>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.
>When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust.
Wow glad he only killed himself and didn't go adam lanza
>When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust.
Wow glad he only killed himself and didn't go adam lanza
I don't understand
like a philosophy, whose End Game consists of the extermination of all sentient beings. It may have some connection with the individual suicide of the antinatalist. Of all of them, the suicide of the anatinalist is the one that makes the least sense.
>we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways—is nothing.
No, it's actually not. I've ruminated the same thought when I was about 17. The vague premise is that it's better to not have ever lived because the inevitable pains of living are, in a morality sense, immoral and against the ideals of living in the first place - you don't put yourself in a position where you are experiencing active harm as one of the maxims of moral living should be to treat yourself the utmost well. So, then, living in the first place isn't very auspicious.
BUT - a big but - once you start living, it is not ideal to the human condition to die. In fact, you will have an undeniable instinctual propensity to keep living as you breathe effortlessly in perpetuity. You also have the various experiences of bodily deficiencies that are satisfying to make replete. Beyond or perhaps in enumeration of crude biological desires, there is a vast palette of pleasures to revel in, which is what life should be aggregated to or the aggregate of. These pleasurable experiences are why life is actually worth 'living' - once you have started life - as you would be fulfilling a maxim of morality to treat yourself the utmost well. Out of this concept was borne another concept I coined called Functional Hedonism. Functional Hedonism is what I designated as the means to pave the path to the Ideal Lifestyle. It is, simply put, the enjoyment of as much pleasure as one can experience, while also maintaining a state of social/societal stability - which would be the framework for your hedonistic enterprises (which can come in many different forms varying on the person). This was a counterpart to the traditional concept of Hedonism that is largely impractical because its doctrine would cause ruin and ultimately destitution as you would run dry of the privileges of pleasure due to the entropic nature of your pleasure-seeking.
Yet, while the pleasures of life are present, the pains are just as apparent too. You cannot go through life without them, the mere innate deficiencies of the body are pains that you must meet with repletion before you can experience pleasure as it is ideally meant to be. More relevant, the fact that your pleasures might conflict with the pleasures of others - which actually should not happen if we are following morality the right way and practicing restraint in lieu of greater cooperation and pleasurable experiences for mankind - that will inevitably transpire through the fact that we live in a society. Selfishness is innate in the human condition, but there is the capability to be obstinately selfish - allowing no room for anything other than the self - and then there is the capability to be cooperatively selfish - allowing the interests of others to be your concern or duty alongside yours. One is the path of 'malicious/vicious morality', which you may even call immorality, despite fulfilling one of the maxims to do the utmost good to your own welfare, albeit there is also the moral maxim of doing the utmost good to others
(Same anon)
(Continued)
The other is 'benevolent morality', or simply 'morality', as it was intended to be the framework for the utmost good to the human condition, or the ideal of it. The former kind is what I suppose as the more ubiquitous of the two, and is the root of the issue of living (as opposed to never living). We cannot experience nearly as much pleasure by ourselves as we can with the cooperation of others. This is why Love is such a coveted concept for virtually everyone to realize. You are 'exploiting' another, just as they are to you, to satisfy deficiencies in the innate condition to repleteness. In fact, it does not even have to be in the innate condition, as well as it can be deficiencies in the socioeconomic or political condition, if they aren't already comprising the whole of the human condition. In the past I've tended to poise or proffer it pessimistically as a part of a vicious carousel of self-appeasement substituting the ideal of True Love - as we aspire after in the literature and media we fabricate - as something that can be realized and make-shifted after it's manifestation. But it is actually a staunch and pronounced example of cooperative selfishness or benevolent morality, as it strives for mutual benefit.
So, just as it is not pragmatic to expect a life of replete pleasure, ergo, there cannot be a life that is better than never living. The void of pains is the ultimate pleasure, as hard as it is to envisage or intuit in a living sentiment or perspective. Albeit, this does not warrant the ultimatum between life and death: The pleasures of life are too great to forgo for death, in all its grotesquerie and bitterness. Therein, it stands that one must seek greater pleasures and maintain those pleasures for the greater good of pleasure, and that those pleasures that are greatest lie in the will to pleasure offered by those who mean to do the utmost well to your being. And the ultimate moral impropriety is to deprive your being and all others of pleasure, through death or destitution.
(Same anon)
(Continued)
The other is 'benevolent morality', or simply 'morality', as it was intended to be the framework for the utmost good to the human condition, or the ideal of it. The former kind is what I suppose as the more ubiquitous of the two, and is the root of the issue of living (as opposed to never living). We cannot experience nearly as much pleasure by ourselves as we can with the cooperation of others. This is why Love is such a coveted concept for virtually everyone to realize. You are 'exploiting' another, just as they are to you, to satisfy deficiencies in the innate condition to repleteness. In fact, it does not even have to be in the innate condition, as well as it can be deficiencies in the socioeconomic or political condition, if they aren't already comprising the whole of the human condition. In the past I've tended to poise or proffer it pessimistically as a part of a vicious carousel of self-appeasement substituting the ideal of True Love - as we aspire after in the literature and media we fabricate - as something that can be realized and make-shifted after it's manifestation. But it is actually a staunch and pronounced example of cooperative selfishness or benevolent morality, as it strives for mutual benefit.
So, just as it is not pragmatic to expect a life of replete pleasure, ergo, there cannot be a life that is better than never living. The void of pains is the ultimate pleasure, as hard as it is to envisage or intuit in a living sentiment or perspective. Albeit, this does not warrant the ultimatum between life and death: The pleasures of life are too great to forgo for death, in all its grotesquerie and bitterness. Therein, it stands that one must seek greater pleasures and maintain those pleasures for the greater good of pleasure, and that those pleasures that are greatest lie in the will to pleasure offered by those who mean to do the utmost well to your being. And the ultimate moral impropriety is to deprive your being and all others of pleasure, through death or destitution.
>Blah blah blah
If you have a nice day you're dead. If you're dead you no longer exist. If you don't exist you don't suffer. Q.E.D.
You have to live to die. Dying is not the same as never living because you have to go through a process, and the sentiments and circumstances of coming to the point of self-inflicted dying - suicide - along with other forms of dying - leaves an incorrigible imprint on living. You don't want to die, in the case that you've become so depraved that you strongly 'desire' it, you've already experienced a kind of death. Ergo, if you've ever lived, it is a tragedy to die. A pain that is unexperienced and voided by 'they' that have never lived.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>blah blah blah
have a nice day. No longer exist. No longer suffer. Simple as.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No longer suffer.
That desire to no longer suffer is a suffering in itself. It isn't logically sound to end suffering with more suffering. To say that dying is better than living because >"I suffer"
ignores the fact that there are pleasures to indulge in greater than the suffering. Suffering is obligatory, everyone has to suffer. Those that don't want to suffer anymore aren't experiencing enough pleasure to realize life's worth and potential for what we call happiness or contentment, which should be the opposite to suffering or depression. You're living life fallaciously if you think that the cessation of pleasure is the correct route. To have a nice day is frankly the wrong answer.
You cannot 'not experience' life as a living person. That's exactly what you're proposing to do when you wish to 'cease experience' with suicide. You're looking at it from the perspective of a living person when you have no sensible intuition of what [not living] is like as someone who is [living]. The figuration of that would depend on your apparatus of your living experiences (or qualia) and the available concepts that you can gather from the [living world]. This means that you're biased and irrational and your suffering towards ultimatum is only an ephemeral disposition based on the lack of pleasure you are feeling. Which means you are looking at things all wrong.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>blah blah blah
Suicide: no experience/no suffering. Solved.
[...]
Didn't read, it's a scam >you should all never have been born >but now that you are why not buy my book and everything else to make me rich >but then have a nice day because it's the right thing to do :^)
This is debatable. There are may plausible mechanisms for how an afterlife could exist, and if the afterlife is similar to this life in terms of quality, suicide is useless.
Absolutely fricking based, I honestly cant believe how there arent more people who realized this yet since its so obvious and makes infinitely more sense than the nothing after death people intuitively imagine just because their illusory ego will vanish
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>their illusory ego
Why is the ego illusory?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Because it is constantly changing, it isnt some permanent thing that defines you, but rather an illusion created by memory of a permanent self that isnt the awareness itself.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
I can directly observe being me at the present moment. This seems to imply that some sort of self exists.
(Same anon)
(Continued)
The other is 'benevolent morality', or simply 'morality', as it was intended to be the framework for the utmost good to the human condition, or the ideal of it. The former kind is what I suppose as the more ubiquitous of the two, and is the root of the issue of living (as opposed to never living). We cannot experience nearly as much pleasure by ourselves as we can with the cooperation of others. This is why Love is such a coveted concept for virtually everyone to realize. You are 'exploiting' another, just as they are to you, to satisfy deficiencies in the innate condition to repleteness. In fact, it does not even have to be in the innate condition, as well as it can be deficiencies in the socioeconomic or political condition, if they aren't already comprising the whole of the human condition. In the past I've tended to poise or proffer it pessimistically as a part of a vicious carousel of self-appeasement substituting the ideal of True Love - as we aspire after in the literature and media we fabricate - as something that can be realized and make-shifted after it's manifestation. But it is actually a staunch and pronounced example of cooperative selfishness or benevolent morality, as it strives for mutual benefit.
So, just as it is not pragmatic to expect a life of replete pleasure, ergo, there cannot be a life that is better than never living. The void of pains is the ultimate pleasure, as hard as it is to envisage or intuit in a living sentiment or perspective. Albeit, this does not warrant the ultimatum between life and death: The pleasures of life are too great to forgo for death, in all its grotesquerie and bitterness. Therein, it stands that one must seek greater pleasures and maintain those pleasures for the greater good of pleasure, and that those pleasures that are greatest lie in the will to pleasure offered by those who mean to do the utmost well to your being. And the ultimate moral impropriety is to deprive your being and all others of pleasure, through death or destitution.
Didn't read, it's a scam >you should all never have been born >but now that you are why not buy my book and everything else to make me rich >but then have a nice day because it's the right thing to do :^)
NO moron, THE ANTINATALIST WHINES PRECISELY BECAUSE HE CANT KILL HIMSELF. THATS THE PROBLEM. HE FEARS AND HATES LIFE BUT HAS IRRATIONAL SURVIVAL INSTINCT.
>he guards his private life
Because he's a neurotic homosexual that turned his mental illness into a grift who doesn't want to answer whether he has kids lol
>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.
>oy vey goyim >you see it's YOU that's the problem >be sure to buy my book and buy tickets to my talks about how bad you are then have a nice day >why haven't I killed myself if I believe in anti-natalism? >that's one too many questions goy
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.
Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with violence and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.
This thread pops up basically every day and it's always the same >OP: The book that destroyed IQfy >Replies full of morons taking the bait and replying seriously >OP probably not looking at the thread while others come in to start arguing >Thread gets 140 replies
I don't really get antinatalism. How is it any different from pesimissism? It's just pesimissims with an added "therefore don't breed." I kean it's basically just an evaluation that life is bad, seeing this as a problem that needs to be rectified, and proposing a solution as the extinction of the human race by global r/childfree cringe.
Personally I get as far as pesimissim (I am one) but the whole "so let's do something about it!!! We can change the world!!! (Optimist onions face)" is mega cringe and frankly I just don't really give a shit about the suffering of people I don't know or care about.
I mean am I really crying because some Saudi Muslim has 9 kids? I don't care. The world is shit but so what? It's not my problem. And even if it was, being a cringey predditor antinatalist isn't going to fix it.
>I just don't really give a shit about the suffering of people I don't know or care about.
There it is, that's the reason why you don't understand it. Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy. They care. It's called honor
>There it is, that's the reason why you don't understand it.
Anti-natalists are indoctrinated rejects and thereby mistake rejection with lack of understanding. >Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy.
Anti-natalism is an incel cope. >They care.
They LARP. >It's called honor
It's called being pathetic.
Lol go on r/antinatalism, the biggest online community. It's brimming with hatred, suicidals, depressed violent people who want to blow up the world. Most of the posts are just OMG THIS SINGLE MOM HAD A KID!!! REEEEE!!!!!
>Benatar/interviewer go for a walk in the park >interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved >Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way) >Benatar literally starts crying: "life is unacceptable" >interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.
This only works under a physicalist, closed individualist worldview, once you realize however that both of these worldviews are bullshit, and that not only does consciousness continue after death, and that the only thing which you could call YOU is the awareness itself, which is universal, suddenly you realize that you dont prevent suffering either by not procreating or by suicide, and instead the best course of action is to create as many satisfied states of consciousness as possible, to tip the balance of the universal consciousness in favor of positive qualia rather than negative qualia.
>and that not only does consciousness continue after death, and that the only thing which you could call YOU is the awareness itself, which is universal, suddenly you realize that you dont prevent suffering either by not procreating
How do beings suffer when they lose their physical body?
Benatar argues they do. It's a useful deflection when someone brings up the fact anti-natalism dovetails with morally questionable outcomes like suicide and mass murder.
Anti-natalists misunderstand their own failures to attain autonomy and self-fulfilment, and they now project their resentment and despair upon existence itself. If they actually did understand, then they wouldn't have been broken so easily by life and competition, and they wouldn't have become so fixated on the avoidance of suffering to the point that the pleasures in life became invisible to them.
As a homosexual I am a natural ally of the antinatalists. In fact instead of convincing the world not to have children for some cringe empathy reasons, let's convince all the world to go gay (uggos must stay celibate tho).
It's win-win. I get all the "straight" twinks, and cringey antinatalists get their empty world.
And you know this just continues on with all the other problems of the world- murder, capitalism, resource depletion, global warming, etc. When you really, deeply analyze them it's just so clear that the obvious solution is to be gay. Like a globalized homosexuality, and you'll solve everything.
>The respectable [man] is one who has allowed himself to be defined by the duties imposed by forces larger than one’s discernible self. The strength necessary to decline any higher proposition of his duties [...] to set aside any concept of value one’s own labor might impart unto the larger world is a Holy epiphany [...] and they will tell you, in the terms capable of them, just as well that there is an inherent duty to every human mind stemming exclusively from the annals of ancestry, and within it is based the most pivotal all-encompassing duties, inherent to one’s self [...] and an imperative that is not merely reserved for those who reside at the bottom, for just as the commoner’s role is to benefit others through toil it is also necessary that those who toil above him [...] should understand that the commoner must be kept to task. >There is nothing to comprise a man if not what has led to his own creation. [...] As a hound yearns for discipline from its master, just as well does the mind of a man. Bold and aimless reverie imbues an incurable sickness within the natural understanding of things. [...] Perhaps most to blame is the spread of literacy, the folly of an ever-traveling man who mistakes for bliss in some disregard for his own character a muddying and darkening the way of things that long precede him. [...] It is a certain doom to no longer able to bear purpose as one does his hubris. Those who call themselves 'our thinkers' should be put to the sword.
- Giorgio Grimani
Not if it's a healthy handsome strong one. I love it when hot girls suck my dick
Why you homosexuals imply that morally speaking an individual life matters most above all.
>he guards his private life
Because he's a neurotic homosexual that turned his mental illness into a grift who doesn't want to answer whether he has kids lol
It is false though since NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o
So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."
If NDEs were hallucinations somehow then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would maintain that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
What this book is espousing is a truth: it is better to have never existed UNLESS we have a knowledge of God, which is afforded to us by the scripture's, which many of us hate, inherently or by teaching. I don't know what else to say except Christ is KING! thank you
Liberal antinatalism is cowardly cringe. If spawning people really is the mother of all crimes they should seek out its prevention with the same intensity as we seek to prevent murder and rape. If you think it's morally acceptable to allow others to choose to procreate then you are basically saying the preferences of a rapist trump those of a rapee, or those of a murderer a murderee.
the mathematics he does to make his points are utterly moronic. life is not a numbers game i enjoy myself a little bit every day and do not suffer. that's enough and more to refute it
Basically no one who calls themselves an antinatalist is a consistent antinatalist.
To the extent that it is a serious ethical position at all, it's basically just an expression of negative utilitarianism, and all its self-proclaimed defenders including Benatar are too cowardly to go the full mile and admit that it would oblige them to commit globe-spanning genocide, which it inevitably would.
In its popular expression, it's nothing more than the terminal stage of Western decadence, wherein liberal society has become so hyper-individualistic and self-loathing that it justifies its own extinction. Young white women, being both exceptionally selfish and exceptionally self-hating, are especially vulnerable to this way of thinking.
Basically this is the Darwin Award of philosophy, and the societies that have bought into its logic (i.e. Europe and East Asia) are deservedly going extinct, to be replaced by peoples who have a more life-affirming philosophy and stronger group preservation instincts (i.e. Muslims).
Never read this but the argument that anti-natalism is refuted because of the basic instinct of self-preservation ("why don't you have a nice day then) is a non-argument
>Never read this but the argument of anti-natalism is refuted because of the basic instinct of procreation ("why don't anti-natalists have sex then" because they're incels)
FTFY
>Never read this but the argument of anti-natalism is refuted because of the basic instinct of procreation ("why don't anti-natalists have sex then" because they're incels)
FTFY
>muh instincts
Your instincts are something you can overcome, so arguing that a philosophy is bad because it goes against your instincts is more of a testament to your lack of discipline than there being something wrong with the philosophy.
anti natalism is an anti human philosophy, yet it takes to natures of the human experience as a given, and even applies them to the non human (the unborn)
explain
If you blow your brains out with a shotgun you won't experience anything. Most of the other methods where you don't die instantly tend to involve excruciating pain.
The fact Benatar hasn't killed himself is all the refutation you need
/thread
fpbp antinatalism entails promortalism
no reason to start your next 30 years
Pic related was an antinatalist promortalist that actually did kill himself.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/
>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.
Awesome, if only the others would follow along
>narcissism predicts antinatalism
whoa
>When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust.
Wow glad he only killed himself and didn't go adam lanza
elliot "malfunctioning logic processors" rodger phenotype
It seems he fell into the solipsism meme/cope.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2020/01/20/why-other-people-might-not-be-conscious/
I don't understand
like a philosophy, whose End Game consists of the extermination of all sentient beings. It may have some connection with the individual suicide of the antinatalist. Of all of them, the suicide of the anatinalist is the one that makes the least sense.
>we must banish the dark impression of that nothingness which we discern behind all virtue and holiness as their final goal, and which we fear as children fear the dark; we must not even evade it like the Indians, through myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahma or the Nirvana of the Buddhists. Rather do we freely acknowledge that what remains after the entire abolition of will is for all those who are still full of will certainly nothing; but, conversely, to those in whom the will has turned and has denied itself, this our world, which is so real, with all its suns and milky-ways—is nothing.
No, it's actually not. I've ruminated the same thought when I was about 17. The vague premise is that it's better to not have ever lived because the inevitable pains of living are, in a morality sense, immoral and against the ideals of living in the first place - you don't put yourself in a position where you are experiencing active harm as one of the maxims of moral living should be to treat yourself the utmost well. So, then, living in the first place isn't very auspicious.
BUT - a big but - once you start living, it is not ideal to the human condition to die. In fact, you will have an undeniable instinctual propensity to keep living as you breathe effortlessly in perpetuity. You also have the various experiences of bodily deficiencies that are satisfying to make replete. Beyond or perhaps in enumeration of crude biological desires, there is a vast palette of pleasures to revel in, which is what life should be aggregated to or the aggregate of. These pleasurable experiences are why life is actually worth 'living' - once you have started life - as you would be fulfilling a maxim of morality to treat yourself the utmost well. Out of this concept was borne another concept I coined called Functional Hedonism. Functional Hedonism is what I designated as the means to pave the path to the Ideal Lifestyle. It is, simply put, the enjoyment of as much pleasure as one can experience, while also maintaining a state of social/societal stability - which would be the framework for your hedonistic enterprises (which can come in many different forms varying on the person). This was a counterpart to the traditional concept of Hedonism that is largely impractical because its doctrine would cause ruin and ultimately destitution as you would run dry of the privileges of pleasure due to the entropic nature of your pleasure-seeking.
Yet, while the pleasures of life are present, the pains are just as apparent too. You cannot go through life without them, the mere innate deficiencies of the body are pains that you must meet with repletion before you can experience pleasure as it is ideally meant to be. More relevant, the fact that your pleasures might conflict with the pleasures of others - which actually should not happen if we are following morality the right way and practicing restraint in lieu of greater cooperation and pleasurable experiences for mankind - that will inevitably transpire through the fact that we live in a society. Selfishness is innate in the human condition, but there is the capability to be obstinately selfish - allowing no room for anything other than the self - and then there is the capability to be cooperatively selfish - allowing the interests of others to be your concern or duty alongside yours. One is the path of 'malicious/vicious morality', which you may even call immorality, despite fulfilling one of the maxims to do the utmost good to your own welfare, albeit there is also the moral maxim of doing the utmost good to others
(Same anon)
(Continued)
The other is 'benevolent morality', or simply 'morality', as it was intended to be the framework for the utmost good to the human condition, or the ideal of it. The former kind is what I suppose as the more ubiquitous of the two, and is the root of the issue of living (as opposed to never living). We cannot experience nearly as much pleasure by ourselves as we can with the cooperation of others. This is why Love is such a coveted concept for virtually everyone to realize. You are 'exploiting' another, just as they are to you, to satisfy deficiencies in the innate condition to repleteness. In fact, it does not even have to be in the innate condition, as well as it can be deficiencies in the socioeconomic or political condition, if they aren't already comprising the whole of the human condition. In the past I've tended to poise or proffer it pessimistically as a part of a vicious carousel of self-appeasement substituting the ideal of True Love - as we aspire after in the literature and media we fabricate - as something that can be realized and make-shifted after it's manifestation. But it is actually a staunch and pronounced example of cooperative selfishness or benevolent morality, as it strives for mutual benefit.
So, just as it is not pragmatic to expect a life of replete pleasure, ergo, there cannot be a life that is better than never living. The void of pains is the ultimate pleasure, as hard as it is to envisage or intuit in a living sentiment or perspective. Albeit, this does not warrant the ultimatum between life and death: The pleasures of life are too great to forgo for death, in all its grotesquerie and bitterness. Therein, it stands that one must seek greater pleasures and maintain those pleasures for the greater good of pleasure, and that those pleasures that are greatest lie in the will to pleasure offered by those who mean to do the utmost well to your being. And the ultimate moral impropriety is to deprive your being and all others of pleasure, through death or destitution.
>Blah blah blah
If you have a nice day you're dead. If you're dead you no longer exist. If you don't exist you don't suffer. Q.E.D.
You have to live to die. Dying is not the same as never living because you have to go through a process, and the sentiments and circumstances of coming to the point of self-inflicted dying - suicide - along with other forms of dying - leaves an incorrigible imprint on living. You don't want to die, in the case that you've become so depraved that you strongly 'desire' it, you've already experienced a kind of death. Ergo, if you've ever lived, it is a tragedy to die. A pain that is unexperienced and voided by 'they' that have never lived.
>blah blah blah
have a nice day. No longer exist. No longer suffer. Simple as.
>No longer suffer.
That desire to no longer suffer is a suffering in itself. It isn't logically sound to end suffering with more suffering. To say that dying is better than living because
>"I suffer"
ignores the fact that there are pleasures to indulge in greater than the suffering. Suffering is obligatory, everyone has to suffer. Those that don't want to suffer anymore aren't experiencing enough pleasure to realize life's worth and potential for what we call happiness or contentment, which should be the opposite to suffering or depression. You're living life fallaciously if you think that the cessation of pleasure is the correct route. To have a nice day is frankly the wrong answer.
>blah blah blah
Suicide: can't experience, can't suffer. Easy as.
You cannot 'not experience' life as a living person. That's exactly what you're proposing to do when you wish to 'cease experience' with suicide. You're looking at it from the perspective of a living person when you have no sensible intuition of what [not living] is like as someone who is [living]. The figuration of that would depend on your apparatus of your living experiences (or qualia) and the available concepts that you can gather from the [living world]. This means that you're biased and irrational and your suffering towards ultimatum is only an ephemeral disposition based on the lack of pleasure you are feeling. Which means you are looking at things all wrong.
>blah blah blah
Suicide: no experience/no suffering. Solved.
You're just wrong
Your argument:
>sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg
>sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg
>sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg
>sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg spergsperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg
>sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg sperg
Reality: suicide=no experience=no suffering.
>Your argument
>Wrong
At least you stopped sperging.
This is debatable. There are may plausible mechanisms for how an afterlife could exist, and if the afterlife is similar to this life in terms of quality, suicide is useless.
https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/
Absolutely fricking based, I honestly cant believe how there arent more people who realized this yet since its so obvious and makes infinitely more sense than the nothing after death people intuitively imagine just because their illusory ego will vanish
>their illusory ego
Why is the ego illusory?
Because it is constantly changing, it isnt some permanent thing that defines you, but rather an illusion created by memory of a permanent self that isnt the awareness itself.
I can directly observe being me at the present moment. This seems to imply that some sort of self exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
I never said there wasnt a self, what I said was that the self cant be the ego, since it is constantly changing, but rather the self is awareness.
My metaphysics is like Advaita Vedanta, rathe than buddhism
Didn't read, it's a scam
>you should all never have been born
>but now that you are why not buy my book and everything else to make me rich
>but then have a nice day because it's the right thing to do :^)
All anti-natalist posts are worthless mental illness spergs and you don't need to read them.
>we live in a society
stopped reading there
NO moron, THE ANTINATALIST WHINES PRECISELY BECAUSE HE CANT KILL HIMSELF. THATS THE PROBLEM. HE FEARS AND HATES LIFE BUT HAS IRRATIONAL SURVIVAL INSTINCT.
Overrated. The Human Predicament is better
The Human Predicament is garbage.
It fits Benatar then.
>South Africa
wait did a Black person really buttrape Benatar's mom
If she's white, then it's pretty likely.
Are white women not safe in South Africa? Belle Delphine is South African.
Yolandi Visser is South African. So is Charlize Theron.
Both with obvious hints of having been raped by Black folk. Why are you so blind?
no obviously not
Early life section
It seems clean, but it also says he guards his private life
Keep reading
oh dear god WTF
wait wat
>he guards his private life
Because he's a neurotic homosexual that turned his mental illness into a grift who doesn't want to answer whether he has kids lol
Everything he writes is meaningless unless he kills himself
She's not a mess, she's perfect.
right?
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.
>oy vey goyim
>you see it's YOU that's the problem
>be sure to buy my book and buy tickets to my talks about how bad you are then have a nice day
>why haven't I killed myself if I believe in anti-natalism?
>that's one too many questions goy
so Nazi Germany then?
Being a human body sucks. Why make another one?
Not if it's a healthy handsome strong one. I love it when hot girls suck my dick
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder.
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.
Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with violence and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.
It just seems like cope for being a weak little loser to me
Is it basically Conspiracy against human race by ligotti?
This thread pops up basically every day and it's always the same
>OP: The book that destroyed IQfy
>Replies full of morons taking the bait and replying seriously
>OP probably not looking at the thread while others come in to start arguing
>Thread gets 140 replies
Anything that has to do with sex has 140 replies.
OP has been doxxed in the past. He sticks around in the threads.
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2021/02/nietzschean-antinatalism.html
It's time to take the nietzscheantinatalist pill, anon.
So much cope in this thread. Benatar wins again.
see
Cope
I don't really get antinatalism. How is it any different from pesimissism? It's just pesimissims with an added "therefore don't breed." I kean it's basically just an evaluation that life is bad, seeing this as a problem that needs to be rectified, and proposing a solution as the extinction of the human race by global r/childfree cringe.
Personally I get as far as pesimissim (I am one) but the whole "so let's do something about it!!! We can change the world!!! (Optimist onions face)" is mega cringe and frankly I just don't really give a shit about the suffering of people I don't know or care about.
I mean am I really crying because some Saudi Muslim has 9 kids? I don't care. The world is shit but so what? It's not my problem. And even if it was, being a cringey predditor antinatalist isn't going to fix it.
you have to be 18 to post kid.
>I just don't really give a shit about the suffering of people I don't know or care about.
There it is, that's the reason why you don't understand it. Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy. They care. It's called honor
>There it is, that's the reason why you don't understand it.
Anti-natalists are indoctrinated rejects and thereby mistake rejection with lack of understanding.
>Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy.
Anti-natalism is an incel cope.
>They care.
They LARP.
>It's called honor
It's called being pathetic.
NTA btw.
>they care. It's called honor
Lol go on r/antinatalism, the biggest online community. It's brimming with hatred, suicidals, depressed violent people who want to blow up the world. Most of the posts are just OMG THIS SINGLE MOM HAD A KID!!! REEEEE!!!!!
>Benatar/interviewer go for a walk in the park
>interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved
>Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)
>Benatar literally starts crying: "life is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.
This only works under a physicalist, closed individualist worldview, once you realize however that both of these worldviews are bullshit, and that not only does consciousness continue after death, and that the only thing which you could call YOU is the awareness itself, which is universal, suddenly you realize that you dont prevent suffering either by not procreating or by suicide, and instead the best course of action is to create as many satisfied states of consciousness as possible, to tip the balance of the universal consciousness in favor of positive qualia rather than negative qualia.
>and that not only does consciousness continue after death, and that the only thing which you could call YOU is the awareness itself, which is universal, suddenly you realize that you dont prevent suffering either by not procreating
How do beings suffer when they lose their physical body?
Benatar argues they do. It's a useful deflection when someone brings up the fact anti-natalism dovetails with morally questionable outcomes like suicide and mass murder.
Because you arent your body, you are the awareness, thus the death of the body is not the death of you, only the illusory ego which you think is you
I mean I've heard this many times before but it sounds fricking schizophrenic. Who should I read to understand this? Schopenhauer?
Actually, yeah, but also I recommend reading into non-dualism and advaita vedanta
Anti-natalists misunderstand their own failures to attain autonomy and self-fulfilment, and they now project their resentment and despair upon existence itself. If they actually did understand, then they wouldn't have been broken so easily by life and competition, and they wouldn't have become so fixated on the avoidance of suffering to the point that the pleasures in life became invisible to them.
As a homosexual I am a natural ally of the antinatalists. In fact instead of convincing the world not to have children for some cringe empathy reasons, let's convince all the world to go gay (uggos must stay celibate tho).
It's win-win. I get all the "straight" twinks, and cringey antinatalists get their empty world.
And you know this just continues on with all the other problems of the world- murder, capitalism, resource depletion, global warming, etc. When you really, deeply analyze them it's just so clear that the obvious solution is to be gay. Like a globalized homosexuality, and you'll solve everything.
No only that, everyone will die off sooner due to parasitical infection and the mass spreading of STDs.
homosexual
Shut up twink your ass is mine
Found another one for you:
.
> *Destroys IQfy*
ackshually, the influx of reddit refugees, /misc/cels and election tourists destroyed IQfy around 2015
maybe life would be better if you didn't spend hundreds of hours writing how shit life is lmao
have sex, have a beer, have a cigarette bro
>have sex
Ok
>have a beer, have a cigarette bro
Ultra gay
>The respectable [man] is one who has allowed himself to be defined by the duties imposed by forces larger than one’s discernible self. The strength necessary to decline any higher proposition of his duties [...] to set aside any concept of value one’s own labor might impart unto the larger world is a Holy epiphany [...] and they will tell you, in the terms capable of them, just as well that there is an inherent duty to every human mind stemming exclusively from the annals of ancestry, and within it is based the most pivotal all-encompassing duties, inherent to one’s self [...] and an imperative that is not merely reserved for those who reside at the bottom, for just as the commoner’s role is to benefit others through toil it is also necessary that those who toil above him [...] should understand that the commoner must be kept to task.
>There is nothing to comprise a man if not what has led to his own creation. [...] As a hound yearns for discipline from its master, just as well does the mind of a man. Bold and aimless reverie imbues an incurable sickness within the natural understanding of things. [...] Perhaps most to blame is the spread of literacy, the folly of an ever-traveling man who mistakes for bliss in some disregard for his own character a muddying and darkening the way of things that long precede him. [...] It is a certain doom to no longer able to bear purpose as one does his hubris. Those who call themselves 'our thinkers' should be put to the sword.
- Giorgio Grimani
>Existence is.... LE BAD
>My existence? STOP ASKING QUESTIONS OK???? I HATE IT BUT.... I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE IT OK????????
Why you homosexuals imply that morally speaking an individual life matters most above all.
Literally no, he adopted.
>This is how you should act morally
>Not me though
Do you realize how moronic this is?
>making shit up so his incel hero doesn't look bad
Just sad.
It is false though since NDEs are unironically irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o
So any atheist would be too, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."
If NDEs were hallucinations somehow then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would maintain that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
What this book is espousing is a truth: it is better to have never existed UNLESS we have a knowledge of God, which is afforded to us by the scripture's, which many of us hate, inherently or by teaching. I don't know what else to say except Christ is KING! thank you
Liberal antinatalism is cowardly cringe. If spawning people really is the mother of all crimes they should seek out its prevention with the same intensity as we seek to prevent murder and rape. If you think it's morally acceptable to allow others to choose to procreate then you are basically saying the preferences of a rapist trump those of a rapee, or those of a murderer a murderee.
the mathematics he does to make his points are utterly moronic. life is not a numbers game i enjoy myself a little bit every day and do not suffer. that's enough and more to refute it
You are just proving the antinatalist point, have a nice day, you scum without honor.
Basically no one who calls themselves an antinatalist is a consistent antinatalist.
To the extent that it is a serious ethical position at all, it's basically just an expression of negative utilitarianism, and all its self-proclaimed defenders including Benatar are too cowardly to go the full mile and admit that it would oblige them to commit globe-spanning genocide, which it inevitably would.
In its popular expression, it's nothing more than the terminal stage of Western decadence, wherein liberal society has become so hyper-individualistic and self-loathing that it justifies its own extinction. Young white women, being both exceptionally selfish and exceptionally self-hating, are especially vulnerable to this way of thinking.
Basically this is the Darwin Award of philosophy, and the societies that have bought into its logic (i.e. Europe and East Asia) are deservedly going extinct, to be replaced by peoples who have a more life-affirming philosophy and stronger group preservation instincts (i.e. Muslims).
Never read this but the argument that anti-natalism is refuted because of the basic instinct of self-preservation ("why don't you have a nice day then) is a non-argument
>Never read this but the argument of anti-natalism is refuted because of the basic instinct of procreation ("why don't anti-natalists have sex then" because they're incels)
FTFY
>muh instincts
Your instincts are something you can overcome, so arguing that a philosophy is bad because it goes against your instincts is more of a testament to your lack of discipline than there being something wrong with the philosophy.
No shit, autist.
anti natalism is an anti human philosophy, yet it takes to natures of the human experience as a given, and even applies them to the non human (the unborn)
explain
>it takes to natures of the human experience as a given
Which is why David Pearce advocates for having people genetically engineered to not suffer.
Perhaps it's worth living just to experience killing yourself?
If you blow your brains out with a shotgun you won't experience anything. Most of the other methods where you don't die instantly tend to involve excruciating pain.
Interesting how this shit is only promoted among white people
total cohencidence. take your pills