/lit/ - Literature

>>23412645
No such thing. Creating/writing is insipidly life affirming.

>>23412645
Schopenhaur. Cioran.
>>23412655
Wrong.

>>23412682
>Schopenhaur. Cioran.
Life affirmers.
>Wrong.
Wrong

>>23412762
>Life affirmers
Proof? Both were anti-natalists.

>>23412645
Nietzsche

>>23412827
You were wrong about Schopenhauer. He wasn't an anti-natalist he just merely advocated denying the will.
He is life affirming in the peace it gives you

>>23412827
Well Schopenhauer was not positively an antinatalist. We can read him as a pessimist. There is a lot of joy in bitching about things and comiserating, and ultimately it does nothing to deny life. If Schopenhauer was serious about life denying he would have used his business connections to manufacture advanced guillotines that would help populations negate life, but he wasn't, he was an insipid life affirmer just like everyone is.

>>23412645
Ligotti
Laiseca
Cioran
Schoppy
Zapffe
Gómez Dávila
Mainlander

P.D. GIT GUD

>>23412875
This

>>23413065
>Mainlander
That is the only credible one listed itt so far. It only took ten attempts, which is in itself insipidly life affirming. Congratulations.

Fichte
Derrida
Bentham
Christianity
Buddhism

>>23412645
Kazinsky

>>23412892
>>23413051
Not being born is not the same as death. Just because he doesn't actively advocate for antinatalism doesn't mean he doesn't consider birth to be a negative.
>If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?

>>23413664
>Buddhism
>life-denying
Low IQ

>>23413692
According to Nieztsche.

My diary.

>>23413692
It literally says souls aren’t real you cretin. Stop getting your information on Buddhism from 30 year old single women.

>>23412655
How?