/lit/ - Literature

There should just be a sticky for the next couple of weeks covering basic existentialism, antinatalism, and cosmic horror.

Damn, the CIA sure got a lot of white people into anti-natalism recently.

This book probably sucks, but I bet it will reference the OGs of the idea: http://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265

As Cioran states: A book is a suicide postponed.

That is to say, all the real antinatalists are already dead and aren't writing books.

But you probably already know that.

>>4651668
CIA?

why?
Literally, what's the point?

>>4651738
>Literally
kek

>>4651659
Siddhartha Gotama
/thread

>>4651749
>not ligotti
not /thread

>>4651659

The books were always there for you to read. The media is allowing you to be "philosophical."

>>4651758
Just the theravada branch of the buddhist school has a main corpus that fills a bookshelf, not including all the commentaries and commentaries of commentaries, and it is not only entirely antinatalist, but has a fool-proof method to eliminate the possibility of being born.

>>4651765
is that all?

>>4651765
>I sure am one sad faggot
>I know I'll read books that tell me I'm actually some sort of autistic ubermensch instead of an unfortunate genetic hiccup
>God I wish I had the balls to kill myself but I'm such a wishy washy shit
>At least I can learn about the theory

>>4651673
That's a rather stupid argument. Anti-natalism is not necessarily against living, stricly speaking it's against reproducing. Writing books about how anti-natalism is the only reasonable answer to the world is certainly a better way to spread the idea than committing outright suicide. Cioran confirmed for whiny faggot.

Also, these
>>4651758
>>4651749

and late Tosltoy.

>>4651774
cool opinion bro

>>4651785
>tfw no gf guiz ;_;

>>4651787
see
>>4651785

>>4651797
>Stop being right, I'm trying to justify my retardation with three word shitposts

>>4651804
Have you taken up acting like a complete retard in AN threads as your life's mission?

there's a great argentinian philosopher, named Julio Cabrera, he talks about negative ethics, which are founded on the anti-natalist stance, i don't know if it's translated in english, but i know it's on pt-br and spanish

>>4651804
see
>>4651785

>>4651815
>tfw you only can read english
;_;

>>4651817
>I was only pretending to shitpost

Okay "bro". At what point did you faggots ascend from "tfw no gf" to "tfw other people have gf"?

>>4651814
>I don't have a point just like I didn't for 200 posts last time
>B-baka

There were like four people shitting on you idiots towards the end and I wasn't even one of them.

>>4651824
that's sad

he starts on the fact that all ethics are based on the fact that we want to live, and we want to be born, and then, by adopting an anti-natalist stance, he develops a new kind of ethic

Are anti natalism threads /lit/'s version of BANE?

>>4651827

>>4651824
duolingo.com
Get started. It won't take you the whole way, but what does?

>>4651834
That sounds pretty badass.

>>4651843
>Well I definitely don't have a GF and I sure AM one sad faggot...
>I'll prove him wrong by spamming my 90 image "b8.jpg" folder that I have for reasons that totally have nothing to do with autism

antinatalism is for the weak

>>4651851
1/10

>>4651857
substantiate your position

>>4651859
I like how this also implies you probably still post on /v/ in 2014. It's like I summoned some weird cheeto-beard egregore to derail a thread they apparently support.

>>4651824
and oh, he has an blog in english, google philosopherjuliocabrera, it`ll show, can`t pot the link

the best brazilian philosopher, for me, is Hilan Bensusan (he also has an blog, everything in english, called No Borders Metaphysics, he writes in german, french, english and pt-br

>>4651865
Step 1: Don't be a retarded faggot

>>4651870
1.5/10

getting better. still a F- tho

>>4651865
Compared to embracing the absurd, it's weak, if I had to guess.

>>4651878
So are we actually working together here? I sure hope you don't think me greentexting to derail this bitch while the timer runs out is you "epik trolling". But then again, /v/...

>>4651772
You won't make it through all of them before becoming disgusted with the absurdity of antinatalism (or natalism for that matter) anyway. Go ahead.

>>4651872
>I'm so cool guys, I know who this pygmy jungle-monkey shut-in is and where he keeps his blog
>He doesn't have a GF either

>>4651882
2/10

>>4651880
.5/10, penalty for duplicate troll

>>4651884
1/10

>>4651886
Racism isn't allowed outside of /b/.

Fair warning.

>>4651890
Tumblr, pls. No one likes niggers, not even you. Not even other niggers.

>>4651886
>>4651895
You must want a ban. Racism is a GUARANTEED ban on lit

Oy vey don't have kids it's very noble!

>>4651902
>ban
What? from the cyber-police? Reddit, pls go.

>>4651902
Cry me a river faggot I'm serving two consecutive bans from this board now.

>>4651905

>>4651884
quality post

[PULL IT]
S
H
U
T

I
T

D
O
W
N

>>4651919
So now that the shitposters are b&, can we resume discussion?

Shout out to baby bjork for cleaning out the scumfucks.

Check out some Ecclesiastes, OP.

>>4651929
You have no idea what you're talking about.

Friendly Reminder that everyone is equal but only white men should be anti-natalist

You guys are heros!

>>4651929
>scumfucks
>Being THIS from tumblr/srs

Does the realization that niggers are sub-human scum and you potentially are raising a mud-baby that everyone secretly shames you for fill you with blind fury?

>>4651929
same

>>4651936
Liked, sent ;)

Ebik breh

>>4651935
how are you so familiar with tumblr/srs

>>4651939
>How do you know that the two biggest sister-sites to 4chan are whiney social justice fags

I must be some sort of triple agent anon, you caught me.

>>4651931
1 So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter.
2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead, more than the living which are yet alive.
3 Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

>>4651943
I'm aware of that but I didn't know "scumfucks" was a word you people like to use

>>4651935
Racism is not allowed, stop making me warn you bro. :^)

>>4651951
what the fuck is going on here

>>4651957
how are you ban evading?

What do authors like Ligotti, Benatar and Cioran add to what Schopenhauer said?

>>4651944
Ecclesiastes ultimately says it's better to enjoy life despite its suffering, though.

>>4651964
Yes, once you're in it, you might as well try to enjoy. But that doesn't mean you aren't worse off than the dead and the unborn.

Bro why don't you be useful and go ban actual shitposters throughout the board since you're so active right now. We both know that I'm going to remain unbanned and not leave the board, regardless of your diaper-clad powertrip today.

Do you really think there are black people on the literature board? There aren't even black authors on this board.

>>4651966
I still think you are misinterpreting it. Jewish mysticism does not in any way advocate anti natalism

>>4651971
I wouldn't necessarily lump in Ecclesiastes with Jewish mysticism. Still, it's an interesting read either way and contains plenty of sentiments akin to antinatalist sentiments. Anyone interested in antinatalism should read Ecclesiastes, and perhaps anyone interested in anything at all as well.

>>4651966
Yes it does. For starters, you cannot be worse off than something that doesn't exist. It's not possible. Secondary, if what you're saying were true the. Your former statement about "might as well enjoy it" would be rendered false.

This is doctored-up bitching and a really poor excuse for not having to follow through with the rhetorical implications and nothing more.

>>4651978
I didn't write Ecclesiastes breh, I was merely quoting and paraphrasing.

>>4651978
no need for hostility friend

>>4651781
>Writing books about how anti-natalism is the only reasonable answer to the world is certainly a better way to spread the idea than committing outright suicide.

Yes. The only reasonable answer is to stop reproducing. *sigh*

There's a bunch of problems with antinatalism.

Life forms and evolves incidentally. Even if humans stop reproducing and perish in X number of generations, that won't stop some other species from evolving sentience, society, symbolic communication, etc, making civilization, and facing the exact same "die off or don't" dilemma. This will always happen, if not on this planet, then on others.

Humans are a colony of 7 billion mortal apes shuffling about doing whatever the hell they want, thinking whatever the hell they like. Even ideological structures like governments and religions crumble into sects and competing bureaucracies when presented to a human population for the sake of uniting them under one banner. Unifying intentions aside, ideology almost always makes the cookie crumble: It gives the masses more reasons to argue. Even large united groups disagree on small, unelaborated extraneous conditions, and thus crumble into competing sects.

Seeing how difficult it is to unite a planet of humans for one single goal (even well-meaning ones), antinatalism will never become a wide practice, barring some antinatalist dictatorial force, and all the violence and resistance that inevitably comes with it.

Do you think the kind of big fruitful family where each generation has like, five kids, is going to be on board for antinatalism? Those sorts of families love feigning piety (if not actually having it) and sinking their claws into as many parts of society as possible. That's the point of a big family. To have children who enjoy a slightly better standard of living than you did by collectively focusing the family's efforts on having lots of kids, securing jobs, contacts, and support from both church and state. Go to a big-family-type wedding and see what I mean.

Mob families are like this, but on steroids, and with a violent and hedonistic bent.

Do you really think the vast multitudes of such people are just going to stand for the worldwide implementation of some ideology stating that we should all just stop reproducing, put away our trans-generational interests, and just slowly age and die, with no progeny to take care of the last of us, while we wither and die alone in a world whose massive structures (architecture, plumbing, electricity, etc) are crumbling from an apocalyptic lack of maintenance?

In addition to that, even the "quiet, smart types" who only have one or two kids, max, and focus most of their life on academic and personal development are still going to want to reproduce once they realize that, for all their philosophical musings that life is painful etc, "stupid" people will still be reproducing impulsively and in massive quantities anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

>>4651990
>captioning a two-second GIF with "what?" when the expression already clearly indicates the sentiment of the character and therefore makes clear the purpose of the image

>>4651987
>LELUMAD

What because I said "bitching"? Holy shit go back to whatever shithole you hail from. God forbid someone refute your precious idiocy, they must be furious.

>>4651990
While those are stumbling blocks, im not sure they invalidate the entire school of thought.

What if we could destroy this entire universe? That solves almost all those problems. If I could get my hands on some doomsday device that would destroy the entire universe in an instant, it would work flawlessly

>>4652023
But you won't kill yourself? What a selfish whiney little bitch.

>I'll only end it if I take everyone else with me >=^(

Future school-shooter right here. Of course it's some liberal internet shut-in. They have pretty much all been children of the left.

>>4652020
>>4652026

>>4651995

Well I didn't make the gif, and sometimes it's better to hand-hold for all the retards than assume they'll get it.

Regardless, try responding to my post instead of looking at the pretty pictures. This isn't a children's book, there's text to go over.

>>4652026
> Of course it's some liberal internet shut-in. They have pretty much all been children of the left.

>>4651990
>Yes. The only reasonable answer is to stop reproducing. *sigh*

Glad you provided a detailed answer, but I didn't meant that. I meant that if, as an antinatalist, you are convinced that people should stop reproduce, killing yourself outright is not the most efficient way to produce that result. I know, even when using the most efficient way to go about it, antinatalism isn't likely to become widespread as an opinion.


Somehow I'm glad this philosophical option exist and is defended by some. Makes for an interesting change of perspective, every once in a while.

>>4652023

>What if we could destroy this entire universe? That solves almost all those problems. If I could get my hands on some doomsday device that would destroy the entire universe in an instant, it would work flawlessly

The other problem with antinatalist philosophy: It always requires some extraneous conditions to be met first.

If humans had technology capable of destroying the FUCKING UNIVERSE, don't you think we'd also have better medicine, better education, no hunger problems, a significant decrease in political strife, and a standard of living so high, that antinatalist philosophy by that point would become irrelevant.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION: If we need hypothetical universe-destroying technology to make antinatalism feasible, then at that point, why don't you just wish for hypothetical technology that makes life worth it for you and all the other antinatalists?

The decision to continue living belongs to you, but you are not going to speak for me. I will have kids, I will love them, I will raise them, and they will still suffer and die for the next generation.

Just like I did, and everyone before me.

If I don't do this, dumber people will, and with much less finesse, methodology, and personal justification.

>>4652049

Oh, cool. I agree.

Glad you're just asking prodding questions and aren't actually an antinatalist.

There will always be people with philosophy I think is abysmal though. Oh well.

C'est la vive.

>>4652050
>but you are not going to speak for me. I will have kids, I will love them, I will raise them, and they will still suffer and die for the next generation.

This seems a little emotionally charged to me.

>>4652050
>If humans had technology capable of destroying the FUCKING UNIVERSE, don't you think we'd also have
Cool speculation bro. I like how your argument is based on a MOUNTAIN of presumption

My anti-natalism isn't based on a logical argumnt that tries to apply to everyone. I just personally don't enjoy life most of the time. I feel unhappy, lonely etc. and despite my best efforts I can't seem to find happiness. Is my hypothetical child going to have the same experience or will it somehow be happy? I don't know, but I don't think so. I don't wanna make that bet. I choose not to reproduce. If I ever get the urge to be a father, I'll adopt.

>kill all people
>other species evolves enough conciousness to take over our suffering for millions of years before they might become antinatalist as well
>kill all creatures on earth
>life will simply reappear
>definitively kill all creatures on earth
>creatures on other planets continue to suffer

There's is no escaping the suffering. Humanity can not snuff out the universe. It's indestructible and its defining feature is suffering. Therefore the noble thing to do is to function as 'suffer traps', maintaining our species and living like an ascetic species, all of us, with a few fucks thrown in to make more suffer traps.

>>4652062

No, I didn't write it in tears, or slapping my keyboard.

I just wanted to get across the sense that yes, I understand that bringing a being into the world and condemning it to suffer and die are one and the same.

That is: There would be no one to suffer and die if I didn't have the kid in the first place. And that's the point I'll grant antinatalists.

Everything I've ever suffered could have been avoided if my parents just didn't have me. Whenever I encounter antinatalists I hear freddy mercury scream in the back of my skull "I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all."

I get it. I sympathize. I'm not just trying to stomp their ideas like some irritating cockroach. I want to address them as people who might have a point.

My point though, is that most people don't even look that far into it before they're already chickin' and dickin' their way to population multiplication.

>>4652072
>Humanity can not snuff out the universe.
not yet

>>4652075
Sure, thats a good point. Perhaps dictatorial anti natalism is the solution.

>>4652065

Did you read the post I was responding to? I began with HIS presumption: That antinatalism would be more viable if the universe could just shoot itself in the head like pic related.

My only "presumption" was that the existence of such powerful technology would probably necessitate the existence of many other prerequisite technologies representing a massively increased standard of living, and a mastery of space and time.

No terrestrial planetary species is going to single-handedly destroy the universe. It was more of an anti-presumption than anything.

>>4652067

See, that's fine. I thought antinatalists were ideologically stating what humanity should do.

The same way religious ideologies like to state what humanity should believe.

I hope your depression isn't lifelong, and that if you have children, they adjust better to this admittedly crappy world.

Hope I've been reasonable

>>4652076
>yfw other universeles

>>4652079
>No terrestrial planetary species is going to single-handedly destroy the universe.
all dis presumption in one post
all dis question begging

>>4652076
By the time we can we will be living in massively distracting and apathy-inducing pleasure simulations while our physical bodies rot.

Heaven, if you will.

>>4652092

Or in our case:

Argument simulations. Where everyone has a say, but no one has a name.

GENTLE REMINDER THAT WITHIN A FEW DECADES WE WILL HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE OUR CONCIOUSNESS EXPERIENCE LIFE AS TO CONTAIN MORE PLEASURE THAN SUFFERING.

GENTLE REMINDER THAT ANTINATALISM IS MERELY A DISILLUSIONED SENTIMENT REGARDING A CERTAIN CHAPTER IN OUR EVOLUTION.

GENTLE REMINDER THAT ALL THE PROBLEMS ANTINATALISTS CONSIDER INHERENT TO EXISTENCE ARE SOLVABLE.

>>4652086

It's not a presumption, I'm basing it off of observation.

Literally look at the scale of our universe, and the scale of Earth, and the extent of our technology. We are only capable of destroying ourselves.

It is not a presumption to think that the universe can't be destroyed by one lonely terrestrial species, and why are you ignoring the infinitely larger presumption that it can?

Oh, because you like that presumption, but dislike my "presumption."

I suppose if I said I couldn't take fifty shits in one day, you'd also label it as a presumption, by your dazzling criteria for what a presumption is.

>>4652097
/thread

>>4652092
Odysseus was such a dumb faggot for not staying with the lotus eaters.

>>4652097
>implying suffering will ever go away
>ever
you guys are fuckin idiots

>>4652099
>I'm basing it off of observation.
But you're not though. You're talking in hypothetical made up faggot bullshit, and building your arguments on that. You're not college educated are you?

>>4652106

Perhaps for you, it won't

>>4652097
>>4652102
Get out you crazy transhumanists, you're worse than religious people in your delusions.

>>4652106
>implying suffering needs to be completely non-existent to justify living
>implying hurting your toe once every two centuries during one of your grander digital soma binges makes life worth not worth living

>>4652116
Most people already consider the good in life to outweight the bad, friend. The tech will just seal the deal.

>>4652108

You still haven't told me why

A) thinking humans can destroy the universe isn't a presumption

B) why thinking they can't is a presumption.

-- I don't even know if you're the original guy. But that's who I was responding to: Someone who was trying to justify antinatalism by saying it would be feasible if the universe could be destroyed. Not that you seem to care about the original context of the conversation.

C) college education has *little* to do with it. People can go to college for business or electrical engineering and never give a shit about the universe outside of Earth. Likewise, someone can learn about the universe on a hobbyist's basis, and still know more about it than a college educated person with a career focus in say, law, or whatever.

D) Your contention that I'm not college educated, whether true or not, is a presumption, based on even less evidence than my thinking humans can't destroy the universe right now.

E) The scale of the universe isn't "made up faggot bullshit." I didn't pull these ideas out of my ass. I learned them from the collected works of people who are probably "smarter" and more dedicated than either of us.

>>4652116

Saying they're worse doesn't say why.

In fact transhumanism and religion are very similar.

A) Transhumanists believe the products of evolution and technology will eventually create a world of massive pleasure and simulated freedom.

B) (some) Religious people believe there is already a world like this outside of the universe, waiting for our souls, when we die.

>>4652151
Transhumanism actually has a good track record though, with glasses and pacemakers and opioids and cochlear implants and such.

>>4652160
Right. (not sarcastic)

Not to mention we're 3D printing parts of organs, we're starting to understand the object-oriented nature of genetic programming (see hox genes) and we're constantly supplementing our lack of knowledge with a worldwide network of academic resources.

>>4652055
To be more accurate: c'est leur vie.

>>4651659
While I'm about it, OP, Epicurus adviced his followed (including his own mother) against having children because it causes more trouble than it provides happiness. So he's not really an antinatalist, but borderline, I guess.

>>4652168
>>4652160
Call me when they've cured boredom and eliminated desires without turning you into a vegetable.

>>4652168

>dem poorly added sides

How you see negative antinatalists?
Does bad outweigh good in suffering, or is there bad that is of such value that no amount of good can outweigh it?

>>4651771
>Buddhism
>Antinatalist

I'm sure you're not allowed to be posting on 4chan during school hours, champ.

>>4652216
I rarely suffer from boredom and take great pleasure in satisfying my desires each time. Guess I should get a harem and you should get snipped to fix this.

>>4652133
>The tech will just seal the deal.
Said every transhumanist ever.

Thats like saying

>God will seal the deal

Delusional scumfucks

>>4652990
Except it's very concrete and reasonable in this case. Life is already worth living to most people. Well, how about life with all kinds of cool things added? Sold.

>>4652995
>it's very concrete
no its not

>Life is already worth living to most people
Africa? Citation needed.

>Why pray to a dead jew when you can believe that tech is magic and will solve everything!
Implying these aren't the same

>>4653033
I've yet to meet my first pessimist antinatalist African.

>>4652990
SRS shut your fucking backwards nigger-pole holster and get the fuck out.

>>4651990
i'm coming into this quite late but i was reading ligotti parallel to notes from underground and in the latter the narrator is talking about the ingenuous man who is is the 'real' and 'normal' man whereas an overly conscious man is one that 'comes not from the bosom of nature, but from a retort'.

so imagine if only the overly conscious men stopped reproducing (out of their own accord, because they seeked out answers and came across antinatalism or decided not to follow the linear path of parenthood or any other 'non-natural' reason) and the man of nature carried on living his life going only on his instinct. that's a sort of 'survival of the fittest' way the conscious suffering ligotti talks about could end.

>>4651668
OmG go watch the butterfly effect. better to have never been born: the movie

>>4652023
babby please

>>4652216
At that point, boredom will be the only way to die. We'll be elves or some shit.

>>4653216
Cool anecdotal evidence bro

You won the argument!

>>4653919
How else do you expect me to compete with those papers that demonstrate that nine out of ten Africans actually would prefer not to be alive?

>>4653942
1/10

You are the one that made an assertion without evidence.

>>4653962
Seeing as most people do their best to hang on to their life and even make more lives, I'm going to assume they rate it positively until I have reason to believe otherwise, just like I choose to believe people prefer steak over dog shit for dinner based on observation.

>>4653979
>Seeing as most people do their best to
I'm going to stop you right there. I want empirical evidence, or what you say is bullshit. Take your time.

>>4653991
> I want empirical evidence, or what you say is bullshit.
>lack of evidence is proof of the opposite

Dismissed.

>>4653998
Too late, I already dismissed you. Have fun making baseless assertions in other threads. You are what makes lit great.

>>4654001
Nice try, I was the first to mention dismissal. Stay dismissed, friend.

>>4653991
You're asking him to prove a negative you fucking ass-backwards, pussy retard. Go kill yourself or stop defending something you delegitimize with every breathe.

>>4654006
>implying mentioning it means you were the first to dismiss
kek. top notch posting kid

>>4654012
>fucking
>ass-backwards
>pussy
>retard
kek u mad as fuk

>>4654014
I provided empirical evidence for my dismissal, you didn't. You are properly dismissed, everyone can see it. Stay dismissed, friend.

Look at how dismissed this guy is, /lit/. Properly dismissed.

/lit/ is more like a fucking pretentious /pol/ meeting /x/.

>>4654016
>Hurr fuckin' durr everything's mad xDDD lelele

Anti-natalists, everyone. Are you this insufferable and wrong about everything in person? You know this is why no one likes you and you believe these retarded things.

>>4654019
>I provided empirical evidence
You sure did kiddo

>>4654029
>Are you this insufferable
Stopped reading right there.

But you are mad tho. I mean, look at how you type. So much potty words and vitriol.

>>4654028
And why the fuck do we spend times talking about philosophies all days? This is a literature board, not a philosophy board.

Where is my porn mag thread?

>>4654035
>philosophies
Dont like it, petition moot for a phil board

>>4654038
Hmm, I might.

>>4654034
>Oh god not swearing on 4chan!!!
>U-U-UMAD

Yeah it's totally not just that you actually are a retard. I wonder how many times per day your posts get called on the pure idiocy that they are before your average dumbass shitposter develops this tactic?

>>4654035
Philosophical works are actually literature.

>>4654044
So is a fucking porn mag.

>>4654046
>magazines
>>/k/

>>4654046
Only if you go by the widest, most inclusive definition for the sake of being a cunt. Philosophy is legitimate literature though. If you don't want Nietzsche on here you can't have Joyce either. Literature isn't limited to fiction.

Any extended sci-fi or fantasy series, nobody who reads that shit will ever get laid. Pic related

>>4654050
I don't care for "legit" literature, just literature thank you.

Maybe I should create a porn mag thread right now but I haven't read one since the internet.

>>4654042
Read the first line of your greentext and stopped.

I'm not even trolling, why are you so emotional about anti-natalism? Are you so beta that you actually want to raise some cunts kid?

>>4654055
>reading shit
Not getting laid period.

>>4654058
Stop whining about philosophy then since it is literature.

>>4654067
Just wanting my variety of literature, thank you.

>>4654070
You can make threads about it and then both can exist side by side.

>>4654078
>implying that will happen

>>4654078
Well, I'll be looking for some porn mags I left in the basement.

>>4654084
And you'll come back with short stories by Murakami, Mailer, and Wodehouse.

>>4654092
W-who?