/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4977107]

what's the most illogical and pathetic philosophy known to man? and why is it anti-natalism and pessimism.

[Anonymous No.4977125]

pessimism is the most logical if our current understanding of the universe is correct

[Anonymous No.4977136]

>antinatalism
>irrational

hahaha

[Anonymous No.4977139]

>>4977125

facts about the universe need not alter our attitudes, pessimism is always illogical.

the glass is half-empty half-full is a silly dichotomy. the fullness of the glass is irrelevant to a wise sage.

[Anonymous No.4977197]

Anti-natalism makes sense though because bringing a mortal, sentient being into existence is reckless and unfair to that person.

Natalism is embraced by selfish people that support creating new people who will experience physical and mental pain and suffering, as well as the dread of inevitable death just to fill a role in their own life.

[Anonymous No.4977203]

>>4977197
>unfair to that person.

even if it's unfair, whatever that means, it still not a viable philosophy

[Anonymous No.4977206]

>>4977203
It's unfair because a person cannot consent to exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4977212]

>>4977206

>giving someone the power to consent is unfair

lol

[Anonymous No.4977219]

we're pretending space and time haven't been the same thing always again are we? i hate the universe consisting of irony too.

[Anonymous No.4977224]

>>4977219
the universe is chaos it doesn't give a Frenchmans fuck about irony or other quirky human dualities

[Anonymous No.4977229]

>>4977107
>and why is it anti-natalism and pessimism.
Because you don't like those particular concepts and you need to feel validated.

[Anonymous No.4977262]

>>4977224
the irony was the only universe i could know is self created and included a concept of irony. well done on breaking free from that curse my universal self created concept of not me. i'm proud of you for your lack of sacarasm i made.

[Anonymous No.4977280]

youthful naivete always attempts the impossible, defeating the entropic decay and death transmogrification of man and the world.

[Anonymous No.4977303]

>>4977229
/thread

[Anonymous No.4977318]

why is christian philosophy, or any other religion not the most illogical?

are you fucking with me op?

good one... you almost had me there!

[Anonymous No.4977323]

>dna deception: procreate.
major proponents: every member of every species ever including the masses of humans, all programmed to blindly follow their instincts
vs
>buddhizm/antinatalizm: go extinct
major proponents: the fucking BUDDHA and all his cool friends

[Anonymous No.4977325]

>>4977318
>cant in2 internal consistency
You need that to in2 logic m8

[Anonymous No.4977336]

>>4977107
>illogical
Isn't that nihilism? Or whatever it is when you don't believe in any form of objectivity.

[Anonymous No.4977339]

>>4977323
the buddha had a son... before he was 'the buddha'. when his son aged appropriately, he was initiated as a celibate monk, thus cutting off the dna line. in the samyutta-nikaya, the buddha goes into the jungle with his son, rahula, and he gives him precise instructions on attaining nirvana [extinction].

[Anonymous No.4977341]

>>4977323
>DDHA and all his cool friends

>buddha promoted anti-natalism
>implying buddha was delusional

tip top lel

[Anonymous No.4977349]

>>4977341
what's delusional about antinatalism? it's basically an attitude or a view about life. it's not a plan for planetary extinction. although its logic could easily achieve that aim.

[Anonymous No.4977370]

>>4977349
the buddhist view is that "sabbam = dukkham" meaning all = suffering. life is not a pleasant permanent abode. it's an unstable dimension of impersonal elements in brutally indifferent interactions. the buddha compared eating, as one must do to survive daily, to a couple traveling through the desert with their only son, when they ran out of food and decided to kill the son to at least allow for them to make it back to civilization. while eating their only son, they would not be pleased, or delight in the taste, it would be repugnant to them but necessary to reach the far place.

[Anonymous No.4977371]

>>4977349
it's a meme that antinatalism is bad because we had bad discussion about it back then

[Anonymous No.4977375]

>>4977370
Wow Crispin Glover aged overnight wtf

[Anonymous No.4977387]

>>4977107
isn't seeing little value in human life and existence precisely the unpleasant but logical result of knowing more and more facts about how that life is?

[Anonymous No.4977390]

>>4977349
>what's delusional about antinatalism?

it's one thing to say "I find my life shitty, so I can't bear to raise children in this life"

It's totally different to say "My life is shitty, thus all life in general is shitty, no one should have children, no person prefers life over death-- others should view the world as I do because of --my own peculiar mental problems- "

Anti-natalism makes normative claims about life in general and how humans should behave, claims based on very dubious personal feelings about the world.

[Anonymous No.4977396]

>>4977390

it's like when STEM majors come here and tell us that arts suck and are useless and we should all enjoy STEM like they do and make $300k starting

[Anonymous No.4977398]

>>4977325
in english
please
and thanks

[Anonymous No.4977407]

>>4977387
in the pali canon, the buddha says that the aryan disciple, by seeing things as they are, becomes disillusioned with everything, desireless, detached. finally, he attains nirvana.

buddhizm is therefore a most logical and realistic view of things. actually, as one finds out, buddhizm is so morbidly realistic it abhors normal people filled with the lust for life.

the buddha said he did not teach the way for the perfection of moral virtue but for the attainment of nirvana. moral virtues are useful, but nirvana is beyond such things.

[Anonymous No.4977416]

>>4977398
Well, to learn about recursion you must first learn about recursion. With me?

[Anonymous No.4977423]

>>4977390
i'm sure there are many of such superficial antinatalists, just like there are superficial thinkers in every domain of thought. however, the vision of universal suffering seen by an awakened antinatalistic buddhist has nothing to do with the personal particulars of one life compared to another but rather the nature of all phenomena as ultimately unsatisfactory inasmuch as they are impermanent, dependently conditioned and nothing in and of themselves.

my personal view is that antinatalizm is a good stepping stone up to buddhizm. the latter has the deeper insight.

[Боевое Самбо No.4977430]

Anarcho-Capitalism is worse. It somehow manages to be even worse than libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.4977434]

>>4977390
it's not based on just a few peoples' personal feelings at all if that's what you're suggesting.

anyone with an ounce of self-awareness can recognize the fundamental absurdity of their life, no matter what station they hold. just because they can be distracted most of the time from this brutal realization doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally true, and furthermore, that they themselves experience it as fundamentally true (at least momentary crippling, maybe refusing to accept it but not really being capable of up with a logical reason, resorting to "i must go on" or being distracted again by someone "yelling" at you).

i can't know, because i'm not scholarly, or maybe no can know these things, but i have to assume every human being since at least civilization began experienced this in one form or another.

[Anonymous No.4977439]

>>4977423
>nature of all phenomena as ultimately unsatisfactory inasmuch as they are impermanent, dependently conditioned and nothing in and of themselves.

the point of buddhism is to NOT be dissatisfied with those features of the world.

[Anonymous No.4977441]

>>4977416
not at all, and i still see no reason to find anti-natalism more illogical than any philosophy of religion

[Anonymous No.4977456]

>>4977439
>the point of buddhism
There are hundreds of different doctrines.

[Anonymous No.4977465]

>fatalism

I literally laugh directly into the face of anyone that even so much as hints at this as their philosophy

i just laugh. dont explain why. because all my laughter doesnt even matter

[Anonymous No.4977593]

>>4977456

one of the foundational points is to overcome suffering, which is translated to dissatisfaction

not dwelling on the negatives and killing yourself or preventing life from emerging.

[Anonymous No.4977749]

Optimism and pessimism are part of an oppressive morality that is all consuming. They do not exist.

Anti-natalism is a fundamentally objective way at looking at human progress and development, not to mention evolution as a whole, therefore it can be disregarded as well.

[Anonymous No.4977770]

>>4977107
as stupid things go, inaction is inevitably expandable to wrong action.

therefore, it can only be the worst idea for a very short time until someone thinks of a worse version.

[Anonymous No.4977771]

Scientism

[Anonymous No.4979047]

All philosophy is illogical and pathetic. Philosophy died in the 19th century but some deluded fools are still in denial.

[Anonymous No.4979091]

Natalism is just human instinct to feel like God. To create another being is truly an empowering experience. But most of all, it's how we're genetically programmed.

[Anonymous No.4979128]

Anything with equality at the forefront.

[Anonymous No.4979139]

>>4977771
i watch this program, puts me to sleep everytime.
Documentaries man, they are a drug.

[Anonymous No.4979145]

>>4979091
Elliot Rodger get out

[Anonymous No.4979148]

>>4979047
This. It's not a coincidence that it died right around the time when we were truly understanding the scientific principles of the world.

I wish you fedoras would stop talking about it all the time. It's a literature board, not a philosophy one. Talk about books for fuck's sake, is that really so hard?

[Anonymous No.4979155]

>>4979047
>>4979148

[Anonymous No.4979172]

>>4979148

Richard Rorty said philosophy is just a sub-section of literature

[Anonymous No.4979178]

>>4977136
>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.4979216]

My anti-natalism is not because of a pessimistic worldview, I just think it would be the only way to create an end of history. Things are pretty okay for about 1 billion people in the west and richer classes in other parts of the world, and for the rest it probably will not improve, so now would be a good time to do it. If we stop reproducing now the last of us will have a really peaceful life, knowing that everything we know ends after them.

We all will die anyway, so it doesn't make a difference to us as individuals.

[Anonymous No.4979280]

>>4979216

NOTHING matters because we die anyway, amiright?

[Anonymous No.4979315]

>>4977107
>and why is it anti-natalism and pessimism
bait-mate

[Anonymous No.4979679]

All these butthurt true detective fags

[Anonymous No.4979717]

>>4977430
Stay mad, commie

[Anonymous No.4979730]

Can we discuss the BEST philosophical doctrines?
Like absurdism and the like?

[Anonymous No.4979737]

the only "anti-natalist" i know is one guy who got his gf pregnant, broke up with her and claims that he's an anti-natalist because it's "not legally his child".

[Anonymous No.4979751]

>>4977125
Thinking that we understand even a fraction of the workings of the universe is extremely optimistic, so you have yourself a conundrum there

[Anonymous No.4979903]

eliminative materialism

How much cognitive dissonance does it take to go as far as denying the existence of your own consciousness, only because science cannot fully explain it yet?

[Anonymous No.4979912]

>>4979730
If the wise accept that they know little, then I would say that absurdism is the wisest.
>>4979751
Or it could be extremely pessimistic if she doesn't want to know anything.

[Anonymous No.4979982]

>>4979912
>If the wise accept that they know little

wrong premise

[Anonymous No.4980001]

>>4977107
Platonism

[Anonymous No.4980033]

>>4977197
Life's pretty good, even with the suffering. I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous No.4980433]

>>4977125
> if our current understanding of the universe is correct

We know it's not though, that's why we keep on physicsing

[Anonymous No.4980487]

>>4977107
Because they take it super-srsly yet don't follow their arguments to their ultimate conclusion.

[Anonymous No.4980660]

If by Anti-Natalism and Pessimism you mean Feminism then yeah I guess so...

[Anonymous No.4980668]

>>4977197
If someone thinks life sucks then it should be their decision to end it. Denying them the chance is incredibly stupid.

Life ends anyway. What's a few years of suffering?

[Anonymous No.4980674]

>>4980660
>feminism
>philosophy

[Anonymous No.4980784]

>>4977430
I would honestly like to hear about why Libertarianism is bad. I have yet to see a convincing argument that just utterly destroys it as an ideologue.

[Anonymous No.4980799]

>>4977107
Because until now antinatalism has been inconsistent.

[Anonymous No.4980811]

>>4980784
>Free Will

[Anonymous No.4980842]

>>4980811
>not realizing that believing in free will actually has greater utility than denying
>libertarianism requiring free will in the first place

This is all accepting that free will doesn't exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4980865]

>>4977370
Dukkha is not literally suffering as we generally conceive of it in English. It's the tension between the way things are and the way we wish they were. If we achieve a state of enlightenment, we can accept the world the way that it is, and can live in the same physical world as everyone else, but without dukkha.

[Anonymous No.4980869]

>>4977107
It's called Malthusianism, anon; and it's pretty obsolet and dumb. Unless you're 16.

[Anonymous No.4980877]

Antinatalism incorrectly assumes paradise, or something as close to paradise as we can physically achieve, is not achievable. In other words it assumes we will be exactly where we are today tomorrow. This is demonstrably false.

Until we've gone as far as we can, and if there's nowhere left to go and we're STILL dissatisfied, then we can consider antinatalism. We haven't done this yet.

[Anonymous No.4980884]

>>4980865
So enlightenment is basically amor fati.

[Anonymous No.4980931]

>>4980869
Or a white collar gorilla.

[Anonymous No.4980945]

>>4980877
It's certainly not achievable within the lifetimes of any person who exists or will exist in the near future.

If there was proof of an imminent "paradise", natalism would make sense.

[Anonymous No.4980990]

>>4980877
Antinatalism is about the abolishment of suffering and it's by far the most effective method.

[Anonymous No.4981060]

>>4980877
My hand is stuck in a wood chipper. It's banging and grinding away and there's blood and pain everywhere, but does that really mean I should pull my hand out of the wood chipper? It might get better if I stick my whole arm in there as well.
Hm, this seems to be even more painful, but I haven't yet tried sticking my other hand in the wood chipper. Don't knock it till you've tried it, right?

Until we've gone as far into the spinning blades as we can, and if there's nothing left to stick in there, and we're STILL dissatisfied, then we can consider anti-sticking-our-limbs-into-a-wood-chipperism. We haven't done this yet.

[Anonymous No.4981088]

>>4977280
>youthful naivete always attempts the impossible, defeating the entropic decay and death transmogrification of man and the world.

[Anonymous No.4981505]

Nihilism, because it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.4981530]

Anti-natalists: A bunch of whiny retards who have shitty lives so they think that life in general for everyone consists only of suffering. How am I not surprised that most anti-natalists are a bunch of middle class, white kids?

[Anonymous No.4981536]

>>4981530

[Anonymous No.4981587]

>>4981536
The first part wasn't ad hominem. But keep sitting around and whining about how shitty your life is. <=== that is (and was intended) ad hominem

[Anonymous No.4981617]

>>4981088
Do you know what time it is?

[Anonymous No.4981622]

>>4977107
I guess anything post-modern

[Anonymous No.4981642]

>>4980884
Nah, enlightenment is a genuine relinquishment of the self, basically turning you into a thoughtless machine of life. There's no enjoyment from the world, just a droll understanding and a calm brought on by the cessation of dukkha.

It's an awful way to live, minus the awfulness. Just another pill to swallow, really.

[Anonymous No.4981647]

>>4981530
>life in general for everyone consists only of suffering
you should try reading about something before embarrassing yourself trying to critique it

[Anonymous No.4981662]

Where is the secular response to Pessimism? Show me the Optimist with the persuasiveness of Nietzche, Camus, Cioran or Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.4981672]

>>4981662
>persuasiveness of Nietzche, Camus, Cioran or Schopenhauer.
e.g. no persuasiveness at all?

[Anonymous No.4981675]

>>4981672
>freddy nitch
>not persuasive

literally illiterate

[Anonymous No.4981676]

>>4977323
i thought that the ultimate goal of a buddhist was to become a buddha themselves and to reincarnate in samsara after attaining nirvana to help others who are unenlightened

[Anonymous No.4981680]

>>4981672

Now you're just being needlessly coy tsk tsk tsk.

[Anonymous No.4981681]

>>4981672
>e.g.
lol

makes it easy, then. go on.

[Anonymous No.4981683]

>>4981676
only mahayana plebs

[Anonymous No.4981788]

>>4981676
nah those are bodhisattvas not buddhas. buddhas come and go in reincarnations to spread love and to save people from becoming demon monsters in a lower form of buddhist hell

[Anonymous No.4981843]

>>4981662
Anybody? I'm not being a cheeky cunt, I (and I think most pessimists) would love to be shown the error of my pessimism, I just have not seen any persuasive argument that does not originate in God.

[Anonymous No.4981850]

>>4981683
>>4981788
so if ultimate goal of a mahayana buddhist is to become a bodhisattva and buddhas just come and go then what is the goal of therevada buddhists?

[Anonymous No.4981876]

>>4981850
To achieve enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.4981887]

>>4981843
Why do you think that is?

Hint: you know why that is

[Anonymous No.4981935]

>>4981887
There are no good arguments for optimism?

From what I've seen people only have objections to pessimism but no decent arguments in favor of the opposite.

[Anonymous No.4981940]

>>4981935
I was agreeing with you. Happiness is less common than unhappiness.

[Anonymous No.4982018]

>>4981876
and if i ask what enlightenment is ill be responded with you cannot know until you have achieved it right?

[Anonymous No.4982031]

>>4981876
>To achieve enlightenment.
>>4981850


>they still think individual humans become enlightened

tip top lel

[Anonymous No.4982033]

>>4982018
See>>4981642

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4982056]

>>4981850
To annihilate the self and thus end all suffering (which can't be escaped through suicide cuz reincarnation)

[Anonymous No.4982086]

>>4982033
i was of the impression that enlightenment came as a result of your efforts here while only coming to fruition after you had died and not been reborn. in this way to become enlightened was to break the cycle?