4 ms·

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.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    >> Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. > this isnt an argument. No. It's an assertion. You're free to disagree. However, if that assertion is true, then there's no reason for techno-optimists to bother with his text. Also, it is an assertion that we can reason about at least somewhat independently of the text. We can examine how the text was written, the manner in which it was disseminated, the reason for its cultural weight, etc. > either the text is sound or it isnt That's the point. Reading the text for the purpose of determining whether it is sound will be futile exercise and a waste of time. In the same way that reading Harry Potter as a religious text would be wrong (not morally/ethically/politically/etc. wrong per se, but rather simply and plainly wrong in the sense that a literary analysis can be incorrect). lucideer's post addresses this directly and ultimately concludes "Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading". I would simply add the qualifier "...unless you proceed from the understanding the the author is a sick man". In other words, it's not worth reading just because you're a techno-optimist. It's perhaps worth reading if you're interested in terrorism or mental illness. > either the arguments are presented clearly from first principles with evidence or theyre not. The first principles from which the arguments proceed are the personal vendettas of a sick man. From that understanding of the first principles, the text can be read properly. From other understandings of the first principles, the text will be misinterpreted. > the intent or state of the writer is irrevelant. This is not true of any other political text. The intent and state of the founders is highly relevant to interpreting the declaration of independence. The intent and state of Marx is highly relevant to interpreting the communist manifesto. Even scientific revolutionary documents such as Darwin's Origins are not possible to read deeply & understand completely without learning more about the man. The founders were nation building in a very particular context. Marx was movement building in a very particular context. Darwin was writing into a very specific scientific and political context. Reading these texts without appropriate historical and personal context would result in misreadings, or shallow readings, or, most often, shallow misreadings. History and personal context always matter when reading texts deeply. We never ignore those things when reading other texts. Why would we suddenly start ignoring these salient details just because the author is a terrorist?
  - dangerface 6y ago
    > this isnt an argument. Correct, the rest of his comment is the argument that backs up the statement he made. They explain how a source that isn't sound cant make a text that is sound. In the same way that a stoped clock can still tell the time and it may even tell the correct time twice a day but that does not mean the clock is sound. You can't find understanding in a text that comes from a source that is unsound in the same way a stopped clock can't keep time, its ability to do so is compromised. Even if the clock is coincidentally correct twice a day how would you know? Without a sound source to tell the time you don't know if the broken source is telling the correct time even when it is. There is understanding to be had from reading the manifesto but its not understanding on the subject of technology and society. In the manifesto he talks about society as something he is subjected to that he has to struggle through. Technology is used as a scapegoat for his anger and is only really talked about from a general perspective almost as if it where a type of magic. Without first reading other sound texts to give you an understanding of topic it would be impossible to separate sound arguments from unsound as they are all presented from the same unsound source.
totalZero 6y ago
I don't see it that way. The reply chooses to understand the writing in the context of its writer's psychology, and presents reasons for doing so. This does not mean that the replier cannot consider the writing independently of the writer. You can build a closet in the woods, but usually it doesn't make much sense unless it's accompanied by a house. You can interpret ideas while willfully obscuring other facts about the ideator, but usually it doesn't make much sense unless it's accompanied by the antecedents and consequences found among those obscurable facts. Kaczynski's life demonstrates that there was something really messed up about his thinking.

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.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  >> Kaczynski's manifesto functions primarily as a rationalization for his violence and anger. > this isnt an argument. No. It's an assertion. You're free to disagree. However, if that assertion is true, then there's no reason for techno-optimists to bother with his text. Also, it is an assertion that we can reason about at least somewhat independently of the text. We can examine how the text was written, the manner in which it was disseminated, the reason for its cultural weight, etc. > either the text is sound or it isnt That's the point. Reading the text for the purpose of determining whether it is sound will be futile exercise and a waste of time. In the same way that reading Harry Potter as a religious text would be wrong (not morally/ethically/politically/etc. wrong per se, but rather simply and plainly wrong in the sense that a literary analysis can be incorrect). lucideer's post addresses this directly and ultimately concludes "Overall, the manifesto is not worth reading". I would simply add the qualifier "...unless you proceed from the understanding the the author is a sick man". In other words, it's not worth reading just because you're a techno-optimist. It's perhaps worth reading if you're interested in terrorism or mental illness. > either the arguments are presented clearly from first principles with evidence or theyre not. The first principles from which the arguments proceed are the personal vendettas of a sick man. From that understanding of the first principles, the text can be read properly. From other understandings of the first principles, the text will be misinterpreted. > the intent or state of the writer is irrevelant. This is not true of any other political text. The intent and state of the founders is highly relevant to interpreting the declaration of independence. The intent and state of Marx is highly relevant to interpreting the communist manifesto. Even scientific revolutionary documents such as Darwin's Origins are not possible to read deeply & understand completely without learning more about the man. The founders were nation building in a very particular context. Marx was movement building in a very particular context. Darwin was writing into a very specific scientific and political context. Reading these texts without appropriate historical and personal context would result in misreadings, or shallow readings, or, most often, shallow misreadings. History and personal context always matter when reading texts deeply. We never ignore those things when reading other texts. Why would we suddenly start ignoring these salient details just because the author is a terrorist?
- dangerface 6y ago
  > this isnt an argument. Correct, the rest of his comment is the argument that backs up the statement he made. They explain how a source that isn't sound cant make a text that is sound. In the same way that a stoped clock can still tell the time and it may even tell the correct time twice a day but that does not mean the clock is sound. You can't find understanding in a text that comes from a source that is unsound in the same way a stopped clock can't keep time, its ability to do so is compromised. Even if the clock is coincidentally correct twice a day how would you know? Without a sound source to tell the time you don't know if the broken source is telling the correct time even when it is. There is understanding to be had from reading the manifesto but its not understanding on the subject of technology and society. In the manifesto he talks about society as something he is subjected to that he has to struggle through. Technology is used as a scapegoat for his anger and is only really talked about from a general perspective almost as if it where a type of magic. Without first reading other sound texts to give you an understanding of topic it would be impossible to separate sound arguments from unsound as they are all presented from the same unsound source.

totalZero 6y ago

I don't see it that way. The reply chooses to understand the writing in the context of its writer's psychology, and presents reasons for doing so. This does not mean that the replier cannot consider the writing independently of the writer. You can build a closet in the woods, but usually it doesn't make much sense unless it's accompanied by a house. You can interpret ideas while willfully obscuring other facts about the ideator, but usually it doesn't make much sense unless it's accompanied by the antecedents and consequences found among those obscurable facts. Kaczynski's life demonstrates that there was something really messed up about his thinking.