>forgets to end his life

>forgets to end his life
any writers with a worse ending?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He quite literally forgot to end his life. He had a plan, together with Simone, that they would do themselves in "like the Koestlers", but then he started failing around 1991-1992 and they didn't act on it in time. They had gotten too accustomed to being alive. His final days were rather pathetic, he was set up in some state hospital where he spun out his final days. He was a bad patient, the staff didn't like him. But to be fair, death is always an ugly and graceless process.

    At least Simone didn't have to carry on too much longer by herself. She couldn't bear it, and in 1997 she waded into the sea, holding up her half of the pact.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He did it to himself he refused to see the beauty of life. Pathetic bastard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Oh no, he could appreciate beauty. It's just that he simply and correctly understood that the large bulk of existence is pointless and stupid. For him, the existence of Bach's music served as proof that the creation of the universe had not been a complete waste. His final line from Le Mauvais Démiurge:

        "We are all deep in a hell each moment of which is a miracle."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No they were mentally ill freaks. Brain chemistry kaput. Nothing else. homie couldn't even sleep like frfr.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just some crazy, miserable people.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Be nihilist
    >Claim there's no objective purpose to life
    >But like, you can make pottery your entire life or some shit and that's like good enough
    At least saying you're an accident as a nihilist is consistent, so props for that.
    Nihilism caves in on itself for other reason, but I do like it when proponents of nihilism, who are functionally moronic, maintain some level of consistency.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Although I should add, if he did end his life he would be even more consistent (as a nihilist).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why though? If you are a nihilist then killing yourself doesn't make a meaningful statement. It is an act devoid of meaning.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >There's no purpose to any of this
          >But I'll continue living
          The choice to continue living implies purpose, even if that purpose is merely a result of biological hardwiring due to which the nihilist in question finds it difficult to end his life because he's essentially hardwired not to.

          Nihilism is a worldview that naturally follows from a materialist worldview, but even under a purely materialist worldview one can point to biologic determinism and life itself being the purpose.
          >But people kill themselves every day
          faulty wiring.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The choice to continue living implies purpose
            I just don't agree.
            I'm not a fan of nihilism as an outlook, but I don't think that not committing suicide is a refutation of it. You are fixated on deriving a hierarchy of meaning from the actions of someone who does not believe in meaning. I just don't think it is a worthwhile effort.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >faulty wiring.
            Tell that to christians.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He was perfectly well aware that seeing the truth of the pointlessness of things (an accurate observation, to underline) is irreconcilable with human instincts (for survival, emotional well-being, and so on). The point is that for a person who really understands, these two contrary impulses (the intellect versus the instincts) are in perpetual tension. And it should be said that the instincts are far stronger, which is not the same thing as being "true". I had this (admittedly simple) idea before reading him, but he puts it well in this item:

      "Having lived out—having verified all the arguments against life—I have stripped it of its savors... I have known post-sexual metaphysics, the void of the futilely procreated universe, and that dissipation of sweat which plunges you into an age-old chill, anterior to the rages of matter. And I have tried to be faithful to my knowledge, to force my instincts to yield, and realized that it is no use wielding the weapons of nothingness if you cannot turn them against yourself. For the outburst of desires, amid our knowledge which contradicts them, creates a dreadful conflict between our mind opposing the Creation and the irrational substratum which binds us to it still."

      Here, he hits the three basic ideas: 1) true understanding, genuine knowledge is to see the futility of the universe. 2) You can "know" and "understand" this all you want (and you'd be right in doing so), but even such understanding is pointless because instincts are far more powerful than the intellect. 3) Nevertheless, for a right-thinking person, the two attitudes remain in unresolvable tension.

      One doesn't "outgrow" nihilism. He has another line somewhere later on where he says that what he knew at twenty (read: the pointlessness of existence) he knows just as well at sixty. One long tedious, superflous labor of verification (read: the tedium of life and what can be observed in it).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's fine, but to me, logically, such a position is inconsistent if not outright self contradictory.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >explain that two things are in opposition to each other, or inconsistent with each other
          >"that's fine but those two things are inconsistent brah"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I'm sorry, I didn't read your post anon. It's too long.

            >The choice to continue living implies purpose
            I just don't agree.
            I'm not a fan of nihilism as an outlook, but I don't think that not committing suicide is a refutation of it. You are fixated on deriving a hierarchy of meaning from the actions of someone who does not believe in meaning. I just don't think it is a worthwhile effort.

            If one doesn't see any meaning or purpose to life, then the question of
            >Why do you keep on living
            is forced. Whatever the answer is that becomes the purpose of the nihilist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If one doesn't see any meaning or purpose to life, then the question of
            >>Why do you keep on living
            >is forced. Whatever the answer is that becomes the purpose of the nihilist.
            You assumption is that it is a question that has a meaningful answer. To the nihilist it simply doesn't. Why keep living? Why not?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You have never had a moment of post-nut clarity with life itself.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Provide a logical argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Life entails all kinds of actions that have purpose.
            You get up in the morning you shower and wash your teeth, because you don't want to stink and would like to remain in good health.
            You put on clothes before going outside, keeping up with social norms.
            If life itself doesn't have purpose, then ultimately none of these actions have any purpose either. The fact that a nihilist chooses to live, along with everything that entails, is a refutation of their argument.
            Their claim of not seeing purpose doesn't mean they don't have it. It's akin to a blind person claiming colors don't exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All you did was restate yourself, you haven't provided an argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. Nihilism is irrefutable from an atheist worldview. An uncreated universe can't have purpose since only creation can imply purpose.
            But nihilism is wrong because God exists.
            How's that homosexual?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I guess you give up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You do understand that even God can't save anyone from nihilism right? even Christianity is nihilistic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is not nihilistic, as he said, 'only creation can imply purpose'. The purpose of life is whatever God created humans for.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >because God exists.
            how can you be so sure?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          'The Water Fall.—
          At the sight of a water fall we may opine that in the countless curves, spirations and dashes of the waves we behold freedom of the will and of the impulses. But everything is compulsory, everything can be mathematically calculated. Thus it is, too, with human acts. We would be able to calculate in advance every single action if we were all knowing, as well as every advance in knowledge, every delusion, every bad deed. The acting individual himself is held fast in the illusion of volition. If, on a sudden, the entire movement of the world stopped short, and an all knowing and reasoning intelligence were there to take advantage of this pause, he could foretell the future of every being to the remotest ages and indicate the path that would be taken in the world's further course. The deception of the acting individual as regards himself, the assumption of the freedom of the will, is a part of this computable mechanism'.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *