Do you have any counter arguments to this?

File: 82 KB, 907x1360, 61gafoq4XBL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:43:28 2015 No.6367389 [Reply] [Original]

Do you have any counter arguments to this?

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Mon Apr 6 18:46:08 2015 No.6367403 >>6367389 >humans are just chemicals of the mind, useless in the scale of the universe Including the author. Who gives a shit. It's mind numbingly cynical. Cynicism beyond pointlessness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:46:10 2015 No.6367406 File: 256 KB, 354x486, 1390169485548.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >conspiracy

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:47:21 2015 No.6367414 >>6367389 Well technically that all value judgements are completely arbitrary and that his position doesn't make any more or less sense than any other. Pessimists often get so caught up in their self pity they easily forget it's completely baseless.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:48:09 2015 No.6367419 I haven't read it and no one I've encountered who has mentioned it has made me feel like I should bother.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:48:54 2015 No.6367427 >>6367414 This. He doesn't provide any real arguments, so there's nothing to counter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:50:43 2015 No.6367438 there couldn't be any strong arguments against the determinism and antinatalism in this book

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:52:33 2015 No.6367447 >>6367438 Why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 18:53:53 2015 No.6367453 it's gay

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:01:55 2015 No.6367495 >>6367438 Antinatalism is merely a whimsical preference, like antiketchupism. You can't really make strong arguments against such a thing, and neither can you make strong arguments in favour of them.

Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:12:00 2015 No.6367549

>>6367438
>implying there are no strong arguments against anti-natalism
>the "philosophy" that consists of whining "boohoo i don't have a gf therefore it's impossible for other people to be happy in life and so nobody should be allowed to have babies bcuz my life sux ;_;"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:14:26 2015 No.6367562 Yeah, Nietzsche rekt all preachers of death decades before Ligotti was born.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:16:45 2015 No.6367573 >>6367562 He didn't wreck them, he was just a whiny cunt on the other side of the spectrum for balance. >life is bad lads >nooooo it's gooood >no bad >good >BAD >gud >:) ad infinitum

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:23:16 2015 No.6367601 >>6367389 There's no such thing as the human race

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:25:22 2015 No.6367610 >>6367573 gud >:) is objectively the best viewpoint

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:25:37 2015 No.6367611 >>6367601 damn...

>>	Yes We Can't !MvhZyBIH9. Mon Apr 6 19:29:59 2015 No.6367626 >>6367601 This, mankind if a recent invention

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:35:56 2015 No.6367645 >>6367601 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:43:16 2015 No.6367680 >>6367645 Explain to me how this hackneyed response is relevant to my post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:49:14 2015 No.6367705 >>6367389 Define "conspiracy"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:51:03 2015 No.6367714 >>6367610 How can it be, if you're judging at as the best? Can't something only be best if it is good to the greatest possible degree?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 19:56:19 2015 No.6367738 >>6367680 /pol/ believes there are multiple human races

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 21:10:52 2015 No.6368112 The actual conspiracy against human race has been plotted by Archons amd Demiurge. You will only know this through study of comparative literature, comparative archeology, comparative religion and comparative mythology.

Anonymous Mon Apr 6 21:14:14 2015 No.6368126

>>6368112
>Conspiracy theories provide two very important psychic comforts. First, if someone else is controlling things, then your failures are not entirely your fault. Second, it is a proxy-parent; it is comforting to know that there are powerful individuals closely following, monitoring, and influencing everything. Suddenly, there is no catastrophe that won't be averted; suddenly life has meaning, even if it isn't one you pick.

Anonymous Mon Apr 6 21:18:19 2015 No.6368143

>>6368126

Conspiracy Theories are not personal they are collective so your argument is invalid. Also there are many conspiracy theories proven to be true.

>Conspiracy theory is an epithet invented by Jewish polemicist Karl Popper, from his 1945 work in support of rootless cosmopolitanism entitled The Open Society and Its Enemies.

You see that or are you blind?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 21:21:20 2015 No.6368163 >>6368143 >are not personal they are collective They are collective because different individuals give credit for it on websites like these. Everything has its source on the individual.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 21:22:45 2015 No.6368168 >>6368163 Tell that to the archons

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 21:54:44 2015 No.6368306 >>6367549 >straw man

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 6 22:15:32 2015 No.6368395 >>6368306 Antinatalism is literally "I find vanilla ice cream bad so no one should have it: the philosophy" though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:17:02 2015 No.6368978 >>6367403 >it's cynical Wow, great argument

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:21:02 2015 No.6368997 >>6367549 Married guy here. Never, ever, ever have children.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 7 00:21:29 2015 No.6369001 >>6368978 There's no other argument to be made because the work doesn't travel beyond it.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:25:48 2015 No.6369017

>>6368395
>comparing vanilla ice cream to existence and the possibility of suffering
>comparing not letting people eat ice cream to the creating of new lives in existence capable of causing new suffering and experiencing suffering

Yeah, perfect example and infallible counterargument

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:26:15 2015 No.6369020 >>6368395 It's more "Vanilla ice cream is destroying us all but everyone loves it, please stop making vanilla ice cream or we will all die horribly. Also, vanilla ice cream is suffering."

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:27:04 2015 No.6369025 >>6369001 I'm just tired of people criticizing works because they happen to be pessimistic or cynical in nature, as if that makes a work inherently bad because it points out the fact that not all things are happy all the time

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:30:09 2015 No.6369031 File: 46 KB, 315x450, Thomas-Ligotti-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] of course this guy would think being born is fucking horrible. look at him. maybe if he ever got laid he wouldn't have been so miserable and mopey about life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:30:31 2015 No.6369032 >>6369025 Didn't you get the memo? "Edginess" is the greatest sin in any medium, and only a bland, inoffensive creation can be taken seriously or else it will be seen as "try-hard". Because the current cultural mindset is fucking boring.

>>	Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M Tue Apr 7 00:31:09 2015 No.6369036 >>6369025 I was a fan of Ligotti a few years back, but it's so drenched in pessimism that I really didn't need it. His work is draining.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:32:40 2015 No.6369042 >>6367389 where can i read a summary of this meme

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:33:27 2015 No.6369044 >>6369031 Somehow I doubt that his ability to get laid informs his system of beliefs, especially given his popularity in the goth/horror scene.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:34:42 2015 No.6369049 >>6369042 Just read the fucking book. It's hilariously bleak.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:41:27 2015 No.6369075 >>6369042 don't bother. it's garbage. it's hilarious to think of him literally sitting at his laptop writing this as if he had nothing else to do with his life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:42:36 2015 No.6369078 >>6369075 As opposed to critiquing it on /lit/

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:46:36 2015 No.6369095 >>6369078 i'm not critiquing it. that would mean taking it seriously. i'm outright dismissing it as garbage.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:50:07 2015 No.6369108 >>6369095 Have you read it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:52:31 2015 No.6369118 >>6369017 >muh suffering grow up you big baby

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:56:17 2015 No.6369132

>>6369108
that's like asking if i rummage through strangers' trash to find out what they're all about.

my dismissal of ligotti without having read him is about as founded as ligotti's dismissal of life without presumably having lived it, instead opting to write about how shit it is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:58:13 2015 No.6369142 File: 498 KB, 450x338, 1411297335119.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6369118 >embracing fatalism whats the point

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 00:59:52 2015 No.6369147 >>6369142 I like life, it's enjoyable. Why do I need points, points are spooky ideology at it's most blood-curdling.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:00:35 2015 No.6369150 >>6369132 So no, then.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:01:25 2015 No.6369151 >>6369118 You've outwitted me this time!!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:01:50 2015 No.6369155 >>6369142 There is no point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:03:29 2015 No.6369161 >>6369147 Hmm, interesting. Well some people don't like life because it's not enjoyable to them. Sometimes they even write about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:05:34 2015 No.6369168 >>6369161 Yep. I think those people could be helped by being exorcised of their spooks though, and their whining about "muh suffering outweighs all pleasure so don't have children" is silly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:09:01 2015 No.6369185 >>6369168 What's also silly are people who make statements like "you just need to grow up kiddo" "stop whining" "this is just pessimistic garbage" and think they're actually valid counterarguments to be used for anything

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:09:12 2015 No.6369186 >>6369168 >Spooks Buzzword ideologue.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:12:09 2015 No.6369193 >>6369185 they're not counterpoints, they're advice pessimistic thought is poison

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 01:18:33 2015 No.6369212 >>6369193 >pessimistic thought is poison

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 09:39:30 2015 No.6370231 >>6368112 >Muh universe of meaning

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 09:45:55 2015 No.6370253

>>6367573
I think his argument was more like, we're in it, we recur eternally (actually makes sense if you see that from a higher dimensional perspective all time exists at once and therefore 'forever'), suffering can be beautiful and meaningful, strength can be felt, cool things can be done, things can be attempted. It's not like we have a choice. We fucking in it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 09:58:10 2015 No.6370302 >>6367495 Check out Benatar.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:02:04 2015 No.6370310

What if you're antinatalism doesn't stem from hating life as such, but from ecological and societal facts?
Like; I don't want my child to grow up in a world that is undeniably going to be plagued by war draughts, hunger and opression - and the best way for this not to happen to the children of others, is if we stop making all those babbys.

Political anti-natalism? Is that a thing?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:03:08 2015 No.6370315 >>6370310 >you're daaaaaaaaaaaamn.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:03:48 2015 No.6370319 >>6367389 >Life is pointless so I'm sad Third fucking world problems. Life is hard, bad shit happens, get the fuck over it you little faggot Let me ask you, in the end, who was happier, Marty or Rust?

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:07:27 2015 No.6370335

>>6370310
actually most anti-natalists argue that bringing life here is wrong from ethical standpoint, but yours makes sense too I guess
>>6370319
the thing is that Marty was ignorant and Rust wasn't. There is no way for Rust to become Marty, he has already seen something (whether he's right or not that's another matter), and you can't ever take that back. It's like saying "cheer up m8" to somebody who has depression.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:08:52 2015 No.6370338

Can someone give me a basic rundown?
Is it about how humans don't exist and just imagine themselves, while the universe is just a bunch of particles goofing around meaninglessly, or something like that?

Well, that is correct, but we can choose to ignore it, and cover the abyss with a layer of whatever we wish.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:13:11 2015 No.6370350 >>6369132 Comprehensive as always.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:20:46 2015 No.6370364

>>6370335
Saying Marty was ignorant is very wrong. It is evident that he has seen bad shit. He also has a big problem with fidelity and his drinking is about as bad as Rusts at times. But he refuses to let it drag him down. Rust took a look at the shitstorm and said "this is all there is".

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:22:30 2015 No.6370369 File: 33 KB, 318x308, ever.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6368997 Just download them

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:22:31 2015 No.6370370 >>6370338 It's about how life isn't great or bad, it's MALIGNANTLY USELESS Suicide sucks, not being born in the first place is what should be preferred

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:34:09 2015 No.6370390 >>6370364 Marty ignored a lot of stuff that he didn't agree with. He saw it, but he decided to focus on his vices.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:38:47 2015 No.6370399

>>6370364
Marty has seen a lot of shit but he still buys into the belief that life is absolutely positive overall for everyone and defends the default naive optimism. I agree with you that you can't let shit drag you down, but Marty is no philosopher, he doesn't think about the world as deeply as Rust does, he just blindly and stubbornly defends the worldview that everything is alright and doesn't ever confront Rust with rational arguments (which is definitely possible!). He refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of the truth being different which is definition of being ignorant. He thinks that life is worthwhile which is legitimate view, sure, but he believes that because it's the default opinion of our society, not because he thought about it real hard or because he was inspired by great thinkers of the past. He doesn't subscribe to Camus' absurdism nor Nietzsche's will to live nor is he a Kierkegaardian Christian or anything remotely sensible like that.
TL;DR: All I'm saying is that it's not only a question of what you believe, but why you believe that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:43:36 2015 No.6370417 >>6367414 Moral anti-realists sicken me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:45:56 2015 No.6370429 >>6367549 Except not one antinatalist argument takes such a form.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:51:27 2015 No.6370449 >>6369193 It's also correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:52:56 2015 No.6370454 >>6370370 >it's MALIGNANTLY USELESS my life has great use to me, it lets me do cool shit that I like like shitposting on hyperborean solar-worshipping runestones, so how is it useless

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:53:57 2015 No.6370459 >>6370449 >It's also correct. Prove it m8

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:54:08 2015 No.6370460 >>6370390 >>6370399 These.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:54:51 2015 No.6370465 >>6370454 I don't agree with Ligotti's nihilism. But I'd say life, once you remove the optimistic biases, can be said to entail more harm than benefit, usually.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:56:48 2015 No.6370472 >>6370465 What optimistic biases are these?

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:57:04 2015 No.6370473

>>6367389
Not to any specific arguments or claims, but based off the title I'm going to assume it's a conspiracy theory book feeding on the mentally ill. It most likely does not provide a source for any of the outrageous claims it makes and it is overtly offensive to anyone that isn't a white American male protestant.

Then again it probably has nothing to do with conspiracies and I'm making myself look like a fool.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:57:13 2015 No.6370474 >>6370459 Read Schopenhauer, the utilitarians, and Benatar.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:59:52 2015 No.6370480 >>6370474 >the utilitarians no thanks, my trashbin is already full >Benatar >and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings.[2] lol those crazy moralists

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 10:59:53 2015 No.6370481

>>6370472
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollyanna_principle

Another two would include, psychological relativism, where one judges the quality of their life by comparing it to someone worse off, rather than objectively. And adaptation, by which a person gets used to an unpleasant state of affairs, over time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:00:55 2015 No.6370485 >>6370480 see >>6370417

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:04:12 2015 No.6370492 >>6370485 It's pretty funny when people delude themselves into thinking their opinions are a law of the universe, especially in the year 2015

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:04:22 2015 No.6370493 >>6370481 Oh, and another: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:05:26 2015 No.6370496 >>6370492 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:40:12 2015 No.6370624 >>6369031 looks like elliot rodger who made it to his sixties

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:44:06 2015 No.6370636 >>6369044 Somehow I doubt Tommy "without tranquilizers, I would exist in unending nightmare" Ligotti cares much for pussy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:53:49 2015 No.6370670 HEY ANTINATALISTS just have some fucking patience. you will never convince humans to stop breeding. on the other hand, the extinction event is impossible so just get your own dick snipped and have a laugh along the way

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:54:56 2015 No.6370675 >>6370670 >impossible meant inevitable, kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 11:59:57 2015 No.6370693 >>6370636 You've really got to feel bad for just how bad his panic disorder is.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 12:44:22 2015 No.6370812

>>6367403
>>6367414
>Including the author. Who gives a shit. It's mind numbingly cynical. Cynicism beyond pointlessness.
>his position doesn't make any more or less sense than any other.
That's exactly what Ligotti says in the opening of the book though. It's not written to change the ideas of people that have completely different ones. It's just him explaining his view of things and why he feels they are correct.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 13:43:31 2015 No.6371044 >>6370670 This is what I'm doing.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 13:51:15 2015 No.6371080

A nihilist, atheist homosexual professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Thomas Ligotti, a known antinatalist.

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and accept that life is painful, disgusting and ultimately mechanical and nothing actually matters, not even meaning the individual creates for himself!

At this moment, a brave, fecund, pro-life Christian humanist who had seven beautiful children and understood the intrinsic value of human life stood up and held up a rock.

”Why am I holding this rock, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite nihilisticly and smugly replied “It's just neurons firing in your brain that have created the illusion that you're a conscious being”

”Wrong. I'm holding it because I choose to of my own free will. If none of us has free will and life, as you say, has no meaning… then why haven't you killed yourself by now?”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. He stormed out of the room crying those antinatalist crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “humanity” (who today live in such luxury that most life well into their 60s) while they bitterly try to write edgy novels to make money that they themselves claim is hollow and pointless. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Nick Pizzeria, wished he had done something meaningful with his life and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself "did not have the constitution for suicide"!

The students applauded and all accepted Jesus as their lord and savior and threw away their birth control devices. An eagle named “Desiderius Erasmus” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. Psalm 127: 3–5 was read several times, and God himself showed up and instilled everyone's lives with value and purpose.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died in a seemingly random accident that was actually part of God's plan and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

God bless ps Be fruitful and multiply

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 13:53:35 2015 No.6371089 >>6371080 Would that be an existential, or moral nihilist?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 13:56:29 2015 No.6371110 >>6371080 Pure brilliance, by the way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 13:59:41 2015 No.6371137 >>6371080 >at this point our professor, Nick Pizzeria, At this moment, my sides are in orbit.

Anonymous Tue Apr 7 14:36:55 2015 No.6371281

>>6367389
why should i care about the suffering of others? why would a collective extinction be honorable? how the fuck would that please me?

what fucking difference does the self being an illusion make to me, my self?

he discusses man and men on the same scale and throws around spooks like it's halloween bowling night.

>the whole point of Conspiracy is that pessimism as a resolute life-stance is not welcome to the minds very many people
optimism and pessimism are both distractions for me you fucking quack

>The fact that these people are obsessed with making a serious attempt to abolish human suffering, and to establish this aim as the central project of their lives, is nice to see.
he is a humanist in every sense and cannot understand the individual. his god is suffering and he sees nothing else but walking bags of pain. the honorable thing he says would be for all humans to suicide, but of course no one fucking agrees with him. the suffering of an individual and the solution of suicide, of nonexistence, should be left to the individual to decide on. no individual should commit suicide for the suffering of another, especially when that suffering individual continues existing, continues suffering. agree with this guy and take up his honorable cause of murder and self extinction to realize his dream.

he is obsessed with mankind, but fails in carrying out his scale of intricacy which defines everything chemically, that everything is scaled, he doesn't understand animals or anything else at all exists with arguably equal or lesser experience. he seriously believes humans alone are fucking magic and nothing else can suffer, or empathize, or understand death, as if we are fucking born into this world thinking hard and good about death and what it means to be alive, what even constitutes living. it's a joke man. his scale doesn't apply for other forms of life because it's easy as fuck to discuss man alone and disregard all the other lesser shit.

disclaimer haven't read it lól

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 14:54:38 2015 No.6371351 >>6371281 seconding this entire post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 23:20:37 2015 No.6373388 >>6371080 Still hilarious

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 23:48:38 2015 No.6373491 File: 198 KB, 952x1151, 44302-jesus-on-cross-painting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Has anyone ever considered that maybe death and suffering are inherently good things?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 23:54:22 2015 No.6373512 >>6373491 they're not inherently anything, they just are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 7 23:58:07 2015 No.6373529 >>6367389 yeah, it's stupid, dumb, and gay

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:03:07 2015 No.6373554 File: 104 KB, 600x404, Tiepolo-Abraham-and-Isaac-wga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6373512 Unless they're teleological. What if they're meant to teach us something?

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:05:09 2015 No.6373562

starting from "live is inherently meaningless", there are a few options (probably not limited to): naturalism, existentialism, or antinatalism.

naturalism would say that life is good in so far as it's what people are naturally inclined towards, which isn't an objective standard but it's obvious that for most people, at least, they live rather than die and many enjoy it. people can argue for an objective value in naturalism, but the value is said to come from nature rather than an abstract objective value which should be imposed onto people or which people should reach toward.

existentialism says you can choose whatever meaning you wish. most existentialists choose to live and choose whichever values appeal to them, which are often not that different from the values that non-existentialists hold for other reasons.

at least, those are two systems which take many of the same premises as antinatalism and come to different conclusions. antinatalism stops at the premises and says they don't make sense so the result is that everyone must die.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:06:19 2015 No.6373572 >TFW there are moral realists on /lit/ right now. The worst part are the ones who aren't even religious, and just think the values they inherited from their culture are somehow universal laws of science.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:09:28 2015 No.6373584 File: 60 KB, 640x480, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6367738 I think you took his post too literally, anon.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Apr 8 00:12:38 2015 No.6373591 >>6373554 >Tiepolo's Just Kidding

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:12:41 2015 No.6373592

Antinatalism will always be a failed philosophy from a logical perspective because the very existence of life is the ultimate argument against it. All arguments, even those AGAINST life, are CONSTRUCTED by life. It's like if you held a debate and your opponent decided not to show up. You'd win by default, wouldn't you?

Unlife is never going to show up. Life wins.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:13:21 2015 No.6373597 >>6373592 damn...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:15:37 2015 No.6373606 >>6373592 This. Antinatalists will be right when life is extinct, except they won't because nobody will be around to have an opinion on it. Too bad,

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:16:05 2015 No.6373607 >>6373554 There is no metaphysical teleology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:17:37 2015 No.6373614 >>6373606 dang...

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:19:18 2015 No.6373623 >>6373607 Says the godless apostate.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:22:22 2015 No.6373638

>>6373592
It has less to do with life than it does consciousness. Though consciousness is still required to understand the inherent shortcomings within consciousness, it does not make those shortcomings any less real. Depression, ennui, existential suffering, these things are dependent on a state of consciousness, and it is through consciousness that we can infer that a lack of consciousness would solve the problem of their existence. And before you respond "why not kill yourself?", suicide is not the answer, but it is *an* answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:22:57 2015 No.6373640 >>6373638 >22:22:22 nice

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:23:22 2015 No.6373643 >>6373623 Yes, that is correct.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:24:04 2015 No.6373647 >>6373638 The same argument applies, unconscious beings can't have opinions or make arguments.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:25:55 2015 No.6373656 >>6370253 go to bed Rust

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 00:30:33 2015 No.6373677

>>6373647
No one is arguing with unconscious beings, the question is of the value of consciousness for conscious beings. Human beings are the only species that make a number of ethical, valuation, and logical arguments, but because the existence of a human being is required to begin the debate, it doesn't undermine the validity of those debates as they relate to said judgments. That 'X must exists in order for X to be judged as bad' does not imply 'X exists therefore X must not be bad'.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 01:53:00 2015 No.6373884 >>6373572 What actual argument do you have against moral realism?

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 01:55:24 2015 No.6373888

>>6373606
>>6373592
This seems to be based on the questionable premise that values require subjective experience. If moral realism is true, and values are objective, they would exist independently of any conscious recognition of them, like the speed of light being c, even if everyone is ignorant of it.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 02:07:30 2015 No.6373910

>>6373888
>If moral realism is true
Well there you have it. Antinatalism is bullshit.

It tries to make objective value judgements based on the subjective experiences of individual beings.

Life isn't "Good" or "Bad" because those concepts aren't real things. Antinatalists are just trying to project their personal opinion on the rest of the universe. It's my personal opinion that that's arrogant as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 03:32:46 2015 No.6374062 >>6373910 I think it's fair to say you don't know the arguments for moral realism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:01:09 2015 No.6374321 >>6369032 Go to bed, Palahniuk, your conception of edginess isn't really edgy because it was hijacked by angsty high schoolers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:10:07 2015 No.6374334 >All the hate for anti-natalism in this thread This is tantamount to hating atheism. Instead of actually arguing why natalism is a good thing to begin with, people just spout logical fallacies all day, like religious nutbags do against atheism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:12:12 2015 No.6374338 File: 63 KB, 469x463, 1405718361889.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6374334

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:13:01 2015 No.6374341 >>6374338 dank memes bro

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:15:18 2015 No.6374346 File: 80 KB, 500x479, fedorafags.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6374334

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:31:14 2015 No.6374380 File: 122 KB, 491x483, 1428244983709.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6374334

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:51:43 2015 No.6374415 >>6370335 Ethic is a spook

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 06:56:34 2015 No.6374425 >>6367389 Of course there are. You'd have to be an atheist to take this book seriously. If you're an atheist, you realize life is meaningless. If life is meaningless, so is antinatalism. Oh, and antinatalism is a spook.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 07:00:50 2015 No.6374435

>>6374334

the one single problem here is that you're mixing the individual with the societal

this is why there is no argument to be made against you because you oscillate freely between these to very distinct phenomena

in this way your argument is structurally flawed which makes it impossible to logically refute, thereby giving you the illusion of it being flawless

please print this post and refer to it every time people post a fedora picture for you

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 07:05:20 2015 No.6374442 >>6374334 >please argue against my neurosis

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 07:08:37 2015 No.6374449 >>6374425 >If life is meaningless, so is antinatalism. It would still be ethically more right, to not cause more life, which ultimately is pain. And don't get your spooks into this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 07:09:25 2015 No.6374451 >>6374449 how can you fail at nihilism so badly

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 07:47:52 2015 No.6374530 >>6374451 You haven't even read the book have you? It's not about nihilism, it's about pessimism.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:37:29 2015 No.6374630

>>6370417
>I have a magical device in my brain that detects entities that don't interact with anything else
>I can't explain how it works, where it is, or how it developed but it's TOTALLY THERE
>oh and different people detect completely different things even though their magical morality-detecting devices are perceiving the exact same entities, but I'm just gonna pretend that doesn't happen

Realists are literally insane.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:43:14 2015 No.6374646 >>6374630 You don't know anything about moral realism. It's also fair to note that your criticism would apply to mathematics, and logic, too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:44:31 2015 No.6374651 File: 335 KB, 1024x964, itstoospooky3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6374380 >"fedora" meme

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:44:35 2015 No.6374652 >>6374530 Though Ligotti did say he was a moral nihilist in an interview. Which is obviously incompatible with antinatalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:45:49 2015 No.6374653 >>6374646 >It's also fair to note that your criticism would apply to mathematics I don't think that is fair to note at all, unless moral realism necessarily implies mathematical realism. Which it does not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:49:51 2015 No.6374657 >>6374652 What is fictionalism.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:51:13 2015 No.6374658 >>6374657 If true I don't think you could offer a truly compelling reason to act in a given way.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:53:07 2015 No.6374664

>>6374658
That's Ligotti's point though, the fact the debate is still alive and well 2500 years later means there is no ultimate answer that everyone will accept or even entertain. Best you can do is poke holes in the opposition's arguments and reveal their possible contradictions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 08:58:47 2015 No.6374673 File: 48 KB, 464x455, 1408102214772.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6374334

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:01:05 2015 No.6375290 >>6367549 >muh /b/-tier strawman

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:08:37 2015 No.6375312 File: 66 KB, 640x546, zAK9Oz2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6369118 Seriously?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:09:23 2015 No.6375313 >>6375312 YOUR GAY YOUR GAY YOUR GAY

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:32:39 2015 No.6375392 >>6373554 Laughinggirls.pdf

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:35:41 2015 No.6375401

>>6374646
Look up Godel's incompleteness theorem. Even math requires arbitrary axioms. It's impossible to create a perfect logical system which describes all occurrences.

I believe this applies to everything, Philosophy, Morality, Math, Science, and Logic.

The only reason we are so obsessed with finding a perfect system that describes the whole world, is because we still belong to a monotheistic culture. Also probably Socrates.

A true pagan or atheist should be comfortable with the fact that there is no such thing as a universal truth, and be happy with a collection of partial truths that accurately describe his current existence, but would become distorted if applied to things too far removed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:37:44 2015 No.6375408 >>6375401 What is with retards misinterpreting the theorems, they're not that hard to grasp.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:42:56 2015 No.6375424 >>6375401 What does that have to do with moral or mathematical realism?

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:47:08 2015 No.6375435

>>6375408
Godel Escher Bach makes a very clear explanation to layman. It does have implications for any system which attempts to apply to all cases without contradicting itself. Nobody is misinterpreting it but you.

The fact that you want to pretend it's just some purely academic math thing that has no bearing on everyday life is because you are afraid of the implications.

The universe was not created by a single god, nor does it operate on a single set of logically consistent rules. Realism is a bad assumption.

>>6375424
What doesn't it have to do with that? You can't make system that will apply to all situations, full stop. It doesn't matter if it's math or morality. You will always eventually find a case where the rules will become contradictory. Hence the halting problem, Russell's paradox, and everyday moral ethical dilemmas.

This shouldn't be hard to understand for anybody with a little perspective, unless they are deluding themselves into thinking they can know all the answers.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:52:13 2015 No.6375451

>>6375435
>Godel Escher Bach
Perhaps you should read something besides pop science "recursivity is kind of neat" horseshit by someone who's not taken seriously by basically anyone in the academic world.
>It does have implications for any system which attempts to apply to all cases without contradicting itself.
No, it only has implications for formals systems powerful enough to allows the formation (indirectly or not) contradictory and self-referential but syntactically correct statements presuming that we want to hold on to the law of non-contradiction, with which dialetheists wipe their ass with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 12:52:29 2015 No.6375452 File: 6 KB, 250x230, 1427226280704.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6369078 #REKT

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:02:42 2015 No.6375480

>>6375451
>No, it only has implications for formals systems powerful enough to allows the formation (indirectly or not) contradictory and self-referential but syntactically correct statements

Yes Godel's theorem only applies to formal systems, but you can make a formal system out of anything. And most of the things realists consider to be "Real" do in fact fall under it's umbrella.

For morality to be real, it would have to be a powerful formal system, and thus susceptible to contradictions. If it's not that, then it's not real. Is that hard to understand?

As for dialetheism, that's hardly incomparable with moral anti-realism, moral realism on the other hand is not. If morality is real, then actions must be either right or wrong (or exist on some spectrum of rightness) , thus they should never be contradictory.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:08:50 2015 No.6375496 File: 2.63 MB, 300x225, 1427117186293.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6371080 >Nick Pizzeria

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:16:38 2015 No.6375533 >>6375480 >For morality to be real, it would have to be a powerful formal system I don't see why that has to be the case. Assuming moral realism is true, why can't it just consist of tiny, independent packages?

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:25:03 2015 No.6375554

>>6375533
if it is tiny independent packages, then none of them can claim to be objective or universal.

Unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding moral realism. I consider myself an anti-realist, and i think that truth is just a bunch of tiny independent packages.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:26:44 2015 No.6375562 You can't judge the value of life as a participant imo

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:32:57 2015 No.6375595 >>6375554 >if it is tiny independent packages, then none of them can claim to be objective or universal. Why?

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:40:23 2015 No.6375626

>>6375595
Because they are each specialized for a particular society, and even then mostly come down to personal opinions or observations.

I know killing is wrong, because that's what my culture tells me. In another culture it might be different. I know the sky is blue, because that's what I see when i look up, but sometimes it's grey or red or black.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:40:40 2015 No.6375628

What is positive?

Would that be a state of complete singularity? If so, then life, as long as it can be called such, is inherently a negativity seeking the positive, making every human action to be a positivity eventually leading unto being.

But what if we are already a part of the singular being? Being here means everything known and everything beyond to be known. We constricted by our mind only for everything that is to be known, seeing the one structure out of the infinite other ones, which means that everything we do is inherently positive(again, thinking as pure being as a positive thing, without which everything falls into irrelevancy and is neither good or bad, becomes a state that we must accept in all its depictions).

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:48:27 2015 No.6375656

>>6375626
I don't understand your argument. If they exist then they are independent of society, that's not even debatable. And what does that have to do with "if it is tiny independent packages, then none of them can claim to be objective or universal."?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:56:25 2015 No.6375689 File: 249 KB, 770x696, 1337046916976.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6369168 >muh discarded

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 13:59:51 2015 No.6375702

>>6375656
Because they don't exist outside the cultures that practice them, and even within those cultures they are constantly being re-evaluated or contradicted.
They only exist for humans, and even then it's not a very tangible existence. You can't prove or falsify a moral judgement.

Unless I'm misunderstanding realism, Is it not a belief that "It's possible for things to be objectively right or wrong."?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:04:23 2015 No.6375714 >>6375702 Moral realism says moral rules literally exist. Like your keyboard exists. Cultures don't even come into it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:08:36 2015 No.6375729 >>6375714 Well then, it's false, because moral rules are just cultural constructions. >in b4 somebody argues that my keyboard is a cultural construction because it was built by people.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:13:31 2015 No.6375756

>>6375729
>>in b4 somebody argues that my keyboard is a cultural construction because it was built by people.
It doesn't matter that it was built by people. The essence of what constitutes a keyboard is the construction. Everything about your keyboard ultimately breaks down when you attempt to remove it from semantics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:19:00 2015 No.6375790 >>6375689 >sasha discarded

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:19:25 2015 No.6375796

>>6375756
What do you mean here?

My keyboard will still be a physical piece of plastic silicon, and copper, no matter what context it exists in. It has mass and volume.
In the context of my culture, it becomes a device with a purpose, but it still exists even if it is never used.

Morality on the other hand will always only ever be an idea in peoples heads, and even then an idea that is constantly being re-evaluated. It has no objective existence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:20:39 2015 No.6375803 File: 879 KB, 800x800, Descarted.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6375790 >Hating on best girl.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:46:16 2015 No.6375930 >>6374646 >You don't know anything about moral realism. I read this one paper "I'm a moral realist and so are you" or something like that. The author is either lying through his teeth or functionally retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:49:29 2015 No.6375946 >>6375930 >Googling "I'm a moral realist and so are you" http://www.academia.edu/4116101/Why_Im_an_Objectivist_about_Ethics_And_Why_You_Are_Too_ This one?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:58:31 2015 No.6375989 >>6367573 You're an idiot, nietzsche's claim was that some individuals have the power to master life and enjoy it, he was anti-universalist so obviously he didn't make any sweeping statements such as 'life is inherently good'

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 14:59:32 2015 No.6375995 >>6367601 Boomdoggie

ΟΥΤΙΣ Wed Apr 8 15:03:23 2015 No.6376005

This is what happens why you try to be Christian without God.

"You could have prevented this!"
-Nietzsche

"jk love fate"
-Nietzsche

"I am Jesus being crucified by haters."
-Nietzsche

"He speaks to me!"
-everyone who has a life with no accomplishments in it

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:04:07 2015 No.6376008

>>6375946
>This one?
yeah, that's it. I was on the verge of actually writing a response and pubishing it on academia.edu, but I feel like I already wasted my time just reading the paper itself, and in order to write a response I'd have to read at least the first level of criticism and response to criticism.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:04:17 2015 No.6376011

So, basically

Fact: We're all going to die.

Book argument: Life is pointless and meaningless and everything we do in life is just to keep our minds distracted from the fact we're going to die, and we suffer due to being aware of our own mortality. The only way to escape this cycle is to stop reproducing, because non-existence never hurt anybody.

Is that about right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:04:29 2015 No.6376013 >>6369142 That is a beautiful gif

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:05:11 2015 No.6376020

>>6375946
>>6376008
Reading it now. Ugh, his whole argument seems to be "People defend their beliefs."

His example with the child not liking spinach being fundamental different from a modern person finding a particular action immoral hinges on the author hoping the reader agrees with the judgements and can't tell the difference between their own preferences and an objective morality.

The child not liking spinach is funny because we are adults who have come to the conclusion that spinach isn't "Icky." The examples involving racism or the flat earth (perpetuating a dumb myth along the way) aren't funny because we the audience personally believe that racism is wrong and the earth is round.

He even half admits this with the line.
>I hope you agree with me on this (if youdon't, replace this with a moral judgment you're rather confident in).
How convenient for him that the audience is likely to believe in things and want to defend them.

But really, that doesn't make them objective, it just makes them important to particular people or groups of people. Those people are not the universe.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:05:42 2015 No.6376022 >>6371281 >libertarians

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:05:54 2015 No.6376025 >>6376011 Pretty much, coated with black and bitter humor.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:05:59 2015 No.6376026 >>6376011 Yeah. The argument bugs me but I'm not smart enough to come up with a counter so I'm just reading this thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:10:54 2015 No.6376054 >>6376026 You don't need to write an argument against it though. The act of living itself is the best argument against death. Find a mate and make at least two children if antinatalists bug you so much.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:13:27 2015 No.6376063

>>6376054
>The act of living itself is the best argument against death

But see, if life is meaningless, then so is death, and being dead is about as useful as being alive. It's worth fuck-all either either way, which is why—I guess—antinatalists don't kill themselves.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:22:31 2015 No.6376107

>>6376063
Yes, but the vast majority of living things seem compelled to go on living. Even if you kill yourself, your body would be decomposed by living bacteria and turned into fertilizer for plants, which would inevitably feed animals. You can't help but perpetuate life.

And life seems to be very good at living in hostile places. it could be conceivable that some very primitive yet hardy forms of life are spread by comets to every planet in the universe. In that case life wins up until the heat death of the universe. Making an argument against it is pointless.

Now, it's also true that death has existed for infinitely longer than life, and that it will exist for infinitely long after. But we exist in the life phase of this universe, and it will continue long after we stop observing it. Right now life is winning, and that's all that really matters.

Also, the tendency for simple systems to combine into complex ones might just be a side effect of entropy. In which case the existence of life is actually a function of the very process that ultimately destroys it. In that case, making arguments against life or death are even more absurd. Life is just the universe's way of efficiently breaking down existence.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:26:39 2015 No.6376124

>>6376107
>Life is just the universe's way of efficiently breaking down existence.
I like this, very poetic I might say. Reminds me of how Brassier argues in Nihil Unbound that philosophy is the "organon of extinction," that it is only because life is conditioned by its own extinction that there is thought at all.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 15:37:24 2015 No.6376183

>>6367389
Enough many people enjoy life so there's no reason they should care about this book.

He adresses this though, and says there's no point in in retaliating because things will keep going the way they do anyway.

He's just stating his view of things, it's interesting to consider but it's not a part of any "debate" about much anything. The chapter about supernatural themes in literature is really interesting regardless of your stance on the pessimism/antinatalism issue.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:19:51 2015 No.6376540

>>6376107
Possibly the most retarded post I've read on /lit/ this week.

>Living things feel compelled to go on living.

No shit. You are a puppet to your genes, a literal appendage to your germplasm. Which explains why people get so buttangsty and personally offended at even the idea of antinatalism.

And the moron upthread quoting Stirner doesn't even recognize his own spooks inherent in his worldview. Every single antinatalism thread is the same thing: one or two people causally discussing the actual topic of the thread amidst a bunch of retards getting personally offended at the charge that their life is filed with nothing but meaningless interactions meant to distract them from the fact that they will soon die and that they - their fuzzy ideas about personality, their "being", their "self", only exist so that their DNA can replicate itself at the expense of the individual.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:21:26 2015 No.6376550 >>6376107 Also >death has existed for longer than life Nigga what lmao

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:23:04 2015 No.6376557

I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everbody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:24:32 2015 No.6376560 >>6376557 haha he posted it again!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:26:22 2015 No.6376572 >>6376557 I can watch television, too.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:28:02 2015 No.6376581

>>6371281
>the suffering of an individual and the solution of suicide, of nonexistence, should be left to the individual to decide on.
That's pretty much the antinatalist argument though, that you shouldn't force an individual into existence without that individual making the decision. Since you can't ask him beforehand, it would be best not to bring the hypothetical individual into existence, just like you would do best not to fuck someone up the ass if you have no way of gaining permission to do so.

Ethically, having children is sort of like raping a comatose person.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 17:30:27 2015 No.6376596 >>6376540 Being unhypocritical is a spook. Stirner never says "spooks are bad", either. You're pretty spooky yourself m8

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 18:08:11 2015 No.6376806 >>6376596 This.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 18:15:57 2015 No.6376844 >>6375946 Holy fucking shit, this is terrible

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 18:24:18 2015 No.6376895 >>6376540 >Possibly the most retarded post I've read on /lit/ this week. No that would be your post right there.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 18:29:15 2015 No.6376927

>>6376550
Time is infinate (as far as we can tell) yet you life for a finite amount of time.

This an infinite amount of time passed before you were born, and an infinite amount of time will pass after. Extrapolate this to all living beings, and you have an infinity of time before life existed, and an infinity of time afterwards. All of human existence, in fact any existence at all, is just a thin slice of time bounded on each side by an eternity of nothingness.

Another reason Antinatalism is dumb, if life is so horrible, don't worry, it will all be over relatively soon. You can go back to the blissful oblivion you dream of forever.

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 18:36:30 2015 No.6376976

Life sucks if you had bad luck or stupid choices, or bad environment or things like that.

Life sucks also if you are obsessed with thinking and you have this little voice telling you 24/7 that you suck and you should die.

Life is awesome if you get pussy, friends, a good environment, a good place to be, power, influence and other things

srs, having genuinely good life is possible, it's what makes our existance more miserable. If everyone had a bad life it wouldn't be so bad psychologically, but seeing genuinely good lives makes our one much more shitty.

That being said, it's our personal problem and nobody will care about you except yourself, you are fucked up and there is nothing you can do except being part of the game and try to have a good life even at the cost of others.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 19:23:28 2015 No.6377262 >>6375946 >david enoch >eunuch fitting

Anonymous Wed Apr 8 22:40:08 2015 No.6378098

>>6376927
>Another reason Antinatalism is dumb, if life is so horrible, don't worry, it will all be over relatively soon. You can go back to the blissful oblivion you dream of forever.

Could it be said there's an element of altruism in antinatalism? e.g. the desire to spare further generations from the pain and grief inherent in life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 22:41:43 2015 No.6378109 >>6376927 The statement "death has been around longer than life" was moronic because something has to first be alive before it can be dead. You're an idiot.

DNA Wed Apr 8 22:46:47 2015 No.6378129
File: 185 KB, 1200x627, 1427011016994.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Thanks to most everyone on this site for following along and playing my little game. While a couple people every once in a blue moon speak out, most here are loyal natalists. However, sometimes people get pissed at the whole circus and call me out on it.

– DNA

Angry human:

>I really dislike the phrase: "Who knows what the future might hold? The possibilities are endless." I think that it is just a bullshit phrase people like to tell to each other to falsely cheer one another up and avoid facing mental distress by ignoring the sad reality of their current existential situation.

And well, actually, we do know. Perhaps not with complete exactitude, but we can get a pretty fucking accurate idea.

The future certainly holds death, for everyone. And before death, there are a limited amount of mundane, insignificant and meaningless occurrences, events and situations that could happen and that a person could end up experiencing. Many of those depending on the social situation, genetic composition and personality traits, can already start to be discarded as they have almost zero chances of ever happening other than inside the individual’s imagination. Not to mention that none of it, not even the best case scenario of a combination of things happening, will have a significant impact whatsoever on anything other than distracting the meat puppet from the fact that it is decomposing towards nothingness, about to say bye bye forever and that their forced emergence from the void to just momentarily being to purposelessly swim around lost in a sea of cosmic indifference, was monumentally futile and absurd.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 22:48:28 2015 No.6378133 >>6376895 GOSH :::::::S :::::::O HSOG

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 8 22:52:59 2015 No.6378155 >>6378098 >Altruism.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature