[intro-b]

through Zero to One, his other writings, and by developing his own personal history, Thiel has created an alternate will-to-power mythos for those who feel alienated by whatever they believe the prevailing Silicon Valley technology & startup culture is

"do no evil" might have been the contrarian counterpoint in the nascent early to mid 2000's, but now Thiel, and those with similar cultural, social, and political ideals, has chosen "we have chosen sides" — Thiel wants to position himself as someone who is for and against something, anything, where most technology companies have a bland, homogenous corporate neutrality

I don't think his end goal is trying to get his favored political candidates back to office or something — Thiel is cultivating a larger story and seeding his ideas about the act of choosing sides, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that

[hacknat]

I don't disagree, but I think there is a lot of nuance to it. Thiel is an ardent disciple of Rene Girard. If people want insight into how Thiel sees the world, I would strongly recommend reading The Straussian Moment. There is a Peter Robinson interview about the essay that can serve as a good primer[1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8

[Applejinx]

Girard and thus Thiel hold that "If there is a normal order in societies, it must be the fruit of an anterior crisis."

They're not wrong that this is A source of order, but they overlook the human tendency to form community and cooperate: this vision of theirs is about how to form societies when they are by definition all against all, a brutal struggle of nihilism and despair.

That's only one way humans can be, and it's a way that competes with the more leftist tendency to make everything about the community and cooperation.

Seems like a meta-narrative is needed that incorporates both of these positions that are held by their supporters as the ONLY position that can exist.

[hacknat]

You need to read Girard more closely (I recommend reading Things Hidden...)

Girard does not embrace a Hobbesian view of the world, he is trying to explain the origin of human cooperation and society. The scapegoat narrative is not a nihilistic war of all-against-all it is a narrative of all-against-one to create order. Human cooperation can exist when violence is pared-down to one person (the scapegoat).

Where Girard admits that nihilism can come into play is when the scapegoat narrative becomes openly acknowledged. Which is what he argues Christianity effectively did (opened up the scapegoat mechanism for all to see, thus rendering it ineffective). Girard predicts that our lack of a scapegoat mechanism will likely lead to apocalyptic violence.

Frankly, I think the leftist view that humans can cooperate out-of-the-head-of-Zeus is naive and needs no account, because it has never happened.

[caeril]

Right, except very frequently, the scapegoat isn't a single figure, but rather a group.

The Bourgeoise, the Jews, the QAnons, the Blacks, the Whites, the Immigrants, the Rich, the Anti-Vaxxers, the Catholics, the Muslims, the Kulaks, the <insert group here>

If humanity could unite and create order under the periodic ritual sacrifice of a single King, we'd be much better off than the way it actually happens, which is scapegoating and sacrificing millions of people at once.

[fallingfrog]

Sorry, but all this stuff about the “scapegoat narrative” and so forth is clearly the sort of syncretic pseudo-spiritual voodoo that crops up from time to time.

[Applejinx]

I'm an open source developer.

I see folks cooperating all the time. Best part of the job. Granted, we are 'leaving money on the table', but this is better.

[intro-b]

absolutely — my few sentences is just a rough summary of a small part of Thiel's thinking and ideology

summing his life as a Silicon Valley bad guy is a gross oversimplification — his actions and work is the product of decades of his study and thought, and has evolved in a number of ways over time if you follow his writings and interviews

it's clear that he holds the ideas he's arrived at with conviction, and has been in the process of enacting them through financial or political or intellectual means

[angelzen]

As the rosy promises of Silicon Valley flounder and the naked reality of techno-capitalism becomes apparent (hello serfdom, err, gig economy, we've missed ya), it is imperative to find a scapegoat. What better scapegoat than a disciple of Girard?

[aaroninsf]

IMO his intellectualism provides active cover for an autocratic-minded zero-sum sociopathy, which when married to his accumulated wealth represents an existential threat.

This is not irrelevant to the conception of and market of Palantir.

He is the Erik Prince of "tech" and like Prince, is a literal merchant of death.

[hacknat]

If true that distinguishes him from nobody, including people without power. However, a serious investigation of Thiel's work dismisses any serious accusation of "Intellectualism" it is well thought out and philosophically rigorous.

Is he completely correct? Probably not. But then, who is?

If one person is an existential threat to humanity (which is what I assume you mean) then, frankly, we probably "deserve" it (in the evolutionary sense). Thiel is useful here to countermand this point. One of his most useful ideas is that the so called "powerful" and "elite" have much less power than we think they do and can can be easily circumvented if ignored (of course there are marginal cases).

[zepto]

> autocratic-minded zero-sum sociopathy

Where is the evidence of this?

[Applejinx]

I'm pretty sure Thiel is a key Dark Enlightenment guy, which means some specific things. 'will to power' is an adequate description for that larger story, which might involve working through others but might also mean any number of things.

The common thread is a concept of overpeople and UNDERpeople, and an ethos that's completely fine with ruling or even consuming/destroying the underpeople, without guilt or any reservations.

This is an ethos, it's just not western civilization anymore :)

[mark_l_watson]

I liked Zero to One, read it twice. I am also a Libertarian (I consider myself to be a very liberal Libertarian, for what’s that is worth).

My complaint about Thiel is that I found it difficult to find much charitable giving on his part. He funds Thiel College, but what else? It is his right to do what he wants, if it is legal, but who wouldn’t feed hundreds of thousands of starving people or many more, etc. if they had lots of surplus cash. Besides being the only political “peace party” of any size in the US, my take on Libertarianism is to respect personal freedom, respect all people who work to support themselves and their families, and to have a strong social consciousness to support making the world as good a place to live in as possible.

[HKH2]

> who wouldn’t feed hundreds of thousands of starving people or many more, etc. if they had lots of surplus cash[?]

There are downsides to donating food. One of them is that it damages local farming; another is that it brings more dependent people into the world, duplicating the problem.

[mark_l_watson]

My wife and my favorite charity is the Heffer Project that sets families up with, for example, a breeding group of chickens to make money selling eggs and a protein source for their families. Similar projects with larger animals.

A friend and his wife used to (my friend died in a traffic accident) collect money and once a year make a huge buy of practical farming tools, appropriate types of seeds, etc., charter a cargo flight, and deliver to somewhere where their research showed a need and where they were able to make local contacts.

So, I totally understand your point but there are options.

[HKH2]

Thanks for the response.

How do you guarantee such systems don't fall into disuse?

[CRConrad]

> There are downsides to donating food. One of them is that it damages local farming

It's not impossible to donate foodstuffs that the donor buys from local farmers, is it?

[HKH2]

I doubt that would work at scale.

[CRConrad]

Who says it has to? A lot of small scales add up to big scale.

[hwers]

> He funds Thiel College

Huh? I've never heard of this. Searching doesn't give any good results. Could you direct me to somewhere to read more about this?

[hwers]

Did you mean the Thiel Fellowship?

[phlipski]

I like to think of myself as a "pragmatic libertarian". My problem with true Libertarianism can be summarized by the idea of fully private roads. There would be no public land - it's all privatized and therefore every road is a toll road. That's a hellscape I can't imagine ever working smoothly. Some collective society problems are best solved via government - as messy as that is. I think America's response to this current pandemic is not exactly a ringing endorsement of libertarianism. Now if you want to quibble and say, "well lots of folks aren't practicing the true responsibility that libertarianism requires" - I agree! And until our society can show that they can exhibit true personal responsibility than I don't want to see what true libertarianism would bring. I once read someone summarizing modern day libertarianism as "anarchy for the rich" - and that's how I've come to see it.

So I say that because while I somewhat understand and respect Thiel's idea's. His vision of America is not one I care to live in at this time. And I wonder if in 100 years will we look back and say, "Thiel was a net positive influence on the human condition and society?" At this rate I'd say no.

[mark_l_watson]

Interesting take on how the future might judge Thiel. Definitely there is a place for government, so as you say there is a sort-of Buddhist middle path that mixes personal responsibility and the need for some government services.

[leobg]

I found your phrase “will to power” very fitting. I see Thiel as a modern day descendant of Nietzsche: Re-evaluation of values. Seeking solitude away from the herd. Not competing with the “barkers of the marketplace”. Not succumbing to mimetic impulses. Daring to create the future.

(“Will to Power” got a bad rap. It was published posthumously by Nietzsche’s sister who had ties with the Nazis. But Nietzsche’s concept of “power” has little to do with power over others. What he’s talking about is the power of the maker. Of the one who’s capable not of stealing value from others, but of creating value where none existed before.)

[CRConrad]

If he wrote so un-clearly that pretty much everyone ever since has interpreted his writings as supporting the Nazis (or rather, I suppose, authoritarian political ideologies in general), he only has himself to blame, hasn't he? I mean, he made his living from writing stuff; he can be expected to be good enough at it to at least get his frigging point across to a majority (or even a plurality) of his readers.

[leobg]

You will understand, if you read him. Those who misunderstand just don’t do that. They read a few paragraphs, or a title, or, better yet, someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. And then they “know” what it’s about.

Your definition of a good writer: Someone who gets his point across to a majority of his readers. Well. Isn’t that what we’re seeing today? Clickbait and all of that. It’s all designed to get the point across to the majority of people. If that is your goal, you have to compromise.

Antibiotics, steam engines, cars, airplanes... none of those things would have been understood by the majority of people. The majority of people declared them absurd. In those cases, the ideas succeeded in pulling up the people. In the case of marketing and politics, it’s the majority that succeeds in pulling down the ideas.

[CRConrad]

> You will understand, if you read him. Those who misunderstand just don’t do that. They read a few paragraphs, or a title, or, better yet, someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. And then they “know” what it’s about.

So... all those "someone else’s" whose interpretations everyone else reads got it wrong? And that's because, while Nietzsche was great at writing clearly, they're all just too stupid to get it? William of Ockham disagrees.

> Your definition of a good writer: Someone who gets his point across to a majority of his readers.

Thank you for teaching me what I think, but no: That's certainly not my whole definition of a good writer. But, are you saying it's not a pretty big part of it?

> Well. Isn’t that what we’re seeing today? Clickbait and all of that. It’s all designed to get the point across to the majority of people. If that is your goal, you have to compromise.

What on Earth are you talking about? As in, A) WTF does "clickbait and all of that" have to do with anything?; and B) No, there is no evidence that clickbait is "designed to get the point across to the majority" -- are you claiming clickbait even has a point to get across?

> Antibiotics, steam engines, cars, airplanes... none of those things would have been understood by the majority of people. The majority of people declared them absurd. In those cases, the ideas succeeded in pulling up the people. In the case of marketing and politics, it’s the majority that succeeds in pulling down the ideas.

I can only assume you were rather tired and quite emotional when you wrote this, because it makes no sense and has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I personally found 0 to 1 illuminating, but it is harder for me to comment on whether it is part of a larger consciously chosen narrative or some interesting byproduct.

I do find it odd lately that we are experiencing a weird anti-cult of personality writings lately ( anti-Musk, anti-Thiel, anti-Zuckerberg ). Odd because I would normally expect articles and other propaganda glorifying their achievements ala Gates. I am not sure what to attribute this to.

[bsder]

How about the fact that we currently have a global pandemic and most of the rich did ...

Absolutely nothing.

The fact that Dolly Parton actually threw money around is part of the spotlight that demonstrates that these are not good people in spite of their positive PR.

People are just finally realizing that emperor has no clothes.

[CRConrad]

For the last few years one has seen articles about the good stuff Dolly does, and AFAICR most of it goes back much further in time than when the writings about it began to become common. Seems she, as opposed to most billionaires who look ever more the congenital arseholes, is good people for real.

On Gates, I suppose the jury will be out until well after his death? Personally, I'm totally split on him: Yes, he seems to be doing a real lot of actual good shit with his billions nowadays. But he did amass them by being perhaps the biggest robber baron of the 20th century. (And certainly the biggest -- so far! -- in the IT / "tech" [whatever that means] industry; I guess we'll have to wait until Thiel, Musk, Zuck & al are gone too, before we can assess if any of them surpassed him.)

[analognoise]

Maybe people are starting to wise up to that bullshit, the same way the native of the web died.

[Florin_Andrei]

What is generally known as ethics acts as a safeguard against random individuals running rampant and inflicting tremendous damage on society for personal gain.

In a broad context, Thiel acts like someone who has no such safeguards. The future he's pushing the world towards is the caricatural dystopia from Back To The Future (which was originally meant to lampoon Trump-like characters). Fortunately, he will probably fail.

If you don't see this at all, it's probably time to ask yourself just how similar to Thiel you actually are.

[intro-b]

what kind of future do you think Thiel is pushing the world towards?

a lot of his writing involving Girard and other political philosophers reads as studying mimetic desire as a means of avoiding absolute total war in society and maintaining the hegemony of what he believes to be "enlightenment values" — destruction and unnecessary suffering is generally the antithesis of those beliefs

again, I don't even personally have to agree with all his ideas and writings to want to have a discussion about it

[mistrial9]

"avoiding absolute total war in society" sounds like the rhetoric of the Holy Roman Empire ..

[Applejinx]

Dark Enlightenment thinking isn't far off that Holy Roman Empire. It's essentially an embracing of monarchy and caste, with rule belonging to the Peter Thiels of the world, based on various ways they can demonstrate their ability to claim that throne.

[xfhgjxcfgh]

I'd greatly appreciate an example of someone arguing that we should "[embrace] of monarchy and caste".

[HKH2]

Tucker Carlson interviewed Curtis Yarvin recently and they did touch on monarchism. It's a fairly accessible conversation.