/lit/ - Literature

>>10620436
Your "reality" is nothing more than a burden created by your own repression. If you were intelligent you would see that if you wanted to "empower" people you would have to let go of such realities and replace it with one in which they have been always-already in power, in which history has always been leading to this moment which retroactively modifies it. Otherwise you'll always be fighting and if your paradise ever comes you would only know how to reject it. You can't prevent things from repeating from the future. You have to do it now.

>>10620473
>he becomes a lousy apologetic for egoistic sociopathic behavior
He allows it. He does not support it. There is a difference you would understand if you weren't dependent on other people's thoughts from stopping you from doing things you know you wouldn't do anyway, since you and most people aren't sociopaths.

Not that there's anything special about sociopaths anyway. They're being in this world like any other. If humanity deems them to be unacceptable or useful so it'll be. Nothing you say now will change that, and it will all be based on humanity's actions.

>>10141976
>Existence is binary, you either want to be reborn or not
Says who?

>Saying 'it isn't necessary' or 'I wouldn't mind not being reborn' is either a cop out or just means 'no'.
It seems to me that you want to make two conclusions into the same thing because they don't give you what you want.

>Existence is existence, it may lead to suffering (in the conventional sense) to some degree depending on the outcome of your life but it isn't equivalent to existence.
Yes, we know life isn't only suffering. But I don't get why that doesn't make it not an intrinsic part of life.

>I don't 'feel' it's irrational, I claim that it is.
Okay. But that still doesn't explain it.

>Ending your own cosmic existence to avoid suffering is akin to burning down your house so that it won't be brought down by a hurricane.
That would imply that there's a cosmic house or a cosmic you that could last forever somehow. You're again making the same assumption that Buddhism is telling you to dismantle the house, that it's your obligation to do it, when that's not the case and it's only a matter of cause and effect.

>the point is that people would rather continue to exist than not exist
Except that if there are people that would not continue, then this is not the case. Your appeal to what "people" would do is no different to the resignation of dying being natural. All you're doing is pedestelizing the human will. You assume there's something there in all people and if they tell you there isn't then they're liars or they have done some great evil to themselves. But if I'm following you correctly, assuming you're taking the Nietzschean position, then that doesn't make sense either because it's also will to power and in the end there's only will against will and it all comes down to this affirmation or the other. In the end, to me, you're just being stubborn, in which case, what's there to even argue?

>the axiom that life itself is the problem and people are predisposed to the ills of this world until they find a way out of this life.
Except nirvana is precisely there *not* being a way out of this life. The point is for there to be no other life. Living for heaven is no different than living thinking of what will happen in your next reincarnation. I don't think you can get less life-denying than that. What would you suggest, otherwise? Everything else seems like postponement. All the search for meaning and worth in a dark and threatening world doesn't seem very life-affirming to me.

>>9916575
For what's in the books.

>>8752048
>It may appear from a profane perspective as nothing more than sticking an organ into someone, but looking at a beautiful picture can also be reduced down to an organ processing an image. The fact is, having a sexual relationship with someone has a significant effect on you psychologically and even biologically.
This. The current pro-sex stance has little to do with humanism and more to do with a societal system which promotes mindless, unattached consumption, again not because it is healthy, but because it makes people incapable of claiming things or habits as being their own. So you eat at [brand], masturbate to [brand], buy clothes at [brand], and so on without end; and when you're done with it you can't say you got anything out of it, can't even say you're momentarily satisfied, because what you were looking for wasn't that, because you aren't a child anymore and your appetites are less supeficial, because you're a social being and your desires have more than their physicality to them, they have a narrative structure, they have a place in the world, but now you only see these acts --which are your life-- as nothing more than irrelevant atoms.

Thankfully we have the internet now.

It's not sacrifice, it's comsumption and euxhaustion, humans seek to use the things the possess, including their own selves, the don't want to sit around frustrated.

>>8659417
Read Stirner.

>>8573435
>As unattainable (I would imagine) as Nietzsche's übermensch.
You people are infuriatingly dense.

>>8452290
then i'm afraid you're not living your life, if you only have things because you think you couldn't do without them
intellect or sex it's all the same
and it's a lie that you wouldn't be capable of living without it
you don't want to, which is different, perfectly fine, but not a reason to throw everything else away
do you relate to any of this or does it seem obvious to you?

>>8399974
>because seeking pleasure always leaves one empty and alone.
I think the problem is in the seeking, not in the pleasure.

Going places is for those who don't like where they are. Wanting to be fearless is for those who don't know what keeps them alive and what kills them.