menu Home chevron_right
PHILOSOPHY

The Philosophy of the Unabomber

Sisyphus 55 | December 11, 2025



Get Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/sisyphus Enter promo code SISYPHUS for 83% off and 3 extra months for FREE!

PATREON: [https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3261155](https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3261155)

MUSIC: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPZHZzvSPYvqyk-nFS9kDA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPZHZzvSPYvqyk-nFS9kDA)

TWITTER: [https://twitter.com/5isyphus55](https://twitter.com/5isyphus55)

Sources: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ole-martin-moen-the-unabomber-s-ethics
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ole-martin-moen-the-unabomber-s-ethics#fn14)

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2018/10/12/Jacques-Ellul-Prophet/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/

Written by Sisyphus 55

Comments

This post currently has 32 comments.

  3. @plate2105

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    I think my main view on him is he has a few good ideas but overall he's still a horrible person, and definitely has some questionable and inaccurate statements.

  4. @franklottar

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    This man wanted to be left alone but could not let people alone. What a strange way of looking for solitude. He wanted to be read by those he despised . His motives were perhaps hidden even to himself.

  11. @storycentricgaming2018

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    "We should not mistaken his personal anger towards the system, which evidently destroyed his soul through isolation and experimentation, as worthy philosophical discourse."

    This ending line perfectly captures the way everyone should approach the Unabomber and his ideologies. It's fine to learn about and study the life of some like Kaczynski, but his "manifesto" should be given no legitimacy.

    Yes, he made some insanely accurate predictions. But if you add the context of his personal diaries, he was not much more than a raving lunatic. He enjoyed taking lives. He hated women for rejecting him. He mocked the environmentalists and leftists who have since raised him up as some kind of martyr.

    He was a lunatic. Plain and simple.

  14. @bronsinxc

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    A less than fun fact. The Harvard study that was mentioned at the start of the video was actually apart of the MK Ultra project and was funded by the CIA.

  16. @darfoz8807

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    I'm sorry but this dude was a loser. Out in a cabin alone with mommy and daddy paying his allowance. Feeling so inadequate that he had violent urges. How are you guys romanticising this.

  18. @Adam-bq6ic

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    13:20 eyesight is rapidly diminishing within recent decades as a result of urbanization.

    music does not require advanced technology, and is also rapidly degrading in quality. it really is just a manipulation tool for the system.

  21. @geeblmaster

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    So people are allowed to suffer, just because Ted doesn't like his 9 to 5? I hate the argument of revolution over reform, how can people have a better quality of life when they suffer through decades of revolution? revolution would never work in a nation as radical as America, it would spiral out of control and tyranny worse than the current system would be unavoidable. slow steps make big change, developing too fast only creates new problems. violence and suffering can never be justified in a civil society. thanks for reading everybody, ted talk over (pun intended)

  23. @bajovato

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    It’s a real shame that he decided to use violence to hurt & kill real people. He really discredited himself and hurt his cause by doing that. As a result, many have dismissed his manifesto as the ravings of a madman & I think more people would’ve heeded the warnings of his manifesto if he hadn’t done that. And it’s especially relevant now as we teeter on the precipice of technocratic corporatocracy/neofeudalism.

  24. @VOID9558

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    I agree with Ted in some points, especially on modern technology making our lives miserable, a good example is the replacement of fulfilling human by human interaction by social media and thus giving more isolation than connection. The fatal flaw i see with the Unabomber Manifesto promotes a sort of Luddite Accelerationism, Ted's view of an utopia of people living on a naturalistic world under the impression personal self-fulfilment and freedom from a "worthless life on a industrial metropolitan society" and "were human beings achieves goods more easily than doing it the hard way" doesn't make any kind of sense. If this kind of utopia were to be achieved people would still suffer from several things the industrial revolution helped to dissipate, and then the people may want the old system back but it may be already too late.

    I recommend seeing the criticism that Sisyphus55 makes about Ted and his Manifesto in 12:33 so my critique is more bit more specific.

  26. @Scottmiller1974ohio

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    The irony that Ted felt so strongly..that people just didn't know ..or couldn't forsee the out come he did as a side effect of the technology people readily excepted he tried to get his message out to ( save ) man .
    And educated them …and his attempt to do so lead to his undoing… and years later ..another irony …he has been proven right on a lot of things he predicted…

  28. @celeritasc9207

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    It wasn’t Dostoevsky’s Raskolnikov from “Crime and Punishment” that came to mind; it was the Underground Man (UM) from “Notes from the Underground.” Both Kaczynski and the UM were highly intelligent social misfits who isolated themselves from society and suffered from extreme alienation. The following is a detailed comparison.

    Intellectual Alienation and Hyperconsciousness
    Both the UM and Kaczynski exhibit intellectual alienation. The UM’s hyperconsciousness leads to self-paralysis, while Kaczynski’s brilliance isolates him and leads him to reject societal norms outright. This connection highlights how excessive intellectualization, when paired with social ineptitude, can lead to destructive outcomes—whether internal (UM) or external (Kaczynski).

    Social Isolation
    Both characters experience extreme social isolation. The UM’s isolation is psychological and metaphorical, whereas Kaczynski’s isolation is physical and literal. Their inability to connect meaningfully with others underscores how isolation can foster a distorted worldview.

    Contradictions in Philosophy
    The UM’s self-reflection reveals his hypocrisy, while Kaczynski’s actions betray the very values he claims to uphold (e.g., supporting small communities but living as a hermit, advocating for morality while killing innocents). Both serve as cautionary tales of how ideology can be riddled with contradictions.

    Resistance to Societal Norms
    Both figures reject societal expectations. The UM’s defiance is passive-aggressive, while Kaczynski’s is violent and revolutionary. This contrast offers a spectrum of responses to perceived societal flaws.

    Critique of Technological and Social Modernity
    Kaczynski’s critique of technology and its dehumanizing effects aligns loosely with the UM’s disdain for the rigid structures of progress (e.g., the Palace of Crystal). Both distrust the idea of a perfectly organized, rational society.

    Psychological Underpinnings
    Both figures can be analyzed through the lens of psychology. The UM's existential despair mirrors Kaczynski’s early struggles with social rejection and isolation. Their rejection of societal norms may stem from a sense of inadequacy in adapting to those norms.

    Human Fallibility and Flawed Ideals
    The UM and Kaczynski highlight how ideals, when pursued in isolation, can become distorted. Dostoevsky’s UM critiques utopian visions like the Palace of Crystal, while Kaczynski’s manifesto critiques technological progress.

    Differences between UM and Kaczynski
    The most significant difference is in their responses: the UM is paralyzed by inaction, while Kaczynski becomes a man of violent action. Concerning philosophical depth, the UM’s reflections are deeply philosophical and nuanced, serving as a critique of human nature. Kaczynski’s manifesto, while intellectually rigorous in parts, is more deterministic and prescriptive, lacking the same level of introspection.

    Concerning ethical frameworks, the UM is painfully aware of his moral contradictions and self-sabotage, which Dostoevsky uses to explore the human condition. Kaczynski, however, rationalizes his actions within a rigid framework that justifies violence, which is less self-critical and more dangerous. Concerning their intended outcomes, the UM’s writings are meant to provoke thought and introspection in readers, whereas Kaczynski’s manifesto seeks to incite revolution.

    Dostoevsky, the UM and philosopher Jacques Ellul were on the same page vis-a-vis creating change through the peaceful means of provoking thought and introspection.

  30. @JacobC479

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    Imagine if you could bring him to a busy restaurant on a Saturday night and show him how many kids and even adults are glued to a screen while they’re with company.

  31. @Blue2000q

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    I havent read what he actually said, but isn't this just the conclusion of inventions. We invented agriculture and from then on everything else. You apply the same principle when you build robots and factories or glass and wheels. You want to automatize processes so that human labour isn't as much needed. Honestly the problem he identifies, i dont see it coming from the industrial revolution but actually from the core of human nature. Don't we have a meaningless existence when all we do is worry about shelter food clothing etc? We just didn't have the time to get depressed or bored, because if we stop, we die. Why is it more better to die in the wilderness than working in this society and filling your free time with hobbies as he says, or most realistic with children and work and then also die. As i view it, it seems more fit to derive that "human consciousness was a misstep in human evolution" with the problems he identifies. All the arguments i ve seen that he comes with to sustain this idilic view of the primitive man are just rationalizations in my opinion, because he didn't have the "guts" to go deeper. In my opinion there is no such perfect or natural way to live life or organise society. We all do this things in such a way to satisfy our needs and wants, which thankfully we have them whether we like it or not. The problem i see with "modern society " is that it no longer(if society has ever really done it) satisfy our needs and wants. It satisfies the appetite of few, as it always has and surprise surprise they aren't depressed and live quite a good life. Ofcourse there will also be the human tendency to self destruction(greed, extreme violence, gluttony etc) due to, i believe ,the refusal to use our big brains to challenge reality which we need to navigate this world. We can no longer rely solely on our instincts from the day we discoverd fire("ohh it scares me it burns, is bad, but look is also warm we can use it"). Also mental health issues aren't an invention of the industrial revolution, civilization or even human nature. Even animals get depressed and face all kind of mental issues. In conclusion life is hard and nature is everything. If you don't like the world, change it, if you can't, accept it.We all need to pick our battles no matter how much the prehistoric human wanted bears gone did they dissappear and no matter how much we want it will society become utopic. This is what defines humanity.Life is adversity. I sure do believe that prehistoric people where at times very unhappy with their circumstances they tried to change them ,mosty failed, and in the end they accept reality because they had no choice. As we do now. We either try change or accept. Bot insanely human and "natural" both as courageous and "stoic".

  32. @intellectually_lazy

    December 11, 2025 at 3:55 am

    raskolnikov's idealism was not uncompromising. it was a philosophy of exceptionalism based on the hegelian ideal of a world important individual above the social norms constraining most. his goal was also not humanitarian – that was an excuse – but an attempt to validate himself as that individual, in a desperate bid for control over his own circumstances, but it was a fantasy based on magical thinking, and he was unprepared for the brutal reality of such a violent act

Comments are closed.

Related
What Is Nostalgia & Why Is It So Important?
Pursuit of Wonder | April 17, 2026
Related
Steven Pinker on Language | Big Think
Big Think | April 17, 2026
Related
4 Ways of Thinking About Abstract Objects – Philosophy Tube
Philosophy Tube | April 17, 2026

This area can contain widgets, menus, shortcodes and custom content. You can manage it from the Customizer, in the Second layer section.

 

 

 

Go to album
  • play_circle_filled

    92.9 : The Torch

  • play_circle_filled

    AGGRO
    'Til Deaf Do Us Part...

  • play_circle_filled

    SLACK!
    The Music That Made Gen-X

  • play_circle_filled

    KUDZU
    The Northwoods' Alt-Country & Americana

  • play_circle_filled

    BOOZHOO
    Indigenous Radio

  • play_circle_filled

    THE FLOW
    The Northwoods' Hip Hop and R&B

play_arrow skip_previous skip_next volume_down
playlist_play