/lit/ - Literature

>>21723662
It depends on what flavor you're interested in. You'll find versions of antinatalism in many people interested in population ethics, and some dark strains of utilitarianism. These are, though, often bland, and your mileage may vary depending on whether you find utilitarianism or population ethics worthwhile subjects. There is a narrowness in thought and spirit in many of these, I think because they deal in somewhat narrow questions. If you care for such technical stuff, have at it.

But I would highly recommend Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race. It has an astonishing range, and is written in a very literary style.

how the fuck do you refute this?

one of the worst books i've ever read and not at all in a good way. if i could sum up the experience reading this, it'd be
>incel writes using thesaurus at every word

ficfags should stick to fic writing not retarded philosophy.

Is Ligotti worth it? I'm interested in his thoughts, but from what I can tell he doesn't have any academic background.

This book freaks me out (picrel). The idea that we are trapped in our bodies unable to do anything about it. I try and reason myself out of it but it's disturbing as fuck.
Thoughts?

I didn't listen...
such a bland and uninsightful work, it cured my pessimism

>>16514802
Shilling my brainlet antinatalism thesis again. Also pic is a good introductory place to start. Could also look at Schopenhauer's "On the Suffering of the World", Cioran’s "On the Heights of Despair" or "The Trouble With Being Born".

AHEM... So far as I can tell there are two possibilities: Either God exists or He does not.

>God exists
This means there is a heaven and a hell. Choosing to create a life is choosing to bring another soul (without their consent) into the game of either going to heaven (eternal pleasure) or going to hell (eternal torment). Instead of allowing that soul to remain in non-existence, you are forcing it into a game with the highest stakes imaginable. To illustrate this (like a retard) consider the following scenario:
>There is a magical crosswalk where, should you successfully cross to the other side, you will be given $1,000,000,000. However, there is an UNKNOWN chance that a car will come whipping by and hit you causing you to die in the most painful way possible. Would you consider it to be moral to FORCE someone else (without their consent) to cross this magical sidewalk instead of allowing them to remain on one side (where they won't ever get the money but they also won't be hit by the car)? This is my (retarded) metaphor for creating life. Is it moral to "bring someone off the bench" (the bench of non-existence) into the game of going to hell or going to heaven?
(1/2)

What am I in for?

I want to feel small and helpless. It's almost comforting.

>>15281352
>the most /lit/ philosophy
anti-natalism

I'm about 70% of the way through this. Does it get any better?

I'm about halfway done with this book, and I'm somewhat confused. Is this supposed to be a guide on how to write existential horror or is it supposed to be Ligotti philosophical treatise promoting anti natalism and pessimism?

>tfw want to an hero but parents will be fucked
Anti-natalism is correct.

>>13597805

Is Ligotti right or is it just incel rage?