Live data from Hacker News

Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

noemamag.com

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you get diagnosed and start taking a certain med at some point or am I taking a shot in the dark, here Also i dont know whether you outlined any practical/tangible actionable steps.

no meds, what's the implication lol practically: minimised expenses, quit job & university, went to coding meetups in my city 1-2x a week, signed up to a couple mentorship programs as a mentee, read through and completed exercises in books on web fundamentals (via codeacademy, pluralsight etc - microsoft used to give free memberships), C ("the c book"), JS (ydkjs, eloquentjs), Go (straight to the docs), posted all ex…

Excellent! Thats actually very helpful and rich in actionable steps or moves :)

Sometimes I see too much of myself where it isn't 100%certain its there. Forget about it ;)

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#162
post #158
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Catholic approach is economical: it's expensive to keep dying people alive if you need resources to do so, but a religion promising eternal paradise is going to have a real propagation problem if a significant number of adherents commit suicide - and trying to carve out euthanasia exceptions wasn't going to play well to medieval peasants.

If economics ruled the Church, there are many dogmas that do not "play well to peasants" that could be dropped tomorrow for the sake of propagation.

This is an odd take considering the Catholic church via the Vatican was one of the most powerful and wealthiest organizations in Europe for many centuries, able to topple monarchs.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#163
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illyin was a russian fascist. Openly so.

It was during these times when a significant chunk of American establishment and some members of British royal family were not less fascist leaning than him. I understand that they're also all not vogue now, but it still has to be reminded. He moved to Switzerland before German fasicsm turned out real bad.

That explains why he wasn't shunned by western society back then, it doesn't explain why putin rehabilitated him recently, and it certainly wouldn't explain promoting his books on hackernews (which was why I was initially confused about this whole thread on hn).

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#164
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and the unspeakably horrible lifestyles of centuries ago. That sounds like an over-the-top fairy tale to constructed justify modern society. I assume by "unspeakably horrible lifestyle" you don't mean something like "lack of color television." That's an assumption I have to state, because there are a surprising number of people who say they consider the lack of modern creature-comforts to be something "unspeakably…

The vast majority of people alive centuries ago were subsistence farmers. They were malnourished, overworked, underpaid, illiterate, had virtually no access to effective healthcare, and had no civil rights. Also, no color TV. By virtually any measure the quality of life in modern society globally is orders of magnitude better than it was centuries ago.

[deleted]

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#165
post #75

Criticizing modern medicine makes a lot of sense if you're a devout Catholic because the afterlife tempers the sadness of death. For non-believers, though, earthly life is all there is, so reducing suffering, disease, and poverty are much more pressing goals -- goals that might be worth a little alienation. I would emphasize choice: people can (and do) embrace alternative ways of life, from the Amish to kibbutzim. Si…

Doing everything possible to prolong life has consequences beyond the life of the individual: it's a significant cost to the economy and to family members. There's the cost of the medical treatment itself, but people living longer now also have to finance their life with their savings or even keep working instead of retiring, so their kids get a smaller inheritance, and have to compete with their parents in the labour market.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#166
post #54
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add in that "we should get rid of all these modern flimflam" is generally a rallying cry by quite well off people who choose not to see the obvious future of poor people getting squelched as resources dry up. There are a lot of problems faced by modern society, and those problems are uncomfortably complicated. Most people don't understand the details of them. However, the incredible productivity of modern humans…

> I'll add in that "we should get rid of all these modern flimflam" is generally a rallying cry by quite well off people who choose not to see the obvious future of poor people getting squelched as resources dry up. Poor people like degrowth just fine. When they let them, that is, and not, e.g. take their land and their forests and their livelihoods. Also, that the first world pro-growthers care for the "poor people"…

That is the thing though, you're privileging good intentions above good results. None of the pro-growthers "care" about China, they just like the benefits bring to them personally. Nevertheless, more than a billion people you consider peasants thrive.

The degrowthers literally want them impoverished so that they can score whatever weird points care earns them in their twisted framework. It is a sick philosophy. Hopefully they keep losing battles long enough for Africa to get up on its feet.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#167
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One argument is that we simply replaced the archaic (religion-focused) dogma with a modern (consumerist, individualist, hyperpoliticized) one, but their function is the same, to serve as complex death denial rituals.

That doesn't sound likely to be a compelling argument.

Hm, consider it the flaw of my botched paraphrasing/summarizing/application of it, and maybe give it another chance in a better form:

https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-158-the-cre... (the URL is misleading, it's about Ernest Becker's ideas, there's a transcript too ... if for some reason that link doesn't work, you can listen to it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-43zh_za_eQ )

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#168
post #159
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's likely wrong, or at least it would be a very risky bet. If we started today to build nuclear plants everywhere, it's not like we would replace fossil fuels tomorrow. It takes time. Then we would need to replace absolutely everything that uses fossil fuel to use electricity. This is wishful thinking. What's most likely is that we need to start building a lot of nuclear plant today, and we still need to degrow .…

> If we started today to build nuclear plants everywhere, it's not like we would replace fossil fuels tomorrow. It takes time. Replacing fossil fuels with anything will take time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start doing it. > Then we would need to replace absolutely everything that uses fossil fuel to use electricity. No, we wouldn't. For applications where electricity is not practical (such as, for example, comme…

> Replacing fossil fuels with anything will take time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't start doing it.

Of course we should do it as quickly as possible. But look at the number: most likely we won't replace. We will just compensate for some of the loss.

> we can use electricity to make liquid fuels from the CO2 and water vapor in the air, by reversing the chemical reactions that take place when the fuels are burned.

Because we can does not mean at all that it scales. That's my whole point. Did you ever stop to check how many nuclear plants we would need to replace all fossil fuels? And I mean considering all the very energy-expensive ideas you're considering like "reversing the chemical reactions that take place when the fuels are burned".

You're basically saying that we will replace fossil fuels by producing more energy that will allow us to synthesize fossil fuel-like alternatives. That's a lot of energy, you can't just ignore it.

> You simply refuse to consider the possbility of gradually shifting energy usage in order to not have to "degrow"

And you apparently refuse to consider that maybe fossil fuels are so "great" (in terms of energy) that we don't have a viable alternative. Again: we need to build nuclear plants to compensate for the loss of fossil fuels, but that won't completely replace it.

> lower people's standard of living

That's just about the narrative. If your view of "a good life" is no biodiversity, but a new phone every year and flying every weekend to a different city to listen to the same music in a similar night club", then yes, it will lower your standard of living. But maybe it just means that we need a lot less TikTok-like technology and go back to more essential ideas (like enjoying nature and slow travel to closer places).

Also, from my point of view, anyway we will degrow. It will be forced by the reduction in availability of fossil fuels. It's just that if we don't control it (by organizing society around degrowth), it will be worse.

There is this great French person who says that uncontrolled sobriety is poverty. And I agree with that: I don't want poverty, but I have to face the fact that I will need sobriety.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#169
post #162
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If economics ruled the Church, there are many dogmas that do not "play well to peasants" that could be dropped tomorrow for the sake of propagation.

This is an odd take considering the Catholic church via the Vatican was one of the most powerful and wealthiest organizations in Europe for many centuries, able to topple monarchs.

The point stands: if your argument were true of the Catholic Church being ruled by money and doing whatever it economically can do to propagate, the Church would behave much differently than it currently does. But, the Church is not doing everything economically possible to propagate today, so there must be some other ruling principle.

Re: Ivan Illich’s radical critique of modern certitudes (2021)

#170
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was during these times when a significant chunk of American establishment and some members of British royal family were not less fascist leaning than him. I understand that they're also all not vogue now, but it still has to be reminded. He moved to Switzerland before German fasicsm turned out real bad.

That explains why he wasn't shunned by western society back then, it doesn't explain why putin rehabilitated him recently, and it certainly wouldn't explain promoting his books on hackernews (which was why I was initially confused about this whole thread on hn).

I'm not sure that the stuff in Ilyin's books is any worse than stuff in any philosophy books of XX century.

French philosophers openly praised Mao and don't get me started on Heidegger...

Post reply on HN