- This topic has 59 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Has a philosopher ever provided an argument against anti-natalism and pessimism? Zapffe and Becker specifically
I see the denial of death and the last messiah posted consistently. How can one escape the “cope” paradox that results from reading these works?
-
It’s over, isn’t it?
-
lmao at all these sis that didn’t read Rabelais, Bakhtin and Heraclitus
get life-pilled -
the only way out is through
-
>Has a philosopher ever provided an argument against anti-natalism and pessimism?
Schopenhauer-
Is world as will a good place to start?
-
The Fourfold root of the principle of sufficient Reason is a must read before WWR. After that, you’re good to go
-
-
-
What’s a bigger pussy cope than ‘I’m not happy so all human existence should end’?
-
Zapffe was happy, though.
-
Yeah, the guy that claims that human consciousness categorically makes life tragic… If he’s happy because he can point this out, then he is coping, perhaps with some more foundational aspect of reality of which he’s ignorant.
-
Amen
How could you think this and not anhero?
-
Because the world is my playground. I want to see what I can accomplish in this life for my own sake-become a god in all fields which take my interest. Until I get bored of life then I will carry on, even though consciousness is painful.
-
Thank you for this, anon
I’m going hiking today
-
You sure you didn’t reply to the wrong anon?
-
Do as you like friend. Zapffe said that rock climbing is a distraction from the meat thrasher of a world but still it is an excellent distraction.
-
-
>even though consciousness is painful.
Its not though, it just observes pain without itself being affected by it.
-
-
-
If we continue these considerations to the bitter end, then the conclusion is not in doubt. As long as humankind recklessly proceeds in the fateful delusion of being biologically fated for triumph, nothing essential will change. As its numbers mount and the spiritual atmosphere thickens, the techniques of protection must assume an increasingly brutal character.
And humans will persist in dreaming of salvation and affirmation and a new Messiah. Yet when many saviours have been nailed to trees and stoned on the city squares, then the last Messiah shall come.
Then will appear the man who, as the first of all, has dared strip his soul naked and submit it alive to the outmost thought of the lineage, the very idea of doom. A man who has fathomed life and its cosmic ground, and whose pain is the Earth’s collective pain. With what furious screams shall not mobs of all nations cry out for his thousandfold death, when like a cloth his voice encloses the globe, and the strange message has resounded for the first and last time:
“– The life of the worlds is a roaring river, but Earth’s is a pond and a backwater.
– The sign of doom is written on your brows – how long will ye kick against the pin-pricks?
– But there is one conquest and one crown, one redemption and one solution.
– Know yourselves – be infertile and let the earth be silent after ye.”
And when he has spoken, they will pour themselves over him, led by the pacifier makers and the midwives, and bury him in their fingernails.
He is the last Messiah. As son from father, he stems from the archer by the waterhole.
-
I’m going insane
-
Climb the pillars of your university building
-
Go on rock climbing adventures with your friends
-
Do cold diving in spring
-
Chillout under sun with your friends in northern wooden cabins
-
Go on mountain climbing adventures with your friends
-
-
-
-
-
-
In order not to deny death one has to deny life. Read Zhuangzi.
-
Hasn’t this thread been done many times before? Check the archives.
-
Bump
-
Yeah
Stop being a scrote ~ Not a pussy scrote like you.
-
I feel sorry for you guys because you lack the intelligence to figure out this stuff by yourselves. All of you are wrong, btw. Yep, pretty sad indeed.
-
There is no need to argue against what is self-evidently gay.
-
Why is an argument needed? The future exists for those who show up – you, an anti-natalist, a spiteful mutant, will select yourself out of the gene pool voluntarily, and my good genetics will become dominant again.
-
Breedlet cope
-
Antinatalism is a perennial idea.
-
-
Many philosophers have clearly -and I think correctly – identified that existence CANNOT have a purpose or meaning.
However, there is a giant hole in the argument that this existential nihilism means anti-nataloids are correct. That hole is hedonism, specifically the type of hedonism promoted by Epicurus.
Being a parent can make someone happy. This is a slow form of hedonism – feelings of love, success, laughter, and drama. Then, someone to care for you in old age. All of this can bring more happiness to you than being childless, if you’re the right kind of person for it.
That’s up to you to decide. Psychological studies seem to say having children makes people unhappy in certain contexts, but over the course of a lifetime? Untested and likely impossible to quantify.
So there it is, through hedonism any choice can be justified. Epicurus solved this riddle 2000 years ago -
David Pearce
https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html
>Benatar’s policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.
>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if – hypothetically – some variant of Benatar’s diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?
>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn’t be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss – i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness – and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence – is not vainly to champion life’s eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding – indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.
-
How did you find this link when it’s not listed anywhere on the site?
-
Not him but some sites have sitemaps. Try
<website name>.sitemap.xml
or sometimes just
<webaite name>.sitemap
-
-
That’s a great take-down of anti-natalism.
Very easy to summarize the takedown in personal terms: your choice to stop reproducing will not save the trillions that will come after us. The problem of future suffering is still on your shoulders, if you are as moral as you claim to be -
the solution is obviously to kill everyone
-
Life will just evolve again
If not here somewhere else
-
I’m not convinced humans could pull that off. Even with serious effort, 8 billion is too many. Even a super-deadly disease would probably not pull it off. I guess a rouge faction could crash a comet into the earth, but that would be insanely expensive and people would have time to counter it
-
-
Abysmal shit.
-
-
’tis better to have lived and lost than to never have lived at all, dear anon.
-
Castii Cannubi + Humanae Vitae
-
YES YOU MORON HIS NAME WAS NEIZCHEEEEEEE
now listen to some life affirming music
-
I just like to fuck and I don’t like the way condoms feel, simple as no philosophy needed.
-
Woke af sex haver
-
-
People have provided counter-arguments to pessimism and anti-natalism with varying degrees of success. None of them have ever refuted the core ideas of Zapffe and Becker – who aren’t even the originators of these ideas. Sure, many of Becker’s arguments are unscientific and outdated, and you can find faults and contradictions in most philosophical arguments if you try hard enough, but that is not germane to the discussion. The thing about these ideas is, as most pessimistic philosophers recognize and point out, that they mostly serve as material for intellectual masturbation in small circles, or inside the heads of a few pessimists. Despite what so many juvenile anti-natalists on social media and other places seem to think, pessimism and anti-natalism were never meant to spread among common people. Anyone with a brain who frequents so-called anti-natalist and/or pessimist spaces knows how scrotebrained most of these people are. The philosophers of pessimism and their ideas are constantly misrepresented by their supposed followers. Enough about that, this isn’t my blog. About the cope paradox… there is no real way to escape it. I can only speak for myself, it depends on my mood. If I’m depressed, I’m a depressed pessimist. If I’m happy, I’m a happy pessimist. I know I’ll never escape my own copes and delusions, but I don’t really give a shit anymore.
-
>About the cope paradox… there is no real way to escape it. I can only speak for myself, it depends on my mood. If I’m depressed, I’m a depressed pessimist. If I’m happy, I’m a happy pessimist. I know I’ll never escape my own copes and delusions, but I don’t really give a shit anymore.
How do you respond to the argument for hedonism? The philosophical definition of it, not the common understanding of it being debauchery
-
-
Read the Upanishads and Schopenhauer.
-
what paradox?
-
The cope paradox.
>As adumbrated above, Zapffe arrived at two central determinations regarding humanity’s “biological predicament.” The first was that consciousness had overreached the point of being a sufferable property of our species, and to minimize this problem we must minimize our consciousness. From the many and various ways this may be done, Zapffe chose to hone in on four principal strategies.
>(1) ISOLATION. So that we may live without going into a free-fall of trepidation, we isolate the dire facts of being alive by relegating them to a remote compartment of our minds. They are the lunatic family members in the attic whose existence we deny in a conspiracy of silence.
>(2) ANCHORING. To stabilize our lives in the tempestuous waters of chaos, we conspire to anchor them in metaphysical and institutional “verities”—God, Morality, Natural Law, Country, Family—that inebriate us with a sense of being official, authentic, and safe in our beds.
>(3) DISTRACTION. To keep our minds unreflective of a world of horrors, we distract them with a world of trifling or momentous trash. The most operant method for furthering the conspiracy, it is in continuous employ and demands only that people keep their eyes on the ball—or their television sets, their government’s foreign policy, their science projects, their careers, their place in society or the universe, etc.
-
>(4) SUBLIMATION. That we might annul a paralyzing stage fright at what may happen to even the soundest bodies and minds, we sublimate our fears by making an open display of them. In the Zapffean sense, sublimation is the rarest technique utilized for conspiring against the human race. Putting into play both deviousness and skill, this is what thinkers and artistic types do when they recycle the most demoralizing and unnerving aspects of life as works in which the worst fortunes of humanity are presented in a stylized and removed manner as entertainment. In so many words, these thinkers and artistic types confect products that provide an escape from our suffering by a bogus simulation of it—a tragic drama or philosophical wool gathering, for instance. Zapffe uses “The Last Messiah” to showcase how a literary-philosophical composition cannot perturb its creator or anyone else with the severity of true-to-life horrors but only provide a pale representation of these horrors, just as a King Lear’s weeping for his dead daughter Cordelia cannot rend its audience with the throes of the real thing.
-Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race.
-
-
-
Imagine being such a freaking genetic dead-end that you have to create a philosophical argument as to why everyone else should stop playing because you cant play.
-
4ch is not a place for you
-
Blame primitive world
Wisdom Of Silenus:
>"You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: ‘you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.’ It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living."Hegesias of Cyrene, Death by Starvation:
>The book was called Death by Starvation or The Death-Persuader. According to the Roman orator Cicero (lived 106 – 43 BC), the entire book was essentially an argument for why everyone should just give up on life and kill themselves.-
Ecclesiastes 4:1
>Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed– and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors– and they have no comforter.
Ecclesiastes 4:2
>And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive.
Ecclesiastes 4:3
>But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.THE DIALOGUE OF PESSIMISM, MESOPOTAMIAN WISDOM
>What then is good? To have my neck and yours broken, Or to be thrown into the river, is that good?
>Who is so tall as to ascend to heaven? Who is so broad as to encompass the entire world?First Two Noble Truth of Buddhism:
>dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara;
>samudaya (origin, arising) of this dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā ("craving, desire or attachment")
-
-
-
I think transhumanism is a good alternative. If the human condition sucks, stop being human. Replace humanity with a hedonistic ai that cant feel pain.
-
a sage of ukbar once said that "fornication and mirrors have both an evil nature, because both of the multiply the men"
-
Sauce?
-
-
One way out is that the existant exist no matter what, whether or not born. It might do like that, for all we know.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.