[Aurornis]

> It really is a shame that he ended up getting violent, because "Industrial Society and Its Future" is one of the most interesting, insightful, and fascinating things I've read. I recommend it to everyone.

It's pseudo-profound, but not really insightful at all. It's the kind of writing that seems brilliant to people going through difficult times in life or edgy teenagers who are angry at the world, but to be blunt it falls flat for people who are well-adjusted and thriving.

That's the crux of that type of writing: Ranting about the world in pseudo-profound prose is always going to feel brilliant to people who are struggling with something and want to identify with others who are also struggling, but that doesn't make it insightful or good writing.

> For anyone who doesn't know, Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber and his solution to the problem of technology was basically to destroy the entire system by wiping it out in a way that leaves no ability for humans to resume technological progress, and violence was his way of beginning the societal destruction part. From a purely theoretical/philosophical view it makes logical sense,

Treating his writings and actions as two separate, unrelated things is really downplaying the manifesto. The fact that he took the ideas he wrote down and came to the logical conclusion that violence and destruction were the way forward should tell you something about his writings. Specifically, that they were hyperbolically incorrect.

To be honest, the way that you're identifying with his writings and thinking that even his actions make "logical sense" suggests that you may need to take a step back and reevaluate. It seems his prose got its hooks into you, but it's not actually brilliant content.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>brilliant to people going through difficult times in life or edgy teenagers who are angry at the world, but to be blunt it falls flat for people who are well-adjusted and thriving.

Quote: It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti

[yowlingcat]

What a thoroughly lazy critique. To suggest that reading an author with cutting insights whose end conclusions you thoroughly disagree with is akin to agreeing with them is very black and white thinking, and frankly a childish assertion for an adult to make.

You don't actually engage with any of the ideas Ted Kaczynski brought up or offer a thorough critique, so ironically you yourself are engaging in writing a "pseudo-profound" comment, which boils down to a giant ad hominem. Ad hominems aren't wrong because of moral turpitude, they're wrong because they are devoid of information.

If you really did want to critique his worldview, you'd understand pretty intimately Kaczynski's intellectual influences, and you'd be able to identify and articulate which parts you agree with and which parts you don't. It's telling but unfortunate that you opted not to do that and instead reached for the lazy ad hominem.

My advice to you: if you truly do vehemently oppose the actions of this individual (as do I), it's even more incumbent upon you to inform yourself their worldview and influences so that you are equipped to intellectually oppose its potential resurgence. If you aren't willing to do that, you have no right to judge others who have.

[alecst]

Honestly, ouch -- I'm not even the person you replied to and I feel attacked somehow, haha!

You basically just said, "That guy's not all that smart, and if you think he is, take a hard look in the mirror!" Maybe you can say more about why you think his writing falls short and who you'd recommend to read as a counterpoint?