/lit/ - Literature

>>16369888

The best non-fiction book ever written, but only if you’re reading it in French. If you’re reading it in English, then it’s just a lesser Francis Bacon.
OP, if you purchased it in English, then I suggest you return. Anglos can not translate French. Any other Romance language is way better than an English translation.

>>15925249
Doesn't mean life is bad, either.

>>15924783
>It would be better if there were nothing
There would be objectively no suffering or pleasure, but there would be no one or nothing to experience that so it would be utterly futile, like baking a cake but no one gets to eat it. No, it would not be better. Better for whom?

>Since there is more pain than pleasure on earth
How do you measure that? How do you even know that? The worst of pains can be mitigated or made endurable by the hope of an afterlife, or saving others, or even spiting someone. I still love and value my life, even if it's ultimately contained more suffering.

>creating new desires and new distresses
At least there's variety, huh?

>and the agony of the devoured animal is always far greater than the pleasure of the devourer
The agony of the devoured animal is transient and fuels the devourer to feel more pleasure. Stop posting this quote, it's been thrice-refuted. At least resort the puppet one Ligotti likes to use.

>>15863261
The pessimist types try to attack everything that makes worth living, then claim that life isn't worth living. They're like cows, shitting where they're eating. "Religion, the state, the raisons d'etre, etcetera are all fake and worthless," they say, then, with the same breath, say that "I shouldn't reproduce because life has no greater purpose, no meaning or higher reason to justify procreation."

>>15863266
Much like "pessimists are smarter than optimists." Who's to say the ANs in this thread are of the smart pessimists? Perhaps they're stupid pessimists, but if they truly were (non- philosophical) pessimists they would likely hold that belief.

>>15863278
To find a higher purpose in life. To value your loved ones. Yadda yadda, the list goes on. Why don't you ask someone who actually has cancer, rather than turning to the same "middle class white men" you lot hate so much for being aloof and privileged?

>>15863120
We're all gene slaves, or so the scientists say. All beliefs are in your genes, or linked to what your genes tell you to do. Besides, what do you have to gain from not being a "gene-slave?" Labels are a meager substitute for accomplishments

>>15863128
Why don't you engage my arguments, then? Clearly these "fallacies" have already been addressed, and it would be a simple task to argue against them.

>>15863157
Yes, but you assume these childless geniuses are anti-natalists rather than merely childless. The difference is that they don't construct a philosophy to justify their decision; it's just a personal decision for them.

>>15863165
>Don't reproduce
>Yawn. Not gonna do that.

>I'm actually quite content with my existence, but realize how easily things could have turned out for the worse
>And who knows, maybe someday I will be driven to suicide
Is this another one of your brilliant realizations about how easily things could have turned out for the worse? How do you do anything in your life, if every action (birth included) could lead lead to some unutterable monstrosity? Isn't it safer to retire from life, or is the monstrosity of procreation conveniently not as bad as the things you are actually capable of doing?

>concern the lives of the unborn
The unborn don't exist. Tell me about them being potential, however.

>trying to make it about the person making the argument
That's just a little fun I'm having. After all, anti-natalists do the same by calling natalists "breeders" and "low IQ." So much for trying to convince them, huh?

two weeks xd
i havent left my house in... it will be 7 years in few months

The things we fear the most already happened to us