His story is tragic. Tragic in that he was seemingly so smart even he couldn't handle it. Tragic in that people lost their lives. Tragic in the fact that we lost a mind like his and the advancements he could've brought to mathematics potentially. Sad in that he was so impacted by MK ultra. It's a truly terrible, yet captivating story.
His neo-Luddism has always been of interest to me also, as one of my classes read his essays in college. They just seem so uneven, like they are trying to grasp at a logical idea but fall short. Yeah, interesting and really sad.
The article paraphrases Ellul criticizing the modern world, "mankind no longer saw technology as merely a tool but now pursued its advancement as an end in itself. Society served technology, not vice versa. Individuals were valued only insofar as they served this end." That was a major influence on Kaczynski.
When you say it's tragic that he didn't end up contributing to mathematics, you're judging his life by the values he revolted against.
I believe that advancing technology (and knowledge in general) is among the highest callings a person can have, so I agree with you. But he wouldn't.
He aha te mea nui o te ao?
He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!
What is the most important thing in the world?
It is the people, it is the people, it is the people!
The advancement of technology and furthering of knowledge is a noble endeavor, but only in pursuit of a higher goal. Advanced technology not used, or great knowledge never applied, is of no value. It is only with a higher intention for the use of these things that they have any value at all. That higher purpose could be a number of things - The betterment of mankind, of all forms of life, of society. But something greater than the self and certainly greater than no purpose at all.
Of course, it's not possible to specifically link advancements in technology and knowledge with specific goals before the advancements are made.
What I'm curious about is: Do you view what I've said above as agreeing with your belief, or closer to the view of Jaques Ellul?
If you think that overall, knowledge improve people's lives, then you can take either position and act the same way. If you think that knowledge overall hurts people, then you have to decide (and you should probably go with the people.)
Do you happen to have a good source on this experiment being part of MK Ultra? As far as I can tell this article doesn't mention MK Ultra at all, and I can't seem to find much else that explicitly says this experiment was part of MK Ultra.
Although not covered in the article, it is also tragic that at a mere nine months old he had to be placed in isolation in a hospital, and was unresponsive when he returned. Who knows what kind effect that had on his long term development?
I think I explained why I thought he wasn't worth reading. If you think he is then you should explain that.
As I said, I read a biographical piece in the NYTimes that mentioned his favorite book. Conrad is a great writer and that had me intrigued. But then after reading it, it didn't raise my opinion of him.
As for his existence, the guy sent bombs in the mail to innocent people. Fuck him.
>I think I explained why I thought he wasn't worth reading
Well no, you said why he wasn't worth reading, and then made claims about him and his work ("There was nothing to the man...")
My question is why you went out of your way to ignore the available first-hand sources, and preferred second-hand, and indirect, sources to judge his writing.
Why would you read the book he likes, but not what he actually wrote, before making claims about the value of his writing? And more importantly, why would you go out of your way to handle it this way? It seems to me you had interest in the ideas he might have (due to the bibliography) but went on a roundabout way to view them for no particular reason.
See, I'd understand if you, say, already knew the book, and considered it trash, and thus decided he probably doesn't know what he's talking about; but you apparently chose to put in the work to read the book over reading his actual writings, when the latter was probably more available and accessible. You specifically chose the indirect route over the direct one, and came to a very direct conclusion, and this decision confounds me.
I did. That's true. I said that someone who murders to call attention to his writing is not worth reading. Moreover, that there is nothing to the man. When Hinkley shot Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, I don't think she was impressed.
Now as to your question, I didn't judge his writing; I judged him. Terrorists who murder for acclaim aren't necessarily the most insightful writers cuz like if they were, they wouldn't need to murder.
It's apparent that you somehow think there is value or merit to his writing and by extension, him. Then that would be your task, to show that. I don't need to prove the negative. You need to show this great idea that Mr. Kaczynski proffered.
Cuz like I'm not seeing it.
BTW, if by the book you meant Conrad's The Secret Agent, no I didn't know the book. Conrad is a great writer but this isn't his best which to me would be Heart of Darkness. It's still worth a read, irrespective of Kaczynski.
While I did enjoy his manifesto, I'm not particularly interested in convincing you to read it; I'm just wondering why, when your curiosity was piqued, you chose to avoid the available first-hand source, which you've answered though I don't find your reasons very compelling
But to address that:
>Terrorists who murder for acclaim aren't necessarily the most insightful writers cuz like if they were, they wouldn't need to murder.
Its hardly the case that insightful writing will naturally spread; you yourself provide an example of why it might: you know his murders had little to do with his actual arguments (if you believe his claims), but use it as a reason to not even consider the argument. More generally, a solid argument can easily be publicly ignored for reasons unrelated to it, including style, origin, author's personal traits or behavior, media lambasting, politics, etc. We hardly live in a world where reason alone is sufficient.
That he resorted to terrorism was likely an unreasonable escalation to popularize his writing is irrelevant in all ways I can figure to whether or not he his ideas were insightful, or better yet, interesting. And given the history behind the document (which apparently grabbed your interest too), it seems unreasonable to me to expect nothing of value from it. It might be wrong, but its clearly going to be interesting.
And pretending the bombings never happened, would you have read it?
His neo-Luddism has always been of interest to me also, as one of my classes read his essays in college. They just seem so uneven, like they are trying to grasp at a logical idea but fall short. Yeah, interesting and really sad.