[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.14616272 [View]
File: 169 KB, 500x451, 1579927254653.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14616272

>>14615965
You /lit/-goers need to understand something;
Just because someone who has made a name for themself, or put their words on paper does not make what they say valuable, nor does it mean that you should seek these type of people for knowledge. You must search for valid knowledge itself.

With natalism vs. anti-natalism (along with any argument really) it is important to start from a completely neutral standpoint.

We can tell life is negative because if you go to a completely neutral point (Doing nothing, lying down, not eating, not drinking water, not relieving yourself.) you will suffer dehydration, boredom, starvation, bed sores, etc. Life is a constant requirement to be maintained or it punishes you. Furthermore none of us consented to this as far as we know. Life is a non-consensual prison on an individual that guarantees suffering. Any person that has stopped to consider while understand that they and everyone around them has experience suffering in their lives. So if you considering creating more humans you implicitly understand that these beings are guaranteed suffering.

From this comes the argument that there are only two types of people/groups/organizations/societies; Those who say suffering is necessary and those who say it is unnecessary.

People in the former category will take an "Ends justify the means stance" saying that yes humans suffer, but this suffering is how we learn and grow. Even if people in latter category were to accept this reasoning, the question then becomes suffering for WHAT; what is the end goal of humanity? What would justify all this pain and sorrow? The only acceptable answer would be the cessation of suffering, which ironically is prevented merely by not creating anything in the first place.

Thus the folly of those in the former is that they delude themselves into thinking that creation is some virtuous act, when in reality it is the highest form of self-service, it is a distraction from their own pain and suffering, a conduit by which they can distract themselves and create an identity apart from a one that knows its end is certain, and that its purpose can only either be meaningless or in service of evil.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]