Antinatalism

[Anonymous No.11394239]

Refute it, please.

[Anonymous No.11394240]

It presupposes that suffering is bad.

[Anonymous No.11394244]

Sex is immoral.

[Anonymous !!td+pyV3lGQN No.11394249]

Moral nihilism is true, so antinatalism is false.

[Anonymous No.11394270]

>>11394240
The only thing I need to refute it is my hornyness.

[Anonymous No.11394354]

>>11394249
What's the point of doing or not doing anything at all given moral nihilism?

You're right, but that doesn't mean you gave a good answer.

[Anonymous No.11394365]

>>11394239
Not everybody has as shitty of a life as you as to think life is terrible. Quite the contrary, actually. I suppose you should stop pretending to be the miserable center of the universe seeing as your experience is the furthest thing from universal.

[Anonymous No.11394377]

whether you want the whole race to be doomed, go to the stars, or create utopia.
is all based off of hope for the future.
how can we hope that we will all be doomed if there is no future for us?

antinatalism is based off of very pessimistic and unrealistic extrapolations.
does nothing for the here and now except encourage you to become sterile.

[Anonymous No.11394385]

>>11394239
The fact that there are so few anti-natalists and suicidal people (as a percentage of the global population) shows that most people think life is better than death.

Their own novetly proves their philosophy wrong.

[Anonymous No.11394403]

If you haven’t killed yourself yet, you are not really an anti-natalist.

[Anonymous No.11394468]

>>11394365
An anti-natalist doesn't have to characterize life as terrible. Having children is the result of people feeling lust, not wanting to be alone, feeling unfulfilled, needing to "take the next step", needing to "see what having a family is all about", and so forth. A person who is perfectly content would be fine taking walks and reading books his whole life, and thus not leave any children. He would see women as merely other individuals potentially capable of his own bliss, and therefore not think of copulating with them. He would look at them as strange for wanting to have a "partner" in life, rather than feeling the same deep level of kinship and yet profound detachment towards all others.

>>11394377
your terrible writing prevents you from communicating your ideas, or else english is not your first language. either way this is incoherent.

>>11394403
This is incoherent, it should read, "if you haven't become chaste yet, you are not really an anti-natalist". This makes more sense. Killing yourself has nothing to do with being against birth, you must be confusing anti-birth with life in general. An anti-natalist doesn't have to be against life in general, rather, his concern is more with the cycle (of birth and rebirth), and emancipation from this cycle.

[Anonymous No.11394528]

>>11394468
your ego defense mechanisms are showing

dont you have a mgtow forum to be moderating while clutching your diakimura ?

this antinatalism makes perscriptions for the future not here and now.
as such it is a shitty ethic. and defeats itself. we cant hope for a childless future. becuase everyone has been a child at some point and they all have hopes for the future.
if there is no future then there is no antinatalism.

also justifications like i siad are waay to pessimistic and the solution it perscribes is laughably simplistic that would need absolutly unanimous agreement in order to work.
much like pacifism or socialism.
people have different hopes and everyone is genetically and menetically unique.
i.e. we arent all drains on systems.

[Anonymous No.11394531]

>>11394239

[Anonymous !!td+pyV3lGQN No.11394573]

>>11394354
You're confusing existential nihilism with moral nihilism.

[Anonymous No.11394588]

>>11394528
Not him but I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

>>11394468
>"if you haven't become chaste yet, you are not really an anti-natalist"
Being chaste is one thing, but one can also be anti-natalist and still engage in protected sex.

[Anonymous No.11394613]

>>11394468
Why exactly are you antinatalist, if you don’t think life is terrible?

[Anonymous No.11394630]

>>11394588
If a man ejaculates he is not really putting himself in a position to be able to say that he is anti-natalist... He is rather submitting to natalism entirely, but throwing up a kind of containment unit around it. Such a man does not really demonstrate conviction and who would believe him if he said that he really wanted to end the cycle of birth and death? He is a despicable hypocrite, reckless, and wretched.

[Anonymous No.11394632]

>>11394588
antinatalism is based on a hope for the future.
i.e the voluntary extinction of mankind through refusing procreation.

and it becomes self defeating as it hopes to destory the future.
but the future is always there.
waiting for a vacuum to fill.
and as long as theres a future
there will be people that hope for it.

its a philiosophy that eats itself and its wildly unsustainable.
read: the shakers
they also assume that man can get over their fear of death.
which they dont
they just find things more frightening than it to justify it existance.
and human life/existance is a stupid fear to replace death with.
people need to pass on something. even if it is a bloody crime scene and a suicide note.

[Anonymous No.11394652]

>>11394613
You could just read the post again since I explain it there. Clearly, when you imagine an anti-natalism, i.e., someone who believes that the cycle of reproduction should be ended, you think of some miserable, bitter, resentful person who is going around looking at others, lamenting how birth is constantly occurring, resenting all the happy people around him, and so forth. But this is a ridiculous caricature. There are surely some people like this, but to say that an anti-natalist must think life is terrible is entirely untrue. The two most popular religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, believe that the end the cycle of birth and death is the highest attainment possible to a human being. Furthermore, their practices aim towards the realization of pure bliss in the individual and freedom from attachment, from lust, from hate, and so forth. They are not miserable people, any more than you are. But they are all anti-natalists in the sense that they will not contribute to the cycle of birth and death. Life for them is not terrible, but in fact, potentially the source of the greatest joy, but this does not mean that they want to continue it. Once a man has attained to the highest happiness, why should he want to do anything else? Won't he be ready to quit life as we know it, since it no longer offers him anything? Whether he has children or not will not matter much to him.

[Anonymous No.11394653]

>>11394385
It's not about Life and Death, it's about Life and Void.
The contract of trust was broken the moment you were born, you did not have a choice in the matter and there's no way to deal with it other than to live and fade out.

[Anonymous No.11394657]

>>11394240
boo-yaa! Nailed it with the first comment.

[Anonymous No.11394662]

>>11394630
So why are you now drawing the line at ejaculation? The sex is not the same as procreation, especially in the modern West with methods of contraception and early-term abortion. One isn't furthering the cycle of birth if one isn't facilitating birth, quite simply. I don't really care for your final moralizing, anyway.

>>11394632
>>11394653
Wank comments, honestly.

Regardless, a man will ejaculate in his sleep if no intercourse or masturbation is performed.

[Anonymous No.11394667]

>>11394652
But why are you specifically targeting having children? Or are you against all non-spiritual pleasures?

[Anonymous No.11394694]

>>11394239
Literally cavedwelling: the post

[Anonymous No.11394714]

>>11394667
I personally think the whole fixation with anti-natalism is a bit questionable and silly. But it does not change the fact that the highest joy will have overcome sexuality, and therefore a critical part of the cycle of birth and death will have been abolished, resulting in its cessation. Obviously, someone who "targets children" is a psychopath, whereas I am only arguing against the opinion that someone who is "against birth" must be miserable or think that life is terrible. This is not necessarily true.

[Anonymous No.11394736]

>>11394714
Oh sorry, I thought you were OP.

[Anonymous No.11394737]

>>11394662
The kind of anti-natalism you are describing is something violent and despicable. Someone who wants to engage in sexual acts, but is ready to interrupt the process by force, whether by placing barriers between the genitalia or destroying a fetus, is engaging in something more akin to an attack on birth, not overcoming it but subduing it so as to profit from its subjugation. This is an attempt to control life, to wield it for oneself. So this is clearly not a denial of the cycle of life but a manipulation of it.

The spirit of chastity is about entering into compassion and joy, and the highest love. This ends the cycle by abolishing the individual will to power which characterizes the aforementioned violent anti-natalism.

[Anonymous No.11394746]

>>11394737
Am I right in that you are not so much against having kids as the desire to have kids?

[Anonymous No.11394753]

Same as every thread:

Antinatalism is bad because it only rejects life inasmuch as it hurts but otherwise affirms its "good" parts and could potentially affirm it fully if confronted with such parts exclusively. It claims life is only bad because of things like disease, work, terror, etc. and would be somewhat desirable or at least neutral in the absence of such things. Whereas life is fundamentally bad, disease, work, terror, etc. being only facets of its fundamental evil.

[Anonymous No.11394755]

>>11394239
world and universe are going to continue with or without your child in it

if you have managed to gain a single useful insight about existence from your experience with it then its better to have someone in the world after your gone who has been taught that by you than to not have them, they will alleviate the suffering of others

[Anonymous No.11394772]

>>11394746
I'm not "against" procreation, such a thing would absurd. But the cycle of procreation ceases when the highest bliss is attained. Otherwise I don't believe there any kind of duty to have children or propagate the species or what have you. The species will end eventually, either when all its members attain to emancipation or in some sort of catastrophe.

[Anonymous No.11394776]

>>11394772
So yes.

[Anonymous No.11394791]

>>11394776
No I don't waste time thinking about such things. I'm not "against" people having children any more than I am "against" the growing of a tree. Yet at the same time I would urge others towards chastity if I thought it was to their advantage.

[Anonymous No.11394803]

>>11394791
I just said you are not ”against” having kids. But you think we’d all be more content if we were able to get rid of the desire to have them, among other things.

[Anonymous No.11394813]

>>11394803

[Anonymous No.11394831]

>>11394803
I don't feel my own lust as the desire to have children. It's just an immediate, mysterious insistence presenting itself to my consciousness. Why would I ever, if I am thinking clearly, consider fusing my DNA with another person's in order to spawn new beings, unless I had discovered that this were possible and was now conspiring to raise an army as a means to secure earthly power, or something of the sort? But in any case, it is also ridiculous to be "against lust" because this is incoherent and will lead to unwarranted frustration. Lust is just something present, but it disappears in the higher echelons of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.11394853]

>>11394831
Strange to call yourself an antinatalist if you’re pretty much indifferent towards people having kids.

[Anonymous No.11394869]

>>11394831
>why would i...spawn new beings?

because of teleology.
>t.aristotle

[Anonymous No.11394875]

>>11394714
>spend all my life shedding materialistic views
even though materialism gives us squirts of happy brain chemicles
>spend my life denying myself the one most vital materialistic actions
create more people.
where society perpetuates itself on families,dynasties.
>finally i have attained bliss
its cool, i dunno. i cant say much
>finally i die
i become nothing, or i become the next nonhuman consciousness .
>i did this becuase i believe some story. and have shirked my biological duties for hope of nothingness.
i have fought against every fibre of my material being.
for a hope.
and nothing more.


this is why parts of religion for antinatalistic vows is ment for the most devout of religions. so that they may have a preist class.
an ideological eunich .

[Anonymous No.11394884]

The fact that I can't take antinatalists and nihilists seriously is the fact that they live.

[Anonymous No.11394899]

>>11394853
I never called myself an anti-natalism I'm trying to explain the fallacy that an anti-natalist should commit suicide.

>>11394875
i don't know what you're deal is about this "hope". an anti-natalism doesn't have to hope for anything. a saint has surpassed hope.

[Anonymous No.11394914]

>>11394239
The soliloquy of Dr. Manhattan is unironically a good argument against antinatalism. Life, and human life in particular, is a miracle of improbability. For that reason alone, it is worth preserving because there might not be much of it in the universe.

[Anonymous No.11394920]

>>11394914
Never heard of that one, that's a really cool argument actually

[Anonymous No.11394923]

>>11394652
> Won't he be ready to quit life as we know it, since it no longer offers him anything?
you create life, it doesnt get given to you.

>Once a man has attained to the highest happiness, why should he want to do anything else?
seems like a waste not to maximize your happiness with a multitude of things rather than just bliss.

[Anonymous No.11394927]

>tfw to smart to do the one thing that i am designed to do

[Anonymous No.11394930]

>>11394239
Life is a spectacularly good thing and I don't see the appeal of nothingness.

[Anonymous No.11394936]

>>11394914
This isn't an argument

[Anonymous No.11394941]

>>11394923
>just bliss
You're talking about things you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.11394947]

>>11394936
Nobody cares you worthless broken faggot. If you're such a useless piece of shit that you think anti-natalism is appealing it's better for all of society that your ugly autistic ilness ridden persona die out.

Just remember that the fact that you can rationalize why it's "not worth it" isn't going to stop shitskins from breeding like rabbits and turning earth into a literal hell, so if you're a true anti-natalist then your mission should become clear.

[Anonymous No.11394958]

>>11394947
t. /pol/

The height of civilization is not endless fecundity but chastity you ape.

[Anonymous No.11394960]

>>11394899
if you knew anything about saints.
they were mainly tools to inspire hope so that we may pray to them.
all those saints were martyred or cannonized posthumously, for the most part.

i guess what im saying is that hope or having your hopes and dreams come true is in fact a greater happiness than bliss or nothingness. it seems people fall into the trap of having others tell them what there dreams should be. but people wont stop dreaming. they wont stop believing. and this is why antinatalism always fails, like pacifism or communism.

>>11394941
so are you grasshopper.

[Anonymous No.11394974]

>>11394958
>t. /pol/
>Procedes to say that the heigh of civilization is chastity
>white people are breeding below replacement rate
>literal retard savage shitskins have 6 kids they can't feed
>hurrrrrrrr /pol/

You are quite literally brainwashed and stupid

[Anonymous No.11394990]

>>11394974
Ok guy. What are you going to do, outbreed the inferior races? No. Not without becoming savages yourselves. All you have to do is cease immigration and replacing governments in foreign countries, right? Doesn't change the fact that monogamy is the mark of a civilized nation, and furthermore, that the production saints and philosophers accords with the prevalence of chastity and the suppression of the sexual impulse in general.

[Anonymous No.11394997]

>>11394990
No, eventually things will get bad enough we're going to have to shoot them, and we'll probably agree with China to carve up Africa afterwards. I don't really care about the rest of your post because we both know you're just being autistic because you're a loser with absolutely fucking nothing going on.

[Anonymous No.11395011]

>>11394997
Listen, I know you identify with your tribe and your race because it's the highest consciousness that you can attain. But don't go reprimanding the gems of your civilization, namely, the artists, saints, and philosophers who lived chastely, because they chose not to breed. Civilization is not a breeding game or some competition to see who can hold out the longest. This idea leads to insanity and that's why you're talking about shooting people.

[Anonymous No.11395041]

>>11394997
>and we'll probably agree with China to carve up Africa afterwards.
the future is 100% Chinese and a handful of other nuclear countries. The West is hurtling towards total collapse, and the remnants of our countries after civil war will be small states with little power.

The behavior on display in all western countries except Israel is lunacy from a strategic perspective. The word 'suicidal' is not even an exaggeration, if our countries were each a coherent single agent, they would be liable for hospitalization.

also litearlly nothing will change this, it is already way past the point of no return unless you live in Hungary or something, but who really wants to live in Hungary

[Anonymous No.11395058]

>>11395041
even israel may not really last, there was just an op-ed in the nytimes by some israeli saying jewishness should be redefined not to mean people who practice judaism, born to jewish mothers, or underwent conversion, but anyone who served in the idf, so basically judaism is slowly being redefined to be people who support israel and nothing more, how long before hindus go to israel, spend two years shooting palestinian trouble makers, and then work as israeli engineers for 40 years

[Anonymous No.11395143]

>>11394239
If you actually enjoy your life, and are reasonably certain your descendants will enjoy theirs, there's no rational reason not to have children if that's something you want.

Of course, this logic dictates that 99% of humans should not breed because they are stupid, ugly, and poor, but they do it anyway because they are unthinking plebeian cattle following their instincts and the herd. Soon their labor will cease being profitable to technological civilization and the reckoning will come.

[Anonymous No.11395154]

>>11395058
they at least have babies for the moment, and it's not just the arabs or sephardic, the ashkenazi have them too

[Anonymous No.11395181]

>>11394652
>The two most popular religions, Buddhism and Hinduism, believe that the end the cycle of birth and death is the highest attainment possible to a human being
Yet 99% of buddhists and hinduists have kids. Jesus, are you fucking stupid, you completely misinterpreted these religions. They believe in reincarnation, so whether you make kids is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things for them. Also, the most popular religion is christianity, hinduism and buddhism are only the fourth and fifth religion overall.
>Furthermore, their practices aim towards the realization of pure bliss in the individual and freedom from attachment, from lust, from hate, and so forth
And from having kids?
>Once a man has attained to the highest happiness, why should he want to do anything else?
So you have achieved this bliss, are super duper mega happy, and consequently don't want kids?

>>11394958
>The height of civilization is not endless fecundity but chastity
Because? Because you say so? Do you have any idea how natality works throughout history?

I don't remember when was the last time I was so brazenly assaulted by stupidity of such colossal level. Not only are your philosophy and logic utter shit, you aren't even factually correct in some regards (not knowing the most popular religions, shit you can check on wikipedia). Your idiocy is indeed making me consider becoming an antinatalist, because I wouldn't want anyone to have to witness posts like these.

[Anonymous No.11395212]

>>11395181
If you feel the need to insult me in such a tremendous way it must be because I appear to be a tremendous foe, and for that, I thank you.

The bramacharya, the bodhisattva, and the saint are the crown jewels of high society, and all include celibacy in their lifestyle, among other things. Have you ever read a book that didn't have an ending? Is it not a fitting ending to this grand world that one should leave it in pure bliss, free from attachments, free from unresolved issues? And what then is the point of keeping the thing going if we have learned that to leave it is the highest completion?

[Anonymous No.11395267]

>>11395212
the point of these religions wanting you to become celibate isnt about breaking the chain of birth and death, but rather avoiding the pleasure of physical contact with another person. if having children wouldnt be equal to having simplest pleasure in life, that wouldnt be forbidden, as more people could obtain it

the perfect resolution for me would be to make sex unpleasant, or at least bland, so maintaining human race would be possible along with individual bliss

[Anonymous No.11395272]

>>11394240
Could you expand on that a bit? Are you saying suffering is good?

[Anonymous No.11395277]

>>11394239
>people shouldn't have been born
Be the change you want to see.

[Anonymous No.11395282]

>>11394653
>The contract of trust
What the fuck are you talking about? I never signed any contract.

[Anonymous No.11395289]

>>11395212
>If you feel the need to insult me in such a tremendous way it must be because I appear to be a tremendous foe, and for that, I thank you.
Lol, you're no "foe" (do you live in a video game?), just frustratingly stupid. You'll just shit around and annoy others with your meme "philosophy" and then croak, while normal, healthy people will continue having kids.
>Have you ever read a book that didn't have an ending?
Yes. Some with lost endings, and Finnegans Wake.
You haven't explained all the inconsistencies and mistakes in your thinking that I've pointed out. You pulled some religions out of your ass (and misinterpreted them) when you felt like it. Christianity also has celibate priests, why didn't you mention that? Because you have no idea what you're talking about, throwing up the first nonsense that comes to your mind and seems to affirm your pathetic inability to get laid. Don't force your dysfunctionality upon healthy people.

[Anonymous No.11395297]

You don’t need to refute it to fight it. If anyone who is truly a proponent of it acts in accordance with their ethics, then they’ll die out in a generation. Therefore, antinatalism as a concept is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.11395300]

>>11395289
So am I to understanding that, these books with no endings, you are still reading them? How have they been published if they do not have an ending?

[Anonymous No.11395318]

>>11394240
>suffering makes us virtuous!
>child cancer and tsunamis make us better people!

[Anonymous No.11395326]

>>11395318
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.11395328]

>>11395318
> presupposes ethical objectivism
> implies god
> implies god created us for a purpose
> implies we should continue that purpose
> implies we should reproduce

[Anonymous No.11395350]

>>11395300
They usually weren't published during the author's life, and the manuscripts were damaged in the meantime. And Finnegans Wake is to be read all the way through, and then restarted (the last sentence is unfinished, its ending is actually the first sentence, which lacks a beginning).
You're such a fucking brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11395416]

>>11394403
>>11394884
>>11394927
>>11395297
While it is true that antinatalism is not an adaptive philosophy in that it does not effectively replicate or sustain itself and, even worse, necessitates the death of its own proponents, that doesn't mean that it isn't problematic in its own way.

Let's start with nihilism as a baseline. There is no God, are no gods, are no abstracted ghostly Ideals or Absolutes to lend meaning and teleological purpose to living.

That baseline isn't the end of the world. One can stir up a neo-Epicurean, Spinozan, Utilitarian, Pragmatic, Existential, Absurd grab-bag at the very least as something to do, at the very least as a prescription as to how one may enjoy their limited days on earth, and facilitate others' enjoying of their own limited days, which in turn increases one's own likelihood of enjoyment.

But these all take as their basis the desirability of joy and the refusal of displeasure. Although they are sufficient frameworks to live happily -- or, better and more precisely, to live well -- despite a paucity of Truths and Absolutes, a philosophy such as antinatalism is problematic. It is a negation, an inversion of utilitarianism especially, but also of any and all joy-oriented philosophies.

Again, obviously antinatalism isn't an adaptive or self-sustaining ideology, and obviously the vast majority of people are bound to spit on it and turn around and have children. But is the latter point wisdom, or the following of stupid biological drives?

Antinatalism is problematic and begs for refutation. A few posters have made good points which are the beginnings of a full counterargument, but none have been fleshed out.

[Anonymous No.11395454]

>>11394869
>According to Aristotle, it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew that falls on plants, flies from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so on.

That Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.11395487]

>>11395416
I suppose that my argument is that it doesn’t require refutation. In its own way I can concede that it is objectively correct. From the mitigation of suffering, to the prevention of environmental damage, to the conservation of limited resources I can acknowledge that it is objectively the best at all of those things.

However, given that we are humans, and therefore we possess the capacity for emotion, even in the face of overwhelming logical argument that opposes said emotions. I’d argue that the typical emotional response to antinatalism from a personal, subjective point of view, is all that is needed to negate it as a concept. I believe that antinatalism is simply incompatible with the way that most people work on a base, emotional and spiritual level. It will probably never gain a foothold. Also, due to the overwhelmingly negative emotional response, it could be argued that it is not utilitarian for the mitigation of suffering. Without a hope for the well-being of future generations, I’d imagine most people would fall into deep, existential depression.

[Anonymous No.11395522]

>>11395487
Self reply, I’m a complete fucking brainlet by most people on this board’s standards. So take what I say as the attempt at replying to antinatalism that you would encounter from most of the stupid people that make up humanity.

[Anonymous No.11395530]

>>11395416
and yet you point out your point of view, because it gives you joy of proving people wrong or discussing. this, itself, is a strong contrargument to your own thinking, because if you do that, you believe that joy is good. therefore you cannot be an antinatalist, because with the negation of joy, you would purposely choose a bad solution

[Anonymous No.11395567]

>>11395530
I never claimed to be an antinatalist. I do believe that joy is good. It's funny, I made this thread as an opponent to antinatalism and people immediately assumed I was a proponent.

But, again, I question whether antinatalism has been sufficiently addressed thus far. The root of its strength and of its daimoniacal aspect is that its focus is the reduction of suffering, not the increase of joy. It is the devilish shadow self of my current thought and outlook. Just because it is (rightly, I think) seen to be reprehensible at even a passing glance does not mean that it is not philosophically difficult, that it throws a wrench in my current design, especially in that the majority of well articulated wellness philosophies view popular human behavior as inefficient or unwise or unprudent approaches to achieving sustainable joy.

If the average person fails to achieve sustainable joy due to poor education or irrational continuation of bad habits, why should we trust the average person to tell us that antinatalism is a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.11395681]

>the normies know about anti natalism.

[Anonymous No.11395762]

>>11395318
No, suffering is not bad even if it is pointless. Virtue needn't develop and suffering still wouldn't be bad.

[Anonymous No.11395772]

>>11395318
>>child cancer and tsunamis make us better people!
yes

[Anonymous No.11395800]

Don't be a coward

[Anonymous No.11395808]

>>11395272
Not all suffering is bad, i.e., some suffering is good.

[Anonymous No.11395868]

>>11395318
>Antinatalist resort to extremes
Well gee, I hate existing in a world where I am in either abject missery and torment or blissfull happiness and a constant state of orgasm all the time.

It's a really cowardly way of looking at things. They wont opt out because they "have invested interest in existing" (in other words; too much of a coward to shoot themselvse) So they'll just exist untill they die and deny everyone else the opportunity because things might turn to shit for them, maybe.

And antinatalists sit around feeling so clever for arguing points a 14 year old fedora wearing millitant atheist could conjur up in their first existential crisis.

>life is inherently pointless, refute this
>Life is suffering
>the sky is blue and water is wet
Bravo, I am in awe of your intellect and creativity, lets walk hand in hand into collective oblivion, shows over.

[Anonymous No.11395888]

>>11395868
nice "argument"

[Anonymous No.11395907]

>>11395888
well you guys keep resorting to describing life in binary states, happiness or suffering.

Lets just ignore everything in between where we spend 95% of our life.

[Anonymous No.11396069]

Humans are not corporeal physical entities; we are disembodied mental creatures inhabiting physical bodies temporarily.

Antinatalism does nothing to reduce or increase the net suffering of the cosmos. It simply means that humans must be born elsewhere and not on planet earth.

[Anonymous No.11396130]

>>11396069
whoah

[Anonymous No.11396139]

>>11396069
i think that was the backstory to a final fantasy game I played once.

[Anonymous No.11396145]

Having a child closes the gates of Heaven ever so narrower, and now you have to get your child to Heaven too.

[Anonymous No.11396163]

>>11395907

Not same guy, and not an antinatalist. But as someone with serious fucking depression I find it pretty difficult to accept your side of things but I ultimately would like to believe in it. Any words for me who doesnt have an ideological reason to disagree with you but rather an experiential one?

[Anonymous No.11396467]

>>11395907
>>11396163
"His side of things" is that 95% of our lives our wholly unfeeling, which is obviously incorrect. The only way for a person to even attempt to engage with absolute numbness is to either experiment with dissociative drugs or to fall into depression and/or DPDR. This person, in stating that 95% of the time we are neither in a state of pleasure of displeasure, reveals that he has no understanding of what depression and numbness feel like, as you claim to. I have had the experience; I understand.

The major point is that all moments of experience fall somewhere on a continuum of pleasure and/or pain, and, as advocated by Epicurus and Spinoza, one should seek out sustainable mild pleasure insofar as mild pleasure is both pleasant and sustainable. Euphoria (what the mistaken poster believes is the objective of utilitarian etc. philosophers) is stupid, because it is unsustainable; eudaimonia is the goal. I highly recommend looking into Epicureanism, and Spinoza's Ethics, and William James' Varieties of Religious Experience, for articulate reasoning as to why depression is unnecessary and why joy is within everybody's reach.

But ultimately, logical argument will never reach you. You know this, in acknowledging that you only have an experiential reason to disagree. You are wiser than most in that you realize this of yourself -- most or all persons, philosophers included, are similarly guided by feeling, but they claim that their conclusions are based in their logic rather than their intuitions. Philosophy is useful is reminding you that joy is an option, that you do not need to be depressed, but philosophy alone will not do: You need to engage with psychological and biological health practices, you need to eat well and think well and socialize well and so on, and it will be difficult, because you are immersed in the pit, but as you climb out you will increasingly see the light, and you will be liberated.

Chase after the wind, my friend. It is vanity, or meaninglessness, but you can find joy in the chasing.

[Anonymous No.11396475]

>>11396467

unironically helpful. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11396748]

>>11394239
Incel delusion to make them feel that they reject the chances to reproduce, not the other way

[Anonymous No.11396786]

Antinatalists project anxiety that for one or many circumstances, they are incapable of reproduction.

[Anonymous No.11396798]

>>11396786
exactly, most anti-natalist just trying to hide the fact they got defective balls, like vegans who are really just vegetarians who get milk farts, its like wow ur vegan what a sacrifice u made to save the poor animals, oh wait, u cant eat cheese without ripping farts non-stop, not much of a sacrifice after all

[Anonymous No.11396859]

>>11395681
epic rick and morty moment when richard says that love is just a chemical reaction and it purpose is just to maintain humanity xD rise above redditors

[Anonymous No.11396885]

>>11395318
they actually do, as they give us motivation to end these things and make world a better place

[Anonymous No.11396943]

>>11396798

is this actually the reason behind veganism? My eyes (and nostrils) have been opened.

[Anonymous No.11396953]

>>11395272
suffering is necessary to achieve good
a suffering being can achieve good, but a dead being (or a being shielded from all suffering, which necessarily precludes any kind of action) cannot achieve good. A being that never exists can, similarly, never achieve good.
This is the base supposition of a lot of dystopian works with themes of sensory/information control, that suffering is a necessary component of experiencing good (Brave New World comes to mind)

[Anonymous No.11397028]

>>11396943
Veganism is a true bastard philosophy, it's partially that reasoning, partially simple moral crusading, partially intersectional cognitive dissonance on the issues of certain races having lower lactose tolerance due to evolutionary trends, and a whole host of other disparate ideological sources with nothing concretely anchoring the thought.

[Anonymous No.11397035]

>>11395318
>suffering makes us virtuous
is not the same as
>ALL suffering makes us virtuous
which is why everybody in the world recognizes that there is undue suffering and nearly all people work in some way to eliminate it
In fact, you could say that the struggle to eliminate undue suffering is what makes us virtuous

[Anonymous No.11397143]

>>11394947
epic temper tantrum my simple-minded friend

[Anonymous No.11397155]

>>11396069
based superstitious retard

[Anonymous No.11397246]

>>11396885
>this shit flinging monkey I keep in my house actually makes my house more clean because I'm more motivated to clean when there's shit on the walls
>sure, there's always shit somewhere in my house, but I wouldn't clean so much without him!
>just imagine how clean this place will be when he dies! I'm so glad I have this shit flinging monkey in my home, he really helps me grow as a person