Wednesday, 19 June 2013

It's ironic....



....that so many stupid and ignorant atheists think they're God's gift to Humanity.

70 comments:

  1. ...when in fact they are Satan's gift to God.
    ;-)

    "Brevity is the soul of wit."

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
    "Why is there anything at all?"

    This is the Primordial Existential Question, as deemed by Adolf Grunbaum.

    Metaphysical pessimism is the philosophical concept that states that the nonexistence of the universe is preferable to its existence. An implicit assumption is that the universe is contingent, meaning that had conditions been different, the universe may not have come into existence in the first place, and consequently countless sentient beings would have been spared the horror of life. This is what antinatalists would call the "lost paradise."

    But Peter Lynds makes a terrifying proposition - the universe may be ETERNAL, defined as a state of affairs in which at least one physical entity always exists. The implication of this view is that throughout the lifetime of an ETERNAL universe, its NONEXISTENCE can absolutely NEVER be an option.

    This prospect PRECLUDES any possibility of the universe achieving a "blessed calm of nothingness" and suggests the universe may continue to give birth to suffering entities for the remainder of eternity.

    What are we antinatalists supposed to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funnily enough, I was just reflecting on similiar issues myself. Much like the Christian, all an AN can really do is wait for their own time to be up, while (optionally) helping others or trying to ease suffering as they do.

      Speculation about the ultimate fate of the universe will always be inconclusive, so it's really not worth your while getting worked up about it. Even an EFILIST can't hang around the universe waiting to exterminate the first signs of life that might appear somewhere:-)

      Delete
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce


      horrifying!

      Delete
    3. No end to the nightmare! Once you're in, you're in!

      Delete
  3. I agree Karl. Most are just as deluded as the next guy. Worshiping nature or space instead of a god. Put a science program about animals in front of them and they think it's just AMAZING! When in fact it's just animals running around tearing the flesh off of each other and consuming, that's nothing to admire. Or clinging to the idea that they exist in some parallel universe, seems rather juvenile.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Jim. If the animal were tearing the flesh off them it wouldn't seem quite so amazing. In that regard, the Mayor of London has now declared open season on foxes in London due to a couple of fox attacks on the babies of idiots who leave their children's windows open at night. So if these 'precious' animals tread on human toes, god help them!

      As for multiverses, it's just an example of ego-projection. 'I' exist in another zillion worlds! Hurrah! Of course, the possibility that these multiverses may, and by definiton must, contain more suffering than the real one is rarely mentioned.

      Delete
    2. Well, I've double checked this because I find eagles/ravens/werewolves/... abducting and mauling little children stories always a bit curious... anyways. Boris ultimately lost his temper because he thought at first his cat had been attacked by a fox.

      Natural behavior? Oh, yes, please! - But not in my backyard!

      Delete
  4. Whether Christian, Atheist or Anti-natalist we all want to have two qualities in ourselves. 1 -a sense of wonder and 2 -a sense of usefulness, in which to hide/reduce ourselves in a limited attempted order in life. It is self evident that the world is competitive/self destructive enough to stop us experiencing and having those qualities, and many find a sense of wonder in destruction, which gets called nihilism. They still have a sense of wonder, but it is burnt out. Dealing with being burnt out is what people need.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Karl,

    What do you think is the atheists POV? Is it, I have figured out something that 95 percent of the world can't comprehend? (that there is no God) Or is it something else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, I should clarify that I am only refering to a certain percentage of atheists, in patiular those of the Dawkins, AC Grayling variety who

      A) clearly think they're cleverer than everybody els and

      B) believe that thinking there is no God leaves no more questions to be answered

      I also think a serious Atheism, aka Naturalism entails conclusions that could only be termed 'negative' or 'pessimistic' under anyone's rubric, but I don't see most atheists engaging with that. They substitute DNA/Life/Nature for God as if it were unproblematic to do so.

      I should also add that there are Antinatalists who equally think they're God's gift, particularly on YouTube. For me, humility and modesty are virtues in philosophy, as well as in life, and I certainly repent any platforming I may have done previously on this blog.

      Delete
    2. "I should also add that there are Antinatalists who equally think they're God's gift, particularly on YouTube."

      Haha, do you mean Gary? Yes, he is very narcissistic. (I mean seriously, in *every* video you see him swimming in his pool, showing off himself.)

      Delete
    3. "For me, humility and modesty are virtues in philosophy, as well as in life, and I certainly repent any platforming I may have done previously on this blog."

      I'm sorry, but this reminds me of Schopenhauer:

      "With people of limited ability modesty is merely honesty. But with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy."

      Delete
    4. Bar Benatar, I don't know anyone else who's outlined the AN position with 'great talent'; people have supported it, commented on it, or defended it against blatantly witless arguments, but no one has added anything substantial to Benatar's opus. And Benatar himself is a very modest man.

      Delete
    5. Oh, and humans have plenty to be modest about:-)

      As for Gary, yes, his ego and narcissism have taken over lately. And bar when he's outlining the basics of AN, he's sloppy in his use of definitions and logic.

      Delete
    6. Gary is certainly not modest, but is Ligotti?

      Delete
    7. Yes, Ligotti is modest, from what I read. A bit too sure sometimes in his CATHR, but otherwise down to earth. He also does not listen to music anymore or reads books, as they suck. He watches television or surfs the net (he praised the net for there being so much stuff to occupy one's time with). So yeah, Ligotti owns us, he is way ahead of us (not reading books anymore or listening to music, not even writing anymore. He is buddha.)

      Delete
    8. Yeah, looks like Ligotti is slowly winding down his life. It'll be interesting to see if he bails out one day.

      Delete
  6. Karl: I appreciate your modesty. I enjoy reading your posts, please maintain flowing some wise messages here while we, hopefully, reach our craved non-existence state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks:-) Will do what I can.

      Delete
  7. Karl, curious about your opinion...do you think everybody knows, deep down, that what you say is true, that it's better to never have been born, but just can't bring themselves to admit it? Or do they really believe their own lies? I've always worried, that when the rest of the world catches on, that the world at large will descend into a terriblly depressive place, and what little pleasures we derive from outlets such as books tv shows, sports, arts, restaurants etc. would disappear. I, understand that my life is futile and my goals are ridiculous and meaningless, but engage in them nonetheless because not doing so is just too boring and depressing. And have wondered if others are doing the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, I, for one, do not believe that the conviction that life is meaningless/futile will ever 'catch on'. The idea has been around since the Bible; there is nothing new in it and most people don't believe in it.

      As for pursuing one's goals, I can do little more than recommend the magnificent William Valicella, whoe rigour and even-handedness we could all learn from.

      http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/04/there-is-no-meaning-that-is-both-nonsubjective-and-subjectively-appropriable.html

      Delete
    2. Karl,

      Thank you for the link. I read it once, comprehended little, and need to save it for the weekend when I am less stressed and have more energy.

      To your first point, it never gets old, when I watch someone pursue a short term goal at the expense of another, such as stealing from their elderly mother, and never stop and think how futile life is and stop right their in their tracks. Short term actors, we all are. Philosophical, often not!



      Delete
    3. Too much Pollyanna there Karl... I finished reading it and couldn't believe anyone bothered to write it.

      Delete
    4. Well, Dima, if you think he's too Pollyannish you can read about his desire to die here:

      http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/04/up-or-out.html

      And there's a link to a nice takedown of Transhumanism.

      Delete
    5. His desire to die seems to be pretty subdued and he doesn't seem to expound on it much (at least not in this entry). The reason I say there is a lot of Pollyanna there is also because of his other entries that I checked out - too much focus on religion and other pointless minutiae.

      The transhumanism takedown was decent though.

      Delete
    6. Just to add to the previous reply, I am not saying that he is not a smart individual, but I don't think he is an antinatalist (correct me if I missed an entry about that) or an efilist and I think he wastes a lot of time dissecting stuff that doesn't merit it and focusing on things that don't deserve his attention. I think the no bad memes blog delved into much more relevant material. With that being said, here and there he sprinkles some well known (to us anyways) common sense wisdom.

      Delete
    7. This entry for instance.
      http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/06/is-a-thinking-mans-afterlife-conceivable.html

      I mean, seriously? Karl, this is pure bullshit.

      Delete
    8. Not to mention drivel like this:
      http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/05/happiness-maxims-2013-version.html

      Delete
    9. Well, he's not an antintalist, but that doesn't preclude people from being able to learn from his rigour. And what he chooses to focus on and write about is his business.

      Delete
    10. But you specifically said "we could all learn from it". After reading some of his entries, I don't see what there is to learn from any of it. His style of argumentation is better than most people of course, but that is to be expected since he used to teach philosophy. However, I don't think there is much to learn from an individual who still thinks life might have objective meaning, that there might be an afterlife and that we don't deserve happiness in the world.

      I don't like crediting people with positive qualities if their conclusion, the main gist of what should matter at all are full of holes and contradictions.

      Delete
    11. Well, for starters his rigour and precision is precisely what we could all use.

      Secondly, the brand of scepticism and open-mindedness he assumes is admirable as far as I'm concerned. He treats each position and views its pros and cons, points out fallacies in arguments etc.

      Thirdly, he says repeatedly that ultimately everyone must choose how to live their own life and to think for themselves.

      And frankly, if you don't want to read anyone who isn't an antinatalist, you're going to be severely mentally limiting yourself. Part of philosophising is to learn the positions of others and argue for or against them as you see fit, not some dogmatism that states "He doesn't share my view so everything he says is shit".

      Delete
    12. For starters, I am not sure if there is any benefit to rigour and precision if the conclusions don't have either rigour or precision.

      Secondly, while he claims that he is a sceptic and an open-minded person, it rarely reveals itself in his writing. He might treat each position with its pros and cons, but then he writes "I think that life objectively has meaning". How exactly is the aforementioned rigour and precision relevant in light of such ignorant and frankly absurd positions (same can be said about his afterlife beliefs and allt hat).

      Thirdly, I don't really need his "blessing" in order to choose how to live my life and think for myself. Its enough for me to point out the errors in his thinking.

      Finally, I tend to disagree about reading others who aren't antinatalists. Severely mentally limiting myself how exactly? The only truth that I needed to know is contained in efilism/antinatalism - the rest is really fluff coated in more pointless drama that embellishes the travails of sentient existence. I read a lot of non-antinatalist material over the years and despite some bright points raised within, unless the author believes that life needs to stop and that breeding has to cease, I don't really acknowledge that author as anyone worth paying attention to.

      Anyone with a rational mindset who is not an antinatalist is really just a poser trying to think rationally through the quagmire of crap, while stumbling on the same Pollyanna blocks as everyone else.

      See Karl, I am more pessimistic after all :)

      Delete
    13. Dima,

      He never states that he believes in an afterlife or meaning. He repeatedly states that he is a philosopher who avoids all dogmatic belief. All he talks about are the logical issues arising from belief/non-belief, optimisim/pessimism, meaning/non-meaning etc.

      And exactly what errors have you specifically pointed out and refuted in his thinking?

      As for only reading people who share your beliefs and conclusions I'm afraid you put yourself in the same boat as dogmatic Christians/Marxists etc who refuse to contemplate other views. Do you think that, for example, Arthur Schopenhauer or David Benatar didn't/don't continue to read the works of others in spite of their own opinions?

      Delete
    14. Karl, the consummate hypocrite, lecturing others about reading about the beliefs of others while censoring other people's comments.

      Delete
    15. I recommend the thoughts of people whom I think have something to say, not the thoughts of people trolling and talking shit.

      Delete
    16. Karl, I have an interesting idea: these exists no such thing as a troll. That's right! The word "troll" is a completely meaningless term, used in the same way as the word "creep" for the guy who was foolish enought to talk to Rebeccunt Watson: that is, a completely meaningless term, denoting "anything I don't like".

      Delete
    17. If 'troll' denotes "anything I don't like", then it's not completely meaningless, is it? Try again.

      Delete
    18. By meaningless I mean arbitrary.

      Delete
    19. Arbitrary doesn't necessarily equate with meaningless.

      Delete
    20. Are you just going to play word games?

      I just meant to say that the word "troll" is used in a completely subjective and arbitrary way: one man's troll is another man's genius.

      Delete
    21. It's not used in an arbitrary way. As Wiki says:

      "In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

      No troll is a genius; they're just a pain in the ass.

      Delete
  8. Karl,

    Let me quote some of his posts.

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/meaning-of-life/

    "So for Nagel objective meaninglessness is the last word. For me it is not: our lives are ultimately and objectively meaningful. "

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/meaning-of-life/

    "The sense of the absurd will always be with us in this life. But the sense of the absurd does not entail objective or absolute absurdity. Life can be absurd without being meaningless, just as it can be meaningless without being absurd."

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/01/neardeath-experiences-do-they-prove-anything.html

    "But on a topic like this nothing can be proven one way or another. It is reasonable to be a materialist scoffer, but also reasonable to be a spiritualist believer"

    http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2012/06/is-a-thinking-mans-afterlife-conceivable.html

    "The existence of these difficulties makes it reasonable to entertain the hope of eternal life."

    And regarding reading other people. I don't think its rational at all to compare these people with us because we have no dogma and are open to any scientific evidence that would contradict the positions of antinatalism. However, no such evidence could conceivably be presented because we know enough about agiogenesis to come up with rational conclusion that should be indisputable, especially as they relate to antinatalism. I am afraid you're wrong here when supposing that holding strongly to one's opinion makes one as dogmatic as holding onto any other opinion, even if the position of antinatalism/efilism is purely rational whereas all the new-age/religious crap position is backed up by nothing and is entirely irrational.

    And I am well aware that Schopenhauer and Benatar continue to read the work of others, but so what? Schopenhauer for me is known for the same sort of conclusions that Benatar, Inmendham and others reached over the years. I don't really care about his views of women or other subjects. How are they relevant in light of all of the ruling mechanisms he already elucidated upon in his most important work?

    When you say that I limit myself by reading only material supporting antinatalism, to me it sounds like something Dawkins would say, something along the likes of "the universe is a marvelous place where, through the unlikeliest of possibilities, the matter briefly coalesced into YOU" as if there is anything in the world ELSE worth knowing about.

    I already went through this in my "life's lesson" piece and you seemed to like the deconstruction. I am sorry but I have zero tolerance for bullshit, and this blogger's rigour and precision mean nothing if his conclusions are of the sort of hogwash quoted above. Not to mention the fact that nowhere did he mention that life should cease or people should stop procreating. Why? Because he still clings onto to spiritual crap as if materialism/abiogenesis still has any holes that weren't already plugged in by science and rational deduction.

    The author is a Pollyanna Karl, and while it is certainly your business what you read, and his business what he writes, the only reason I replied to your initial link is because I truly thought there was something to learn from him: there is nothing to learn there and is to be avoided for anyone who is tired of the same spiritual mumbo-jumbo that is supposedly not yet "disproven" and is thus worthy of being placed in the same category as everything else, despite how irrational and idiotic it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "we have no dogma and are open to any scientific evidence that would contradict the positions of antinatalism. However, no such evidence could conceivably be presented..."

      If that isn't dogma, I don't know what is!

      (As for AN being 'scientific', be careful. It may be logical, but not all logic is science. AN also involves value-judgements, the like of which is not to be found in a purely scientific discourse.)

      As for Vallicella, I find his thought stimulating, and I think much of it, (not all, mind you) has value in stimulating thought. If you don't, fine. I trust we can agreee to disagree politely.

      (I should also add that he has a post where he refutes the claim that marriage and procreation is the ultimate purpose of life, if that makes you feel any less animus).

      Delete
    2. Well, if the evidence is presented - great! But I can't conceive of such evidence, and the lack of ability to conceive is not in the same category as the inability to conceive of a God or an afterlife. I have no reason to doubt the former at all whereas the latter is not even worthy if discource.

      AN relies on science to back up its claims and the value judgments are concomitant with that. If you were implying that other non-AN values based on scientific discourse (like typical atheistic standpoint) are in the same weight-category and anything other than Pollyanna, then I would have to completely disagree. Sure, 7 billion people can delude themselves into thinking life is worth anything, but that deduction is worth squat if its based (as it is) on subjective bubbles removed from the world at large and content to live in a futile slaughter-house. The 1 person who would disagree with the 7 billion would be on incomparably higher moral ground and that seems entirely rational to me given the horror of the world.

      I don't think his post about marriage/procreation being the ultimate purpose of life is of any relevance here: wasn't it obvious anyhow? Or is he only now realizing that its the most selfish and horrifying act imaginable? Actually, scratch that. He surely hasn't realized any of that because of his spiritual sceptic uncertainty.

      You said you find his thought stimulating. In what way exactly? Which post of his did you find so damn stimulating that its worthy saying to all of us "we could all learn from it?". Which concept? What exactly did he say and where that would undermine the positions of antinatalism in any way, shape or form or make that "golden nugget" of "brilliant" thought worthy staying alive for?

      Delete
    3. And besides, even being a skeptic is being dogmatic.

      Dogma is defined as "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself."

      According to that same definition, not believing in anything in particular or being on the fence regarding one belief or another (i.e. agnosticism, extreme skepticism, etc) is equally as dogmatic as anything else.

      Delete
    4. What scientific claims does AN rely upon? AN is about a value judgement that says 'It is wrong for people to suffer'; that's an ethical judgement, not a scientific one. And you've said many times that you're a moral nihilist, so on what grounds can you refer to science to back up your antinatalism?

      And why am I obliged to tell you exactly which of his posts I find stimulating? Are you saying that because you don't like it no one else should read it? I recommend it as a general incentive toward clarity, which as you've proven here is badly needed.

      Delete
    5. How about abiogenesis? That's science for you. The value judgement extracted out of evolution and the history of sentient life on Earth given the facts of the DNA molecule are fully compatible with the ethical judgement that suffering is wrong. Not to mention the fact that the suffering is futile and accomplishes nothing. For all of Inmendha's failings, he has science backing up every one of his claims about antinatalism/efilism. As far as I can see, you (in a general sense) have two choices: either you extract positive crap from scientific discource (i.e. Pollyanism) or you are an antinatalist/efilist and pro-mortalist. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.

      You are not obliged to do anything, but since you mentioned that we could all learn from it, it only makes sense to ask what exactly is there to be learned from there? From reading his posts, my counter-claim is that there is nothing in particular to learn from it other than to avoid it as another skeptic Pollyanna blog and I already outlined a small percentage of his quotes that would substantiate my claim. I would expect for you at minimum to do the same, but you haven't even commented on the quotes I cited.

      His clarity is subjective slander of science and an obfuscation of rationality. Sure, he uses a lot of nice words and engages in analytical discourse but its all designed to pull wool over one's eyes and to reach absolutely idiotic and irrational conclusions. I don't care whether he believes in what he is saying or not. Conflating science with any spirituality is pure slander.

      Yes, I am a moral nihilist, but I already explained my position many times both on my blog and in my videos. I don't think anything matters at all which is fully compatible with materialism/naturalism. However, given the fact that we suffer, that completely meaningless state is brought into the foreground even more seeing as its not only meaningless sentience per se, but its also meaninglessly SUFFERING sentience which needs to be wiped out.

      Delete
    6. What has abiogenesis to do with antinatalism? AN would still be a valid argument even if there was a God.

      'Suffering is wrong' is a value-judgement, in no way derivable from science. The brute facts of the world do not lead to incontrovertible value statements, as the lack of complete moral consensus shows. If you think suffering is 'wrong' then that means that you attach positive value to human consciousness, but as a moral nihilist I can't see how you can do that. If sentience is meaningless and valuless, what do you care whether it suffers or not?

      Delete
    7. Abiogenesis traces the history of the evolution of the DNA molecule which gives credence to AN claims that life serves no function in the universe. Its an undercurrent of antinatalism and its scientific backing.

      AN would still be valid if there was a God, true. However, if there was some sort of realm where the unborn were suffering (whether there was a God to have caused it or not) and giving birth to them would ease their suffering, a good rational case could then be constructed against antinatalism.

      Sentience is meaningless and valueless, but I exist as sentience and I suffer. If I was a zombie and wouldn't feel a thing, I wouldn't care either way and would simply acknowledge myself as the meaningless and valueless entity that I am without (necessarily) wanting to kill myself (assuming a zombie would have no desires of any kind that need fulfillment). However, since I suffer, I want to escape this barrage of internal/external events that lead to that suffering and thus, I do care about whether it suffers or not on these grounds.

      I think you need to delineate what "care" implies. I don't literally care if the whole human race disappeared tomorrow, even if it would suffer excruciatingly for the duration of the time it takes it to disappear. However, I know that if I don't kill myself/avoid procreating, suffering will continue and this meaningless hell would continue to be perpetuated, however meaningless and valueless it is.

      I am not sure why its so hard to understand.

      Delete
    8. So that means your AN is entirely personal, if you don't care about the human race suffering exruciatingly.

      And 'meaningless' and 'hell' are still value judgements that you're claiming are objective for the entire species, but if there's no such thing as objective value how can you use those terms in such a manner, particularly in regard to people who would deny that their lives are hell and want it to continue?

      Delete
    9. I care about sentience as a whole suffering excruciatingly because despite my inability to prove that others exist (the problem of other minds or solipsism), I am pretty sure their experience of that horror and pain is similar to mine (even though they don't draw the same conclusions) but no, I don't care about humans per se. I care far more about animals. And why shouldn't I? I am a big misanthrope and its not a secret. I would throw a hammer and destroy the entirety of humanity in a second, whether it was a red button solution or a nuclear blast. I care (again, without contradicting my moral nihilism) about UNEMERGED sentience that would be subject to all of these futile travails, but once its incarnate and undergoes all of these transmutations and societal Pollyanna indoctrinations, I wouldn't give a shit about it at all since its already too late for it to kill itself or stop breeding (with very rare exception like most of us here).

      So yes Karl, according to what I wrote above, the only sentience that is ALREADY here that I would care about are people like you and others of a similar mindset who understand what this game is all about and refuse to procreate in it and participate in it, biding their time until their (hopefully) painless death. The rest can go to hell for all I care.

      And regarding the objective value... didn't Benatar already write profusely about that? People are deluded about the value of their lives due to Pollyanism and how they simply don't understand the sort of harm that befell them. They routinely learned to rationalize and manage the daily pain of existence (the many, MANY non life-threatening annoyances that are always present) and don't really pay attention to that. I was smart enough to have awakened to that truth (even in my most pessimistic moods, I probably haven't noticed these little annoyances or given them their own status in the past) just from reading Benatar's book ONCE. Others couldn't have figured it out even if it was drilled directly into their brains as they are so much in love with their own perception of value (even though there is no value anywhere to be found in any affairs, human or otherwise) that they miss out on 99% of what they should be recognizing.

      To say it in other words, the majority of the human race does not deserve my compassion or care as they're ignorant, intransigent cunts who just don't get any of it. If they plan to bring children here while living according to their own platitudes, then I say bomb the fuck out of them until there is no one left - for the sake of future, unemerged sentience that would hopefully never see the light of day.

      Delete
    10. Dima, I completely understand you. SO MANY TIMES we see a person, who seems so intelligent, very compassionate, extremely polite ... and successful, with truckloads in their bank account too ... and then suddenly notice that they have procreated. And then I find my respect for them completely ebb away.

      And then, there's this tough ice we need to break on any life pursuit, knowing full well Ligotti's observation that anything in life is more trouble than it's worth. But we need to do the ice-breaking every now and then, and then pursue what it leads to, to spend away our time, crawling closer to death.

      So yeah, we need to somehow start running after cheese, even if we know the chase will be longer than the brief satiety we'll get. At least our mind was kept off life for the duration of the chase and the satiety. =|

      Delete
    11. Dima, sure, but you've got to admit there's plenty of emotional 'non-scientific' content in what you wrote. And there are also many differernt motivations for AN and it contains people of all ilks: Christians, Atheists, different political views etc. Not all ANs are misanthropic ANs. There are also ANs who find their own lives pleasurable and worthwhile, but decline to procreate nonetheless.

      So I stand over what I said: people should be intellectually broad-minded and more precise in what they say. If you don't want to read anything but AN of your kind, fine. Just don't throw a fit when others have a different view.

      Delete
    12. By the way, I've no interest in falling out over this difference of opinion.

      Delete
    13. Neither am I interested in a falling out. I didn't really throw a fit to be honest with you, even though it might have sounded like I did.

      My point of view can be encompassed nicely by a Ligotti quote:

      "More stylish in his examination of pessimism than Sully is the American novelist and part-time philosopher Edgar Saltus, whose Philosophy of Disenchantment (1885) and The Anatomy of Negation (1886) were written for those who treasure philosophical and literary works of a pessimistic, nihilistic, or defeatist nature as indispensable to their existence. In Saltus’s estimation, a “just and correct view of human life” would justly and correctly determine human life as that which should not be."

      The key words here are pessimistic, nihilistic or defeatist. I tend to think that whenever one reads work that is neither one of those three, they're optimistic (I am not saying you are, but just as a side note) and since that blog has a lot of parts that are neither pessimistic, nihilistic or defeatist... there is really nothing there for me.

      Delete
    14. Fair ebough, Dima. As it happens, I wrote Vallcella an email today outlining Antinatalism and asking for his thoughts. I really hope he responds. I'll keep you posted.

      Delete
  9. "So I stand over what I said: people should be intellectually broad-minded"

    Does that mean that we should disregard your "Trouble with Fiction" post?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not at all. That's how I felt then and it stands as a record. People change over time; hardly a revelation.

      Delete
    2. I didn't say it was a revelation, did I? But I do need to find a new blog, as this one reeks of pollyannaism. Life sucks and we know this. No amount of reading can change that. "Living one's life" -- bullshit! I did not sign up for this, so why would I have to suffer (both psychologically and physically)? Next you write about how cool work is after all. Please. We need more jaded people, not less. It is the doers who do all the damage, not the idlers. I suffer from depression, aboulia, depersonalization, anhedonia, autism, being overweight that my thighs rub against each other, resulting in excruciating pain. Oh SilentAche, come back! Come back! He was a true life hater.

      Delete
    3. How cool work is? You definitely have the wrong end of the stick. Why not try some exercise to reduce the weight? Might help ever so slightly with your other issues, as tiring the body tends to dull the mind's receptivity to pain.

      Delete
  10. Hi Karl,
    I have been a huge fan of your ideas since last two years.
    Just wanted to ask you if you have read"The Catcher in the Rye".
    I think the protagonist in the book-Holden Caulfield was AN.
    What do you think?

    And thanks again for such a great blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the nice words, Harsh:-)

      Only ever read parts of CITR, to my shame. Certainly very cynical and clearly Salinger wasn't a big fan of the world.

      Stay tuned for a post on Jack Kerouac.

      Delete
    2. Do I finally see another Indian here? =)

      Delete
    3. Do I finally see another Indian here? =)

      Delete
  11. Karl,
    Thanks of replying.I feel the way a Beatles fan would feel if he were to receive a reply by Lennon,I swear to God!

    Srikant-Yes,I'm a compatriot,but far more importantly,we share the same Weltanschauung.If Karl's Lennon ,you are McCartney to me.
    I have been following your comments for a while too.You are a great thinker.

    Karl-A humble suggestion-check out Turgenev's Bazarov,you may find a kindred spirit.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harsh, thanks, you flatter me, but, honestly, I'm as selfish an asshole as anyone else!

      Will check out the Turgenev!

      Delete
    2. Hey Karl,just got a brainwave-may be you can come up with a post on Franz Kafka,that would be really wonderful!

      Delete
    3. Thanks, but I find Kafka just too depressing. Cioran didn't read him for the same reason.

      Delete
  12. Sam Kinison was an antinatalist

    "I got a real depressing letter from my folks about two weeks ago, because I haven't been taking real good care of my money. They said, 'Sam, we can't send you any more money. You're out of control, and you don't know what the fuck you're doing with your cash. And... you're old enough to be on your own.' I said, 'Oh, okay'... and I called them. I said, 'Mom, get dad on the phone too, wake him up, I know it's late, but I want you both to hear this. You know, before I was your little son, before I was your baby, before I was your LOAN, I was a free spirit in the next stage of life. I walked in the cosmos, not imprisoned by a body of flesh, but free, in a pure body of light. There were no questions, only answers, no weaknesses, only strengths, I was light, I was truth, I was a spiritual being, I was a God... but you had to FUCK and bring my ass down HERE. I didn't ask to be born! I didn't call and say: 'Hey, please have me so I could work in a fuckin' Winchell's someday!' Now you want me to pay my own way? ... FUCK YOU! PICK UP THE FUCKIN' CHECK, MOM! PICK IT UP!'"

    ReplyDelete