/lit/ - Literature

>>11394365
An anti-natalist doesn't have to characterize life as terrible. Having children is the result of people feeling lust, not wanting to be alone, feeling unfulfilled, needing to "take the next step", needing to "see what having a family is all about", and so forth. A person who is perfectly content would be fine taking walks and reading books his whole life, and thus not leave any children. He would see women as merely other individuals potentially capable of his own bliss, and therefore not think of copulating with them. He would look at them as strange for wanting to have a "partner" in life, rather than feeling the same deep level of kinship and yet profound detachment towards all others.

>>11394377
your terrible writing prevents you from communicating your ideas, or else english is not your first language. either way this is incoherent.

>>11394403
This is incoherent, it should read, "if you haven't become chaste yet, you are not really an anti-natalist". This makes more sense. Killing yourself has nothing to do with being against birth, you must be confusing anti-birth with life in general. An anti-natalist doesn't have to be against life in general, rather, his concern is more with the cycle (of birth and rebirth), and emancipation from this cycle.

NOW THEN now that we've dealt with Nietzsche and his irrelevance to relativity can we talk about the chad Mainlander and his reworking of Kant's system in a manner which entirely circumvents the supposed death blows which Einstein's theory is purported to have dealt to the notions of an a priori space and time?

>>11260989
As an illustration, take this dog. The impulse of life and love characterizes every gesture of this happy creature. It is entirely intoxicated with everything going on around it. If it here's a sound, it will suddenly prick up its ears and listen. When it is tired, it will lay down to rest, sigh a true sigh, and enter into peaceful sleep, undisturbed by anxiety or worry, by death, the thought of harm, etc. Why should this dog ever be concerned with right and wrong? Good and evil? Does this dog need a system of morality? Why? It feels no lasting shame, no genuine grief or world-weariness.

Now, consider woman. She is in love with life. She loves to hear about others, their secrets, their drama. She loves to indulge in her own drama. She loves to fantasize about a man. She thinks of children, of being an important person, of being loved and adored, and so forth. Surely, her feelings are much deeper and more complex than the brute, yet that utter intoxication of life, that unbroken stream of desire which stirs her every thought, remains constant and present her whole life long, and she has never considered why she is where she is, or why she is what she is. If she has, it has never entertained her for very long, and she has defaulted to the vivid stream of spectacle of the outside world and excitedly longs to play a role in it. Thus, we see, for a similar reason to the dog, why matters of moral duty will very rarely find a hold in her mind, for her actions are ever-informed by the blind, warm will of life which sustains every creature and drives it to its special purpose and place in the world regardless of its ability to critically think or sustain logical thought—yea, it thrives in the absence of these; it needs them not.