5 ms·

Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates them, and that is sad. You can hate what a person did and still try to understand wh

by daenz 6y ago

Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates them, and that is sad. You can hate what a person did and still try to understand why they did it. That does not equate to support for them. It's this kind of closed-mindedness that is driving people apart all over the world.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
it's also what leads to banning books and wanting to whitewash language
- eaandkw 6y ago
  Careful with the word "whitewash". Might get banned in favor of some other stupid word like "cleanwash".
throwawaygh 6y ago
Certainly as a case study in mental illness or domestic terrorism. But not -- as the author suggests -- with the goal of understanding his politics. Kaczynski's psychopathy is -- on face and by itself -- a good reason for not spending my time on his writing. Or, at least, only spending that time in a very particular way. Kaczynski's manifesto is the rambling rationalization of a madman. Reading it as anything else is fundamentally a misreading. To put this in a perhaps slightly less divisive way: maybe the time cube does have 4 sides [1], but there's a near infinity of things to learn. So, unless I'm specifically seeking out examples of high-functioning mental illness, I'll stick to spending my time trying to understand people and ideas that aren't obviously unhinged. And if I do seek out examples of high-functioning mental illness, I am not going to engage with the text in a way that "separate ideas from the person who generates them". Because that would be a misreading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
- ajkdhcb2 6y ago
  You just proved the comment you're replying to.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. Engaging with the text in a way that doesn't admit that fact would be like reading the Declaration of Independence as if it were a piece of Science Fiction, or reading a scientific article as if it were a love letter. You can of course proceed in that way, but it'll result in a fundamentally erroneous understanding of the meaning of the text. When reading and interpreting a text, context, intent, audience, and purpose do matter. The purpose of Kaczynski's manifesto was not to present political ideas. The purpose of his manifesto was to rationalize his violence. If you engage with the text in that way, then you might learn something. If you engage with the text in a way that actively ignores its purpose and intent, then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not saying it's morally bad to read Kaczynski's manifesto in the way the article suggests, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't consider such a reading. I'm just saying that, having considered such a reading, I feel that reading Kaczynski's manifesto as anything other than rationalization would be like reading the bible as young adult pulp fiction or Harry Potter as a religious text. You can do it, but it's a waste of time and you will misunderstand most of the text in pretty extreme and fundamental ways.
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      > Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. this isnt an argument. either the text is sound or it isnt; either the arguments are presented clearly from first principles with evidence or theyre not. the intent or state of the writer is irrevelant.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        I'd argue that essentially no writing on social issues is really sound. We don't understand humanity in aggregate (or even in singularity) or what underpins us well enough. Scientific studies on these topics are generally limited and biased with true randomization being essentially impossible. It's all based on hand chosen axioms on humanity that are picked to aid the author's statement rather than being derived from any objective truth. edit: As such you're essentially reading religious preaching and we are all capable of being converted to a religion. So it makes sense to check ahead of time that you're not getting converted into a violent cult.
zozbot234 6y ago
> Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates them Would these writings be considered famous or even worthwhile if it wasn't for this person's actions? I think the answer is quite clear.
- ajkdhcb2 6y ago
  I'm not so sure. People wouldn't be so afraid to share it and admit that they agree.
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Kaczynski acknowledges that it wouldn't be if it wasn't for his violence in his Manifesto.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Infamous is probably the right word. His writings aren't something that everybody owns or that's taught in school. I don't believe a majority would know the author if you asked them who wrote "Industrial Society and its Future". I also don't believe that a majority considers it worthwhile, it's a minority that this line of thought speaks to, and I'm relatively sure that they'd find it appealing even if he hadn't ever done anything but write books.
shadowgovt 6y ago
On the other hand, there's the philosophy of "and you shall know them by their deeds." One can read the manifesto, but should always keep in mind that any conclusions it draws are conclusions that led a man to blow up his fellow human beings who didn't even know who he was.
Barrin92 6y ago
Because it's not always appropriate to separate the ideas from the person. When reading the book it is quite evident that it's not only some sort of abstract philosophical work, but more of a personal feud between Ted Kaczynski and society, which is of course also reflected in his actions. It's not closed-mindedness to treat the word of a terrorist critically, that is to say keep in mind what the author of the book intents to accomplish with his work, rather than just taking text off the pages at face value.
- Fricken 6y ago
  I haven't read the manifesto, just the article, but none of the major ideas or themes presented in it originate with the unabomber. I've read bits and pieces of these ideas from Buddhism, Bertrand Russel, Marshall McLuhan and Jared Diamond, among others.
notahacker 6y ago
I don't think it's 'close minded' to conclude that if someone concludes the logical consequence of ideas is to become a mail-bombing hermit, the ideas themselves might fall some way short of being a 'must read for technooptimists'. Even outside the context of the person who generates them which is the sole reason the manifesto garners any interest at all, I am not sure the world is being driven apart because people do not read enough tracts about the need to 'take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and ... avoid all collaboration with leftists'. If technooptimists and leftists want to read articles critical of their positions [preferably positions they actually hold...], which would be a good thing, they're surely more likely to be persuaded by tracts which are less reliant on sweeping generalization and notable for reasons other than the author's death toll.

by daenz 6y ago

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

it's also what leads to banning books and wanting to whitewash language

eaandkw 6y ago
Careful with the word "whitewash". Might get banned in favor of some other stupid word like "cleanwash".

throwawaygh 6y ago

Certainly as a case study in mental illness or domestic terrorism. But not -- as the author suggests -- with the goal of understanding his politics. Kaczynski's psychopathy is -- on face and by itself -- a good reason for not spending my time on his writing. Or, at least, only spending that time in a very particular way. Kaczynski's manifesto is the rambling rationalization of a madman. Reading it as anything else is fundamentally a misreading. To put this in a perhaps slightly less divisive way: maybe the time cube does have 4 sides [1], but there's a near infinity of things to learn. So, unless I'm specifically seeking out examples of high-functioning mental illness, I'll stick to spending my time trying to understand people and ideas that aren't obviously unhinged. And if I do seek out examples of high-functioning mental illness, I am not going to engage with the text in a way that "separate ideas from the person who generates them". Because that would be a misreading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

ajkdhcb2 6y ago
You just proved the comment you're replying to.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. Engaging with the text in a way that doesn't admit that fact would be like reading the Declaration of Independence as if it were a piece of Science Fiction, or reading a scientific article as if it were a love letter. You can of course proceed in that way, but it'll result in a fundamentally erroneous understanding of the meaning of the text. When reading and interpreting a text, context, intent, audience, and purpose do matter. The purpose of Kaczynski's manifesto was not to present political ideas. The purpose of his manifesto was to rationalize his violence. If you engage with the text in that way, then you might learn something. If you engage with the text in a way that actively ignores its purpose and intent, then you'll be wasting your time. I'm not saying it's morally bad to read Kaczynski's manifesto in the way the article suggests, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't consider such a reading. I'm just saying that, having considered such a reading, I feel that reading Kaczynski's manifesto as anything other than rationalization would be like reading the bible as young adult pulp fiction or Harry Potter as a religious text. You can do it, but it's a waste of time and you will misunderstand most of the text in pretty extreme and fundamental ways.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. this isnt an argument. either the text is sound or it isnt; either the arguments are presented clearly from first principles with evidence or theyre not. the intent or state of the writer is irrevelant.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      I'd argue that essentially no writing on social issues is really sound. We don't understand humanity in aggregate (or even in singularity) or what underpins us well enough. Scientific studies on these topics are generally limited and biased with true randomization being essentially impossible. It's all based on hand chosen axioms on humanity that are picked to aid the author's statement rather than being derived from any objective truth. edit: As such you're essentially reading religious preaching and we are all capable of being converted to a religion. So it makes sense to check ahead of time that you're not getting converted into a violent cult.

zozbot234 6y ago

> Some people here can't seem to separate ideas from the person who generates them Would these writings be considered famous or even worthwhile if it wasn't for this person's actions? I think the answer is quite clear.

ajkdhcb2 6y ago
I'm not so sure. People wouldn't be so afraid to share it and admit that they agree.
Miner49er 6y ago
Kaczynski acknowledges that it wouldn't be if it wasn't for his violence in his Manifesto.
luckylion 6y ago
Infamous is probably the right word. His writings aren't something that everybody owns or that's taught in school. I don't believe a majority would know the author if you asked them who wrote "Industrial Society and its Future". I also don't believe that a majority considers it worthwhile, it's a minority that this line of thought speaks to, and I'm relatively sure that they'd find it appealing even if he hadn't ever done anything but write books.

shadowgovt 6y ago

On the other hand, there's the philosophy of "and you shall know them by their deeds." One can read the manifesto, but should always keep in mind that any conclusions it draws are conclusions that led a man to blow up his fellow human beings who didn't even know who he was.

Barrin92 6y ago

Because it's not always appropriate to separate the ideas from the person. When reading the book it is quite evident that it's not only some sort of abstract philosophical work, but more of a personal feud between Ted Kaczynski and society, which is of course also reflected in his actions. It's not closed-mindedness to treat the word of a terrorist critically, that is to say keep in mind what the author of the book intents to accomplish with his work, rather than just taking text off the pages at face value.

Fricken 6y ago
I haven't read the manifesto, just the article, but none of the major ideas or themes presented in it originate with the unabomber. I've read bits and pieces of these ideas from Buddhism, Bertrand Russel, Marshall McLuhan and Jared Diamond, among others.

notahacker 6y ago

I don't think it's 'close minded' to conclude that if someone concludes the logical consequence of ideas is to become a mail-bombing hermit, the ideas themselves might fall some way short of being a 'must read for technooptimists'. Even outside the context of the person who generates them which is the sole reason the manifesto garners any interest at all, I am not sure the world is being driven apart because people do not read enough tracts about the need to 'take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and ... avoid all collaboration with leftists'. If technooptimists and leftists want to read articles critical of their positions [preferably positions they actually hold...], which would be a good thing, they're surely more likely to be persuaded by tracts which are less reliant on sweeping generalization and notable for reasons other than the author's death toll.