/lit/ - Literature

>>22827925
Because no one bothered to give it any serious consideration to begin with.

>>22827935
Why not?

>>22827946
Because the entire premise is retarded.

>>22828007
Why is it retarded? I’m assuming you have no answer to this and you just want to vomit your opinion to the world because you are lonely

>N-no, I'm serious. life is hell
>Y-yeah I wrote a book about my philosophy and I'm still alive
>My philosophy is that life is hell. Read my book. It's important.
kek

>>22828055
Woah, that’s a kekerino right there frfr

>>22827925
Its a self refuting philosophy. Ending suffering can only have value in the presence of human conscious. Without humans, lack of human suffering is meaningless.

>>22828088
Meaninglessness is unproblematic in the absence of those who desire it, so everything is solved.

>>22828225
so why not just kill yourself then? Every single nihilist suddenly loves life when it comes to killing themselves

>>22827925
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder.

>>22828255
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists 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)

>>22828255
Anti-natalists 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.

>>22827925
>early life section
Every single time

>>22828251
Antinatalism is an ideology and therefore not nihilistic.

>>22828255
Pat Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews:
>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 literally 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.

Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews:
>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 literally 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.

>>22828269
im sure you can imagine a nihilistic ideology, but i also dont think that antinatalism is an ideology

>>22828225
Never said meaninglessness is problematic. My goal is not to avoid meaninglessness. Its to show that the core value anti natalism is based on, i.e. removal of human suffering has no meaning if there are no humans. Reduction of suffering can only matter if there are humans to give meaning to that suffering.

Therefore the end goal of anti-natalism is a meaningless, pointless, valueless universe which is contradictory to the value that human suffering is bad, since by making that claim you are assigning meaning to suffering. Hence anti-natalism is contradictory.

Q. E. D.

>>22828288
I can’t, value system and nihilism are incompatible. Antinatalism is definitely an ideological stance. From a nihilistic perspective there would be no way to argue against childbirth for ethical reasons.

>>22828291
Read Benatar’s asymmetry argument it’s perfectly coherent.

>>22828292
ideology does not just describe value systems. normative and evaluative claims can be pushed by functional arms of ideology to develop value systems, but that does not encapsulate the whole of ideology.
what makes antinatalism specifically an ideology over just a set of beliefs? If there is not a good answer then we should reserve the word ideology for when it actually is called for.

>>22828294
>asymmetry argument

The idea that human life may have more suffering than pleasure does not counter my point.

>>22827925
>How has Benatar’s mind child made it to adulthood without any serious refutation?
It was refuted by David Pearce.

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

>>22828306
That’s not the asymmetry argument, at least read wikipedia if you’re gonna discuss thinkers you don’t understand

>>22828312
You can post it yourself instead of acting like a little bitch

>>22828311
Best one I’ve heard so far desu. Antinatalism is kind of like the anprims and tedfags or even commies or lolbertarians for that matter. All diagnosis no realistic solution.

>>22828349
>the human population MUST keep expanding rapidly until the earth is unlivable!
>why? Because this “owns” the anti-natalists!
Do you realize how retarded that sounds?

>>22827925
You don’t refute ethical claims because the basic tenets of all ethical systems aren’t founded in reason

>>22828288
>i also dont think that antinatalism is an ideology
It is and you can tell by the way its structured and how people who adhere to it fail to address valid alternatives when they "respond" to criticism.

>>22828629
>he must use a basedjak drawing to win a debate

>>22828644
>debate
Lol

>>22827925
Because it can be refuted by a meme
>Okay, kys then

>>22827925
qrd?

>>22828629
False dichotomy. Dualism doesn’t exist beyond conventionality.

>>22828763
>I'm copy/pasting the below from a previous thread
Anti-natalism isn't complicated, anon. There are basically two core arguments you have to contend with: the asymmetry argument and the quality of life argument. The asymmetry argument is flawed methodologically (it can't be proven; even Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true") and the quality of life argument is subjective (and when you take into account the proclivity anti-natalists have toward mental illness and personality disorder the fact their conclusions are rooted in their bias becomes obvious).

The real problem is that anti-natalism is so simplistic at its core that it's easy to become ideologically possessed by it. I didn't go into detail above but you can give well-thought out reasons to reject the asymmetry argument and anti-natalists will just retreat to asserting it's basic form which is tautological. You can explain the subjectivity of the quality of life argument but anti-natalists with just do one of two things: they'll insist that it's objective without responding to detailed arguments as to why it's subjective and/or minimize its importance in regard to their position as a whole (note that for the latter you can also make a good faith argument as to why it's central to accepting their conclusion and they will just insist it is not without directly addressing what you say).

That's the problem with these threads. When you have a discussion with an anti-natalist you're speaking to someone who has self-indoctrinated into an ideology they believe cannot be disproven. They won't allow the core principle to be directly criticized, they will deflect by insisting on their tautology while attempting to monopolize how outcomes related to it are to be interpreted. Even after you point out this behaviour to them they won't address it because ideologues are incapable of arguing in good faith. They get BTFO every single time they make one of these stupid threads but will always come back again and fall into the same insufferable pattern.

>>22828311
between the two options of either not reproducing or letting gov't program the very genetic wiring of your child, tell me which one is more horrifying.

antinatalism is inferior to aesthetics-based morality.

>>22828787
>your picrel
>no probability values

great so it's meaningless

>>22828681
Because cherry picked scenes of nature photographed during a sunny day totally outweighs the suffering that inherently characterizes the human condition!

>>22828997
go outside

>>22829003
not that anon, kindly asking you to try not to be human equivalent of a cancer cell in conversations.

>>22828787
so stupid, he hasn't read Epicurus.

>>22829015
can you stop thinking about cancer for 5 seconds antinatalists?

It's irrefutable. This is why we have a moral obligation as a species to prosper and develop exponentially until we have a complete understanding and mastery over the entirety of the universe and reality so we can determine all the places where life has developed or could develop and wipe it out, before finally being able to kill ourselves, thus ending all suffering forever.
Problem?

>>22828349

>>22829284
Based Emilsson enjoyer

>>22827925
I havent read it. Is this where Pizzalatto got the Rusts philosophy in True Detective

>>22829486
>I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight - brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

>>22829486
Think he was more inspired by Ligotti.

Ligotti is more intellectually honest in that he freely admits it’s all just feels in the end. He’s expressing his horror rather than pretending at objectivity.

>>22828251
I tell myself I bare witness. But the real answer is that it’s obviously my programming, that and I lack the constitution for suicide.

>>22828251
>>22828755
>>22829502
Pic related was an antinatalist and actually killed himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/

>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.

>>22829936
I'd be antinatalist if I looked like that, too.

>>22827925
he thinks that only Israelis can have children
https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2023-12-14-david-benatar-free-gaza-from-hamas/

>>22829936
He was just schizophrenic. Classic age for it to activate. Very sad, obviously a bright guy.

>>22828772
>failed to address the existence of valid alternatives in his "response"
>demands the acceptance of anti-natalist tautologies and a monopoly on their interpretation
Anti-natalists are ideologues with personality disorders who suffer from mental illness. They're defective people with a defective worldview.

>>22828088
Still unrefuted. Read the Bhagwat Gita and Tao te Chinclg

>>22827925
>two notions of “possible being”
>weakness of the “support asymmetries“
>crossing argumentation between absence/presence and existing/not-existing dualisms
>Benatar’s material argumentation-limits of the empiricist approach
>alleged independence between formal and material argumentation
https://www.docdroid.net/f6ZgicS/artigo-qualityhumanlife-pdf
It has been BTFO’D

>>22827925
>This book will be 18 years old next year. How has Benatar’s mind child made it to adulthood without any serious refutation?
Can't refute the self-evident truth. And why would people who are happy to exist even care? They should encourage us to end our lineages and existences.

>>22829936
How does one refute solipsism though? It’s not obviously insane.

>>22830584
simple. if you are not the ego then how can you create something you yourself don't even know about

>>22830613
How do you beat your heart?

>>22828251
Isn't that part of the suffering? The fear of ending it all, but at the same time being fated to suffer through waiting the inevitable. Antinatalism is applying "ignorance is a bliss" to sentient existence itself.

It's largely refuted by the fact almost nobody would have heard of it if it weren't spammed on /lit/. Do you think a worthwhile book would have to be spammed on /lit/ to gain any positive attention?

>>22830723
rupi kaur must be the epitome of poetry because all instawhores know about it. what a great argument

>>22828026
>you just want to vomit your opinion to the world because you are lonely
he wrote, on 4chan's /lit/

Moral statements aren’t truth-apt. Both sides are wasting their time bickering about feels and tastes. You might as well get heated about debating what the best flavour of ice cream is. Ethics are at worst delusional and at best just a cynical attempt to influence the thought and behaviour of others in your favour.

Start with the sophists.

>>22830834
Don't you think there's value in pin-pointing the underlying fee-fees? They're obviously different, but why?

>>22828997
>Because cherry picked scenes of nature photographed during a sunny day totally outweighs the suffering that inherently characterizes the human condition!
Correct. You have a worldview tainted by mental illness and you've indoctrinated yourself into an anti-life ideology due to a personality disorder.

>>22827946
Because it's pointless, anon.
His argument inevitably leads to the end of humankind -- because of an ethical issue!
It's the easiest thing to ignore.

>>22827925
Words are useless, action reveals one's true beliefs. Those who accept this kill themselves.

The serious refutation of this is made every day by someone who lives despite life's suffering.

>>22828681
yeah bro, so beautiful...

I am having serious philosophical debates about a lot of shit (for example, recently I wrote a paper about Neokantian ethics as it applies to animals as moral subjects, with focus on Korsgaards take on it, etc.).
But I refuse to engage with anti-natalism.
>why? U scared?
Why should I comment woke gendertrannies or Pepe-spamming Trump voters, by the same token? Some disciplines are just below what I consider a worthwhile time investment, and intellectually worthy.

Anti-natalism mostly stumbles in that I consider its proponents weak, weak bitches. You literally are just so limp-wristed. Oh, so according to your calculus (which I find breathtakingly naive, it's like a parody of the worst of 18th century utilitarianism) we accumulate more suffering than pleasure? Who gives a shit? Then life is partially about suffering. Again, and? And further? The argument lacks a connective, some conclusion. Elimination of suffering, or elimination of this supposed wellbeing/suffering imbalance, is not the be-all end-all. You have to elevate it to some axiomatic rule we should have no suffering at all. And what could be that rule?
>Axiom i): Anti-natalism considers that everyone is a weak bitch with absolutely no fight in themselves to prove the universe and entropy wrong.

>>22831873
I don't think that's a valid refutation since the only thing

>>22831876
See >>22828281. Pic-related literally drove David Benatar to having an emotional breakdown.

>>22828251
Whether you kill yourself or not is futile. Our perception of time is bound to repeat on an infinite coil.

>>22830865
Would be interesting to do research on where taste and preference come from I guess but that’s a huge if not impossible undertaking. Basically asking how does consciousness work.

>>22831999
since the only thing what?

>>22832123
life is also futile and yet you refuse to kys. Why do you choose one futile thing over the other?

Antinatalism contributes to suffering by simply existing
It goes against a basic human instinct that is present in many societies, antinatalism is probably one of the few that explicitly views it as a bad thing
The conflicting viewpoints and unlikely hood of ever being adopted widely leads to additional suffering via the clashing of ideas

Suffering is a subjective concept and not all suffering is equal
Different people have different interpretations of suffering, it's hard to deduce how someone may view their own life without them being born or present. We can assume based on circumstances.
The natural instinct to live and survive gives humanity the natural ability to look past their own suffering and find value

>>22832190
I find it a very interesting topic. Are some tastes and preferences more common together? Identifying and categorizing aesthetics feels very underrated as a research topic.

Only weak people are averse to suffering. Me, suffering makes me feel alive.

>>22832456
What’s the worst suffering you’ve underwent?

>>22832590
you mean which makes him feel more alive?

>>22832601
Based.

>>22828681
you just know the guy who made that image spends 90% of his free time inside and works in a factory or warehouse

>>22833433
>gainfully employed and spends his weekends outdoors
Wasn't the zinger you thought.