia editors on ted's article might be biased against arguments opposing ted you could have just said it. your feelings have always been worthless.

i, despite it diverging from the actual topic, have forced you to actually think about the objective external world. before i told you off you were a shitposter that said nothing. now you are saying things that are wrong and off topic but actually about the world outside your feelings. it's a major improvement.

it's not wrong for you to have feelings. it's over-socialized pseudery to think they're interesting and worth hearing about for other people. i'd rather hear about your dreams (which i don't want to hear about either) because at least those would diverge enough from every other person you know to have some hint of psychological interest to them, as opposed to your lockstep emotional responses

>>14730161
>i have forced you to actually think about the objective external world.
You assume just because I say, for instance, "X makes me uncomfortable," that no rational justification for X exists in my mind. You assume it's the healthy individual's duty to ignore all emotions whatsoever. You assume it's his duty willfully to SUPPRESS emotions even. In truth, the mind of a healthy mature person engaging in casual conversation welcomes a balance of both logical and emotional responses, of which both concern concrete reality.

Yes. To ignore reason entirely is silly. Please consider, though, the inverse negligence you have just demonstrated. Ignoring your own emotions has caused you to act outlandishly and immaturely, with name-calling and all the very sorts of value judgements and labeling you so despise. Your emotional steam has burst from the seams of everything you've said. This shocking display of hypocrisy and betrays a lack of emotional self-awareness. Shame on you.

>>14730296
>You assume it's the healthy individual's duty to ignore all emotions whatsoever.
I assume it's the duty of people wasting other people's time to say something relevant to them.
>hey guys i just want to let you know that an anonymous internet stranger thinks killing is really bad just like the entirety of society
is not relevant. If you wanted to talk about "rationality" or some relation your feelings have to something external you could have done so. You did not and if someone hadn't said something your worthless post would have stayed that way.

You do not understand my point. It is not "feelings bad only make clinical factual statements". It is "stop being a faggot wasting everyone's time by saying something with no relation to them". Despite your bullshitting you very clearly thought your feelings were worth hearing about on their own. I have pointed out they are not.

>>14730308
>...if someone hadn't said something your worthless post would have stayed that way.
Ah, yes. Let's re-acquaint ourselves to the graciously enlightening, productive remedy with which you graced my SHOCKINGLY irrelevant outburst:
>>14729620
>>i have opinions and i want you to hear them
>pseud

Are you SERIOUSLY asserting that your sarcastic, 1-word reply was a sincere attempt at rational discussion; that you are the bastion of reason, and I the emotionally-unhinged wretch; that I didn't practically have to pry anything resembling rational, reasoned response out of you with the following reply:
> What opinion do I have, specifically, that you don't have? How does your opinion differ?

Jesus Christ.

You have a serious over-sensitivity against anything concerning emotion--to which you ironically respond in the most snarky, spite-ridden emotional way. This is the utmost pathetic display of hypocrisy I have witnessed in many months.

Honestly, I'm halfway through this essay, and I actually like a lot of it. But if this is the sort of crowd this guy attracts, then maybe his life's work has been perverted too much by deeply confused individuals like you to be worth pursuing.

>>14730417
>Are you SERIOUSLY asserting that your sarcastic, 1-word reply was a sincere attempt at rational discussion
No. I was asserting that your post indicated being a pseud. Since you responded I actually explained why: No worthwhile content while elevated language implied you thought there was.

>>14730447
>if this is the sort of crowd this guy attracts, then maybe his life's work has been perverted too much by deeply confused individuals like you to be worth pursuing
pseud

>>14730453
I am not making a meme here. Please consider visiting a doctor. You may sincerely, genuinely have autism.

>>14730447
caring about the sort of crowd a particular person attracts is a sign of oversocialization

>>14730256
>>14730308
>>14730417
You're both stupid faggots, shut the fuck up

>>14729633
ignore him, hes retarded and has shown up every thread for several years

>>14729893
>It's worth potentially watching people shitpost about their feelings in ted threads less; though that seems unlikely. I wouldn't be here if I found pseuds who think they have intelligent feelings virtue signaling to each other while semi-consciously attempting to reinforce social norms more pleasant.
lol, what a pseud post

>>14730476
That's a keen insight, and it's in line with what I've been reading. It's also true that, were Ted's vision (as I see it so far) to succeed, I wouldn't need be burdened by such a fear--the revolution would have long exposed it as frivolous.

For the time being, though, I'm concerned with the way things I'm engaged in make the people around me feel.

>>14729520
>proper tutoring he could've developed his ideas thorough is career
I don't even agree with Ted but c'mon

I like Ted because he's honest. Most intellectuals seem to be trying to mindfuck/or are just dishonest. To be fair I think west needs another purge of intellectuals so we can actually get something done.

>>14729595
>MK Ultra

This is a constant taking point and had no effect on him at all

>>14730532
no i haven't. if you didn't make worthless posts maybe people would stop saying similar things.

>>14730543
do you claim that isn't the reason people feel compelled to come into these threads and share their feelings?

Power Process reminds me of Ernest Becker's Immortality Project; the latter seeming to be a more watertight system that envelops the former.

According to Becker, the only difference between humans and animals is humans are aware, on any otherwise-regular day, that we're gonna die. All human pursuit is directed, in vain, toward attaining immortality. One's "immortality project" is what one does in attempt to live forever: Either "living on through one's children," "living on through one's good works," becoming rich and powerful and influential and changing the world forever. Making one's mark.

Were Ted's revolution to occur, we'd still be aware of death's inevitability. The dread associated with that awareness would simply be out-competed by that of direct physical needs.

Through Becker's lens, modern man has the LUXURY of existential dread. Through Becker's lens, to be fully occupied by direct physical needs is a step backward in human development. Ted's revolution would replace one abstract set of distractions for another, more base set of distractions. Ted claims the latter set is intrinsically more "valuable;" I'm not convinced...If the quest for immortality /seems/ more tantalizing than one's next meal, why not play the game?

>>14730947
>the only difference between humans and animals is humans are aware
animals already use tools so it's not like invention is something beings only do if they sit around navel gazing. living better lives seems to be enough of a driving force. humans are just much better at it. having nuclear reactors instead of sticks seems like a much bigger difference to me than having existential crises.

also everything alive has evolved to try to live through its children. it's not clear to me how it matters that you can abstract that idea