/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13159783]

They're all wrong.

Or mostly wrong, at least. Ted Kaczynski is the most right anyone has ever been. 99% of the problems philosophers spent their whole lives ruminating about would disappear if we returned to a hunter gatherer state and allowed the world to heal and become wild again. The world makes so little sense to so many people precisely because it's in a state of horrific defilement. None of these men ever dreamed that in the past things were different, that life wasn't always so empty and soul crushing. Their ideas are bandaids, they don't deal with the root of the disease. It's not capitalism, it's not communism, it's not ethics, it's not theology. We are divorced from nature and it is killing us. Humans are the only species on the planet who live outside of nature, who treat it like a tertiary concern and not what it actually is: as essential to human life as water, food, sleep and warmth.

[Anonymous No.13159789]

>>13159783
Oh yeah? I just shit my pants. What's ole Ted gotta say about that?

[Anonymous No.13159791]

>Wow I really hate god man he won’t let homosexuals have equal rights and lets not forget the crusades

[Anonymous No.13159792]

>>13159783
Lol define nature, Karen

[Anonymous No.13159803]

>>13159792
Nature is land almost entirely untouched by humans, specifically no farming or any other form of disrupting land from how you found it

[Anonymous No.13159810]

>>13159791
God is a myth, one that only gained real momentum when civilisation started to rape the human psyche

[Anonymous No.13159811]

>>13159789
You wouldn't have any pants if you lived in nature.

See? He's right yet again.

[Anonymous No.13159814]

>>13159803
Good definition, desu.

[Anonymous No.13159818]

>>13159783

The term you're looking for is anarcho-primitivism. It is the one true and just political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13159824]

>>13159783
Since people went away from the hunter gatherer society doesn't that mean it's intrinsically unstable?

[Anonymous No.13159828]

>>13159783
>>13159818
>primitive larp utopia created
>grug deerleg finds an old gun
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars

[Anonymous No.13159838]

>>13159824
No.

Life is just more comfortable in certain ways if you stray into agriculture, that doesn't mean it's good for you in the long run.

[Anonymous No.13159840]

>>13159783
huntergatherer societies are shit too reality is just gay

[Anonymous No.13159844]

>>13159828
>b-b-but what if old technology!
You're really clutching at straws. You can be a pedantic child or you can look at the real merits.

[Anonymous No.13159845]

>>13159840
>huntergatherer societies are shit too
In what way do you think they're shit?

[Anonymous No.13159850]

[Anonymous No.13159853]

>>13159783
OH NO NO
Look like somebody haven't read Rousseau.
He basically said what you said but he was (like you) wrong.
Please read Aristote and you will be so embarassed that you made this post that you may kill yourself!

[Anonymous No.13159856]

>>13159783
go follow Ted then, why the fuck are you here, dumb ass motherfucker, FUCK OFF

[Anonymous No.13159880]

>>13159856

[Anonymous No.13159885]

>>13159783
>99% of the problems philosophers spent their whole lives ruminating about would disappear if we returned to a hunter gatherer state and allowed the world to heal and become wild again.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-the-truth-about-primitive-life-a-critique-of-anarchoprimitivism

[Anonymous No.13159893]

sounds like a Dune thread desu

[Anonymous No.13159898]

>>13159885
I didn't say life would be a utopia, I said problems spawned by civilisation that philosophers have thought of solutions and explanations for for hundreds of years would disappear.

[Anonymous No.13159913]

>>13159898
well yeah, if you turn most people into retarded barbarians problems "disappear"

[Anonymous No.13159927]

>>13159913
>retarded barbarians
Why is it so hard for you to accept the idea that even though technology solves many things that make you sad or uncomfortable, that doesn't mean it's good for you.

[Anonymous No.13159933]

>>13159927
i'm not saying technology doesn't have issues, i'm just saying going back is not confronting them

[Anonymous No.13159941]

>>13159933
That's just denial.

"If we keep pushing forward we'll figure it out" is an incredibly stupid plan when you know full well we were meant for hunter gathering. We did it for almost all of our existence as a species. Technology is an artificial construct, and natural beings like humans will never coexist peacefully with it. We will never come to terms with this new way of life.

It's as insane as throwing a dog in the ocean and expecting it to grow gills eventually.

[Anonymous No.13159943]

>>13159941
the denial is yours, the mere possibility of technology changes everything, just because you avoid the responsibility doesn't mean technology will disappear

[Anonymous No.13159946]

>>13159783
Have sex

[Anonymous No.13159949]

>>13159927
>good for you
animal desires an animal lifestyle, typical
Your blood stems from the first roving bands witnessing the walls of Ur
Subhuman without the spirit of civilization, you will be conquered in it's next birth

[Anonymous No.13159954]

>dumb metaphysics

fuck off back to /his/

[Anonymous No.13159958]

>>13159783
Nature/culture is a philosophical position that can only be argued in an 'unnatural' state. There is no such thing as a simple and pure 'nature' outside of the context of philosophising and any 'return' to such a state is neither as simple, pure, or naive as the idea of nature suggests

[Anonymous No.13159960]

>>13159949
>animal desires an animal lifestyle, typical
All humans are animals.
>Subhuman without the spirit of civilization, you will be conquered in it's next birth
And you will sit there, being tortured by your own mind and not knowing why.

[Anonymous No.13159984]

>>13159949
that goat is cute

[Anonymous No.13159987]

>>13159958
You can't say that living in nature is a purely philosophical term, what uncle Ted was doing in his hut is precisely that. A return to nature is impossible though, for many reasons. Firstly because we're more than just animals, and the human population is too large at this point. If living in nature was what we were supposed to do, we would never have created and built societies.

[Anonymous No.13159988]

>>13159960
well, you get to choose between getting mentally tortured by your mind or getting physically tortured by nature, not exactly a great choice either way
>>13159984
it's probably his wife >>13159949

[Anonymous No.13159989]

>>13159960
Humans are more than just animals, this level of intelligence is not found in any other animal so you can't hold humans to the same standard as chimps

[Anonymous No.13159999]

>>13159989
>Humans are more than just animals
Wrong

>this level of intelligence is not found in any other animal
It was, until we killed them all.

>so you can't hold humans to the same standard as chimps
A human life, in the grand scheme of the universe, is equivalent to a chimps, or an ants or any other life form. Of course, we're humans so we value human life above all other life. But that doesn't mean a chimp thinks a human life is more valuable than a chimps.

[Anonymous No.13160001]

>>13159999
>in the grand scheme of the universe
there's no grand scheme of the universe without humans

[Anonymous No.13160005]

>>13159987
the nature/culture opposition is a philosophical one, yes

[Anonymous No.13160007]

>>13159783
This only makes sense if you dont believe in God
I feel sorry anon, Ill pray so you can see God

[Anonymous No.13160014]

>>13159783
We are still utilizing the same mental tools and our mindset is still the same as our ancestor in hunter-gather tribes. So just returning to living in holes isn't going to change anything. If you want to die because of a cold you can do that.

[Anonymous No.13160018]

>Humans get nuked into primitive age
>All is well
>Some fag discovers writing and preserving knowledge
>Humans start technological progress
>We end up in the same situation as before

Humanity is not build for a technological environment but humanity is bound to create such environment.
That is the tragedy

[Anonymous No.13160026]

artificial adversity = natural adversity

you don't have to give up your computer to make kids fight in a battle royale when they reach 12yo

[Anonymous No.13160034]

>>13159783
Using this image is the equivalent of replying to every post in a thread with "based" or "cringe." If this is even sincere, Uncle Ted is probably the only one you've read. To put Wittgenstein in with a group who are allegedly trying to solve problems in that way is especially silly. Like comparing a military theorist or historian to field generals

[Anonymous No.13160057]

>>13159987
What he was doing in his hut was making a point, a philosophical and political point. Mainly that he is a dogmatic individualist to an absurd degree and would rather decapitate motorcyclists than let them spoil the harmony of the day. But it isn't because we have a soul, or that we have a "purpose," that we are condemned to this, it's because language is too powerful. Technology will redevelop in an anarcho-primitivist condition not because humans are "too intelligent" or in someway predestined to create technology, but because language is a technology, and eventually everyday language technology necessarily develops a properly technological ("scientific") component over the course of its use.

[Anonymous No.13160081]

>>13160026
>artificial adversity = natural adversity
If you're a brainlet sure

[Anonymous No.13160086]

>>13160081
unless you believe nature is magical, which is not, adversity is adversity, the origin doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.13160087]

>>13159789
YO LIL TEDDY DUM DUM!

[Anonymous No.13160091]

>>13159999
I'm not taking about the value of a human life over a chimps. I'm saying that humans are much more intelligent, so you can't expect them to be satisfied living like chimps in the wild. Humans are animals, but so vastly intelligent than any other that we cannot possibly be satisfied living like them. The urge to build and create is a human need stemming from our intelligence which separates us from animals.
>>13160057
True, but such a complex language is the result of being too intelligent. We are too intelligent to be satisfied with a retrograde standard of living.

[Anonymous No.13160093]

>>13160086
>adversity is adversity, the origin doesn't matter
It does matter.

Artificial adversity doesn't make you give a fuck the way true adversity does. Many people, myself included, don't even care about any abstract artificial adversity enough to actually pursue it.

[Anonymous No.13160097]

>>13159810
You can't state that with any sort of certainty as we have no idea what people before civilisation believed. In fact I think most of the uncivilised tribes that the West interacted with during its period of world colonisation had religious ideas of some sort.

[Anonymous No.13160100]

>>13160081
>Artificial/natural duality

[Anonymous No.13160101]

>>13160093
you have technology, going back to nature is as artificial as any other kind of chosen adversity, it's not "real" in any sense

[Anonymous No.13160108]

>>13160091
>The urge to build and create is a human need stemming from our intelligence which separates us from animals.
Complete bullshit just like the rest of your post.

[Anonymous No.13160113]

>>13160101
>you have technology
And yet I don't give a fuck to do anything with it other than hedonistic recreation. Hmmm...

[Anonymous No.13160116]

>>13160101
>it's not "real" in any sense
It's real in the sense that if you don't go out in search of food every day, you die

[Anonymous No.13160118]

>>13160113
>Sent from iphone

[Anonymous No.13160125]

>>13160118
Attack the idea, not the person

[Anonymous No.13160132]

>>13160116
only if you artificially put yourself in that situation, you can also artificially create convoluted technological scenarios where death is in the line

[Anonymous No.13160143]

>>13159783
You are unironically pretty correct. I have finally understood why I am so distraught. No true problems exist. Philosophy is the product of minds with nothing to do. Imagine; if I was tasked with the genuine need to sustain myself, to hunt a wild animal, to formulate a plan to survive, I would never have to think about any of this shit. Maybe I still would, but it would at least be like a hobby. In other words, no true problems exists, so I unwittingly create phantasms which fill the of genuine adversity.
I fully believe that there exists two major branches of humanity existing right now; individualists and collectivists. Individualists tend to be idealist and collectivists materialists. One is a dying breed. One knows it is on its last leg and is a remnant of pre-civilized humanity. One will either destroy the artificial shackles imprisoning it, or it will be breed out of existence. Collectivists naturally would prefer the latter. And if they succeed, true hivemindedness can be achieved, and the technocrats (aka alpha collectivists) know the best way to do achieve this is via technology and using it to destroy the individual. This destruction of the individual leads to insanity, confusion, and resentment from the individualists.
It was nice knowing some of you. Hopefully you make it

[Anonymous No.13160146]

>>13160125
Lmao if your idea is so valuable why does it need to embrace hypocrisy to spread it? Why can't I find out about your primitive larp without the use of writing and technology? Write me an explanation as to why I shouldn't write an explanation.
You retards want to use technology to implement a non technological society by force or argument, effectively proving yourself wrong because attempting to create this society without technology would be futile, quickly dissipated and destroyed. By your own worship of the 'natural order' the universe displays it's inadequacy in a test for survival. Archo primitivism is the most deeply civilizational idea that exists, it's existence depends on civilizations awareness of itself
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.13160147]

>>13160132
Why are you pretending humans didn't live as hunter gatherers for 99% of their existence?

[Anonymous No.13160150]

>>13160143
fill the *void*
And
*bred*
Sorry. It's early

[Anonymous No.13160154]

>>13160108
Wha created society then? Why does it exist in the first place? When you have nothing useful to say its better to shut up

[Anonymous No.13160163]

>>13160147
so what? environments change, going back to the primitive environment is an artificial decision

[Anonymous No.13160168]

>>13160154
>Wha created society then? Why does it exist in the first place?
Surplus of food due to agriculture led to the rise of kings. If you need more explanation I can provide it. Society exists because agriculture and later the industrial revolution facillitated people rising so far above others, they can remove their individuality and control large parts of their lives.

[Anonymous No.13160169]

>>13160146
>dude don't use your car to go back home after using it to go to work
>due why would you use something to undo something you used it to do

[Anonymous No.13160171]

>>13160163
>so what? environments change
Due to human interference. Agriculture is why the forests and the plains were almost entirely wiped out.

[Anonymous No.13160179]

>>13160171
I think he might be asking why agriculture developed if hunting/gathering is so great. And the answer is that it spread like a very successful virus. By force or subversion. And, like other successful diseases (namely cancers), it is starting to kill its host (both humanity and the wider ecosystem as well)

[Anonymous No.13160181]

Hunter/Gathering fucking sucks

[Anonymous No.13160183]

>>13159783
>9% of the problems philosophers spent their whole lives ruminating about would disappear if we returned to a hunter gatherer state and allowed the world to heal and become wild again.
??

> the root of the disease. It's not capitalism, it's not communism, it's not ethics, it's not theology. We are divorced from nature and it is killing us
You know it's basically evolved rousseauism with a couple of antitech stuff borrowed from Carlyle and Ruskin ?

[Anonymous No.13160189]

>>13160183
>You know it's basically evolved rousseauism with a couple of antitech stuff borrowed from Carlyle and Ruskin ?
You know people can come up with ideas completely isolated from people who came up with similar ones?

[Anonymous No.13160191]

>>13160171
>>13160179
and why is that important? what's the goal? extending life for as long as possible? having as much biodiversity for as long as possible? whatever is the goal, humans may be the one solution to the ultimate extension of life when this planet gets eaten by the sun

you could argue that life disappearing doesn't matter, but then why is it relevant if we do it instead of the sun?

[Anonymous No.13160205]

>>13160191
>what's the goal?
Not having humanity as a whole suffer from completely pointless lives that leave them riddled with mental illnesses, suicidal tendencies and an all round feeling of pointless existence.

[Anonymous No.13160209]

>>13160205
then nuke the planet

[Anonymous No.13160213]

>>13160209
How would he buy the newest IPhone!?!

[Anonymous No.13160217]

>>13160209
>>13160213
>We want to live lives of meaning and abandon technology to acquire this
>"JUST NUKE IT ALL THEN RETARD"
Nice

[Anonymous No.13160221]

>>13160168
Even in a purely hunter gatherer tribe of just a handful of people, there is a hierarchy of dominance. Social organization and social hierarchies are inherent to human gatherings, be it in millions or just 5 people. So even living in such a small community, your freedom is limited because you can't do just anything that you like.

[Anonymous No.13160226]

>>13160217
the sun is going to nuke life at some point either way, either you want to avoid this or you don't which means you don't care if life finishes

[Anonymous No.13160229]

>>13160169
You're a fucking retard, imagine missing the mark that bad. There's no 'driving back', there's no time machine. Arch primitivism is fundamentally a civilizational idea. "Ideas" are the result of civilization. A snake eating it's own tail. It will never die in that way and create a utopian primitivism by purposeful, organized, death. Civilizations do not commit sucide. Only the death of the snake by outside or internal forces, from which another a rise again if it's ecosystem is stable. You use the forces of civilization to promote non civilization by appeal to a natural order. The 'natural order' takes care of itself and currently deems civilization as the strongest, it's a severe contradiction on the part of ideology.(not only understanding viewing 'nature' in self aware observation is a result of civilization) The basis of values in your ideology values your implementation as worthless. Civilization survives, natural order is in place. Until it doesn't survive and there's silence

The biggest archo primitivism advocates are the biggest polluters, war hawks, and african woman

[Anonymous No.13160232]

>>13160229
imagine being this much of a bugman. holy shit.

[Anonymous No.13160234]

>>13160221
>there is a hierarchy of dominance
Not always and never to the extent where we are now, where one man can control thousands of others.

>Social organization and social hierarchies are inherent to human gatherings
Not true

>So even living in such a small community, your freedom is limited because you can't do just anything that you like.
Read the link in >>13159885

[Anonymous No.13160242]

>>13160229
I was more getting out that's there is little hypocrisy in undoing something you've done with a specific tool i.e. going to work with a car. Similarly, there is little to no hypocrisy in using your enemies weapons against them

[Anonymous No.13160243]

>>13159783
And people still think that becoming more reliant on technology, drawing is further from nature, is the solution to these problems.

[Anonymous No.13160255]

>>13160232
Non argument
Pathetic /pol/tourist
Disgusting meme language
Hang yourself

[Anonymous No.13160267]

>>13160255
*buys something from Amazon*

[Anonymous No.13160269]

>>13160191
We will turn this planet into a wasteland before the sun even comes close to destroying it if we keep on living like we do now.
I admire people that still keep that spark of optimism that technology will solve the problems technology created.

[Anonymous No.13160270]

>>13160242
>your enemies
but you are your enemies, you are the weapon, you aren't outside of it

[Anonymous No.13160277]

>>13160269
if extending life is all that matters, then we have the responsibility to try, as we may be the only option

if extending life doesn't matter, then whether the sun or us ends it is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.13160283]

>>13160270
So using bombs to kill technocrats is not hypocritical? I mean, I wouldn't care if it was but still

[Anonymous No.13160284]

>>13159783
>Humans are the only species on the planet who live outside of nature
Imagine believing this. We may be better at it than other animals (or plants, or fungi), but ultimately we only form nature around us to best suit our needs.

[Anonymous No.13160287]

>>13160284
>we only destroy nature around us
I agree

[Anonymous No.13160291]

>>13160284
>but ultimately we only form nature around us to best suit our needs.
No, we live outside of the natural order.

Making steel skyscrapers is not forming nature to suit our needs.

[Anonymous No.13160301]

>>13160291
What do you think about the idea that high technology is part of nature, but only manifested as far as we know in humans? Birds build nests, we build skyscrapers, nukes, 4chan, and AI. (different anon)

[Anonymous No.13160305]

>>13160283
the issue is not with the bombs, is with the ideology itself, the return to nature is just a civilizational construct trying to artificially prune some evolutional branch for ideological reasons

in the end evolution doesn't care, and maybe a new branch of the "technological" branch that hates "technology" succeeds in pruning the technological branch, but it will be because it's more powerful, not because it's morally right or anything like that

[Anonymous No.13160311]

>>13160287
cringe
>>13160291
What about it is "unnatural"? Looking at it objectively, without human hybris, the differences between an anthill and a human city are minor.

[Anonymous No.13160312]

>>13160305
I see. Well, I sort of jumped in late so it probably seems like I advocate am-prim. And while I like the idea, I don't really care what comes after the collapse. I'm a generic anti-tech accelerationist. So, I understand what you're saying and it's a (valid?) concern.

[Anonymous No.13160321]

>>13160311
Bugman. Shut the fuck up already. Shut your fucking mouth.

[Anonymous No.13160347]

>>13160277
>if extending life doesn't matter, then whether the sun or us ends it is irrelevant
Its not irrelevant, because there is a difference in the way to extinction between those two.

Most of our technology is not used to extend life or has any meaningful contribution to safe life in case of a catastrophe. While Anarcho-Primitivism is not an answer (in regards to time), it is the articulation that we radically need to change the way we look at technology.

[Anonymous No.13160362]

>>13159783

[Anonymous No.13160365]

>>13160362
Yes, and in a generation or two everyone would have adequate eyesight. So much worse than endless generations of people with fucked up eyes that require glasses, contacts, or survey to address.

[Anonymous No.13160367]

>>13160321
so this is the true power of anprim philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13160385]

>>13159783
Did you mean to type "Aristotle"?

[Anonymous No.13160386]

>>13160385
>not Aristocles
Yowzer

[Anonymous No.13160387]

>>13160367
Not an argument degenerate.

[Anonymous No.13160407]

>>13160347
>Its not irrelevant, because there is a difference in the way to extinction between those two.
bad things are bad, the only difference is that in the human case there's someone to blame, but the criterion for something being bad can't be just that as long as there's nobody to blame things aren't bad

[Anonymous No.13160411]

>>13160189
Yeah sure a ultra high-IQ probably never read anything before developping his ideas.

[Anonymous No.13160424]

>>13160411
>Yeah sure a ultra high-IQ probably never read anything before developping his ideas.
Doesn't prove he read who you said he did.

The radio was invented almost simultaneously at two different points of the world. Sometimes people have the same ideas, get over it.

[Anonymous No.13160435]

>>13160387
he says, after not providing anything to argue against

[Anonymous No.13160443]

>>13159783
cringe - man is not animal, man is man

[Anonymous No.13160452]

>>13160443
Is man feeble enough that he cannot be man among animals? Among nature?

[Anonymous No.13160494]

>>13160411
IQ is just a measurement of autism, not intelligence

[Anonymous No.13160702]

Uncle Ted has nothing in common with Rousseau