ITT: Books that made you go 'So fucking what' upon completion

[Anonymous No.19885014]

[Anonymous No.19885019]

Any NYT Bestseller where some "respected author/academic/thinker" offers his opinion on current events or history. Especially if he's scrawny irl.

[Anonymous No.19885038]

He just says you shouldn't have children but if you do make sure you're not poor.

[Anonymous No.19885039]

>>19885014
Anything by Marx.
When you aren't a total, 100% fanatic of Christian morality (which he was, despite claiming to be doing science) so much of Western thought becomes irrelevant nonsense.

>no, workers are being exploited!
So fucking what?

>proletarians, unite!
Nah, workers are idiots.

[Anonymous No.19885044]

>>19885039
t. never read Marx
Also basedtheism >>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.19885053]

>>19885039
kek

[Anonymous No.19885659]

>>19885044
It's you who didn't. Marx uses scientific language (though not science) in the service of an updated Christian morality.

[Anonymous No.19886642]

>>19885014
Every book ever

[Anonymous No.19886846]

>>19885659
>Christian morality is... LE BAD!

[Εγώ No.19886874]

>>19885039
>no, workers are being exploited!
>So fucking what?

Exactly, so fucking what?
What is the benefit of the exploitation?
Did it do any good or was it all to empower competing elites and their nonsensical fetishes and ideolepsies?

[Anonymous No.19888170]

>>19885014
if you are an antinatalist and you do not kill yourself immediately upon coming to this conclusion then you are a fucking loser and a fraud. i do not care what excuses you make. fuck this guy.

[Anonymous No.19888369]

>>19885014
This book, I'm assuming (hahaha).

[Anonymous No.19889785]

>>19888170
>If you think people shouldn't have children, you must commit suicide
Holy cringe

[Anonymous No.19889888]

>>19889785
unironically yes. if you think that life is so awful that there is no reason to have children then why do you want to live? if life is so bad that you dont want to create a new life to experience it then why do you want to experience it? antinatalism is the most cringe thing to believe, same thing with nihilism. just kill yourself you fucking pussy, or quit your bitching.

[Anonymous No.19889890]

>>19885039
>>no, workers are being exploited!
>So fucking what?
I think the idea is that if you're a worker it's in your self interest to be against your own exploitation, and if you are a "conscious" member of the bourgeoisie, to throw your lot in with the next revolutionary social class (as nobles did with the ascendant bourgeoisie)

[Anonymous No.19890050]

>>19885039
>So fucking what?
It's more that Marx in his later work thinks there are inevitable historical consequences of this rather than whining about it being good or bad.

[Anonymous No.19890560]

>>19889888
I think it just weighing the arguments for giving birth or not. Not continuing a life that’s already started. I mean catching a cold is not awful enough to kill yourself over but I wouldn’t want to someone else to experience it.

[Anonymous No.19890915]

Where did you read this book?
>>19885014

[Anonymous No.19891026]

>>19885014
This fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.19891731]

>>19886642
This

[Anonymous No.19891819]

>>19885014
any philosopher in the last 500 years
yeah cool, nice ideas you have there dude, so fucking what? how is any of that going to help me in life?
my life hasn't improved reading philosophy. what has improved my life was actually going out and living life, meditating, learning a language etc.
experience is what actually matters, which religions can actually offer, like meditation practices.

[Anonymous No.19892274]

>>19890560
right, but your example isnt a real equivalent here. yes, colds suck and you wouldnt want someone else to experience it, but this example has nothing to do with living or not. catching a cold is a minor nuisance, and you wouldnt want someone else to experience it, but you would, if given the chance and if that chance was easy enough to accomplish, never experience a cold again, whether that was through some medicine or magic or some other thing. obviously that isnt possible and you wouldnt do anything which the effort far outweighs the nuisance of having a cold, but this is a more accurate allegory. its something that you dont want others to experience and of given the chance you would also not ever experience it again, assuming that the effort required to never experience it again did not exceed the nuisance of the cold. in this sense, the antinatalist argument is the same. life is something that you think, for whatever reason, is so awful that to bring a child into this world is a moral wrong, you dont think it is worth experiencing. if this is the case then suicide is the only reasonable solution. suicide is a much easier task than to continue living, is it not? maybe there is an argument that there is a biological impulse to continue living and that suicide goes against our nature, but that is simply countered by saying that reproducing is as much in our nature as our will to survive. phrase it like this: life is so awful that it is better to have never been born at all and so it is better to not reproduce. therefore, if nonexistence is better than existence, suicide is the reasonable conclusion an antinatalist would come to. if an "antinatalist" does not come to this conclusion then they are admitting that there is a reason to choose existence over nonexistence and are either frauds who dont truly believe in their own philosophy and/or they are simply able to identify the sufferings and tragedies of the world and rather than do anything to change the conditions that cause this suffering the resign themselves to antinatalism and/or nihilism which only shows a weakness of character. this fucker zapffe in the op thought life was so terrible he lived to the ripe old age of 90 living off of a pension in the norwegian countryside. oh the humanity! better not have kids!

[Anonymous No.19892515]

>>19892274
Thank you for fleshing this argument. Put this way, it was far more philosophically compelling than "y dont u kil urself XD!?"

I guess an antinatalist would always say "a survival instinct," like it blinds them, but they're clearly not blinded. Antinatalsts are sometimes paralyzed by the same uncertainty considering the state of death as most people, is one possible rebuttal. They could be making a fair trade for time here for vs time in the unknowable, as bad as they find time here.

Like holding on to the buoy before you must eventually drown in the frozen Atlantic, but not inviting anyone else to the buoy party.

[Anonymous No.19892973]

>>19892515
>Like holding on to the buoy before you must eventually drown in the frozen Atlantic, but not inviting anyone else to the buoy party.

Arguments from parables should be approached with caution, since parables often include elements that do not in fact appear in what the parables are likened to, and often preclude relevant elements that do appear in what the parables are likened to.

Most antinatalists, like Benatar, don't simply argue that our lives are just barely not good enough to start but truly awful. If, in taking into
account both the good and bad aspects of our lives, it turns out that our lives are overall very bad, then it seems we would each be better off to commit suicide.

The problem with a supernatural argument, in this case, is that the infinite possibility for good and bad ends up being the same thing, 0.

[Anonymous No.19893048]

>>19892515
>Like holding on to the buoy before you must eventually drown in the frozen Atlantic, but not inviting anyone else to the buoy party.


Sorry I didn't explain why the parable is wrong. The idea is that life, for a lot of people, is more enjoyable than simply hanging on to a buoy waiting to die.

A similar parable in the other direction, which I also dislike, is the one where they call life a party. It's clearly not that fun.

[Anonymous No.19893072]

>>19892973
>>19893048
Okay, I'll spare the metaphors.

What if substantiating a life enrolls it in a process which is eternal? What if the the more enjoyable leg of that process is the time in which one could substantiate that process?

In that case, you would be justified in both A) Not substantiating the process, and B) Not accelerating your passage to the less enjoyable part of that process.

[Anonymous No.19893074]

>>19889890
The guy you replied to is such a relativist that he can’t even grasp the concept of morals to his own person.
A true lunatic who gets beaten down by people and reads a book about it and says
>I’m being misused and abused, so what? I don’t care!

[Anonymous No.19893143]

>>19893072
>What if substantiating a life enrolls it in a process which is eternal? What if the the more enjoyable leg of that process is the time in which one could substantiate that process?

Yea but that what if is balanced out by the fact that the eternal could be infinitely good or bad. it cancels out.

[Anonymous No.19893385]

>>19885014
Le Mur in Community College...

[Anonymous No.19893395]

[Anonymous No.19893549]

>>19885039
log off bezos

[Anonymous No.19893556]

>>19885014
a date told me to read the woman in the window and i never spoke to her again afterwards

[Anonymous No.19894534]

>>19892274
Abstaining from giving birth is still a much easier drive to override than killing yourself id say. The cold analogy is a bit weak I’d agree but maybe something more substantial like diabetes or lupus. Idk I’m not really an antinatalist but I can see that the viewpoint is pretty hard to refute in some aspects. I see where you’re coming with from the suicide being the logical conclusion though. But I also see where they’re coming from. It’s a bleak view to hold for sure but still I think the suicide argument can be countered with the two ways I listed above. Still don’t buy into it but I see where they’re coming from