[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 250x250, 2t1ddy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17851193 No.17851193 [Reply] [Original]

>In 2014, the HBO television series True Detective attracted attention from some of Ligotti's fans because of the striking resemblance between the pessimistic, antinatalist philosophy espoused in the first few episodes by the character of Rust Cohle (played by Matthew McConaughey) and Ligotti's own philosophical pessimism and antinatalism, especially as expressed in The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. After accusations that dialogue from Cohle's character in True Detective were lifted from The Conspiracy Against the Human Race,[20][21] the series' writer, Nic Pizzolatto, confirmed in The Wall Street Journal[22][23][24] that Ligotti, along with several other writers and texts in the weird supernatural horror genre, had indeed influenced him. Pizzolatto said he found The Conspiracy Against the Human Race to be "incredibly powerful writing".[24] On the topic of hard-boiled detectives, he asked: "What could be more hardboiled than the worldview of Ligotti or [Emil] Cioran?"[24]

What happens when Ligotti and everyone talks about killing themselves but never do it, kind of like virtue signaling

>> No.17851209

>>17851193
Both Ligotti and even the character Rust Cohle address the 'why don't you kill yourself' question, basically there is no free will and most people do not have the temperament and impulses necessary for suicide, people don't make decisions based on abstract philosophical reasoning.

>> No.17851213

> /lit/ - television

>> No.17851229

>>17851193
>Ligotti and everyone talks about killing themselve
He doesnt, sort of like how you dont read books

>> No.17851240

>>17851193
>What happens when Ligotti and everyone talks about killing themselves
Maybe if you actually fucking read him you'd know he advocates against suicide

>> No.17851246

>>17851229
/thread

>> No.17851260

Yeah you haven't read Ligotti or even have listened to Ligotti by proxy from David Tibet. Make a post when you have.

>> No.17851262

>>17851209
Sounds like a cope. People kill themselves all the time, it's not like we are unable to do it.

>> No.17851273

>>17851262
Yes they kill themselves because of their psychology being especially dysfunctional, not out of some rational analysis.

>> No.17851282

>>17851262
>Sounds like a cope
Yes, yes it is. Read Last Messiah, its basically The Cope Manifesto

>> No.17851286

>>17851209
But plenty of people do, many with far less pessimistic attitudes than Rust does, also it seems kind of contradictory to say that people don't make decisions based on abstract reasoning when Rust is someone who judges everything based on that.

>> No.17851308

>>17851273
How could you prove that? They are dead so they can't defend themselves and you can't analyze them. You'd have to prove that 'rational' suicide is impossible because suicide would have to be by definition irrational. But if you are an anti-natalist then you have no reason to believe that.

>> No.17851316

>>17851286
Again, they kill themselves because of psychological dysfunction, and in the case of the character Rust his pessimist theory is besides the point, the only reason he talks about that stuff is because he was utterly destroyed by the death of his young daughter.

>> No.17851326

>>17851308
It's dysfunctional because genes that promote suicide(apart from in old age, or after having had many children I suppose) will not be passed on. The larger point here is that behavior is not rational in general in the first place, it is emotionally driven, with logical explanations being mostly post hoc rationalizations.

>> No.17851335

>>17851240
>dude life is meaningless and it is better to be dead than to be alive and all we do is suffer and there is no hope for anyone and anything
>but bro in my opinion dont kys!

you've convinced me, ligotti is life affirming after all.

>> No.17851370

>>17851326
So your reasoning is based on biological reduction to human beings as just machines that pass on genes. Which yes if you just see the point of life as survival and reproduction then it is irrational to kys. But I don't accept that definition and neither do most people.

>> No.17851388

>>17851370
But Ligotti does hence his case against suicides. Neither of the views are proven, eternal truths, therefore they are equally valid.

>> No.17851409

>>17851370
Biological reductivism is entirely plausible, there is no inconsistency or contradiction in its framework. In fact the entire term begs the question, where in the causal chain are you identifying influences other than biological, where do they come from?

>> No.17851420

>>17851370
Also I didn't say it was irrational to kill yourself, I said our behavior is not rationally determined in the first place, reason is mostly just a tool used to accomplish emotionally determined ends.

>> No.17851437

>>17851388
Right but thats only convincing to people who have made evolutionary theory their god. We may not be able to figure out what the 'eternal truth' is but we can definitely figure out who is just wrong by pointing out contradictions and incoherency. Ligotti saying that you should or should not do something is incoherent because his philosophy does not allow for moral claims. Even if he right and life really is just evolutionary soup that does not give biology any moral imperative over human beings. It's just the is/ought problem. Life is just about genes reproducing, and so what? Just because that's how it is doesn't mean that's how it ought to be.

>> No.17851470

>>17851420
So are you being rational right now, or not? Is this whole argument based on emotion? Is anti natalism based on arbitrary emotional fallacious reasoning?

>> No.17851479

>>17851437
>Ligotti saying that you should or should not do something is incoherent because his philosophy does not allow for moral claims.
What have you read of Ligotti?

>> No.17851480
File: 15 KB, 300x300, 854big.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17851480

>>17851193
What about those who DID kill themselves after writing their Magnus Opus?

>Carlo Michelstaedter
>Philipp Mainländer
>Otto Weininger

>> No.17851507

>>17851470
The validity of the argument is largely unconnected from the reasons a person might feel compelled to have the argument. Why are we arguing right now? Boredom, vague desire to prove our ability to reason, maybe a bit of desire to mock the other person, natural curiosity about reality, kneejerk social impulse to just talk about whatever subject, etc. could be all sorts of reasons. It doesn't matter where the motivation comes from, you don't have to consider it when analyzing if the argument makes sense or not.

>> No.17851513

>>17851479
I've read the conspiracy and I read some of his short stories. I don't remember the thrust of his argument in CATHR so I'm sure you can correct me, I just remember a lot of it was fallacious.

>> No.17851528

>>17851507
I totally agree with you, it just seems contradictory for you to say that all humans act based on 100% emotions with reason as an afterthought and now you want me to put emotions aside and only consider reason as if I really do actually have free will and can choose to be rational...

>> No.17851572

>>17851528
in an argument you have to try to be rational, because that is the social standard(well in theory, in reality not so much), so it is an opportunity to defend and attack the ideas using reason. Our motives for entering the argument are not rational but the form of activity constricts us into the paths of reason(theoretically).

If you mean that it's pretty much pointless I agree with you

>> No.17851604

>>17851193

Consider this people who actually commit suicide often do not give off any obvious signs that they are suicidal before it happens
I think that generally the people who are willing to commit suicide are the ones who are incapable of reconciling these pessimistic views whereas the people who talk about it all the time have become so acclimated to it that they ironically can't actually become suicidal and talking about it actually becomes the coping mechanism

>> No.17851613

>>17851335
READ THE FUCKING BOOK NIGGER

>> No.17851662

>>17851613
I did it makes no fucking sense and ligotti is contradicting himself. You can't set up a world in which the question of suicide is arbitrary and then act like you have any reason to advocate against suicide.

>> No.17851735

>>17851326>>17851409

>>17851326
>being mostly post hoc rationalizations.
Just like the atheist idea of ''life= passing genes''

>> No.17851761

>>17851735
That's not a rationalization of a pre-existing conceit, that was determined by studying the molecular nature of the material which makes up living creatures. We found that it's controlled by strings of molecules making copies of themselves, and that's the only explanation we have to date of why organisms are the way they are.

>> No.17851768

>>17851662
Read it again then, you clearly either skimmed it or have the reading comprehension of a 10-year-old.

>> No.17851931

>>17851768
By all means you could quote him and clarify instead of being one of these autists that tells people to read the book again instead of defending it. I'm looking through the book again and all I can really find is him making a lot of emotional arguments about how nonexistence is at the very least equal to existence if not better. Perhaps you could quote the part you think he explains why you shouldn't kys?

>> No.17852767

>>17851209
I never got why it even matters if they do or don't kill themselves, either way it doesn't change what they're saying, it could still be true either way.