/lit/ - Literature

>because all things must die, creating them means you killed them
Have you apologized to my brain cells yet?

>>17694260
You love you child so much that you don't want to bring them onto this world, just to suffer and died.

>B-but suffering is good! Dying is good! Being old and senile is good! It's worthy that my child see me suffer in old age, because it's natural and the way of the world

Dumb and retardpilled.

>>17694284
Have you made a suicide pact with your family yet?

>>17694297
The one argument antinatalists can never refute

>>17694297
No, suicide is a dumb way to go, I only agree that bringing a baby is a huge fucking gamble they your child pays the price of goes wrong, and Im not a dumb gambler

>>17694297
My parents are already dead. I'm very much alone in this world.

>>17694316
Cope more, midwit.

>>17694249
>>17694311
Antinatalism refutes itself.
It's also openly shilled here on /lit/ to demoralize us cultured intellectuals.

>>17694336
Dumb

>>17694321
>existence is so hellish it's better not to exist
>I will also try to live out my life as long as possible
Pathetic

>>17694325
What's stopping you then?

>>17694249
Antinatalists and accelerationists are truly the lowest of the low.

>>17694331
Honestly this is less a convincing argument for antinatalism and more for discarding ethics altogether.

>>17694361
>>17694331
Can you read, nigger?

>>17694367
Raise your questions about antinatalist

>I enjoy looking at pretty girls in the street. And were it only for this, I am glad to be alive.
How do you refute this antinatalists?

>>17694370
Shoulda coulda woulda

I repeat: suicide pact

But honestly, are you actively taking measures to shorten your life without it being straight up suicide? Are you smoking a pack of cigarettes a day to ensure lungcancer? Or will you try your best to live out the entirety of your life?

>Antinatalists still have not satisfactorily addressed the suicide objection. As such, antinatalists should probably kill themselves, in which case antinatalism would likely cease to exist and discussion of it would be useless, because no one would be around to address the numerous objections brought against it. But if antinatalists are too pussy to get out of their ivory towers and blow their brains out, they are probably bullshitting; who knows if they even believe antinatalism themselves?

>>17694284
What do I care for their suffering? Pain, even agony, are merely information before the senses, data in the computer of the mind.

>>17694409
>>17694331

>>17694425
Will you live out your life as best you can or no?

>>17694401
Are you fucking them? If no them you're wasting your time and coping.

>>17694428
Of course, yet, will my child do the same? What guarantee about that?

>>17694430
What an utterly soulless response.

>>17694409
They just want to have the moral high ground without having to put in the effort and read about ethics.

>>17694409
Antinatalists killing themselves wouldn't prevent future births -- which is what they're against, iirc. So, it doesn't really fulfill the ends they want.

>>17694434
>of course
Done, self-refuted. Why will you do your best to extend the agony of your own life if it is so terrible?

>>17694437
Well they also don't have the balls to go on shooting sprees

>>17694430
>Are you fucking them?
No.
>If no them you're wasting your time and coping.
Why? I enjoy it, I don't need to consume them. Much like in a museum you don't need to burn or to take home the paintings you see. Nor do you need validation by the other visitors for your good tastes.
I don't even see how this relate to the (serious) point I make about antinatalism.

“I disagree on an axiomatic level there is any value to suffering or happiness inherently and do not believe these or any other human emotion are the basis of ethics or the purpose of ones life.”

What now? Will you call the many humans who do not believe in your axioms inhuman and evil? How can you argue if the entirety of your argument rests on suffering calculations and pleasure calculations and the other person begins by saying he does not consider these as essential to Life or the good life. And throws them out entirely?

>>17694439
Antinatalist is not about the living, you nigger, is about the lives that you cannot guarantee that it will be good, stop be a retard

>>17694447
I mean the whole argument for antinatalism is an ethical stance to stop suffering altogether.

And honestly I don't care for refuting it because people with that mindset shouldn't be having kids to begin with.

>>17694430
This is the person calling you midwit

>>17694439
Do you even know what "antinatalist" means, you dumb motherfucker?

>>17694456
You cannot guarantee that your own life will be good, so why gamble like that?

>>17694466
Your point?

>>17694454
So what's the point? If can work by pleasure or pain, what going on is his life? Sounds like a recipe to suicide.

>>17694473
Jesus, you're a truly dumb

>>17694494
You have no counter. Not being born is the same as being dead and you know that. Eventually even the people who care most for you will die too so why extend your own agony?

>>17694425
Kek antinatalist propositions literally lead to no conclusion but suicide

>>17694456
>guarantee that it will be good

Again, the second you throw out the value of suffering or it’s lack, happiness or its lack from your ethics, from your conception of what is good and evil the entire argument falls flat.

Ask the Stoic and he would say abiding in the logos is the Good and if this means having a child so be it, ask the Taoist and he will say being is inherently a good and shall feel no shame about his reproduction, ask the Animal to the lowest possible life forms and they will show you the point is to live, reproduce and continue for as long as possible with no concern to suffering or pleasure that does not further this end. Ask the Hindu and he will tell you of the Lila and of maya, of life as the divine play of God upon the stage and how some men must play the role of father, others must Jill themselves, others be warriors and others be yogis. Ask the Christian and he will point to love of god and relationship with God as the supreme ultimate of all moral Good and distance from God as the body of evil. Point to the Nietzschean and he will tell you suffering is something for the psyche to metabolize for its own development and beyond pleasure, the Will is the Good. Ask de Sade and he will mock you for pleasure and suffering and tell you the point is absolute freedom even at the suffering of ones self and anyone else or their imprisonment.

The second you decide on an axiomatic level suffering doesn’t matter, these arguments fall.

>>17694454
The people who don't recognize the decadent nature of this world and fill the void with all type of copes are totally disgusting subhumans.

>>17694485
See
>>1769453
And a million other possible forms, you can even go Heidegger mode and say that dasein’s meaning isn’t a question and good and evil isn’t so much a question but the point is simply to be in itself, and this can be constructed into a similar moral agenda to Taoism or can turn into something like Nicholai Hartmann’s pluralistic ethics. Or any other of the nearly endless configurations of ethics and morality that humans can have either on an animal level or on an intellectual level.

>>17694485
Whoops messed up the other one.
Meant this one >>17694530

>>17694538
Everything can be constituted to be a form of cope (it by that you mean, argument against the experience of emptiness which pervades nature) and that isn’t a bad thing.

If we agree that Sin originates as a negatory will of annihilation/towards absolute non-being of god and that Thelema is a positive creative will of god, the following becomes clear.

Ennui Heidegger states is what occurs when the fullness of being becomes clear and its profound emptiness becomes apparent.

At the heart of the individual there is a profound sense of incompletion, of lack, what then is this state of lack; this all pervading nature which is not even of the emotions but pervades them, appears when emotions fade and the center of focus is made the total.


It is the sin at the heart of man, the negatory will of God. A profound gap in the being of an individual. The nature of this gap reflects in the death drive, melancholy is the taste of it, it is the void below, the interior hollow which is truly empty and contains nothing. This is the mirror of Sunyata which the common man tastes.

This negatory void is the contradiction at the heart of the physical being, the flesh of ones perception, this is why the ego seeks the other for affirmation, why it seeks to satisfy itself with things, itself or even God.

This profound negatory void in man, this sin-nature, hamartia if left empty leads to annihilation of the self, so man must attempt to fill it. This is the root of inauthenticity but also the chance of divine actualization, theosis. When you attempt to fill the Hamartia at the heart of man with others, your own being becomes subjugated and it is like an illusion, a imperfect image changing on a lake, it temporarily creates an image which is distorted by movement, as the other is constantly in flux, the hamartia nature returns and the image casted in the lake dispelled.

If you try to project your own will into it, that is the casting of a illusion upon the surface of the moving lake, if you try to place others or ideas or drives, all of them fail due to the dynamism of the Void in the heart of man.

How then can this void be filled? There are 4 primary methods used by men to gain relief and fulfill this void.

One can attempt to change the very structure of their being in order to latch on to some other, some stable or unstable outside point. This can be an ideal, a virtue, a aesthetic, people even.

This reliance of the other binds man to interaction with other, whether the ideas of the other, the knowledge or the society of others. This is the birth of the city of the devil, of babalon.

Man by living the cultural life,

partaking of knowledge of other, connects his being and his void with the being of others and their conceptual frameworks. The heart of these is the same profound emptiness, this causes a multiplication of the emptiness which pervades any temporary relief.

Cont

>>17694520
Stop cherry picking sunny jim

>>17694571
As man subjugates and manipulates himself into a cog in the conceptual models and cultures of the world, his hamartia mixes with theirs, a greater void and a greater illusion is born. As such the pain and experience of incompletion actually increases from this methodology. The second methodology is intellectual-aesthetic illusion, Nicholai Hartman writes that all true Art works by crafting a piece which makes you forget the foreground and takes you to an illusionary background filled with illusions of ideas, ideal things, your own intellectual world where fullness dwells, beauty then is a sense of harmonious completion among the parts, the aesthetic experience does not free from the Will but from the hamartia by filling the void with phantoms. These phantoms are much more resilient then the other but are still not enough, as they require a constant stream of intellect, Will and so forth to maintain, the second the individual himself changes (which is forced on him by the dynamic nature of the void in the heart of man) he must abandon in that moment his phantoms and the profound incompletion returns.

The Third methodology is resting in the void, resting in one self, to elaborate this is the most subtle manipulation of the illusions and void possible, instead of creating a intellectual-aesthetic illusion, you try to manipulate yourself by relaxation, by mental disassociation and re-association to dis-attach from your manner of being utterly and associate your form/body AS the void, as such you try to fulfill the void by filling it with your own being, your own nature, your own pure will.

In this method you make the hamartia in the heart of man consume the totality of being, in an attempt to cause a synthesis, this in Taoism is called wu-wei, this in Spinoza’s work is acquiescentia, to allow yourself to flow into the void at the heart of man until the void and the being cannot be distinguished. This is “crushing the void”

In this state the void at the heart of man is transmuted from a negatory experience to one of fullness and satisfaction, it is still negatory but it has become an active void. This is demonstrated by such practices as Zuowang and shikantaza.

The error of this method is three fold.

1=it is incredibly hard to maintain during active daily life, in interaction with others and thus leads often to absolute seclusion and hermitage

2=the void is not actually filled but rather being is annihilated

3=beyond pleasure and satisfaction and many states of spiritual/mental/psychological/physical bliss this methodology is utterly sterile, it cannot be replicated or shared and it does not produce culture, technology, it cannot truly be shared, it cannot do anything but rest in itself and be itself. This renders it sterile.

Cont

>>17694578
The Fourth method which is the actual method of fulfilling the Void is to transmute the hamartia itself into thelema. The fulfilling of the void at the heart of man is done by living in accordance with the Will and Reason of God, this is the fulfiller of being, because the void-Will brings man to nothing, the positive will creates perpetually more and more being, which is the transmutation of being into becoming, the void becomes the space of the becoming of the individual actualizing his existence as he is in the mind of god, in pure potential, the lines of flight reach out in all directions showing the now dynamic extensions of Being. Pure lines of becoming stretch forth in all directions. The Will of God, these lines of becoming which are hidden in the void, which is pure potentiality, are hidden in the profound darkness of lack, it is only by the light of Reason that these lines of becoming can be found and entered upon, however the lines of becoming can lead back to the void, they can become short, in the first method you block you light for the colored lights of others. In the second method you obscure your light with images to cast shadows to look

upon, in the third you snuff out the light so only darkness remains, in the fourth you become direct your light to the pathways and you must maximize the brightness of the light.

Christ who is pure reason is the great light, God is the great Reason, by reflection of His light into ours, we can obey see the greatest lines of becoming which become indefinitely, thus in this is immortality. The void in the heart of man replaced by a boundless being, boundless becoming, guided by the light of the Sun of Will, the Christ. This is the straight and narrow road of the Bible.

Just as the first method creates the city of the devil, a macro collection of emptiness and illusions, sin perpetually multiplying and inauthenticity reigning supreme, this fourth method creates the city of god, as the constant becoming makes you as a light to the world, your Reason shines forth and reflects as if a mirror upon others who also strive for the light and to shine their light.

The city of the devil then is darkness and obscuring, being chained in a boundless void of emptiness and transience, the city of God then is unchanging boundless Light which unifies into greater and greater dancing interpenetrating lights, walking on the road of becoming and thus coming closer and closer.


Cont

>>17694572
Cherrypicking? It's one of the most common lines of argument for anti natalism. Anyone with half a brain can see that if that line of argument were to succeed, suicide is one of its conclusions.

>>17694530
>Ask these backward retards who still believe in all of this metaphysical gobbledygook
No, you retard. Metaphysical age is OVER.

>>17694591
The city of the devil then logically leads to annihilation and the absorption of its being into the third method, the devouring of the city of the devil by the void.

The city of God then logically shall rule for eternity, growing in light and intensity day by day. This is why sin and the Holy Spirit of god are poured out continuously at greater and greater degrees by the day.

The city of the devil results in absolute synthetic inauthenticity, which is the gradual destruction of authentic being, being becoming a play thing of void.

The city of God results in boundless positive change, which is the fullness of God on earth.
The Void and being replaced by boundless divine becoming along the eternal narrow road.


But this is of course my opinion as a Christian. Fundamentally however, you are free to choose any of the methods of dealing with the problem of experiential emptiness. The pleasure-Pain morality is simply one such system and may easily be discarded just as easily as you may discard my or any other system of ethics, morality, religion or conception of experience and being.

>>17694595
Wrong

>>17694595
The animal has no need for your morality; he will breed as he sees fit. The heideggerian has no need for your morality and will breed as he sees fit. He who denies all good and evil both subjective and objective may so choose to do in accordance with his Will whatever he Wills and can freely say to your suffering calculation “I don’t care, I shall do as I please.”

Your argument has no power outside of your axiomatic values.

>>17694401
>>17694435
>>17694448
>>17694466
Simps

>>17694627
The female form is by far the most beautiful thing to exist you cockgobbler

>>17694617
Stop comparing animals with self aware human beings. Pain and suffering is felt universally and if I have the certainty about anything then it's pain. I don't a single shit about philosophy autism to point where it become semantic circlejerk.
The argument of pain is universal and every noble man of melancholic nature understands it.

>>17694675
If you only have the certainty of pain, why live?

Of the first twelve threads on /lit/ right now, four are about antinatalism. Is this board being raided by antinatalists, or what?

>>17694681
I am uncertain about that

>>17694693
>4
No, it's just one true pro antinatalist, the rest are just people seething. True antinatalist threads appear in 2-3 days apart

>>17694703
So you're just hoping for a push or what? You have my permission to die anon.

>>17694675
>Stop comparing animals with self aware human beings.

If you will gladly throw out all philosophy, and all higher reason, why shouldn’t we be considered no different from the animals if there is nothing more of value or consideration than what the animal lives and experiences? Why are you better if not the reason and intellect within you? And yet you’ll silence it now?

>Pain and suffering is felt universally and if I have the certainty about anything then it's pain.

And? Like the animal you’re programmed for pain and you’re programmed for pleasure if you are to reject all metaphysics, all religion and all philosophy. There is no inherent reason your suffering or pain has more value than pleasure. “Oh but we will feel more suffering in life than pleasure” according to who’s calculation and why should the individual care? And if you are no different from the animal, your experience of pain and pleasure is nothing more than a means towards reproduction.


>I don't a single shit about philosophy autism to point where it become semantic circlejerk.

You’re free to argue the meaning of words and what constitutes a good life is something you do not care about, as am I to disagree that your definition of evil=what makes me feel bad is also incorrect.

>The argument of pain is universal and every noble man of melancholic nature understands it.

Every single polemic against nihilism, anti-Natalism and the dukkha doctrine of everyone who ever argued against these stands against you. But why should I care about what you consider noble? If philosophy means nothing to you and the question is feeling, passion, your individual care, I may simply say I do not care as I have different feelings and emotions. Why am I to believe your melancholy is good and not a defect of your mind, physical body or if I am of the spiritual belief, a result of your sin or defect in your spirit? Surely on an animal level the brain which desires to end its genetic line is a defective one and shall be punished by its going out of existence by the very lack of reproduction you hold up.

You cannot hold up good and noble to me and the value of humanity while also devaluing what places us above the animal. Our greater reason is what gives us our philosophy and what may tell us to have any number of values.

>>17694321
>No, suicide is a dumb way to go
Why?

>>17694331
>It is unethical--
I do not care. Please kill yourself.

>>17694642
A Simp AND a Hylic. Who would've figured?

>don't enjoy much in my life
>have already forced others into life because their suffering amuses me
I have to hide my amusement when my children come to me with their petty troubles. It is even better that their childhood fears and troubles are insignificant in comparison to the things I know are yet to come. I don't mistreat them, because it is all the more pleasing to see their displeasure despite the good life they are given.

>>17694759
>calls me hylic
>never heard of the principle of correspondence
ngmi

>>17694703
The reason is twofold and you know fully well, your animal nature cries out “live” and fears and despises death and non-existence. Your reason and care, your will and ego tells you “I care about x” where x is your friends. Family, pleasure, things you like, things you want to see happen. Care/desire by its very nature your identity to things outside of yourself and constitutes the mental form of yourself. As much as you care about pain, you in this moment care about everything that isn’t pain much more so.

>>17694765
There is no principle which can save you now. The only cure for your simptoms...is death.

>>17694743
Surely if you want to close your eyes from the horrors of the world then sure nobody could convince you to stop reproducing. All of those doctrines of cope were in the metaphysical age. Now that age is over, the divine narrative disappears and what remains is the pathology of suffering.

>>17694807
Through your diversion you admit the correctness of my assessment. May the thrice-great illuminate you too

>>17694815
Anon, there’s no metaphysical commitment about the doctrine of raw and unapologetic egotistic Will and desire, there is nothing metaphysical about the animal desire in you which tells you to reproduce. There is nothing metaphysical about your very reason cleaving on to all care to all things forcing you that little identity which forces you not to kill yourself. You are bound by the animal life and the human reason both of which cry out “we want to live”

You’re free to believe that you’re somehow better than every other human who doesn’t want to Kill themselves because they don’t share your values and you’re free to also be slave to your own humanity which tells you not to kill yourself. Call it closing your eyes, they can tell you you’re closing your eyes. Your argument holds no inherent power, your pathos is nothing but empty rhetoric built up on the doctrine of suffering as the core of what constitutes evil, itself an ethical claim which anyone can freely deny without making any metaphysical claim of their own.

You are simply bound by your values, reason, cares and your very flesh. The same thing which tells you life is horror also tells you not to kill yourself. And that same body which can tell you life is horror tells others that life isn’t horror, or that horror isn’t bad. Fundamentally you are in bondage to your humanity as are all men.

>>17694819
The average /lit/ person already knows about Hermes and 'as above, so below'. You have no right to act enlightened when your whole schtick about 'the joys of perceiving the female forms' is essentially a thoroughly unenlightened hedonism, exactly the mindset which the Ancients have been rising above and vanquishing.

Bump

>>17694868
I am pointing towards the metaphysical arguments that people used in all ages to justify their act of procreation. I agree with you that man is split in two and this is where I think the core of problem lies and I blame the consciousness. Ligotti describes it perfectly:
>There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be.

I consider myself a failed believer who wanted more than what I could observe.

>>17694878
Utter nonsense proven to be so by everyone who isn't a literal homosexual. Go fuck boipussy like your ancients did.

>>17695004
I understand that it must be hard news to realise that your secret club is actually not secretive at all, but that your lashing at me demonstrates your stage of initiation, or rather that you have never been initiated. Besides, what are you even trying to call nonsense - the very group you were so smarmy about exactly one post ago? In any case, Seethe, Cope and Dilate, Simp.

>>17695069
Solid diversionary ad hominems my guy. Unfortunately you're still clearly a homosexual. Either that or you don't understand the difference between appreciation and simping. Do you look at a bird in flight and think to yourself
>I could never simp for such a majestic creature
? Do you look at the sistine chapel and go
>finding this beautiful is hylic behavior
?

>makes antinatalists and incel seethe just by existing
goddammit I LOVE women

>>17694988
I’ve read ligotti and I’ve read a good deal of pessimist philosophers because I find aesthetic pleasure in their melancholy.

>I am pointing towards the metaphysical arguments that people used in all ages to justify their act of procreation.

Sure and I’m saying this isn’t even essential, you can literally just be an egoist or an animal and say you don’t care. Your Will is all that matters.

>I agree with you that man is split in two and this is where I think the core of problem lies and I blame the consciousness.

I’ve read ligotti on this, I found the detour about zen pretty funny if my memory serves me right. I would say by consciousness all that is really meant is higher intellect, awareness and that this question of intellect is entirely dependent on values and virtues. Sure you can say that your higher intellect points to suffering, but I can point to men or extreme intellect such as abhinavagupta; Nietzsche, Hegel and many others who did not view suffering and evil in the same way or they believed there is an inherent pleasurable aspect of life. I know this sounds relativist and I know that by its definition lessens the value of your view, but it really ultimately does come down to the axiomatic values of which man doesn’t hold much control over, as they are most often entirely built out of his Raw passions and modified by his society, his family, his upbringing and certain knowledge.


>something to save you

This in itself assumes there is something to save.

>there is something to do

See my write up above about Heidegger and various forms of Buddhism and Zen and so forth. You don’t have to accept there is something to do or you can formulate that subjectively there is something to do.

>there is somewhere to go

See above

>there is something to be

See above

>there is someone to know

See above.

As for uselessness, Use is defined by what something does. The use of being is to be, the use of particular beings is dependent upon what they do and whether that meaning of what to do is based on their relation to the material conditions of reality, their passions or their spiritual beliefs or otherwise is entirely dependent on the individual.

If you’re a failed believer, put your nose to the grind stone of your religion of choice and practice mysticism until you induce mystical states if that is what the Will in you hungers for.

>>17695088
Your are supposed to supersede those objects and appreciate majesty and beauty in general. Anything less is for simps. Read the Platonic dialogues, any and all of them.

>>17694249
I think ethics has its limits, and I think this is the limit. Even if not having a kid is the wrong thing to do, we're never gonna fuckin stop, so this doesn't seem like the right hill to die on.

Is giving all your surplus income and giving it to the poor the right thing to do? Yes, it is, but neither of us do that, nor does anybody else, so there's really no point in going around telling people to do so.

Is it wrong to be complicit in the industrial slaughter of animals just for humans pleasure? Yes, and I still do that.

If bringing a baby into the world is equivalent to murder, then call me a fuckin murderer, because I just don't give a shit

Everybody knows antinatalists are right.
Move on, edgelords.

>>17695143
Hence my appreciation for the female form in general, and not certain women

>>17694284
Children don't exist before they're born. You cannot feel love for something that doesn't exist
>>17694316
I thought being old and senile is a great punishment though

See this is what I mean when I say it has nothing to do with metaphysics
>>17695158
Anon You’ve proven my point, you can knock down this anti-natalist argument by simply saying “ I don’t care” or “I will do as I please” and it falls right down.

>>17695101
>Procreation/sex

You're a nigger.

>>17695162
>I enjoy looking at pretty girls in the street. And were it only for this, I am glad to be alive.
Clearly, you simp for certain women, pretty women, and so do not appreciate the female form in general. Why do you lie about things which can be verified in the same thread?

Why do antinatalists and pessimists assume that the sheer fact that human life is mainly boredom, and in minor parts fullfillment and suffering means its not worth it? If only thing that matters is joy wouldnt drug addicts be happiest people on earth
Really only antinatalist argument worth consideretion is that human race is abomination and its too intelligent to exist

>>17695197
I didn't make that post tho.

>>17695211
It's the type of post you would make, so the point still stands. Or are you willing to maintain that you appreciate pic related and pretty women equally by the sole virtue of their 'female form'.

>>17695104
>abhinavagupta; Nietzsche, Hegel
Two of them had metaphysical beliefs. And Nietzsche was a naive romantic and Cioran was right about him when he said "What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed."

>If you’re a failed believer, put your nose to the grind stone of your religion of choice
I agree with Cioran that one is born with or without faith.

>>17695179
By this logic you can dismiss literally EVERY philosophical position.

>>17694249
If that was so, humanity will cease to exist.
>x00 pages of braindead ramblings refuted by a few words
the absolute state of antinatalicucks

>>17695266
She has a good looking nose, if she weren't morbidly obese I might find her attractive. Again you seem to conflate different activities. Appreciating the female form in general is not simping for all women is not saying
>all women are queens
You fucking imbecile

>>17695268
>Two of them had metaphysical beliefs.

So what? They were highly intelligent and held differing conceptions of virtues and values. Your value and metaphysical conceptions don’t hold any particular importance over anyone else’s except on a subjective level. I can easily point once more, to the animals, to the uneducated who don’t care, to egoists, to absolute adherents of freedom such as de Sade.

>And Nietzsche was a naive romantic

Naive according to who and what? Your views? He’d mock your beliefs as much as you mock his, why is your subjective cares on a pedestal while you peddle your minority belief that life and reproduction is bad?

>and Cioran was right about him when he said

I’d rather believe Nietzsche’s views on his own views than someone who claims everything he said was a lie, since you know, he dedicated his life to it and lived his life in that manner. I can just as freely say every pessimist and anti-Natalist is a liar for they do not go and hunt children and annihilate themselves when they get the chance.


> "What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.”

The same letters where he claims to be Dionysius, the crucified one, still a Genius and lives fighting against his life’s struggles without ever contradicting his vision by giving up you mean?

>born with or without faith

I disagree, you can induce religious experience and this is scientifically demonstrable.

>>17695289
Yes you can dismiss the vast majority of philosophical systems by application of skepticism and Phenomenology and ice cold analysis and then you’re left with nature as it is, surely this is the superior philosophy for those who reject metaphysics and believe what is material and emotional is best. Reduce things down to what is actual and cannot be destroyed. Why wouldn’t you desire to do this?

>>17695293
>She has a good looking nose, if she weren't morbidly obese I might find her attractive
Simp Department? Yeah, I think I've discovered patient zero.

>>17695289
Let me make clear. You can annihilate these systems by means of analysis or by Raw will/desire. If you wanted to be absolutely truthful to your cold reason you would apply the above cold skepticism: if you want to abide in your will you can do as you please. Yes this destroys the vast majority of philosophical systems, so what? This is the nature of the world according to cold analysis.

>>17695367
t. literally doesn't understand the difference between simping and appreciating

>>17694249
Here's an easy refutation for the natalists out there:

1. Almost everybody says they're gad to be alive, even the poor and miserable.
2. If people were not glad to be alive, then suicide rates would be a lot higher, as it is remarkably easy to kill yourself.
3. If you're not in a situation where someone can give consent, as in the case of an unconceived child, then you have to rely on hypothetical consent.
4. Given points 1 and 2, almost all unconceived children hypothetically consent to being alive.

If you do not approve of the idea of hypothetical consent, then consider the following:
You see a woman faint while standing on some train tracks, you're standing nearby, and a train is coming. 99% of people would consider it their duty to carry this woman off of the train tracks, because she hypothetically consents to not being killed by a train. All ethical wordplay aside, if you don't consider it your duty to carry her off of the train tracks, you're a horrible person.

>17695370
Do us a favor and take off your trips then off yourself

>>17695407
*glad

>>17695415
Frater is the only tripfag worth a damn

>>17695415
Anon, I’m not the one who’s longing for non-being and annihilation, i quite like life. I would rather you don’t follow the rational end of your philosophy, I would rather you not kill yourself. But I do not hate this world nor myself. I cannot speak for you on that regard.

>17695440
If he did he would not be tripfagging

>>17695332
Yes you're right. it is a subjective analysis and different cultures/nations/people follow different code of ethics. Mainländer disagreed with Leopardi when he said that have children is a crime while Mainländer himself was creating an esoteric system for justifying suicide. But I do think that a group of voidgazing sadbois like me exist everywhere.
Every person follows a unique phenomenological self model, some people call it an individual Will according to which he lives his life.
For me I will just go with Cioran's philosophy of total failure, pessimism, skepticism, pride, mysticism and contradiction.

Sorry for cherry picked responses.

>>17695482
>Yes you're right. it is a subjective analysis and different cultures/nations/people follow different code of ethics.

Pretty much but I believe ethics fundamentally is based on the ideas and virtues one selects and this again for most people isn’t a rational decision but inherent to the structure of their care. It can be changed with enough contemplation and will and reasoning and aesthetic training though in my opinion.

>Mainländer disagreed with Leopardi when he said that have children is a crime while Mainländer himself was creating an esoteric system for justifying suicide.

The only fun part i find in mainlander is the soteriological bent to it which is done I think a bit better in Julius Bahnsen‘s work because he basically identifies the Will with the contradiction in being which is the heart of the dialectic, which would identify the only real annihilation of the contradiction and will with the total completion of Being.


>But I do think that a group of voidgazing sadbois like me exist everywhere.

I mean you don’t have to, I posted above a bunch of methods to go around this, even just the aesthetic method of release is fine really. If it displeases you and lowers your quality of life and you do fundamentally wish to continue life, why not strive to change it?

>Every person follows a unique phenomenological self model, some people call it an individual Will according to which he lives his life.

Will, Care in the Heideggerian sense and desire are basically all the same in this context, by this regard the Buddhists have done much more work on the topic of suffering, annihilation and so forth and they’ve largely in my opinion have evolved in most forms past a basic life denial while intellectually interacting with all of these concepts in a mature fashion.


>For me I will just go with Cioran's philosophy of total failure, pessimism, skepticism, pride, mysticism and contradiction.

I cannot help but see this as partially an aesthetic choice, even though I know much of aesthetics roots in ethics. You can have these aesthetic elements and values but admix and modify them in a way that satisfies the entirety of your Care if you so desire it.

>Sorry for cherry picked responses.

It’s fine friend.

>>17695455
>dying is the same as never being born
its all the same natalist bullshit. have kids first in ignorance and justify it with a billion mental gymnastics

>>17695667
It has nothing to do with ignorance, I’ve studied your pessimist literature and I simply disagree. I don’t hate life you do. And I don’t care one bit for pleasure/suffering calculation. Pathos means nothing to me. In the materialist view There is no meaningful difference to between you annihilating yourself and you never being born besides that brief moment of being alive. As much as you hate to admit it, you value life and living.

>>17694311
The fact that the bottom half quotes Cicero in stead of Theognis is a fucking crime.

For man the best thing is never to be born,
Never to look on the hot sun's rays,
Next best, to speed at once through Hades' gates,
And lie beneath a piled-up heap of earth. (425-8)

>>17695540
I don't want to go into personal details due to which I find some comfort in pessimism. I am too prideful and fearful to believe in something beyond myself(which the science says, is nothing but a constructed model in response to shitty feedback).
I have read Zapffe's essay in which he described the ways people use cope with being alive and it was similar to your methods. But those doesn't resonate with me and I see everything as an unnecessary puzzle to solve. Everything is just way too confusing and I envy people like you who have deep understanding of things. I don't know anything anymore. Before starting my "philosophical journey" at least I had a personal God. But now I don't feel it anywhere. And then the problem of evil is a pretty big question mark too. Still the problem of God and contemplation on death are omnipresent in my life.
Does anything exists besides pain and contradiction?

>>17695667
How is it not? Not tryna be condescending I'm genuinely curious. It's just nonexistence acquired by different means

>>17694249
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR NATURE! WHAT IF BAD THING HAPPENS TO YOUR KID?
Don't care, the siren call of fertile pussy refutes your whole philosophy.

>>17695703
of course i do, but only because i live. i dont like suffering. dying is a process that requires much suffering. i know that you like life, and so you live, but how do you make the jump to imposing life onto someone that might potentially not like life (because of suffering) and either be forced to endure it or be forced to kill themselves and experience even more suffering?
>>17695748
dying involves suffering. not being born doesnt.
>>17695779
not caring and going for the pussy are valid arguments. the problem arises when people pretend to care

I'm not.

>>17695738
>I don't want to go into personal details due to which I find some comfort in pessimism.

Understandable, if you were to abstract and remove the question of your empirical identity do you think you’d still value what you value? How much of your values would you say are dependent on your history?

>I am too prideful and fearful to believe in something beyond myself

Once more, humans can and do constantly change with time.

>(which the science says, is nothing but a constructed model in response to shitty feedback).

Really depends there’s a ton of work on global religious experiences all of which are deeply fascinating and far more nuanced than simply bad feedback.

>I have read Zapffe's essay in which he described the ways people use cope with being alive and it was similar to your methods.

Ive read him also, I do not mean to offend when I say I also see in him not really much beyond pathos stacked atop pathos.

>But those doesn't resonate with me and I see everything as an unnecessary puzzle to solve.

This is probably the major conflict in your being, there’s only a problem to solve if there’s a meaning and teleological nature to being, this suggests on some level you probably do believe in some metaphysical aspects (even if just on the level of your passions and subconscious drives) which are causing the major conflict against this nihilism you currently hold.


>Everything is just way too confusing and I envy people like you who have deep understanding of things.

Just cut off your emotions and study coldly; not because of some existential crisis but because you value the knowledge. You’ll understand what you desire to understand many times easier like this.

>I don't know anything anymore. Before starting my "philosophical journey" at least I had a personal God. But now I don't feel it anywhere.

So change that, you clearly do want a personal god and teleological meaning behind actions. Rev up that Christian (of your preferred religion) mysticism, practice daily. If nothing matters whatsoever and you feel this inclination why shouldn’t you try? You’ll waste your time with beautiful writings and beautiful aesthetic experiences? Oh no!

>And then the problem of evil is a pretty big question mark too.

I mean I disagree and could go into a long essay on it but I don’t really believe this Is about the question of evil, nor is this thread the right place.

>Still the problem of God and contemplation on death are omnipresent in my life.

So take the turn, embrace the mystical life, make the experience of God a daily reality, inflame yourself.

>Does anything exists besides pain and contradiction?

Sure, literally everything else in existence, you’ve just decided to place pain and contradiction in the center of your care.

>>17694249
>moral objectivism

>>17695824
>of course i do, but only because i live. i dont like suffering.

In your view life and suffering are almost synonymous.

>dying is a process that requires much suffering.

Oh come on, we’re both adults on 4chan we both know all of the popular ways of inducing painless suicide.

>I know that you like life, and so you live, but how do you make the jump to imposing life onto someone that might potentially not like life

1= because my like of life is not dependent on suffering nor on my pleasure in life, thus the amounts of these changing will never matter to me in my calculation.

2=I believe my Will and morality is superior to all that is not me, because I am a subject and I embrace fully my identity and will, logically meaning I should make any other Will I possibly can adhere to my own in accordance to my own cares.

3=I believe in a morality that is in my belief fully objective due to my religious and phenomenology beliefs which you may fully disagree with.

Simply put, the Will of the child doesn’t matter in the Least, know also you’re speaking to a Gypsy. In my culture we buy and sell children if we so desire and we buy and sell them also into marriage with the partners we so select without consideration of their Will. I do not value freedom. (at least not freedom in the sense you believe in.)

On all levels, my creative Will is to myself justified.

>>17694249
I'm neither a utilitarian nor a hedonist, so even if a life suffering is a legitimate possibility (or even probability) I don't really care.

>>17695887
>Oh come on, we’re both adults on 4chan we both know all of the popular ways of inducing painless suicide.
youre intentionally thinking much too simplistically. we are wired to not want death. even the idea causes pain, no matter how much pain we are in by living. our helpless empathy with all those around us who would suffer in the case of our death is only more suffering for us. the choice is between suffering and even more suffering.

i wish you had made your dogmatic foundation more clear. there is no point in arguing if that is where you are coming from. i have no argument against your beliefs. i personally believe parenthood and material existance to be evil. i see no point in arguing further. i like gypsy jazz

>>17696026
>youre intentionally thinking much too simplistically.

My argument is that humans value what they care about in terms of Will and animal passions and reason, and that the same hard wiring which tells you the thought of death is painful is the same one which can be used to reduce your stance to nothing at the individuals will and desire.

>we are wired to not want death. even the idea causes pain, no matter how much pain we are in by living. our helpless empathy with all those around us who would suffer in the case of our death is only more suffering for us. the choice is between suffering and even more suffering

Again, according to your pathos based argument and your calculation, I can subjectively decide suffering doesn’t matter, I can decide that pleasure is worth a million times more than a moment of pain, I can simply hold different axiomatic values.

> i wish you had made your dogmatic foundation more clear.

My point is that everyone is an adherent to the natural impulses, virtues, values, reason and animal nature which pervades them. Everyone is dogmatic to their own belief and values. The anti-natalist and anti life argument is based entirely on value and value calculations and thus the second you transgress the dogmatic belief of the all-important suffering calculation, it simply stops mattering.

>there is no point in arguing if that is where you are coming from. i have no argument against your beliefs.

But this is my point, everyone’s beliefs derive from their values, you need not be I, you can be any of the type of men I mentioned in the thread and disagree for foundational reasons.

>i personally believe parenthood and material existance to be evil.

Yes because at a base level beyond argument you simply believe that is the case, just as easily as you can claim absolute belief in this calculation as an axiom, so also can others disregard it.

>>17695850
Claiming that I will still believe in same values would be a lie because I can't really experience this. The condition of "I" is omnipresent in everything which a person does in his life.
I am coming from a Muslim background but I love to read about early Egyptians monks due to their conflict with their "I" and becoming one with God. And the Christian saints(due to the suffering they faced) that Cioran references in his writings. I can't help but find Quietism because of me being extremely passive from past few months. But sadly all this is for the sake of day dreaming larping and nothing more.
I like what UG said about mystical experiences, he questioned that do these experiences exist without the knowledge of the experiences?

Also I am feeling very narcissistic about making this conversation "I" centered.

>>17696103
>Claiming that I will still believe in same values would be a lie because I can't really experience this.

Really depends on what you mean by experience, most people don’t know themselves very well, what they truly believe. Especially due to over-socialization, media influence, raw integration of other people’s thoughts and so forth.

What you need is to stop rumination and begin contemplation. Get to the bedrock of your own identity and values.

>The condition of "I" is omnipresent in everything which a person does in his life.

And yet half of the I is hidden in the other.

>I am coming from a Muslim background but I love to read about early Egyptians monks due to their conflict with their "I" and becoming one with God.

What is this but a hunger, a will and a valuation? This hunger should be enough to try it.

>And the Christian saints(due to the suffering they faced) that Cioran references in his writings. I can't help but find Quietism because of me being extremely passive from past few months. But sadly all this is for the sake of day dreaming larping and nothing more.

It’s only larping and day dreaming if you keep it a fantasy and do not put in the effort to truly live and experience like this. If it is your fantasy, why not? What is there to lose?


>I like what UG said about mystical experiences, he questioned that do these experiences exist without the knowledge of the experiences?

I mean on a scientific level we can literally produce devices which induce them on a neurological level. So yes.

And ah, don’t worry if it’s the topic of your own particular belief, I would say you’ve gone this far down the rabbit hole. Why not go further? Read and practice something like molinos spiritual guide if you’re into Christian quietism and want a practice. See what happens in your mind and perception if you allow yourself to go down this rabbit hole. Your life is already all pain and contradiction, what do you have to lose?

>>17696081
true, i am a moral relativist. i was arguing based on feelings, which i believe all ethics are ultimately found upon. not caring is a valid option. all i can say is, i personally find your thinking to be deprived of humanity while being technically rational. you have proven yourself to be not of the ignorant kind but of the apathetic kind.

>>17696172
>i was arguing based on feelings, which i believe all ethics are ultimately found upon.

I disagree, while it may be for others, I myself have a structured system of ethics based on a calculation of the relationship of Dasein and Sosein and their gradual unfolding relationships. And in this same regard since I hold such an ethics so divided from emotions I Logically believe humans may very well reformulate their values in accordance with contemplation, aesthetic training whether propaganda or self induced(think in an Aristotelian sense.)

>not caring is a valid option. all i can say is, i personally find your thinking to be deprived of humanity while being technically rational.

The only part of humanity I value is the rational and intellectual aspects and how these relate to knowledge. I see aesthetics as more or less the meeting ground for the sensual desires and animal impulses with the ideal and for this reason a means by which the ideal may through the beautiful subjugate the animal. You may see this as non-human but I see it as the most human thing possible, as this is what lifts us above the other creatures, our rational nature.

>you have proven yourself to be not of the ignorant kind but of the apathetic kind.

Eh that’s fine, I’ve never found pathos based arguments appealing and wouldn’t want to find them appealing.

>>17696160
Thanks a bunch for briefly responding. This is a lot to think about.
My weariness is very strong so these attempts will take some time. Honestly I do cry sometimes for the self destructive extreme love of those monks, maybe it's because of Cioran's use of Christian mysticism aesthetics? I don't know.

>>17696348
I say just go for it, you have the emotion force and will for it, you’re in a mental state where nothing really matters any more and all is suffering. There’s nothing to lose. You can begin slow, read Molinos spiritual guide or similar. Pray and contemplate. Study. I know I might seem like I’m pushing it but, if this is your will why should you not experience this part of your life? Good luck anon.

>>17694331
That's not the argument, if antinatalists themselves have yet to kill themselves, do they see something valuable in life afterall?

>>17694249
No amount of coping will ever solve that abiding to their own philosophy negative utilitariarists and anti-natalist should kill themselves as soon as possible if not strictly genocide the human race

>>17696372
I'll defiantly look deeply into Quietism.
Thank you.

>>17694346
>preachy "I know what's best for you" faggotry from an evolutionary defect

Seething is hard here.

>>17694336
High test image

>>17696421
yes, that is the logical conclusion if one is retarded and cannot arrive at logical conclusions.

>>17695440
t. ass sniffer

>>17696748
well then what is the logical conclussion of a philosophy that claims that the goal of humanity is preventing suffering other than the cessation of life? they themselves claim that living is suffering and not reproducing is good because you won't bring more suffering to this world. if i kill an infant i can prevent around 80 years of pain and therefore is morally right.

>>17694249
I'm amazed to see something as good as Sarah Perry here, her blog, the view from hell on archive.org is sublime.

She likes knitting too.

>>17698465
>She likes knitting too.
Comfy.

Reminder that Jesus Christ (SWT) solved every moral dilemma—philosophically and pragmatically (through the line of His resurrection and conquering of the dualistic system of equal bounds of chaos and order)—over 2000 years ago.

>>17694409
ass

>>17698544
what were Christ's thoughts on homosexuality. Tell me, without pointing to the Father, what specifically Christ taught us about homosexuals.

>>17694364
What if I'm a pro-natalist accelerationist?

>>17697154
Suicide would cause suffering for the person's family and would prevent the person from spreading the antinatalist philosophy. Killing a baby would obviously cause suffering for its family. If everyone died at once in a global nuclear holocaust though, that would be great and perfectly in line with antinatalism. This is the only way antinatalism could ever succeed at achieving its goal, and antinatalists should stop being pussies and start calling for the nukes to fly already. I support it.

>>17694409
Ass

This has nothing to do with antinatalism but I want to say that I've read the conversation between Frater and the anon and I found it to be just an unintelligible pile of words without any meaning, like if someone wrote something in such a way as to confuse anyone who's try to read it.

I'm never read anything related to philosophy, but if this is the kind of stuff that's inside them then I think I'll give philosophy essays a pass, they're clearly not for me. I'll just stick to my genre fiction and history books.

>>17695101
HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA HUMMINA
AWOOOOOOOOOOOGA

>>17695729
I chose that because people like to onions over Cicero. Theognis is less recognisable to brainlets.