Antihumanism

[Anonymous No.18448429]

What are the best works of Antihumanist literature?

[Anonymous No.18448454]

>>18448429
there is no such thing which is not just a complete meme on some incel-wiki

do you mean post-humanism instead?

[Anonymous No.18448590]

>>18448454
Antihumanism is definitely a thing
Dilate

[Anonymous No.18448606]

>>18448590
everything is a thing on the internet but antihumanism is not a real school of thought and if you do not want to do some pioneering work on it, it is most likely a waste of your time

you could be reading up on post-humanism right now and it would most likely fit you nieche anyway

[Anonymous No.18448611]

>>18448606
Marx was an antihumanist

[Anonymous No.18448626]

>>18448611
if you are really vague with defintions and overlook the enlightenment tradition from which marx comes, maybe but there is no school of anti-humanism as a core project

[Anonymous No.18448630]

>>18448626
It's a well known and relatively uncontroversial characterization of him.

[Anonymous No.18448639]

>>18448630
no it is really not, antihumanism is one of the charged terms by which more idealistic thinkers try to discredit marx

[Anonymous No.18448644]

>>18448639
I've seen it said by Marxists. Nietzsche is another example.

[Anonymous No.18448649]

>>18448644
you know how these semantic discussions go...

nietzsche is a post-humanist in regard to his thoughts on the human condition, he tries to overcome it by becoming an Übermensch etc

[Anonymous No.18448674]

Spinal Catastrophism

[Anonymous No.18448678]

define antihumanism

[Anonymous No.18448689]

>>18448429
Cioran, Zappf, Ligotti

all queers

[Anonymous No.18448859]

>>18448678
The rejection of the idea that humans are the most important thing in the universe

[Anonymous No.18448874]

>>18448674
This sounds so out there that even a schizo would say “take your meds”

[Anonymous No.18448877]

>>18448874

[Anonymous No.18448878]

>>18448859
so it's opposition by no one serious to a position no one serious holds, very surprising

[Anonymous No.18448881]

>>18448878
>no one is a humanist
You’re a dishonest retard

[Anonymous No.18448898]

>>18448881
oh since when was humanism brought up? you were just stating some strawman imbecility only teenagers believe or attack.

[Anonymous No.18449044]

>>18448674
>If human morphology, upright posture, and the possibility of language are the ramified accidents of natural history, then psychic ailments are ultimately afflictions of the spine, which itself is a scale model of biogenetic trauma, a portable map of the catastrophic events that shaped that atrocity exhibition of evolutionary traumata, the sick orthograde talking mammal.
Lmao what is this shit?

[Anonymous No.18449061]

>>18449044
And this line, hilarious stuff:
>this extravagantly comprehensive philosophical adventure uses the spinal cord as a guiding thread to rediscover forgotten pathways in modern thought.

[Anonymous No.18449066]

>>18448429

[Anonymous No.18449071]

>>18448454
Antihumanism is not necessarily nihilistic or pessimistic, it just deals with deep time (actual existence of the universe and the earth) compared to which human time is puny

[Anonymous No.18449089]

>>18449044
>>18449061
This sounds fucking based. Another one to go with classics like Fanged Noumena and After Finitude

[Anonymous No.18449148]

>>18449071
Are you saying that this is a philosophy which covers anything outside the purview of conventional philosophy without explicitly being negative in its treatment of humans?

If so, I will concede that there are many works of "antihumanist" literature. I would argue that, following the definition we have been given, every single work of the natural sciences would constitute this philosophy. I would personally start with a study of maths but it's your call at the end of the day.

[Anonymous No.18449152]

>>18448454
>do you mean post-humanism instead?
What? How are the two even remotely correlated? Dumbass.

[Anonymous No.18449160]

>>18449071
>WE ARE SO FUCKING INSIGNIFICANT!!!
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.18449173]

>>18449148
Pretty much, yes. It isn't inherently opposed to or disdainful of humanity at all, just completely indifferent to it since it focuses on the "being" of the universe since the beginning of time, compared to which the rise of mankind is just a mere blip, three minutes to midnight to use a cliched metaphor.
Of course this indifferent attitude appeals to various pessimists and enthusiasts of Lovecraft and such which is why you notice overlap in many works.

[Anonymous No.18449247]

>>18449173
I may be incorrect here, but it sounds like you're not particularly interested in the normal explorations of philosophy. Philosophical ideas tend to exist within the bounds of human thought, owing to the fact that all known philosophers have only been human. There have been many attempts to separate objective "truth" from subjective experience, however any attempt is impossible to fully realize. All knowledge is based off of that which one cannot prove (ie: that the universe is itself reality and not just an illusion designed to fool the senses) and therefore most philosophical thought originates within the individual doing the thinking. Perhaps this gives philosophy an inherent bias toward the human experience, but I'd argue that without such a bias the whole field of philosophy would not be what it is.

If you're looking to explore things that are indicative of absolute truth (or, at least, the closest humans have gotten to that ideal) I would probably not look to any school of philosophy for it. Again, I may be getting the wrong idea here, but if I were you I would probably try looking into the "hard sciences" for your answers. Mathematics would be my recommendation. While every other science deals with the probability of an event or phenomena occurring, there is rarely, if ever, the guarantee that the observer is not being misled by the data. In math one builds upon fundamental axioms to achieve an unimpeachable understanding of a concept through rigorous proofs.

Until we meet or create a non-human philosopher then attempting to entirely remove the human mind from philosophy is a fool's errand, I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.18449286]

>>18448454
althusser

[Anonymous No.18449300]

>>18448630
lol no. see: https://youtu.be/JguQGayVFfw

[Anonymous No.18449309]

>>18449300
>watch a half hour video of a french Marxist furry trying to refute Althusser
Nope

[Anonymous No.18449316]

>>18448429

[Anonymous No.18449326]

>>18449286
>althusser
Literally this. Althusser attempts to destroy socialist humanism's appeal to a transcendent historically embodied subject by stripping Marxism of any liberatory concept and organising it through a universal of structure.

Its just a shame that E.P. Thompson FUCKEN DESTROYS HIM.

[Anonymous No.18449333]

>>18449309
he has a phd on marx

[Anonymous No.18449337]

>>18449333
Lol... tantalizing...

[Anonymous No.18449342]

The anti-humanist characterisation of Marx is deeply althusserian. It is basically saying, "My waifu shares my ideas."

Thesis 11 useful refutes Marx as a humanist or an anti-humanist. Praxis suborns all ideological positions beneath the class interests of my class.

[Anonymous No.18449375]

>>18449044
You asked for antihumanism. There is no greater final boss than interpreting humanity through the spine.

[Anonymous No.18449388]

>>18449247
I am not hugely interested or invested in this line of philosophy, I am just familiar enough with it that I tried to give some coherent explanations of it since that's what the topic of the thread is. You are of course correct about philosophy being unable to be separated from the human mind and modes of thought, but as you can see from the examples already posted in the thread above this isn't really a respectable field or something anyone is taking seriously.

[Anonymous No.18449419]

>>18448898
You’re either a autistic or a Jew. There are no other explanations for this level of incoherence. The only question is if it’s intentional

[Anonymous No.18449426]

>>18448898
You’re either autistic or a Jew. There are no other explanations for this level of incoherence. The only question is if it’s intentional

[Anonymous No.18449437]

>>18449044
took meth during animal biology

[Anonymous No.18449442]

>>18449160
Wrong, humanism is Reddit. Humanism is literally the i love fucking science ideology.
Antihumanism is based.

[Anonymous No.18449458]

Althusser, Foucault

[Anonymous No.18449463]

>>18449442
I am deeply pessimistic and depressed so I agree with this. But I'm also self aware enough to realize that most people think the complete opposite of this. Like for example Zapffe and Ligotti argue that everyone thinks life is terror and not existing is better, and that normies just create a series of copes to deal with it (distraction, sublimation, anchoring and another one I forgot). I really don't think that's the case, I think most people enjoy life and wouldn't even really be able to comprehend much of this.

[Anonymous No.18449490]

>>18449463
That’s not anti humanism.

[Anonymous No.18449501]

>>18449490
How exactly do you have philosophy without humanity in it?

[Anonymous No.18449510]

>>18449501

When you lose your mind and claim that reason is muh repressive.

[Anonymous No.18449523]

>>18449510
Is it related to speculative realism?

[Anonymous No.18449544]

>>18449501
Humanism is an interpretive framework that centres a universal ontology rooted in a claimed common nature of being human as the basis for a moral and political framework. All men are men. All men are the same. Inspecting what it is to be a man shows what is good for man. Do these good things.

Althusser or Foucault claim that the human is not ontologically stable and that therefore humanist ontologies are actually politically and culturally constructed and temporary.

[Anonymous No.18449574]

>>18449544
This, humanism relies on a fixed transhistorical essence of man, something all pomo's would reject.

[Anonymous No.18449600]

Straw Dogs by John Gray

[Anonymous No.18450570]

>>18449061
why do they always come up with some quirky gimmick, some grand idea that will 'fix' everything?

[Anonymous No.18450581]

>>18448454
if you're not an anti-humanist or at least not-humanist then you are a euro-centric imperialist by default and looked at history and saw the totally baseless shitshow that ensued and saw nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.18450602]

>>18450581
>you are a euro-centric imperialist by default
How did you guess?

[Anonymous No.18450607]

>>18450602
No seriously, look at Yugoslavia's wars and the issue of Dutch Peacekeepers.

[Anonymous No.18450647]

>>18450607
Euro-centrism is the ultimate anti-humanist viewpoint. The end goal of the EU federalist is for everyone to become more insignificant, stripped of culture, and deprived of all autonomy by a vast beauraucracy

[Anonymous No.18450683]

>>18450647
The Dutch failed in the face of the reassertion of national language, with the hyperstation that national language was pre-and-post-modern because Croat is Serb.

Jesus fuck read you cunt.

[Anonymous No.18450826]

>>18450683
Sorry, I don't waste time reading about international relations

[Anonymous No.18450935]

>>18450826
You just waste time commenting about that which you do not know. Good job.

[Anonymous No.18451119]

>>18448429
The Conspiracy Against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti
>We did not make ourselves, nor did we fashion a world that could not work without pain, and great pain at that, with a little pleasure, very little, to string us along--a world where all organisms are inexorably pushed by pain throughout their lives to do that which will improve their chances to survive and create more of themselves. Left unchecked, this process will last as long as a single cell remains palpitating in this cesspool of the solar system, this toilet of the galaxy. So why not lend a hand in nature's suicide? For want of a deity that could be held to account for a world in which there is terrible pain, let nature take the blame for our troubles. We did not create an environment uncongenial to our species, nature did. One would think that nature was trying to kill us off, or get us to suicide ourselves once the blunder of consciousness came upon us. What was nature thinking? We tried to anthropomorphize it, to romanticize it, to let it into our hearts. But nature kept its distance, leaving us to our own devices. So be it. Survival is a two-way street. Once we settle ourselves off-world, we can blow up this planet from outer space. It's the only way to be sure its stench will not follow us. Let it save itself if it can--the condemned are known for the acrobatics they will execute to wriggle out of their sentences. But if it cannot destroy what it has made, and what could possibly unmake it, then may it perish along with every other living thing it has introduced to pain.
Das Untier by Ulrich Horstmann
>"The final aim of history is a crumbling field of ruins. It's final meaning is the sand blown through the eye-holes of human skulls."
>"[History]...the place of a skull and charnel house of a mad, incurably bloodthirsty slaughtering, flaying and whetting, of an irresistible urge to destroy to the last.”
>"The true Garden of Eden is desolation."

The Philosophy of Redemption by Philipp Mainländer
The Last Messiah by Zapffe
The Trouble with Being Born by Cioran

[Anonymous No.18451271]

>>18448877

Indeed, "as above so below", examine the body as a crime scene to identify the murderer.

[Anonymous No.18451369]

>>18451119
Get ready to have your post bombarded with Christian zoomer copes

[Anonymous No.18451381]

>>18451119
>One would think that nature was trying to kill us off, or get us to suicide ourselves

It is a lot worse.

[Anonymous No.18451425]

>>18448859
>the idea that humans are the most important thing in the universe
that's anthropocentrism and not humanism

[Anonymous No.18451438]

>>18451369
Don't care, Christianity is also anti human. But they have the church to talk themselves out of Ecclesiastes with Epicurean delusions. All the monks and hermits and saints took the Vanity verses quite seriously and then lived accordingly. But you average Christian believe in the joke called Church.

>>18451369
I don't know man. I don't care about collective autism. Philosophical pessimism has always the number of one individual man. I think those pieces stand out for their literary angst.

[Anonymous No.18451496]

>>18450935
Yeah I'm basically Plato

[Anonymous No.18451605]

>>18448859
That's a complete innocuous idea, then.