• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Tyler Durden's Philosophy Flawed?

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I definitely can say i agree with it, but I guess I'm just not brave enough to try it? I mean the logic behind it is so completely convincing.

"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." - Tyler Durden.

To summarize his philosophy, we are to rid our consumeristic attachments. We must not be attached, in fact we should welcome not having anything. We are controlled by money, and slaves to it. "Advertising's got us working jobs we hate to buy **** we don't need."

And people who want to relate him to Buddha, you're way off. Otherwise, there is some very weird reason why I definitely hate Buddha's teachings... maybe Sidartha Buddha himself, and absolutely love Tyler Durden and Chuck Palahniuk's given Tyler Durden's teachings.


I guess, I just want to know... Is the philosophy in Fight Club wrong? And for what reason?
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I definitely can say i agree with it, but I guess I'm just not brave enough to try it? I mean the logic behind it is so completely convincing.

"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." - Tyler Durden.

To summarize his philosophy, we are to rid our consumeristic attachments. We must not be attached, in fact we should welcome not having anything. We are controlled by money, and slaves to it. "Advertising's got us working jobs we hate to buy **** we don't need."

And people who want to relate him to Buddha, you're way off. Otherwise, there is some very weird reason why I definitely hate Buddha's teachings... maybe Sidartha Buddha himself, and absolutely love Tyler Durden and Chuck Palahniuk's given Tyler Durden's teachings.


I guess, I just want to know... Is the philosophy in Fight Club wrong? And for what reason?
I watched the movie and didn't read the book, so my interpretation of Tyler is based on that.

-It seems to me that it starts off with him making several valid points against consumerism and softness.

-But then they began escalating to controlling people and utilizing terrorism and violence.

So it's sort of a rise and fall of Tyler's philosophy. It consists of valid criticisms of society followed by extremism and flawed conclusions based on reasonable observations. So I'd say flaws are that:

-He's violent, and he failed.

-He wishes to free people, or make them more natural, but the people he has the most impact on become mindless followers. Is that the ideal vision he has for what a good man is?

-His philosophy explicitly excludes women, and therefore at most is only relevant for half the population.

-He dislikes consumerism and wishes to free people by returning them to a more primitive state. But humans originally changed from a primitive state to their current one, so why wouldn't they eventually do it again, and probably far more quickly due to having remnants and knowledge of the past civilization to work with? So he's on a treadmill against human nature, a violent disruption to a cycle that carries on without him. Even if he views the earlier state as the preferable one, it's unlikely that he could maintain the existence of that type of world through force.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
I definitely can say i agree with it, but I guess I'm just not brave enough to try it? I mean the logic behind it is so completely convincing.

"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." - Tyler Durden.

To summarize his philosophy, we are to rid our consumeristic attachments. We must not be attached, in fact we should welcome not having anything. We are controlled by money, and slaves to it. "Advertising's got us working jobs we hate to buy **** we don't need."

And people who want to relate him to Buddha, you're way off. Otherwise, there is some very weird reason why I definitely hate Buddha's teachings... maybe Sidartha Buddha himself, and absolutely love Tyler Durden and Chuck Palahniuk's given Tyler Durden's teachings.


I guess, I just want to know... Is the philosophy in Fight Club wrong? And for what reason?


Every philosophy is flawed just as every human is flawed.

In general, I agree with non-attachment to the shallow consumer culture and that some sort of discipline is required in order to deconstruct one's conditioning. It's not enough to say that one MUST not be attached to money and materialism, but another thing to actualize it since we are products of said culture to begin with. Tyler's philosophy advocates one method in pursuing this process of deconstruction and it has its pros and cons. You seem to understand the pros on some level already, so perhaps I'll try to point out some cons.

"Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Perhaps he is right in saying we are not special in the sense promoted by the self-esteem movement. At the same time, he preaches a polarization in the opposite direction. So we're not special? Then that must mean we're all worthless maggots and pieces of crap.

"Like a monkey, ready to be shot into space. Space monkey! Ready to sacrifice himself for the greater good."

"From now on, all those with shaved heads: 'Space Monkeys'."

He teaches his followers to lose their sense of individual identity and just become another drone because "in Project Mayhem, we have no names". The space monkeys have given themselves over completely to his cult in search of actualization. He's promoting a sort of not-self approach to ego-death.

"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your ******* khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

Again, he follows it up to a point and then chooses to identify the "self" as "crap". Why? Why would we be that particular metaphor instead of dust or waves in the ocean? It's a choice to interpret the world in a pessimistic manner as much as it is to interpret it in an optimistic light. The universe is neutral either way. I'm assuming you read the book. I recall the narrator concluding in the last chapter that we are not special, but we are also not worthless pieces of craps either. We simply are.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Every philosophy is flawed just as every human is flawed.

In general, I agree with non-attachment to the shallow consumer culture and that some sort of discipline is required in order to deconstruct one's conditioning. It's not enough to say that one MUST not be attached to money and materialism, but another thing to actualize it since we are products of said culture to begin with. Tyler's philosophy advocates one method in pursuing this process of deconstruction and it has its pros and cons. You seem to understand the pros on some level already, so perhaps I'll try to point out some cons.

"Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else."

Perhaps he is right in saying we are not special in the sense promoted by the self-esteem movement. At the same time, he preaches a polarization in the opposite direction. So we're not special? Then that must mean we're all worthless maggots and pieces of crap.

"Like a monkey, ready to be shot into space. Space monkey! Ready to sacrifice himself for the greater good."

"From now on, all those with shaved heads: 'Space Monkeys'."

He teaches his followers to lose their sense of individual identity and just become another drone because "in Project Mayhem, we have no names". The space monkeys have given themselves over completely to his cult in search of actualization. He's promoting a sort of not-self approach to ego-death.

"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your ******* khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

Again, he follows it up to a point and then chooses to identify the "self" as "crap". Why? Why would we be that particular metaphor instead of dust or waves in the ocean? It's a choice to interpret the world in a pessimistic manner as much as it is to interpret it in an optimistic light. The universe is neutral either way. I'm assuming you read the book. I recall the narrator concluding in the last chapter that we are not special, but we are also not worthless pieces of craps either. We simply are.

I think he wants us to know that we should believe we're worthless and not important, so then we are not afraid of death at all, but I've interpreted the quote "You are not your job..." etc etc as saying your possessions are not you, let them go.
 

cablescavenger

Well-Known Member
I definitely can say i agree with it, but I guess I'm just not brave enough to try it? I mean the logic behind it is so completely convincing.

"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." - Tyler Durden.

To summarize his philosophy, we are to rid our consumeristic attachments. We must not be attached, in fact we should welcome not having anything. We are controlled by money, and slaves to it. "Advertising's got us working jobs we hate to buy **** we don't need."

And people who want to relate him to Buddha, you're way off. Otherwise, there is some very weird reason why I definitely hate Buddha's teachings... maybe Sidartha Buddha himself, and absolutely love Tyler Durden and Chuck Palahniuk's given Tyler Durden's teachings.


I guess, I just want to know... Is the philosophy in Fight Club wrong? And for what reason?

The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I definitely can say i agree with it, but I guess I'm just not brave enough to try it? I mean the logic behind it is so completely convincing.

"It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything." - Tyler Durden.

To summarize his philosophy, we are to rid our consumeristic attachments. We must not be attached, in fact we should welcome not having anything. We are controlled by money, and slaves to it. "Advertising's got us working jobs we hate to buy **** we don't need."

And people who want to relate him to Buddha, you're way off. Otherwise, there is some very weird reason why I definitely hate Buddha's teachings... maybe Sidartha Buddha himself, and absolutely love Tyler Durden and Chuck Palahniuk's given Tyler Durden's teachings.


I guess, I just want to know... Is the philosophy in Fight Club wrong? And for what reason?


I agree with his quote and your summary but reading some of the comments I doubt I would agree with his view.

I do believe that to be happy in life you need to simplify and I despise the monetary society we built.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
It's like that in sects of Christianity as well. Not necessarily protestantism but more in Eastern Christianity of a Catholic flavor. The west made Christianity more legalistic in their lingo and suppresed the more mystical and ancient parts of their religion.

The idea is similar, except that Christianity doesn't say you can't have any of it, only that you can't get attached to it. Obviously, this is within reason.

The East tended to not buy any of it at all. They figured that it could serve as a way to tempt and distract.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
I think he wants us to know that we should believe we're worthless and not important, so then we are not afraid of death at all, but I've interpreted the quote "You are not your job..." etc etc as saying your possessions are not you, let them go.

Yeah, I agree with the letting go of possessions part. I should have picked a different quote.

I was just focusing on the aspect of believing that we're worthless and unimportant. How does it enable someone to overcome the fear of death? It's a common tactic among cult leaders to diminish the self-esteem and individuality of their followers and offer up their belief system as a means of diminishing the resulting anxiety, which eventually becomes their sole source of confidence. Said system becomes their new identity.
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree with his quote and your summary but reading some of the comments I doubt I would agree with his view.

I do believe that to be happy in life you need to simplify and I despise the monetary society we built.
I don't see how happiness is built from despising something.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Yeah, I agree with the letting go of possessions part. I should have picked a different quote.

I was just focusing on the aspect of believing that we're worthless and unimportant. How does it enable someone to overcome the fear of death? It's a common tactic among cult leaders to diminish the self-esteem and individuality of their followers and offer up their belief system as a means of diminishing the resulting anxiety, which eventually becomes their sole source of confidence. Said system becomes their new identity.

But cult systems diminish the self-esteem and bring all focus towards a higher being, so this isn't really a cult system right here.

I think we're worthless and unimportant overall, and it may be a bit pointless to announce, because it's mostly gonna arrive in a "I told you so" argument.

But overall, the only point I see in it is simply for accepting the world can survive without *insert self here*, since you are "not a beautiful and unique snowflake" and therefore understand, your death is one in a billion, therefore it doesn't matter if you die, objectively.

Tyler seemed to want people to think of objective reality and oversee personal thoughts.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
But cult systems diminish the self-esteem and bring all focus towards a higher being, so this isn't really a cult system right here.

Maybe, maybe not. A cult may be defined as, "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object."

"In Tyler we trust."

I think we're worthless and unimportant overall, and it may be a bit pointless to announce, because it's mostly gonna arrive in a "I told you so" argument.

Special in relation to what? Worthless in terms of doing what work? I think it's pointless to even consider whether we're special or worthless in the grand scheme of things to begin with. We simply ARE.

But overall, the only point I see in it is simply for accepting the world can survive without *insert self here*, since you are "not a beautiful and unique snowflake" and therefore understand, your death is one in a billion, therefore it doesn't matter if you die, objectively.

Tyler seemed to want people to think of objective reality and oversee personal thoughts.

Thinking about objective reality is still subjective, but it's a fair point that we can be more or less objective in our thinking. Tyler's philosophy is still very self-serving in his approach to impose it upon the rest of the world rather than allowing people to run according to their natural mechanisms.
 

Nooj

none
But cult systems diminish the self-esteem and bring all focus towards a higher being, so this isn't really a cult system right here.

I think we're worthless and unimportant overall, and it may be a bit pointless to announce, because it's mostly gonna arrive in a "I told you so" argument.

But overall, the only point I see in it is simply for accepting the world can survive without *insert self here*, since you are "not a beautiful and unique snowflake" and therefore understand, your death is one in a billion, therefore it doesn't matter if you die, objectively.

Tyler seemed to want people to think of objective reality and oversee personal thoughts.
Tyler didn't agree with that though. He created an organisation with him as the unchallenged head. He was abusive to his subordinates (and the very existence of subordinates challenges the idea that Tyler was advocating for equality). It was a cult. Tyler destroys the individual, to remake the person into want he wants them to be. It's the same thing that the military does.

Did you not see the bizarre moment when the monkeys attempt to impart some meaning and sense into the sad and pointless death of Meat Loaf? If we're 'worthless and unimportant', why is it that they feel the need to create a martyr out of him?
 
Last edited:

no-body

Well-Known Member
Buddhism? It's nothing like Buddhism; you don't have to physically give your things and life away, you can give up materialism in the mind to be free. Buddhist wouldn't be up to forcing anyone to do anything either.

I've only read the book but if I recall Tyler Durden was nuts. Kind of says a lot when the only way to implement your beliefs is through a dangerous psychotic.

If I recall Chuck didn't invent the philosophy in Fight Club either he borrowed it from the cacophony society which he is a member of.
 
Top