/lit/ - Literature

>>21875693
I thought Benatar was fucking based before reading it, but when I decided to read his books I realized that I was fucking wrong, or at least in what he considers good and bad.
It could be said that suffering is bad
But what is really fucking bad is what is usually considered its opposite (pleasure, happiness, peace, etc.)
In other words, what is "bad" is actually good. And what's good is fucking and unspeakably bad.
After all, isn't it pleasure (both in humans and animals)?
what produces procreation?
I think that deep down Benatar agrees with this, but he adapted to these standards to convince the masses.
Also if this "good" did not exist or as Benatar says in the book. We would not have these "optimistic" adaptation biases. We would already be extinct.