/lit/ - Literature

>>18831816
all of modern politics is the raping and warping of the past. ask them why they do it, for power and nothing else

>>18831816
>But why would anyone adhere to this code of ethics? Why destroy what we know of everything we know?
Pro-mortalism, anti-natalism, both share the goal of reducing or eliminating suffering, no? Presumably, an ethic of mass-forgetting could be employed under the pretense of preventing suffering by protecting the living from information that would increase our suffering.

Due to taste

>>18831884
Can be pro-mortalist and anti-natalist because you want to promote and maximise suffering as well. That can also be a moral motivation just as much.

>>18831816
>Hypothetically, there could be a set of ethics that would have us all kill our past.
The Enlightenment.

>>18831816
>But why would anyone adhere to this code of ethics? Why destroy what we know of everything we know?
Because it would clear the slate from the accreted waste of the past and give freedom to create something new without the entanglements and chains of what has been before. Machiavelli advises ambitious rulers to start a new religion to break from the past and found a new order cemented to them, within the half century after his death the Protestant Reformation happens. When the Saudis took the Kingdom of Hedjaz and the cities of Mecca and Medine they destroyed all the ancient tombs and buildings. The French Revolution declared a Year One that changed almost everything, including the calenders, from the Ancien Reigme. To various degrees communist governments have done the same, the Cultural Revolution attempted to erase China's past, the Khmer Rogue attempted to erase whole cities and the literate class to remake a nation.

The ethic is that territorialisation of the present and future depends on a deterritorialisation of the past. A higher the degree of territorialisation attempted, the greater the need and ethical duty for deterritorialisation of the past.