Do you read it? What are your thoughts on it?

Do you read it? What are your thoughts on it?

I actually read most of it. It's a mixture of interesting ideas and wild gibberish. It does have value, but the author hugely overestimates his own originality and intelligence. Also, he seems like a right bastard based on what I've read of him, as well as based on his own Raskolnikov-style disregard of morality.

Cool, an actually serious response.

Can you point out an example that sounds like gibberish to you? I can already imagine which aphorisms you might pull up for that, but I think it sounds "gibberish" or like he overestimates himself to you because he is not coming from an obsessively literary background. By that I mean, he hasn't read 10,000 books like some guys floating around philosophy boards have done (or skimmed, like I suspect most of them do), but he's still read many. Instead, he spends most of his time being physically active and consuming a ton of art, all forms of it, even the newest forms that the old men floating around those forums don't even recognize yet. And I'm not saying that you are an old man... but I'm assuming that you probably come from more of a book-heavy background than him, or at least, you've been convinced that those old men you see talking have the right ideas about everything.

>Also, he seems like a right bastard based on what I've read of him, as well as based on his own Raskolnikov-style disregard of morality.
True. I usually find it funny, not in a condescending way, but in an "oh shit he just let the cat out of the bag" way. Anyway, his personality is intricately connected to his philosophy, like any philosopher.

>consuming a ton of art, all forms of it, even the newest forms

So, basically, he was just playing video games until 3 AM?

>Can you point out an example that sounds like gibberish to you?
>Self-education is a myth. Nothing starts from nothing in this dimension of life either, as in every other. Reading a book is not self-education in the pure sense: you are still learning from someone (the author and all those that he learned from). I wish people would be prouder to have learned from others than to have learned from no one (i.e. to have learned nothing). Pride in self-education is a sign of an extremely low level of culture. Even animals learn from others.
Just one example. He makes a bold generalization and doesn't address the kind of self-education that is based on direct observation of reality rather than books.

>I think it sounds "gibberish" or like he overestimates himself to you because he is not coming from an obsessively literary background
No, he sounds like he overestimates himself because he overestimates himself. He pretends to be of the smartest humans of all time, whereas in reality he is yet another Nietzsche imitator with an intelligence that is higher than average but not by much. Heck, his criminal career is proof of his relative lack of intelligence. A truly smart man would not risk imprisonment over a few thousand dollars.

>but I'm assuming that you probably come from more of a book-heavy background than him
If so, not by much. He seems to have read Spinoza, Wittgenstein, and others whose work I haven't read.

I honestly don't think I would have absorbed his stuff nearly as well if he used a softer tone. It also makes it much harder to misread the stuff. So overall I think his writing style is practical above all else.


Well the "intelligent" aspect of crime is about risk analysis and coming up with a clever plan. Alex claims to have commited many crimes and he seems to be getting a net gain. This means he is good at risk analysis.

Someone that would never commit ANY crime isn't "dumb" they are either a coward or they do have the mental courage but lack the talent.

>direct observation of reality
You are still learning from someone or something else here, otherwise you aren't observing anything, since observation requires an object. I think he addresses the kind you are talking about. It is more of an attitude and a cultural phenomenon that he addresses, one that asserts itself as being its own source of knowledge without needing to credit anyone or anything else.

>he is yet another Nietzsche imitator with an intelligence that is higher than average but not by much
Show me the work of another "imitator" that is as cohesive, broad, and challenging as him whose personality and personal domain (his website, followers and art criticism) also demonstrates his philosophy as well as his.

>his criminal career is proof of his relative lack of intelligence
What does intelligence have to do with finding risk thrilling?

>I honestly don't think I would have absorbed his stuff nearly as well if he used a softer tone.
The problem isn't his tone, it's that he is an amoral sociopath.
>Someone that would never commit ANY crime isn't "dumb" they are either a coward or they do have the mental courage but lack the talent.
Sure, I agree. But there's "crime" like smoking a joint and then there's crime like stealing people's money on EBay. Refusing to steal people's money on EBay isn't a sign of cowardice or lack of talent - it could simply be a sign of having a functioning moral compass.

>Well the "intelligent" aspect of crime is about risk analysis and coming up with a clever plan.
Why risk so much for so little money if you're supposedly a supergenius? A supergenius should be able to figure out how to get a lot more money.

>You are still learning from someone or something else here, otherwise you aren't observing anything, since observation requires an object. I think he addresses the kind you are talking about. It is more of an attitude and a cultural phenomenon that he addresses, one that asserts itself as being its own source of knowledge without needing to credit anyone or anything else.
Sure... it was the first example of flawed argument that I found looking over his text... it's an example of overly broad generalization.
>What does intelligence have to do with finding risk thrilling?
If he likes risk and is a supergenius, why not take a risk where the potential reward is higher? Ebay fraud is not exactly Professor Moriarty level.

>morality

Why are you even reading this guy? You do know he's following in the footsteps of Nietzsche?

You aren't even discussing the points you disagree with you are just trying to dismiss him wholesale based on his 'moral character'.

>If he likes risk and is a supergenius, why not take a risk where the potential reward is higher?
His life is not about being a professional criminal. I haven't heard of any "crimes" he's committed aside from that one time over a decade back. He fancied the risk from that maneuver at the time, and that's all there is to it.

His moral character is significant to me. But even if we disregard it... look, he's a narcissistic sociopath who considers himself one of the greatest men who has ever lived, but has not actually DONE anything except write this book full of mostly unoriginal Nietzschean aphorisms, plus defraud some people on EBay. The contrast between what he thinks of himself and what he's actually accomplished is humorous.

Here's a good example of his narcissism. He pretends to be a super-genius, yet he writes this:
>By conceiving of time and space as infinitely divisible — i.e. as infinite — you have created a conception of the universe in which nothing can happen, because every action would require an infinite amount of power to be effected, and that's why Achilles will never catch the tortoise. And it's the same with idealized time and space: they can be infinite only if they are separate; if they are related they flow into each, and therefore become finite.
which shows that he does not understand calculus or physics.

What's your idea of DOING anything though?

I-Isn't that Zeno's Paradox?

>which shows that he does not understand calculus or physics.
It doesn't. Don't overestimate the validity of scientific theory, either.

Calculus and Physics are for the subhuman worker bees, not for God, also known as I.

Well, if he's such a genius then he should go into politics, or create that amazing video game he used to talk about, or invent some awesome technology, or fuck, just figure out how to make a billion dollars and not have to hide from the law scamming for money.

But calculus solves the apparent paradox that he refers to.

>Well, if he's such a genius then he should go into politics
lol

Yes, he should go into politics and thumb his asshole all day pretending to be contributing something, or make a video game, or some piece of tech, or collect interest for some banks and invest in research and development projects (which is already being taken care of just fine if you look at the news) rather than write out the most profound book of our age and a cohesive body of criticism for a fledgling art form that no one else is clearly capable of doing yet. What a good idea.

Hi Anthony

Would it have been better if, instead of making Citizen Kane, Orson Welles had written a "cohesive body of criticism" (actually, just several essays) for the art of cinema?

And how about if Orson Welles had talked about what a great film he was going to make, but then never made one and instead, stole money from people who trusted him?

No, since that's not what he ended up doing. If he would have been better off doing that, and he didn't, then that makes him an idiot and whatever he would have written would have been nonsense anyway. At the same time, since he didn't do that, he was clearly not intelligent enough for it, since the mind that writes good philosophy and theory (not pseud bullshit) is the most intelligent mind.

Read some, gave up. It's just not rigorous, inspired, exhaustive, or cohesive enough for me.