I think the idea that "philosophy has no place in the city of pigs" is ridiculous. Hunter-gatherer/pastoralist societies had and have elaborated mythologies and systems of understanding the world, art, music, dance, and I'd say much more powerful ways to participate in higher existence than to chit chat about what's good and bad with your clever friends. Ofc the civilized man just responds "ew, dirty savages!" without considering anything. When people hear primitive they right away imagine people crushing each other's skulls and dying at 30 without having any knowledge of the evidence of their superior health and fitness for example.
I am really glad you chose this topical but also I feel you have miscorrelated it. Anarcho-primitivism isn't a reaction to modern society and a desire to return to a state of innocence that never existed outside of the minds of philosophers but something based on empirical observation and the sciences. That humanities consumptive powers have increased many times over as has its waste, population due to technological innovation of late to a level in excess to the Earth's regenerative capacity to sustain. The argument for Anarcho-primitivism is a scientific one not a morale one.
The key to primitivism it seems to me lies in the distinction between nature (phusis) and convention (nomos). There seems to be a notion of return to nature or of getting in touch with one’s true nature that underlies the primitivists position. Civilization which is based on nomos, or cultural norms and laws, exists because of or as a result of these laws. For the philosopher, the truth, which may challenge or even contradict these laws, is what is sought after. I’ve always thought that this is the reason for Nietzsche’s abandoning of civilization in exchange for solitude, very unlike Socrates or Aristotle.
Hi, I posted a reply to the author of the video above because I believe this is a view worthy of debate, but I will repeat some of the points here. I am pretty well-read on anarcho-primitivism, and I think it's important to note that modern thinkers who engage with that general area of thought are coming at it, at least from their perspective, from much more of a systems theory or ecological necessity argument, not an argument based on seeking an essential truth or a return to grace, for example. The idea is not that we are returning to a state of grace in nature away from the decadence of modernity, it is that civilization is inherently unjust and unsustainable from a practical perspective. The anarcho-primitivist would argue that civilization relies inherently on human exploitation as the driver of complex social systems. Moreover, the perceived inevitability of ultimate resource depletion and ecological collapse from the needs of industrial capitalism on a planet with an unsustainable population renders the philosophy as one that sees itself as engaged in a struggle for basic survival of a livable ecosystem. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, of course, but I think it's important to state the argument in its modern form is quite different than what is being suggested here.
@@shocked1991 what do you mean when you say ‘from a practical perspective’? And based on what does civilizational injustice rest? It really does seem to me that you cannot escape the need to address these questions even when couched in a more ‘modernist’ or modernistic perspective (systems theory or otherwise). The distinction that Teddy Toto makes here I believe is still relevant indeed essential.
Zerzan makes a distinction between tribes, which he is not advocating, and band-societies which he does advocate. The difference is tribes are already stratified and have symbolic cultural structures, pair bonding rules etc. Band-societies lack structure, pair-bonding is open and fluid, tool use of course exists but no symbolic cultural structures exist. The Pirahãs people in Brazil are akin perhaps what he is pointing at with regards to a band-society (although that group has been subjected to civilization by the Brazilian government and MIT agents, Chomskyists).
I worry that this analysis misses the point of a lot of these thinkers. First, the appeal to the noble savage isn't where anarcho-primitivism is coming from as a political philosophy, at least in a modern form. In fact, I think a modern anarcho-primitivist would reject the noble savage idea as a fiction of a certain strain of western civilization that looks at modern society as decadent -- a moral judgment -- rather than as unsustainable -- a scientific or economic judgment. There is a critical difference between the two positions, and the noble savage idea really serves to deny the reality of what pre-agricultural life was like under a romanticized and frankly historically inaccurate analysis. Most thinkers who engage with anarcho-primitivist ideas are coming at it, at least from their perspective, from much more of a systems theory or ecological necessity argument rather than one based on some sort of moralized notion of an ideal past or of an "impure" present. The idea is not that we are returning to a state of grace in nature away from the decadence of modernity, it is that civilization is inherently unjust and unsustainable from a practical perspective. The anarcho-primitivist would argue that civilization relies inherently on human exploitation as the driver of complex social systems. Moreover, the perceived inevitability of ultimate resource depletion and ecological collapse from the needs of industrial capitalism on a planet with an unsustainable population renders the philosophy as one that sees itself as engaged in a struggle for basic survival of a livable ecosystem. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, but I really think this position deserves a much more nuanced analysis. I wanted to write this because I am glad that you engaged with these ideas, and as someone who is sympathetic to many of the ideas but with reservations and a rejection of some of the more extreme adherents of the philosophy, I like to try to clarify its intent.
Thank you Alex it is important that people understand what Anarcho-primitivism is rather than what them might imagine it to be. Anarcho-primitivism being empirical based on the observations of ecology, climate science, sociology, botany, anthropology, geology and is not a thought experiment harkening for some misunderstood non existing past.
At the risk if coming off as pedantic I gotta point out that the definition you provided for pedantry uses the word being defined in the definition.🙅♂️
teddy toto I’m interested in various types of anarchism because of what’s going on in the world today. Old categories long established are diminishing in legitimacy and strength, and alternative theories are getting more traction. I’m especially interested in the intersection between anarchism and environmental/food systems issues.
Political Philosophy very interesting. The more I read of Zerzan, the more I can understand your reason for selecting his works. He is extreme and therefore a good avenue into understanding anarchy-primitivism.
Well, if you don't allow racial exclusion, then you are no more talking about anarchism. Then you are talking in terms of (objective) moralism. And this contradicts eroticism. Because then good or bad is decided by the impulses, not by symbolic thinking. It is even more in accordance with history that anarcho primitivism should permit, or better put, can't prohibit war, exclusion, racism violance, etc. Those ideas must arise from expirience and also be forgotten if of no more use. Anarcho primitivism must therefore reject collective memory. If you want to be free then you must love to be in danger too, and you must develop skills on your own to survive.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
I think we have spiritually evolved to a point where switching back to a tribal/primitive society is not actually a regression, but a progression.
Agreed. I feel the noblest ideal for any sentient being is to live in harmony with one's environment.
🥴wrong
I think the idea that "philosophy has no place in the city of pigs" is ridiculous. Hunter-gatherer/pastoralist societies had and have elaborated mythologies and systems of understanding the world, art, music, dance, and I'd say much more powerful ways to participate in higher existence than to chit chat about what's good and bad with your clever friends. Ofc the civilized man just responds "ew, dirty savages!" without considering anything. When people hear primitive they right away imagine people crushing each other's skulls and dying at 30 without having any knowledge of the evidence of their superior health and fitness for example.
I am really glad you chose this topical but also I feel you have miscorrelated it. Anarcho-primitivism isn't a reaction to modern society and a desire to return to a state of innocence that never existed outside of the minds of philosophers but something based on empirical observation and the sciences. That humanities consumptive powers have increased many times over as has its waste, population due to technological innovation of late to a level in excess to the Earth's regenerative capacity to sustain. The argument for Anarcho-primitivism is a scientific one not a morale one.
*moral?
It's both.
The key to primitivism it seems to me lies in the distinction between nature (phusis) and convention (nomos). There seems to be a notion of return to nature or of getting in touch with one’s true nature that underlies the primitivists position. Civilization which is based on nomos, or cultural norms and laws, exists because of or as a result of these laws. For the philosopher, the truth, which may challenge or even contradict these laws, is what is sought after. I’ve always thought that this is the reason for Nietzsche’s abandoning of civilization in exchange for solitude, very unlike Socrates or Aristotle.
Hi, I posted a reply to the author of the video above because I believe this is a view worthy of debate, but I will repeat some of the points here. I am pretty well-read on anarcho-primitivism, and I think it's important to note that modern thinkers who engage with that general area of thought are coming at it, at least from their perspective, from much more of a systems theory or ecological necessity argument, not an argument based on seeking an essential truth or a return to grace, for example. The idea is not that we are returning to a state of grace in nature away from the decadence of modernity, it is that civilization is inherently unjust and unsustainable from a practical perspective. The anarcho-primitivist would argue that civilization relies inherently on human exploitation as the driver of complex social systems. Moreover, the perceived inevitability of ultimate resource depletion and ecological collapse from the needs of industrial capitalism on a planet with an unsustainable population renders the philosophy as one that sees itself as engaged in a struggle for basic survival of a livable ecosystem. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, of course, but I think it's important to state the argument in its modern form is quite different than what is being suggested here.
It doesn’t sound like you have read Aristotle’s Ethics. Reason over mysticism.
@@shocked1991 what do you mean when you say ‘from a practical perspective’? And based on what does civilizational injustice rest? It really does seem to me that you cannot escape the need to address these questions even when couched in a more ‘modernist’ or modernistic perspective (systems theory or otherwise). The distinction that Teddy Toto makes here I believe is still relevant indeed essential.
Zerzan makes a distinction between tribes, which he is not advocating, and band-societies which he does advocate. The difference is tribes are already stratified and have symbolic cultural structures, pair bonding rules etc. Band-societies lack structure, pair-bonding is open and fluid, tool use of course exists but no symbolic cultural structures exist. The Pirahãs people in Brazil are akin perhaps what he is pointing at with regards to a band-society (although that group has been subjected to civilization by the Brazilian government and MIT agents, Chomskyists).
Return to monke
Seems pretty based.
BASED
All your Base are belong to us 🙌🏼✨💥🎶
bases
Fascinating. I very much agree with this philosophy.
I want to be monkey again
I worry that this analysis misses the point of a lot of these thinkers. First, the appeal to the noble savage isn't where anarcho-primitivism is coming from as a political philosophy, at least in a modern form. In fact, I think a modern anarcho-primitivist would reject the noble savage idea as a fiction of a certain strain of western civilization that looks at modern society as decadent -- a moral judgment -- rather than as unsustainable -- a scientific or economic judgment. There is a critical difference between the two positions, and the noble savage idea really serves to deny the reality of what pre-agricultural life was like under a romanticized and frankly historically inaccurate analysis. Most thinkers who engage with anarcho-primitivist ideas are coming at it, at least from their perspective, from much more of a systems theory or ecological necessity argument rather than one based on some sort of moralized notion of an ideal past or of an "impure" present. The idea is not that we are returning to a state of grace in nature away from the decadence of modernity, it is that civilization is inherently unjust and unsustainable from a practical perspective. The anarcho-primitivist would argue that civilization relies inherently on human exploitation as the driver of complex social systems. Moreover, the perceived inevitability of ultimate resource depletion and ecological collapse from the needs of industrial capitalism on a planet with an unsustainable population renders the philosophy as one that sees itself as engaged in a struggle for basic survival of a livable ecosystem. Whether or not that is true is up for debate, but I really think this position deserves a much more nuanced analysis. I wanted to write this because I am glad that you engaged with these ideas, and as someone who is sympathetic to many of the ideas but with reservations and a rejection of some of the more extreme adherents of the philosophy, I like to try to clarify its intent.
Thank you Alex it is important that people understand what Anarcho-primitivism is rather than what them might imagine it to be. Anarcho-primitivism being empirical based on the observations of ecology, climate science, sociology, botany, anthropology, geology and is not a thought experiment harkening for some misunderstood non existing past.
At the risk if coming off as pedantic I gotta point out that the definition you provided for pedantry uses the word being defined in the definition.🙅♂️
Curious. How did you first learn about Zerzan?
teddy toto I’m interested in various types of anarchism because of what’s going on in the world today. Old categories long established are diminishing in legitimacy and strength, and alternative theories are getting more traction. I’m especially interested in the intersection between anarchism and environmental/food systems issues.
Political Philosophy very interesting. The more I read of Zerzan, the more I can understand your reason for selecting his works. He is extreme and therefore a good avenue into understanding anarchy-primitivism.
Supervideo.👌👌👍👍
31:50 kitty kat!
23:00
Well, if you don't allow racial exclusion, then you are no more talking about anarchism. Then you are talking in terms of (objective) moralism. And this contradicts eroticism. Because then good or bad is decided by the impulses, not by symbolic thinking. It is even more in accordance with history that anarcho primitivism should permit, or better put, can't prohibit war, exclusion, racism violance, etc. Those ideas must arise from expirience and also be forgotten if of no more use. Anarcho primitivism must therefore reject collective memory.
If you want to be free then you must love to be in danger too, and you must develop skills on your own to survive.