Posts by Melissa Stewart6

Kenneth Cruz67 said:I suppose, if you look at the last few posts, he might have actually figured it out himself 😬

Sigmund?

hiddenpuma75 said:Melissa Stewart6 actually managed to boil down the entire essence of our philosophy department in just one sentence

If hiddenpuma75 were busy mocking religions, tearing into capitalism, and waxing poetic about the "glory days" of the old communist era—just like Sandra Murphy33 and her crew seem to suggest—then he’d actually fit right in with them.

We really need to find a way to stop hiddenpuma75, because honestly, he’s just not one of us!

And that is essentially the entire "conflict" happening in the philosophy department!

Everything else is just smoke, mirrors, and linguistic gymnastics.
😉

I said it, and I mean it. If spamming actually bothered neo, she wouldn't be busy defending Šabović and rooting for him. In this department, it’s almost entirely about ideological intolerance; everything else is just noise.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Actually, I think there are certain things you just have to figure out on your own, 😁 and I guess I won't be getting involved in this anymore. 👍

So, who's this mysterious boss giving all the orders?

Watch out, you don't want to get flagged for Spam again lol

I think you've actually got three angry ladies running circles around you instead of just two.

Well, they finally went ahead and removed it.

It feels like the usual trolling, bickering, and insults are just carrying on unchecked in this PDF thread, and there’s nobody stepping in to address it. I’d like to request that someone check if there's a moderator available to look into this. Thanks.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Beljki wrote an outstanding post. Truly top-tier, Pinker-level stuff. 👍

I think your Pinker guy is a bit of a shallow thinker.

bluemason3 said:This kind of nonsense is only tolerable coming from some teenager who just watched The Matrix for the first time, thinks they’ve reached enlightenment, and now spends all day philosophizing about the meaninglessness of philosophy and the concept of "evil concepts."

Anyone over the age of 14 peddling these hollow, unfalsifiable ideas deserves a reality check rather than an actual debate.

By the way, he's a contemporary writer, and most of his books were published back in the early 2000s.

So, in this case, it's clearly just another fool being cited here. What a shocker. 🐔

He’s not exactly a teenager—he’s 76.

bluemason3 said:Is there actually any solid ground for this kind of romanticizing primitivism? Or was this just part of that old, debunked, pseudo-religious obsession with the "noble savage" that used to be popular in Europe? If this theory is less than 50 years old, there’s zero justification for it.

From what I understand, anthropology and archaeology paint a pretty brutal picture of hunter-gatherer tribal life—honestly, it's not exactly a lifestyle I'd be jumping at.

Socially speaking.

Psychologically, I find the dismissal of severe cognitive limitations even harder to swallow—specifically regarding the lack of verbal and symbolic reasoning or long-term planning. And yet, people use modern tools to criticize the very systems they're ignoring.
Then again, maybe it makes sense coming from someone posting this nonsense; if you're operating on a significantly lower cognitive level, perhaps you can only find common ground with others in the same boat.

Has anyone actually managed to stay sane and level-headed among these clowns?

According to his own words,

"The fall from the simplicity and fullness of lived experience—from that raw, sensory moment of realization—leaves a void that can never be symbolically bridged. This void has always been masked by layers of civilizational comfort, civilized detours that never truly restore what was lost. In one sense, symbolism only represents what has been repressed, for only the repressed requires symbolization. The sheer magnitude of symbolism is a testament to how much has been buried, yet remains potentially recoverable."

For context, he's a contemporary writer, and most of his books were published in the 2000s.

bluemason3 said:Is there actually any solid ground for this kind of romanticizing primitivism? Or was this just part of that old, debunked, pseudo-religious obsession with the "noble savage" that used to be popular in Europe? If this theory is less than 50 years old, there’s zero justification for it.

From what I understand, anthropology and archaeology paint a pretty brutal picture of hunter-gatherer tribal life—honestly, it's not exactly a lifestyle I'd be jumping at.

Socially speaking.

Psychologically, I find the dismissal of severe cognitive limitations even harder to swallow—specifically regarding the lack of verbal and symbolic reasoning or long-term planning. And yet, people use modern tools to criticize the very systems they're ignoring.
Then again, maybe it makes sense coming from someone posting this nonsense; if you're operating on a significantly lower cognitive level, perhaps you can only find common ground with others in the same boat.

Has anyone actually managed to stay sane and level-headed among these clowns?

He keeps citing anthropologists, but honestly, it’s hard to say how much weight to give him when his bias is so incredibly obvious.

Culture is actually a relatively recent development. If you look at the timeline, cave art dates back roughly 30,000 years, yet agriculture only kicked in about 10,000 years ago. There is this massive gap between when our IQ levels first allowed for symbolic thought and when we actually started building civilizations. I suspect the missing link in that interval was a fundamental shift in how we relate to the natural world. It’s possible that during this period—to an immeasurable degree—there was a collective hesitation to exert dominance over nature. It might even be that symbolic expression didn't truly take off until the desire for power emerged, likely as an unconscious byproduct of our gradual move toward a division of labor.

There’s this common argument that you can only tame the violence of primitive societies—things like human sacrifice, cannibalism, or slavery—through the introduction of symbolic culture. But I think there's a simple way to debunk that stereotype: organized violence wasn't actually cured by culture; it was actually triggered by it. William J. Perry studied various indigenous groups throughout the Americas and noted a striking contrast between agricultural civilizations and those that remained unmanaged. He observed that while the latter might be seen as "culturally inferior" by certain standards, they lacked the horrific, organized customs found elsewhere. It seems that almost every society on Earth that moved toward a domesticated relationship with nature eventually became prone to organized violence. Meanwhile, non-agricultural societies largely avoided it altogether. Anthropologists have long looked at Native Americans on the Pacific Northwest coast as a unique case study for this rule. Even though they were primarily fishers, they eventually adopted slavery and developed a very rigid social hierarchy. However, even in their case, there was an element of domestication present, such as the use of domesticated dogs and small-scale tobacco cultivation.

Primitivism is what exists before slavery, and honestly, even before any kind of symbolic thought. Zerzan leans into that idea of "original purity," essentially calling for a massive step backward.

If you take Zerzan's word for it, technology is what created the concept of slavery by fracturing our once egalitarian, primal communities. Essentially, the "fix" for returning to a sort of original utopia is simply to abandon technology altogether. Zerzan doesn't necessarily think this shift will happen on its own, though; he suggests that our technological civilization will eventually collapse under the weight of its own unsustainability. It’s a bit like how Marx viewed the inevitable downfall of capitalism.

Sam Martinez9 said:I personally believe that a human being can only realize their full potential within the framework of civilization.

Technology actually makes us more free, not less.

If you compare a wolf to a human, you might be tempted to say the wolf is freer, but he isn't. He is shackled by his instincts and the need to satisfy basic biological drives. A wolf mates not because he chooses to, but because his biology demands it.

Look at technology today—you see a commercial on TV where a family decides to buy a dishwasher, and suddenly the mother isn't stuck scrubbing dishes all night; she can actually join the rest of the family for a bike ride. That advertisement captures both the essence of human connection and the actual purpose of technology.

Neither civilization nor humanity is perfect. Civilization hasn't exactly delivered absolute freedom, and humans... well, humans will be humans.

However, the solution isn't to dismantle civilization and technology. Instead, we should strive to make civilization the best version of itself and use technology in a rational, sensible way.

There is something quite fascinating about the fact that progress isn't dictated by man, but rather by technology.

Humans adapt to their environment; or more accurately, society organizes itself (unconsciously) around its surroundings—in this case, the technological landscape. We change our environment first, and then we adjust our behavior to fit that newly created world.

I fear we would end up spinning in endless, contradictory circles—shifting slightly left, slightly right, forward, backward... listening to various politicians, leaders, generals, kings, philosophers, scientists, teachers, gurus... This way seems much better.

The thing about anarcho-primitivists is they believe civilization is fundamentally broken—largely because humans don't actually control technology, they're controlled by it, just like he mentioned...

Sam Martinez9 said:I personally believe that a human being can only realize their full potential within the framework of civilization.

Technology actually makes us more free, not less.

If you compare a wolf to a human, you might be tempted to say the wolf is freer, but he isn't. He is shackled by his instincts and the need to satisfy basic biological drives. A wolf mates not because he chooses to, but because his biology demands it.

Look at technology today—you see a commercial on TV where a family decides to buy a dishwasher, and suddenly the mother isn't stuck scrubbing dishes all night; she can actually join the rest of the family for a bike ride. That advertisement captures both the essence of human connection and the actual purpose of technology.

Neither civilization nor humanity is perfect. Civilization hasn't exactly delivered absolute freedom, and humans... well, humans will be humans.

However, the solution isn't to dismantle civilization and technology. Instead, we should strive to make civilization the best version of itself and use technology in a rational, sensible way.

There is something quite fascinating about the fact that progress isn't dictated by man, but rather by technology.

Humans adapt to their environment; or more accurately, society organizes itself (unconsciously) around its surroundings—in this case, the technological landscape. We change our environment first, and then we adjust our behavior to fit that newly created world.

I fear we would end up spinning in endless, contradictory circles—shifting slightly left, slightly right, forward, backward... listening to various politicians, leaders, generals, kings, philosophers, scientists, teachers, gurus... This way seems much better.

What seems like a great point to you feels terrifying to Zerzan, which is why he advocates for freedom from technology. Look, I’m not saying Zerzan is right—his vision isn't really practical anyway—but that doesn't mean his arguments aren't worth considering.

ironmarlin1 said:Now, this is quite fascinating... even if anarcho-primitivism strikes me personally as being a bit unhinged. It catches my interest because I once encountered a theory suggesting that language—this archetype of symbolism—acts somewhat like a parasite.

Acclimatizing oneself to time—that is the essence of schooling—is absolutely vital for the stability of society.

That point is also compelling and likely hits the mark. Do you happen to have a specific quote where they dive into the "why" (though one might question whether "reason" even applies to this school of thought) or at least hint at the underlying motives? I remember reading about how sleep patterns in the Middle Ages were entirely different from our modern rhythms. The quote touches on certain elements, but it feels a bit thin. I'm not particularly inclined to turn to Fraser for this, given his expertise lies more in ancient civilizations rather than the nuances of the modern era.

You should check out his essay on time.

https://anarchist-library.net/...the-end-of-time

William Palmer7 said:Does it always have to involve violence, or can we just peacefully opt out?

I guess it depends on who you ask. Most people in these circles agree that civilization is inherently violent and unsustainable, so its collapse is really just a matter of when, not if.

William Palmer7 said:Does Zerzan, or anyone else, actually offer an answer to the "how"?

How do we dismantle civilization—basically, how do we undo it?
How do we stop trying to fix problems and instead start unsolving them?

Zerzan doesn't. There are other radicals out there who push for direct action and a frontal assault on both the state and civilization itself.

Rejecting Time

"Can we actually abolish time? Its constant movement acts as both the master and the yardstick of a social existence that is becoming increasingly hollow and technically mediated. Contrary to everything spontaneous and direct, time is making its connection to alienation clearer by the day. This means our renewal project has to tackle the full breadth of their combined power. We can only replace this fragmented way of living with the possibility of a whole, complete life—a life without time—once we eliminate the primary causes of that division.

We have treated time as a substance for so long that today it feels like an indisputable fact of nature, a force existing entirely on its own. Increasing our awareness of time—essentially accepting it—is just part of how we adapt to an extremely materialistic worldview. Time is a constructed dimension and a fundamental building block of culture. Because it is inexhaustible by nature, it serves as the perfect model for governance.

Every ritual is a human attempt to return to a timeless state through symbolism. Yet, a ritual is also an act of stepping out of that state; it’s a misstep that pulls us even further from our goal. The timelessness inherent in numbers is a key component of this evasion, helping to establish time as an unbreakable, rigid concept.

Using the stars, years and their divisions are imposed upon us as instruments of organizational authority. Shaping the calendar is essential to shaping civilization itself. After all, the calendar is the first symbolic artifact used to regulate human behavior by measuring time. But here, we aren't talking about controlling time; it's quite the opposite. It is a process where time traps a person within a world of objective alienation. In such a world, no adult is capable of securing or reclaiming the freedom from time that every child naturally enjoys—and is eventually forced to lose. Training people to accept time is a crucial part of schooling, which is vital for society. As Fraser points out, this conditioning serves as a near-perfect summary of the entire process of civilization."

William Palmer7 said:In that case, we probably shouldn't call it eco-primitivism. Maybe something else instead, like the path to anarchism or eco-primitivism.
It would be a phase where people still lean on symbols and culture, but only to eventually dismantle them—stripping away everything else before finally letting go of their own culture too.

We just have to make sure they don't trip up by trying to deconstruct the path to anarchism first.

Eco-primitivism isn't just about Zerzan, even if he is the most famous figurehead. Some thinkers within the movement wouldn't advocate for such a massive regression.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Honestly, that whole "new counterculture" vibe went mainstream a long time ago. It isn't really "counter" anymore; if anything, it's been absorbed into the fabric of modern conservatism. It seems to me that today's 30 and 40-year-olds take this supposed "counterculture" for granted, treating it like some inherent, natural human trait rather than a specific movement. At least, that's true for those who don't bother picking up a book, and they definitely make up most of the crowd.

Well, it was only "new" when the book was actually being written. While you have a point, you're missing the fact that as soon as any movement hits the mainstream, it stops being a counterculture altogether. Besides, seeing as most hippies eventually turned into modern neoliberals, and given that you view the era of 1970 as more progressive than today, it's pretty obvious you realize the counterculture failed to achieve its ultimate goals.