/lit/ - Literature

>>21958248
Logic isn’t the bedrock of anything. We have children simply because we want to and we can. You don’t want to have kids because you are inferior and you know this. But my life is great and I can’t wait to have children with even greater lives than mine

>>21958248
Wish I'd never been born, lads.

>>21958248
I wish your parents never had had children so we could be spared from suffering through this exact fucking thread every single day.

>>21958256
You'll spend your life trying to protect your children from harm when you could simply not bring them into this world in the first place. Your children will born crying because existence is a mistake.

>>21958248
logic can be used to rationalize anything. there is nothing rational about creating life but it would also be meaningless without it. the way i look at it your children should carry the torch that you set ablaze and make it glow brighter. of course if you don't have a torch to pass on then having children is indeed pointless and kind of sadistic. my parents were such people but if i ever have children i will give them a reason to live.

>>21958270
>You'll spend your life trying to protect your children from harm when you could simply not bring them into this world in the first place.
Yes.
>Your children will born crying because existence is a mistake.
factually incorrect

>>21958248
The planet and (long, long after) the universe will be die anyway. The suffering will inevitably end.

>>21958248
Who cares if your child dies? You can always make more.

>>21958248
>they go for a walk in the park
>interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved
>Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)
>Benatar starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.

>>21958384
Reminder: those who profess anti-natalist beliefs are more likely to suffer from personality disorders and mental illness.

>>21958386
While this doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact and are unworthy of discussion; it does add context to why autists continuously make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).

>>21958386
The antinatalists you'll encounter on this board are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.

>>21958256
ok so you have no argument. no point in arguing with you.
at least claim to be a Nietzsche fag and say something like "pain is le good actually".

Why isn't Benatar a promortalist? He just seems to be an autistic antinatalist because he created the term.

>>21958248
>Bringing children into this world full of misery, suffering and uncertainty is morally wrong.
If you are a bitch.

lit status: still utterly buck broken.

>>21958400
that’s the point. There is no objectively correct, logically verified solution to the problem of having children. I want to have kids, you don’t. There is no right or wrong here. We don’t even agree about the quality of life in the first place. I like life, you hate life. Don’t have kids if you don’t want to, I really don’t care. I actually encourage anti-natalism because it weeds out the weak. But you can never convince me that I shouldn’t have kids through a “logical” argument because when all is said and done, logic is only useful if it relates to your emotions and experiences. I WANT to have kids, so it is logical to have sex so that I might have them, etc.

>>21958406
he is, he says he would annihilate everything if he could.
he just says it in a way that doesn't bring the attention of politically correct snowflake leftists and antinatalists.

>>21958248
>>>/his/

look anon I don't want to sound rude, but take this shit to /his/ please. keep the /lit/ board for literature only. thanks

I can't wait to have kids.
This world is great. Bad things happen in my life but all in all I have a loving girlfriend, family, enough money, a roof over my head, hobbies, food, good friends and clean water just to name a few. Why wouldnt I want to bring a child into this world to share good things with them? Suffering is part of the human experience yes but so is joy and laughter and love and to me, those good things outweigh all the bad.
But each to their own I suppose.

>>21958422
aren't /lit/ and /his/ both supposed to be the philosophy boards?

>>21958438
/lit/ - literature
/his/ - history and humanities (that contains philosophy)

>>21958423
Well think beyond your family and friends. the world as a whole is shit. there might be small bubbles of good here and there, like your small community but outside of that it's hell.
one of the reasons the Roman empire used to justify their expansion was that the world was chaotic and hellish and that they could bring order and civilization to the rest of the world.
of course im not arguing here, just something to keep in mind and think about.

>>21958248
>be grug
>grug sad
>grug no perspective for the future
>grug meets wife
>grug now father
>mini grug needs to be taught everything grug knows
>mini grugs laugh fills grugs inner void
>grug finally happy
>mini grug is happy too
There's absolutely no rational argument as to why we should not have children. Everyone saying otherwise are just mentally retarded and their opinions are discarded.
/thread

>>21958248
>grug has penis
>grug makes child
>grug suffers and dies
>grug's child suffers and dies

truly a /lit/ conversation

>>21958248
Have you considered that some people, like myself, actually enjoy life and would rather be alive than dead?

If you don't like life, then kill yourself. The FACT that you have not implies that you on some level, would rather live then die

I was a pretty intense antinatalist when I was younger. Not so much anymore, I realized that the main issue I had was seeing so many horribly incompetent parents who set their offspring up for failure and suffering. There's still of course the issue that you could do everything "right" and still things go disastrously. Your children may develop horrible medical issues or be born with deformities and spend the majority of their life in immense suffering. Or your grand children or great grand children, etc could suffer as a direct result of you reproducing. Ultimately though, my main issue is that most breeders are selfish and stupid. Or at least the majority I've encountered.

>>21958248
You dumb bitch

>Philosophy revolves around truth, intellect, and literal use of language, whereas literature focuses on fiction, emotion, and metaphorical language. For this reason, philosophy never moves us to tears like some literature does.

go back to /his/ pls
>>>/his/

>>21958491
>Philosophy revolves around... literal use of language
Very low quality bait

>>21958417
>he says he would annihilate everything if he could
>won't even annihilate himself

>>21958473
Have you considered that I don't care about your phony happiness since it comes at the cost of someone or something else's happiness?

>>21958500
you don't know philosophy at all

>>21958505
It's not a zero sum game. Youre miserable, don't project this onto the world

>>21958505
> it comes at the cost of someone or something else's happiness
so does your pessimism
why haven't you killed yourself?

>>21958512
You can't walk in this life without stepping in someone else's shit.
a tasty steak comes at the cost of some underpaid worker that has to murder and smell blood and shit all day for you, and don't forget about cow, when the blade went through it's neck before it lost its consciousnesses.
and that's just one thing.

>>21958525

>>21958508
>dude what if there was a trolley and theres like 10 people on one track and 1 person on the other track and you're next to a lever and you can redirect it but one of the 10 people is a serial killer and another is a rapist and one is a doctor but if he survives he will go on to kill 4 people through malpractice and...
>imagine if we could measure happiness with this imaginary unit called "utils" but then theres this one guy who derives far more utility per resource than anyone else so then the most efficient distribution would be providing him with all resources at the expense of everyone else to maximize potential utils generated

Wow. Truly my eyes are opened by such riveting and literal discussion.

>>21958531
this belongs to /his/
you must go back
>>>/his/

>>21958531
philosophy - theoretical concepts
literature - fictional concept

if you don't understand that, then it's over

>>21958525
It's not zero sum. If someone cures luqueimia who are you going to say has suffered and how are you going to stack that against the thousands/millions of families that don't have to watch their children die from it

You sound like you're set in your view of the world as a miserable place, fine, I don't feel like trying to change your mind, but why are you trying to share your misery onto others? Do you not see how toxic that is?

>>21958535
The only posts on /his/ is religion based shitposting. No one discusses philosophy or history on that board. Take a look if you don't believe me.
>>21958539
Theoretical isnt literal, thougheverbeit.

>>21958554
I don't wanna take a look at that hellhole, I just want more literature related threads in /lit/ that's all anon, is it too much to ask

>>21958547
>>21958525
The idea that all pleasure comes at the expense of some proportional amount of suffering is worthless and also demonstrably untrue. That being said, there is a discussion to be had about the many cases where modern convenience does cause suffering and harm to others. You could even make an argument that modern society is a smaller group of people benefiting from the exploitation and suffering of others. But that's a bit overly simplistic

>>21958563
>and also demonstrably untrue.
Demonstrate please

I actually agree with antinatalist worldview and still want to have kids because of : 1) my biological imperative 2) my egoism 3) my fundamentally evil nature 4) my absolute unwillingness to adress fundamental contradictions in my worldviews and approach to reality 5) irrational and emotion-driven desire to create a family for myself and thus perpetuate the wheel of suffering and reincarnation 6) to spite the author of these fucking godawful threads, in no particular order.

Any questions?

>>21958583
no, just take a bullet from my Paintball Gun.

>>21958583
Will you tell your kids?

>>21958411
>incel

>>21958575
Someone tells me a joke and we both laugh and feel pleasure. Where was the proportional suffering? Isnt this mutually beneficial and at no expense to anyone else?
>but you guys are only alive because you killed animals
We're both vegetarians

>>21958406
>>21958417
>Promortalism is the hedonistic position that it is always better to die than to continue living.
Benatar does thinks that the state of the dead is better than the living but considers the obvious idea that without life there is no death. Death is part of life.
Futhermore, his argumentd go beyond hedonism and he does not support suicide. I don't think he's promortalist or at least not enterely.

>>21958575
NTA but I held the door for someone this morning and we both smiled at one another. If you want to extrapolate something like "WELL YOU BOTH WILL DIE ONE DAY!" out of that small but nice moment it just goes to demostrate your own mental illness and propensity toward negative ideation.

>there's absolutely no rational argument as to why we should have children.

Axiom: it is good to live and to continue biological existence of your genes
Method:reproduction continues your genes
thus: it is rational and according not o those with this moral axiom moral to reproduce.

Don’t like it? Too bad, your morality is based on axioms of suffering and pleasure which are arbitrarily decided with no basis in ontology, no religious or ideal root. Since you are allowed to take your pleasure and suffering axiom at the request of your feeling, you have no high ground against those who say “my feelings say breeding and existence are good”

You can say this is arbitrary and baseless, but it’s on equal ground as your ethics, the same ground as your foundational consideration of what you consider the judge of life’s value. Since you have nothing better, nothing better is needed to equal you.

That grug who says fucking is good is just as logical in the origin of his belief as you who says

“Grug feel pain bad,
Grug want die and no one live “

>>21958535
bro just use the filter settings. here are a bunch of starter words to use in the filter.
antinatalism natalist antinatalist natalism promortalism david benatar DAVID BENATAR David Benatar David BETAtar David Betatar promortalist promortal efilist efilism

>>21958690
Plants are also living beings.

>>21958719
Do they suffer? Does me eating an apple cause an apple tree to experience extreme distress?

>>21958248

>>21958256
Based beyond belief.

>>21958712
I kind of see where you're going with this, though im an antinatalist.
obviously it's not enough that we have different axioms we need to exchange ideas.
issue is you could use this to justify anything, the world wouldn't move anywhere if everyone used this way of thinking.
I'm saying here is what I think, what do you think? and why do you think we should just respect each others opinions and not do something about it? at the end only one of us is right. im not arguing on purely philosophical grounds.

>>21958718
kek, thanks anon

>>21958256
Yes, most people are satanic like you too.

>>21958256
>antinatalists seething
Based, anon.

>>21958712
>ontology
but my experience is ontological.

>>21958766
no problem natalist fag.

>>21958772
Your feelings and empirical experience do not dictate what is ought, at least not to any level that another’s feelings cannot equal and be made superior to by right of superior Will power. How you deriving an ought from an is my Nigga?

>>21958780
>existence IS suffering
>you OUGHT not have children
No you.

>>21958787
Suffering doesn’t have a moral value, whether life is suffering or not only matters if you presuppose it matters.

>life is Good
>thus you should continue life as much as possible

Your logic is just as empty and based on arbitrary preference as the above. You can easily take your experience of

>life has suffering

And End it there, nothing in that line inherently speaks of evil or good or what you ought to or even if you should relieve suffering, it’s no better than the statement

>the sky is blue

It’s just as without content or meaning, again you simply react with emotion, no better than the grug breeding.

>>21958248
>>21958809

>>21958727
I think there are no conclusive studies of it.
>B-BUT THEY DON'T HAVE BRAIN AND NERVOUS SYSTEM
Midwit

>>21958807
emotion or feeling or experience even when subjective isn't nothing anon. when a knife goes through your gut that's not nothing, as in that's not to be dismissed.
they can say that they feel good about having kids but what about the kid himself? how does he feel? and so on...

>>21958807
I'm a different anon who noticed you retreat towards hard skepticism as if it gives you a monopoly on assertions that can be made. The problem is that such damages your own truth claims just as much as it does his while underscoring you don't actually have a firm foundation upon which to base your arguments, hence the sleight of hand.

Basically, you can't sum the total of human experience nor can you demand that others maintain the same worldview as your own. You want us to affirm that suffering is assured, which is tautological, as if such should be the sole consideration of discussion. The reality is that the tautology is true but you don't have the standing to demand we consider it according to your assertions and demands (on top of that you have the fact antinatalists tend to be mentally ill and suffer from personality disorders--hardly the type of people one would want to yeild an ultimate discretion as arbiters of reality). It's the weight of the tautology that carries your argument, not the arguments you make in and of themselves--again, this is a sleight of hand that, once noticed, betrays the fact you don't actually have a real foundation for your argument. You can't weigh the sum total of human experience and the worldview which leads you to presribe absurdly extreme conclusions, one marked by depressive ideation and commonly propounded by those with personality disorders, is hardly credible.

>>21958820
You had no answer for this >>21958710. That event didn't cause any suffering at all and the fact is you have to retreat toward an (comically large in scale given the scenario) abstraction you can't actually even validate.

>>21958873
nta, it's not extreme to not create conscious people. it's literary the lack of action.

>>21958899
>ending all life isn't extreme conclusion
Retard.

>>21958907
I'm sorry you're the one doing Frankenstein experiments not me.

>>21958917
>passive actions can't be extreme
I didn't even have to get into thought experiements to prove that because advocating that life shouldn't exist is an extreme conclusion. Simple as. Cope.

>>21958945
>prove that
disprove*

>>21958945
I/we do nothing the species/me dies out. not good but not bad its neutral.
we/I keep reproducing we keeping adding both bad and some good. not good overall.

>>21958248
I'm a sadist, and people's suffering brings me pleasure far outweighing their pain. Problem, utilitarians?

>>21958987
youre not the target audience. any more than a turtle is.

>>21958961
>affirming the consequent
First, I'll point out that you aren't being passive as you're advocating a worldview for the sake of an outcome. You can't assert that the locus of action is such that your position is passive when it's directed toward a preferred outcome. Second, the cessation of all life is an extreme outcome to advocate toward. Simple as. Third, you're a retard.

>>21958994
Well unless you're genuinely concerned that antinatalism might cause extinction then you're wrong about the outcome, at best it's a loud minority.
another thing is that, extreme or not its not bad from the perspective of the antinatalist.

>>21958248
logic is weak.

>>21958873
> retreat towards hard skepticism as if it gives you a monopoly on assertions that can be made.

I fundamentally agree with husserl’s phenomenology it’s not a retreat, I bring it up because people assume their beliefs are solid but are easily smashed against the basic questioning of why, if we were discussing mutually agreed virtues or values or ontology I would have no reason to attack the basis of their belief, but why should I not attack them if I believe the foundation is weak?

>The problem is that such damages your own truth claims

Not really, it simply doesn’t given my own, if asked I can give my essays where I do derive my ethics and morality and foundation from phenomenological analysis with immunity to skepticism, specifically written in such a manner.


> Basically, you can't sum the total of human experience nor can you demand that others maintain the same worldview as your own.

Rather putting my model and justification is irrelevant when i am not the question, if you put your Belief up as a truth of existence you should expect others to strike it.

> the fact you don't actually have a real foundation for your argument. You can't weigh the sum total of human experience and the worldview which leads you to presribe absurdly extreme conclusions, one marked by depressive ideation and commonly propounded by those with personality disorders, is hardly credible.

If desired I’ll post the writings I’ve written on justifying my own ontological and moral beliefs, which while irrelevant, are what you’re asking for.