Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#111

Post by Helmet »

etplayer wrote: post #99
bjl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes a lot of hubris (all too common in the software engineering community) to suggest that Marx and Hegel, two of the most influential philosophers of all time, produced nothing of meaning.

I wouldn't say it's hubris as much as it's ignorance, dogmatic positivism, and scientism that tends to show itself here and there; I'd say it's more common among those who have made it their life course to be in science or engineering - and I don't mean this disparagingly, as I study EE myself. It's not only ignorance of Marx and Hegel either, Slavoj Zizek regards Marx not as a philosopher but as a sociologist and ec…

Nuking this comment as I don't feel it contributes to the discussion at hand.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#112

Post by golemotron »

armitron wrote: post #108
jmull wrote: post #105

Very interesting article. But I think it's a mistake to believe the ideas he was exposed to as an undergraduate lead to him becoming the unabomber. In his manifesto he works through a lot of these ideas and shows us the world view he's developed around them, but the impetus for it all -- it seems clear to me -- comes from his inability to come to terms with living in a society. It causes him great pain and distress a…

Rather than dismissing him in such a crude manner, why don't you take the time to read and comprehend what he has written - and, assuming you find any - try to point out the flaws in his reasoning. Kaczynski was a genius, among other things, and his views deserve better than armchair dismissal and handwaving.

It was very odd for me, having never read the manifesto before to see Kaczynski arrive at the word 'oversocialization.' I've used the same word to describe what we've become with social media and massively interconnected communication. There's a very natural part of the human psyche that becomes lost when one has to second guess one's unconscious preferences continually to be aware of whether one might be seen as racist, sexist, ableist, or ageist. It might be necessary for everyone to live together successfully but there's something very sad about it also.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#113

Post by bjl »

Helmet wrote: post #111
etplayer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's hubris as much as it's ignorance, dogmatic positivism, and scientism that tends to show itself here and there; I'd say it's more common among those who have made it their life course to be in science or engineering - and I don't mean this disparagingly, as I study EE myself. It's not only ignorance of Marx and Hegel either, Slavoj Zizek regards Marx not as a philosopher but as a sociologist and ec…

Nuking this comment as I don't feel it contributes to the discussion at hand.

> ...the absolute garbage that critical theory has been pumping out for the past, I don't know, 30 to 40 years.

I've found that the only people who spout nonsense like this haven't actually studied any critical theory.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#114

Post by [deleted] »

voidhorse wrote: post #102
etplayer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's hubris as much as it's ignorance, dogmatic positivism, and scientism that tends to show itself here and there; I'd say it's more common among those who have made it their life course to be in science or engineering - and I don't mean this disparagingly, as I study EE myself. It's not only ignorance of Marx and Hegel either, Slavoj Zizek regards Marx not as a philosopher but as a sociologist and ec…

Couldn't agree more. One only needs to poll some of the opinions of vehement analytics to discover that very intelligent people too, are victims of dogmatism. I think most progress past this once they study a bit deeper, age, and generally engage with disparate perspectives--Rorty's willingness to engage with multiple discourses of philosophical tradition is something I think we all ought to try and emulate. There is…

[deleted]

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#115

Post by etplayer »

Helmet wrote: post #111
etplayer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say it's hubris as much as it's ignorance, dogmatic positivism, and scientism that tends to show itself here and there; I'd say it's more common among those who have made it their life course to be in science or engineering - and I don't mean this disparagingly, as I study EE myself. It's not only ignorance of Marx and Hegel either, Slavoj Zizek regards Marx not as a philosopher but as a sociologist and ec…

Nuking this comment as I don't feel it contributes to the discussion at hand.

>The vast majority of the academic work produced by people who employ this "philosophy of science" is in-falsifiable and never cited.

Number of citations do not indicate or validate the worthiness of a piece of work. Do you not realise the irony of saying that the works questioning the philosophy of science are unfalsifiable? You seem to hold that the idea of falsifiablity is sacred and that any questioning of it should be thrown away because it's unfalsifiable. It's tautological.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#116

Post by armitron »

pizza wrote: post #54

I am in a double-bind. On the one hand, I agree with some of his ideas about society's unspoken capacity for alienation. On the other hand, were his actions + manifesto not the pinnacle of cultural junk food? Practically designed for mass-consumption, and hence complicit in consumption's deleterious effect upon humanity itself - - because of how he knew it would receive attention? He deliberately chose to express him…

His ideas stand on their own and should not be polluted by armchair psychoanalysis or worse, immediate dismissal by people who are too lazy [or too stupid] to read and comprehend what Kaczynski has written.

It should be obvious to any educated technologist that reads even a few pages of Kaczynski's output that Kaczynski is a genius. His writings are not the ramblings of a schizophrenic but should be analyzed and discussed without the popular preconceptions that can only serve to cloud one's critical thinking.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#117

Post by voidhorse »

duncanawoods wrote: post #104
voidhorse wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't agree more. One only needs to poll some of the opinions of vehement analytics to discover that very intelligent people too, are victims of dogmatism. I think most progress past this once they study a bit deeper, age, and generally engage with disparate perspectives--Rorty's willingness to engage with multiple discourses of philosophical tradition is something I think we all ought to try and emulate. There is…

Its good to know the post-modernism generator is still up.

There was a slight malfunction during this past election when the wheels of history fell back into an ironism that even postmodern concept and word Frankensteins could not defeat or de-manifest, but otherwise I am chugging along well.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#118

Post by megraf »

Another article made the rounds on Reddit a while back and it motivated me to write to Ted (the Unibomber). I explained that I was a software engineer and found some algorithms intrinsically interesting (Sieve of Eratosthenes, etc.). It's too bad I never heard back from him.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#119

Post by triangleman »

tomcam wrote: post #34
smallnamespace wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an immigrant (from a non-Western society) who also spent youth steeped in Western literature, arts, and music, every development after WWI just seems so sad. There's the moral self-loathing (veering towards self-flagellation) of the 'social justice' class, the academic anti-truth of the relativists and the post-modernists, the equally poisonous know-nothingism of parts of the right. Western civilization still live…

Give me an example of no-nothingism on the right.

Just a little history of the term FYI because it seems to be thrown around a lot here without knowing the background.

"Know-nothingism" derives from the Know Nothing party of the late 19th century that was known for its anti-immigration views. The Know Nothings originally held secret meetings and would tell people "I know nothing" when asked about it. So it was not originally a derisive term.

Then starting in the 20th century, nativist political sentiments (and this includes the "America First" mentality espoused by our current president) was called "know-nothingism" by liberal commentators.

So now it has morphed into a term of derision, however it still maintains its attachment to nativism, although anti-intellectualism is obviously a big part of the stereotype.

This is all to say that yes, know-nothingism is sort of a shorthand for Trumpism as far as I can see it, so it's kind of a truism to say that know-nothingism is prevalent on the right. As far as whether it's poisonous, or equally as poisonous as the cultural relativism of the left, I will demur.

Re: Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber (2000)

#120

Post by badosu »

pvg wrote: post #78
tray5 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what I'm saying, I'm saying it is well thought out and has reasoned arguments. Not just that he believes in it a lot.

Really? You're one of few people who think that. The 'manifesto' hits the crazy right off the bat and sticks to it for 35k words. "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism [...] When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like […

I am also one of the 'few' who thinks his manifesto is reasonable, maybe one reason is because even though I understand his critique may sound as hateful it is grounded on his perception of the underlying social issues that may hinder critical thought from groups of people that claim to be the ones protesting for the right causes.
Post reply on HN