His conclusions are wrong, r-right?
>>8249634
>uncomfortable truths are now the blue pill
>>8249596
No. His reasoning is thoughm
>>8249596
Yes. His logic is thoughm
>>8249880
Whats uncomfortable for the losers who read his books? They are enabled to keep being worthless sacks of shit all the while assuring themselves human endeavour is entirely pointless.
Pretty much everything he says is more or less correct, even though it's mostly just sadboy circlejerking. His conclusion that it would be preferable for humanity to voluntarily stop replicating is stupid, however, as it is entirely up to the individual whether or not they are willing to endure a lifetime replete with basal suffering in exchange for the joys that accompany it throughout life
Can somebody explain to me what's bad about having a child?
What I like about Ligotti is that he admits the arbitrary nature of value judgements and acknowledges that pessimism is mostly a temperament thing.
>>8250152
Not true, since we are born with survival instincts and we're culturally and socially indoctrinated, which makes life a trap and not something it's easy to rationally opt out of once you're born.
>>8250164
making someone suffer for your own entertainment
>>8250164
His conclusions are not new, shocking or interesting (he cites many pessimistic thinkers of the past, along with certain gnostic sects like the cathars and bogomils)..., but are they correct though? It depends who you ask. It depends on your view of man and his place in the universe. I can't imagine a concise explain action that would overturn his conclusions, and anyone offering such a inchoate response should be treated with extreme skepticism.
Value judgements aren't falsifiable. Opinions can't be right or wrong.
>>8250177
So you're saying that people don't realize that they secretly want to kill themselves? Who gives a fuck about how we're socially conditioned? You were socially conditioned to sympathize with Ligotti's antinatalism probably because of your inability to fit in with normies resulting in social ostracizing and hence your presence here. It doesn't matter how people are conditioned, once they are a cognitively mature being, what they want is what they want.
>>8250201
Ligotti uses logic to come to his conclusions, the logic is very much so falsifiable
>>8250213
You mean like little symbols and shit? Oh fuck, well I'm sorry then. I had no idea.
>>8250207
I'm saying that people may be in a position where they are unhappy to be alive but for a lot of reasons don't have it in them to kill themselves.
So saying that spawning people and then letting them decide for themselves if they want to live is in any way fair is incorrect, because it is not a simple rational decision to make. The living are for the most part extremely biased to continue living, even if they wish they were never born.
>>8250213
The logic only works if you accept his particular premises, which he acknowledges.
>>8250227
You're presupposing that suffering overrides joy as the natural state of affairs and people only don't kill themselves because of some innate Will to continue surviving and reproducing. This assumes that whatever mysterious basal survival urge within us is extricable from cognition and personhood, which is not true. If in fact there is some drive in our reptilian brain to live and proliferate (which I don't doubt is true), it is unfair to say that its expression in our human lives as an apparent investment in life is not a fundamental constituent of being, and in order to come to the conclusion that it is 'better to have never been,' we would have to reject not only this survival instinct, but the entirely of humanity and personhood altogether, which is impossible to do from our vantage point (namely, one of existing in the world as a thinking human being). The most we can do is advocate for a utilitarian individual self-destruction based on our own inability to flourish
>>8250402
>>8250402
>>8249596
>asking for opinions without first posting a summary of his views.
>>8250369
How can you really equate joy and suffering? Not only is the latter more obvious and more ubiquitous, it also signifies an immutable universal law.
>>8250429
If there is no stability then suffering, just like happiness, is not lasting, i also don't buy that happiness always comes with disillusionment
>>8250418
Demonstrate (1)
Demonstrate (4).
>>8250454
> Suffering is more ubiquitous
> Most humans are happy
>>8251029
oh, you sweet summer child
>>8251057
Listen. You're wrong.
>>8251061
> This is the extent of his demonstration.
No. You're the one who's wrong.
>>8250453
Read the excerpts on Goodreads if you're too lazy to read the entire book.
>>8250418
#3 is so fucking stupid. The absence of pain is impossible in a non-existent entity, it's simply illogical. It's like claiming the absence of lung cancer in my foot is 1) possible & 2) good enough to outweigh the (pleasure - pain) side of the equation of life.
Ask most people if they wish they were never born, they'd say no.
>>8252348
Doesn't matter.
I can logically prove that life is not a net good, and is in fact bad.
What the idiotic sheeple think about their lives does not matter to an intellect such as myself -- do you think the average beer guzzling cretin truly knows if he wishes he was born? If he had an ounce of intelligence, he would wish he had never entered this world.
>>8252361
The absence of pain is not impossible in a non-existent entity, it's implied. It is not a positive quality.
Just like something that does not exist can't have a colour. You wouldn't say that being non-coloured when non-existent is absurd. The non-existent is per definition without features and therefore without colour.
>>8252348
Most people are indoctrinated idiots, most can`t even differentiate between never to be born and having to die.
>>8252348
Ask most people who have had sex if they wish they never had it, they'd say no.
Therefore rape is okay.
t. You
Something that does not exist cannot have a color, but it also does not have the capacity to have a color. Pain is only undesirable in beings that have the capacity for pain, therefore it is neither good or bad that there is no pain in colorless things.
The only thing he's wrong about is his conclusion concerning Buddhism.
>everything they say is true except enlightenment cuz it can't be demonstrated by syens
wew
But hey he's honest and states from the very beginning that the book is very personal and primarily aimed at people who would share parts of his worldview. It's not a grand treatise for convincing those who fell for the "every part of life even the bad things in it are great & the universe/god loves you" meme.
>>8250152
>sadboy circlejerking
I never got this idea about it being depressing. It seems mostly just factual with the occasional sarcastic remark thrown in for fun.
Ligotti himself is not wallowing in sadness over his own conclusions because he truly understands the implications of them: Everything is truly meaningless and everything is the same so do whatever, killing yourself is just as pointless as living so why bother? why not do exactly what you want because there's no reason not to, even if it is just chemicals and whatnot, that doesn't mean you have to go against them to 'prove' you're 'enlightened' because being enlightened is just as pointless as the rest of it.
There's no justification for wallowing, of course there's also no reason not to, but why would you when there are so many other things to do?
Ligotti is a writer making a living off his works. This is not someone who cries about everything being pointless and then uses that as a justification of never leaving their parent's home.
He has anxiety about talking to interviewers and such so he doesn't; he doesn't have to do things he doesn't like because there just is no reason to. His life is exactly what he wanted given the circumstances.
There is humor and sarcasm hidden in a lot of his works if you stop going in with the mindset that it all has to be depressing.
>>8252390
what?
did I miss some part of the human experience where people recreationally send themselves into a near death experience and back into life once or twice a month?
>>8252437
The point is that you say: Most people enjoy a thing, so it's alright to do it to everyone without their permission.
Which is silly.
>>8250429
>emo kid with a dictionary and thesaurus
>>8252431
What I meant by that is his writing serves as validation for depressed people to wallow in their own depression, not that he himself is always mopey and morose. Beyond that, the work serves little purpose other than the historical survey of pessimism
>>8252707
>his writing serves as validation for depressed people to wallow in their own depression
Definitely true, but I don't think you can blame him for that or hold that against the book (not that you necessarily were).
I still found it to be an enjoyable read just because of how all encompassing it was. Kind of like you were saying: It doesn't really have any new ideas in it but just pulls a bunch of other people's ideas into one work.
antinatalist threads are always full of a few people who are intelligent enough to understand antinatalism and a large group of low IQ apes repeating the same fallacious arguments ligotti talks about in the book
there's no point arguing with natalists, you will never convince idiots
>>8252356
No you can't because "good" and "bad" are subjective positions.
>>pain is bad
>what are masochism and self-defeating personality disorder
>what are histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders and dramatic personality disorders in general
>what are sadism and schadenfreude
>what are people who like to be used and abused
>what are people who want to give all of themselves to others
>what is pride
>what is relishing the sour moments
>what is (lack of) boredom
I mean, really now
>>8252373
The absence of pain in something that does not exist is not comparable to the absence of pain in something that does exist. (I also question the "good" and "not bad" ratings of the things that nonexistent beings have.)
>>8252839
what makes antinatalists smarter than natalists?
Why is it so easy to piss of antinatalists?
>>8250483
Unlike happiness suffering can be stable (well till death anyway). For example if you have multiple sclerosis or acouphenes.
>>8250148
>redpill memer thinks he's more than a worthless sack of shit
>>8252884
Even nature is against us
>>8252884
Trying to convince a natalist not to have kids is like trying to explain math to a goldfish.
>>8252956
A sign of mental illness?
>>8253016
troll'd
>>8249596
right but a bit to gloomy nothing matters and life sucks for most, but I can still have fun.
>>8253016
an admirable but ultimately fruitless endeavour (unless of course you do actually manage to, in which case you'll probably be considered the most impressive person who ever lived)
Thomas Bernhard, Arthur Schopenhauer, Leopardi, Cioran, Zapffe, Beckett, Houllebecq, Shakespeare, Pascal, Poe, Tolstoy, HL Mencken, etc... I think it is clear that taking the black pill is something all great white men have eventually had to do. Can you name one African pessimist(without using Google)?
>>8254064
Can you name 10 published authors from Africa without using google?
>>8253016
HAHAHAHA
antinatalists perpetually btfo :')
>>8254077
Ooga Booga, Mingo Bumbo, Joomba Loomba, Bixxy Noodle, Scipio Africanus, Imhotep, Shakespeare, Mnongo Pumba, Pumpum Yahoo, and Mia Couto
fucking racist
>>8254093
upvoted 4 epic
>walking down sidewalk with by buddy and his wife as they push their baby in a stroller
>see semi truck coming
>push babby stroller in front of semi as I watch their horrified expressions
Why are natalists so easy to troll? Makes me laff every tiem
>>8254096
upvoted 4 epic
>>8254077
To be fair, their critique of Christian morality and exposition of moral nihilism has taken philosophy to a new place where the academic elites fear to tread. Refreshing!
>>8251057
>thinking you can go and do a "happiness survey" in a despotic shithole with any level of scientific rigour
>thinking the results would not be manipulated or presented in a way to insulate the positive feelings of first-worlders
>thinking that saying "I am happy" negates suffering or that suffering is entirely subjective anyway
>>8254123
I PUT YOUR BABY IN OVEN I MAKE OVEN ON
>>8254128
The African journal The Necessity of Necklacing really made me think.
>>8251029
Look at it this way
Joy= specific conditions providing equitable circumstances for a person
Suffering=all other conditions
Entropy is a thing pal. The universe doesn't give you special treatment because you have an ego.
>someone mentions Africa
>/pol/ termites come out of the woodwork
please stop hijacking thread
>>8252856
I'll just say what I always say when this disengenuous argument is made. When we are talking about suffering we are talking about conditions that are automatically deleterious and undesirable to the person. There is no long-term gain, no subjectivity or any of it. The simple matter is whatever specific conditions the person requires to feel existential equity should never realistically be expected. If you want we can call this The Jergenschlut, instead of the loaded term "suffering".
>>8250402
>happiness
only some people experience this
>>8252400
>pain is neither good nor bad (quality/utility being a concept subordinate to human valoration) because only humans can experience pain.
Lifecucks everybody.
>>8252437
Yeah its called procreation
Suicide and antinatilism aren't solutions to the problem of suffering, they nullify it. That's like saying the answer to a complex math problem is to back away from the test.
>>8254150
I think those were relevant points, South Africans have become much more nihilistic since '94, etc.
>suffering a problem, wahhhhh
lmao, have you idiots ever considered just gritting your teeth and enduring it? bunch of faggots itt, rofl
>>8254190
This, stoicism 4 lyfe boi
The problem with antinatalists is that they base their entire argument on the primacy of consent, which is in reality low on the list of moral imperatives.
Reminder even seemingly meaningless suffering can be utilized to advance yourself toward ubermensch-hood
>>8254195
rape
RAAAAPE
>>8252431
>killing yourself is just as pointless as living so why bother?
See this is where nihilism goes too far into the realm of being silly. The reason you kill yourself is to reduce negative utility. Why the fuck would you rather experience cancer than peacefully breathe in some helium while listening to Ravel? Death on your own terms must be like a superlative human experience; final, absolute, unalloyed by future anxieties. I can't think of a greater aspiration in all honesty. Sure do some shit before you off yourself but once you are 70 and already feeling the infirmities of old age, what the fuck are you waiting for, the worst and most undgnified experience conceivable?
>>8254195
truth
when will you soft pussy antinatalists realize the moral imperative of genocide and culling the world population?
>>8250207
>It doesn't matter how people are conditioned, once they are a cognitively mature being, what they want is what they want.
What someone wants is not necessarily what they want to want.
>>8254190
>Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
Damn, expected this kind of thing on /pol/, kind of disappointed to see this philosophy peddled here.
>>8254205
And who gets to play daddy and decide what people secretly want? You? Who's to say you're not the one who is indoctrinated with the nihilistic liberty of the West and you're fooled into buying this 'dude nothing has any meaning lmao' angle
>>8254204
I already have family
>>8254203
>breath some helium while listening to Ravel
What a gaping vagina you are
>>8254204
What if people who want children are encouraged to only have two children or something?
>>8254190
No, what am I, a moron? Why am I gritting my teeth and bearing the reality that the universe doesn't revolve arond me instead of realizing its ultimate design by killing myself? I mean, I am not enjoying my life so it isn't doing anything for me and in the grand scheme of things to rail against the disorder in my life is just arrogant and preposterous.
>>8254093
>Man was formed of dust, slime, and ashes; what is even more vile, of the filthiest seed. He was conceived from the itch of the flesh, in the heat of passion and the stench of lust, and worse yet, with the stain of sin. He was born to toil, dread and trouble; and more wretched still, was born only to die. He commits depraved acts by which he offends God, his neighbor, and himself; shameful acts by which he defiles his name, his person, and his conscience; and vain acts by which he ignores all things important, useful, and necessary. He will become fuel for those fires which are forever hot and burn forever bright; food for the worm which forever nibbles and digests; a mass of rottenness which will forever stink and reek.
-Hea Gudboi, N'Djamena, 2011
>>8254237
u gay, son
>>8254269
yes but I don't see what that has to do with committing suicide as a means of reducing negative utility and furthermore the spooky idea that life has intrinsic value.
>>8254231
Enjoy your noble death fighting little cancer men family
>>8254277
>actually, literally gay
>"don't reproduce, guys"
mystery solved, case closed
>>8254300
well I was totally straight before. Anyone can become gay with the proper regmen of porn. And you can probably fap the gay away to if you start out as gay,
>>8254126
> Thinking suffering isn't ultimately subjective
> Thinking suffering prevents happiness
> Thinking you can reduce happiness to chemicals
> Thinking suffering is always bad
> Thinking there's no harm done by no humans being alive
> Thinking there's any to demonstrate (1), (3) or (4) without resorting to guilt tripping your opponent
> kek
why is this book $21 for the fucking paperback
>>8250402
it's just the temporary absence of agony
>>8249596
So many years of /lit/
So many threads
The memes change but the game stays the same
>>8254498
Who are you quoting?
>>8250164
It's only bad if you don't have the money and free time to raise them properly.
My dad had both and I had a wonderful childhood.
>>8254203
10/10 post
>>8249596
maudlin nonsense for those who are happy being unhappy
also self-deleting from an evolutionary perpsective
>>8254837
>from an evolutionary perspective
who fucking cares?
>being a cuck to your genes
>>8254852
Even Dawkins advocates not following your evolutionary desires, in a way the selfish gene and extended phenotype discuss being manipulated by your genes.
His reasoning is stupid.
The purpose of life is to be entertained and be happy. Dying is boring, so everyone killing themselves is as well. Dying gives me no pleasure, only an end to suffering.
>>8252884
Because they're collectivist and can't think logically. They fail to understand that having children is done for selfish purposes to leave a legacy and become immortalized.
You may become selfless and not wish to create life, enforcing a life with a lifetime of suffering, but you will never convince collectively everyone to not be selfish in that manner.
>>8254367
THANK YOU
I always hear straight people saying that you can't turn into a homosexual or a heterosexual, although me being a fag myself, you totally can. You're the first person I have seen who shares this opinion with me.
>>8254992
Have you considered you're both more on the bisexual side? They have tried conditioning homosexuals like that before including shock therapy. Didn't turn out too successful as far as I know.
>>8254855
wow! even dawkins, huh?
>>8255025
You were talking about evolution, not atheism.
>>8255032
and
>The book was extremely popular when first published, caused "a silent and almost immediate revolution in biology",[18] and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and has been translated into more than 25 languages.[19] Proponents argue that the central point, that replicating the gene is the object of selection, usefully completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Charles Darwin before the basic mechanisms of genetics were understood.
>>8255032
not even that guy. i just saw the words "even dawkins" and laughed to myself. have fun.
>>8255042
I know dawkins philosophy is indefensible, don't worry.
>>8255039
and
>i dont give a fuck
>>8254064
I have never encountered a non-white in the forest now that I think about it.
>>8254853
I do accept that desu.
I console myself with the fact that the antinatalists have already won since this planet, the sun, this galaxy and the universe all have expiration dates. We just have to accept that people will breed for now, but there's the heat death of the universe waiting at the end of the line for all lifeforms anywhere.
Nietzsche was wrong, existence is not will-to-power but will-to-nothingness.
I always feel that ideologies such as these are so antithetical to our biological conditioning that they can only be reasoned as manifestations of depressive world view. The logic is sound within itself certainly, but for one to have the values that lead them to this philosophy are very likely to simply being unhappy people who don't appreciate le joie de vivre.
>>8255597
I don't know, I think will-to-power and will-to-nothing both exist.
I like Mainlander's idea of the universe as a deity that has committed suicide by becoming everything. That the universe's running down is God's will-to-nonbeing, God's declaration that nonexistence is strictly superior to existence, and his decision to remove himself from existence.
The will-to-power is a drive of convenience, a lower order hunger than the longing for oblivion.
>>8250164
Edgyboys projecting their miserable anhedonic lives onto everyone else.
>buhh my life is nothing but sadness therefore nobody's life has any redeeming qualities to them
>everyone should just kill themselves because everyone is actually just as pathetic as I am they're just unaware of it
>enjoying things is a meme
>fun is a buzzword
That's the gist of this book for me, to be honest.
I just don't find myself agreeing with the premise that being alive is more bad than good or there is more suffering than joy in my life or that one should only try to prevent suffering. My personal experience is not one of endless suffering and it is not one of endless struggling to prevent suffering. And I say that as someone who had been through a traumatic experience that afflicts me to this day.
I think every human is trying to game their life in a way, maximizing joy and minimizing suffering. And of course what we experience as joy and suffering is vastly different between each of us. Sometimes we trade one for the other if the ratio seems fair or we risk some suffering for a good joyride. If suffering could not be weighted against joy, we would all be living very different lives, regardless of self-preservation instincts.
>>8255889
if you ever do procreate (which is unlikely) I hope your kid gets kidnapped and murdered so you can think back to your post and remember how much of a fedora faggot you were making fun of people who are allegedly suffering
>>8255951
*unsheathes fedora*
>>8255957
*tips*
mass suicide would be almost the best thing, but i'm waiting for the sun to collapse
All philosophy is mental masturbation and I think a lot of people take this shit too seriously.
>>8250186
Hahahaha.
>muh life
who wouldn't want to take the easy way out? who wants to fight the tide?
>>8256077
It's not a very strong tide when you regularly get laid
>>8256103
the tide is inevitably victorious.
>muh sex
i'm a slayer of pussy too, from a family of wealth, i've got the world by the balls as i imagine you would call it
>>8253481
t. autism
>>8255019
Yes because shock therapy is not a decade f jerking off to various things until you gradually morph your sexuality. I can pretty much say I was 100% straight as a kid. I used to actually find cock physically repulsive. Its like they say on South Park: "we're all a little gay"
>inb4 repressed sexualty meme
>>8254853
>No
No, what? Alternatively, try to imagine the most excruciating experience possible (think the Sloth guy in Se7en) and try to conjur up an equivalent pleasure. Not possible.
>>8256116
You don't need to lie anon
>>8255951
Whoa kid better not cut yourself on that edge.
I'm also not sure how you're getting "People who feel sad are horrible" from "miserable fuck assumes everyone feels the same way as him and if they don't they're retarded", but hey, you're probably just as pathetic.
>>8255938
once again
good/joy= minimal set of specific, complex conditions making individual life equitable
bad/suffering=all other conditions
What do you think there is more of anon, the narrow range of conditions which allow you to positively evaluate your life or the category of all other conditions? Well for starters your existence is so ephemeral it would not even register on a line representing human history as a whole, and human history as a whole in turn would not register in the lifetime of the universe. The unvierse is not made to support you or me or anyone else nor everyone else for that matter. Then how can suicide be viewed as anything but a negligable abbreviation of one's life and moreover a sensible reaction to the want of conditions providing the individual with existential equity, conditions which clearly should not even be expected to begin with?
There is NO equivalency between joy and suffering.
>>8256241
>positivism
found your problem
>>8256191
you're right, i'm a poor virgin xD
the prescence of any pain at all makes life not worth living
>>8256295
THIS
everyone in this thread is fucking retarded and has probably read one or two philosophy books and thinks they know what all the rest of them say because of it
>>8256325
your contribution is appreciated
>>8256325
>you need to read philosophy to recognize entropy is a thing and people are self-absorbed with anthropocentric masturbation to the point f mass delusion
>>8256295
What bullshit.
That's like saying the slight amount of discomfort and disappointment in love isn't worth experiencing.
Fucking babies, I swear.
>>8256378
it's not
>slight amount of discomfort and disappointment
and you aren't familiar with love
also
>ayn rand
>>8256241
>bad/suffering=all other conditions
I disagree.
>>8256188
Do I have to? The fact that you can not find an individual rat that weights the same as an elephant does not mean that there are no scales to weigh them against each other. It just means you'd need a hell lot of rats to make up for the elephant.
>>8256420
>it's not
Not an argument
>and you aren't familiar with love
I am. Are you?
That's like saying that because you had a bad break up, love doesn't exist. Or that after the love of your life dies, there will never be another love.
That's just bullshit.
>ayn rand
>implying implications
>>8256439
>Not an argument
not intended as such, the arguement is below, you responded?
>I am. Are you? That's like saying that because you had a bad break up, love doesn't exist. Or that after the love of your life dies, there will never be another love. That's just bullshit.
i find that hard to believe, you don't know love son.
your analogies are sophomoric and false, my position is supported by perfect logic, what do you have? besides this brainlet, handholdless shit you spout
rand is a hack m8
>>8256504
>i find that hard to believe, you don't know love son.
What you believe is of no concern to either me or my argument.
>my position is supported by perfect logic
Your position has no logic.
Suffering is a part of life, not the sole representation of life. Much as pleasure and happiness is not the absolute representation of life as well.
>rand is a hack m8
Not an argument.
To you, perhaps, she is a hack. That is your own opinion, however, your view on her does dissuade her words or argument.
>>8256528
>What you believe is of no concern to either me or my argument.
it is, your perception of the subject suggests a lack of authority, thought i'd merely point it out
>Your position has no logic.
(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
>Suffering is a part of life, not the sole representation of life. Much as pleasure and happiness is not the absolute representation of life as well.
"Life is suffering"
-Buddha
partly a hack too though
>Not an argument.
again, not intended as such
>To you, perhaps, she is a hack.
not perhaps, total hack
>That is your own opinion, however, your view on her does dissuade her words or argument
my words and arguements would, however, i'm not going to indulge you
you shit is all over the place, go to bed son
>>8256571
>your perception of the subject suggests a lack of authority
I am the arbiter of my own authority. I say that I am an authority on the concept of love and you have shown no proof that I am lacking in its understanding.
>(1) The presence of pain is bad.
No, it is a lesson of what can be avoided.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
The absence of something is not the some as the achievement of good such as pleasure or happiness.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
The reduction of gained pain is good, not the absence. A person who feels no pain at all is not good as the only way to experience the absence of pain is to absence everything else.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
This is correct but has no relation to life itself not being worth living. This is simply a truism that people do not want their happiness removed.
>"Life is suffering"
>-Buddha
Appeal to authority. Just because Buddha says life is X does not make it so.
Life has suffering, it isn't suffering.
Suffering is to be fought so that you can experience and enjoy life. Those who succumb to suffering as though it has mastery on life cannot enjoy it.
>>8254064
> This is what is worthy of a screencap nowadays
wew lad
>>8255597
> Not realizing the Universe is eternal
> Not realizing that once all stars, black holes and planets have vanished, the Universe will reach a state that will lead to another Big Bang
> Thinking existence is will-to-nothingness
>>8256431
>I disagree
Do you even know what you are disagreeing with, you idiot?
>>8256188
Sure I can.
>>8256241
It's the other way around anon.
>>8256504
What logic exactly? Please tell me you're not referring to fucking graph. It's literally been disproven in every thread it has been posted in.
>>8256671
>I am the arbiter of my own authority.
why argue then?
>I say that I am an authority on the concept of love and you have shown no proof that I am lacking in its understanding.
you have made a claim without proof, indeed
you can't comprehend basic logic, why do i argue with you?
>Appeal to authority.
appeal to hack
>>8256712
Oh really? Tell me how you are going to maintain homeostasis at the bottom or the ocean or in space for that matter lifecuck?
>>8256709
You seem to have not completed your post.
>>8256719
(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
>>8256749
>why argue then?
Because I said that I know love and you accused me of being ignorant.
>you have made a claim without proof, indeed
So did you. You have not made any claim. All you have said is that my arguments are false and have not made a case for explaining how my understanding of love was lacking except for saying it is.
>appeal to hack
Not an argument. My posting of an image quoting Ayn Rand is not the basis for my argument but a mere supplementary note.
However, your comment from Buddha that life is suffering is your entire basis. Not surprising considering that Schopenhauer's view on life and thoughts on antinatalism comes from a pessimistic view of Buddhism that life is only suffering.
>>8256774
This is not logical. (1) is accepted as priori and not even demonstrated (it's not even true in the slightest).
(2) isn't exactly true either.
(3) Can't be true if (1) isn't proven true, but even if you assume (1) is true it's still not a correct statement.
(4) >>8256671
Read this anon's post. It's also not demonstrated.
>>8256759
> Implying this is suffering
> Implying suffering prevents happiness
>>8256769
True reciprocal love. True reciprocal friendship. If you're talking about a single instance of pleasure, then it could be many things to many different people.
>>8256799
You are just being wilfully ignorant. Like I say we can just replace "suffering" with "The Jergenschlut" or some other nonsense. What we are talking about is the narrow range of experience which makes living equitable to anyone. This means not suffocating in space, or drowning in the ocean or having cancer cells eating away at you. These things are definitively unpleasant experiences and if you don't agree you are simply being disingenuous and stupid. I am not talking about mere pain or discomfit I am talking about categorically bad experiences because they are defined explicitly as such.
>>8256793
>Because I said that I know love and you accused me of being ignorant.
you didn't get my point, you aren't the ultimate arbiter as claimed
>So did you. You have not made any claim. All you have said is that my arguments are false and have not made a case for explaining how my understanding of love was lacking except for saying it is.
the burden of proof is yours
>Not an argument.
yet again, not intended as such
>My posting of an image quoting Ayn Rand is not the basis for my argument but a mere supplementary note.
it is the basis of your arguement, let me quote yourself for you;
"Suffering is to be fought so that you can experience and enjoy life. Those who succumb to suffering as though it has mastery on life cannot enjoy it."
>However, your comment from Buddha that life is suffering is your entire basis. Not surprising considering that Schopenhauer's view on life and thoughts on antinatalism comes from a pessimistic view of Buddhism that life is only suffering.
The three word quote is a supplementary note, the basis is the basic logic which you failed to comprehend
>>8256799
pain isn't bad?
pleasure isn't good?
jesus christ
>>8256839
>you didn't get my point
You haven't made a point. And if you did, you haven't explained it properly.
>you aren't the ultimate arbiter as claimed
I am the arbiter of my claim unless proven otherwise.
>the burden of proof is yours
I do not need to prove anything as the topic of love is not the subject of the discussion. I said life is like love, whereas the loss of love does not destroy love or reject it from existing. Because you say that my analogies are weak without explaining how they are weak, the burden of proof is on you.
>yet again, not intended as such
Then don't do it.
>it is the basis of your arguement, let me quote yourself for you
>"Suffering is to be fought so that you can experience and enjoy life. Those who succumb to suffering as though it has mastery on life cannot enjoy it."
Why do you quote my own phrases? This does not prove anything.
>The three word quote is a supplementary note, the basis is the basic logic which you failed to comprehend
It is still derived from that basis.
The four point knowledge, as I have already shown, is imperfect and it is you who has failed to explain how I have failed to comprehend. Rather, all you are left with is saying ''no, you just don't understand''.
>>8256848
Pain can be bad but its experience can be good.
Pleasure is good but excessive or pleasure which can harm others isn't good.
Not everything is in absolutes.
>>8256848
>pleasure isn't good?
Lotus eater machine.
>pain isn't bad?
Virtue ethics.
>jesus christ
Euthyphro dilemma.
>>8256848
>Muh hedonism
If someone feels pleasure over masturbating in the faces of children it is most certainly not good.
>>8256900
>implying children don't love it
don't try to reason with life-cultist normies. They're hopeless devotion to life has the form of a debilitating addiction. They actually think this is an ethical thing to do. To impose this upon someone. As long as life is affirmed it doesn't matter how shitty the life is. All their thought is built upon the fallacious framework "life must have intrinsic value and here is why".
>>8256918
So assuming that your suicide preference is intended to reduce the suffering in the world, if you induce suffering due to the topics you discuss, and those suffering then fail to heed your advice to an hero. would this mean that you are increasing the amount of suffering in the world rather than reducing it?
>>8256900
who are you to say what is good and what isn't? I mean suffering is SUBJECTIVE! Maybe the children like having pedo-chode crammed up their asses because life is still beautiful in spite of this experience which will help them grow as people!
>>8256870
>You haven't made a point. And if you did, you haven't explained it properly.
can't overestimate you enough it seems
>I am the arbiter of my claim unless proven otherwise.
i'm god unless proven otherwise
>I do not need to prove anything as the topic of love is not the subject of the discussion. I said life is like love, whereas the loss of love does not destroy love or reject it from existing. Because you say that my analogies are weak without explaining how they are weak, the burden of proof is on you
if you don't need to support your claim, why argue?
>Then don't do it.
i do as i please
>Why do you quote my own phrases? This does not prove anything.
view it in comparison with the image quote, see if you can't figure it out
>It is still derived from that basis.
The four point knowledge, as I have already shown, is imperfect and it is you who has failed to explain how I have failed to comprehend. Rather, all you are left with is saying ''no, you just don't understand''.
i responded to your infantile critique, you didn't agree that pain is bad and pleasure good, pretty genius :^)
>>8256931
>Well shit, I guess the source of antinatalism IS self-hating hedonism
>Better false flag by pretending the words "subjective" and "nihilistic" are synonymous
>>8256918
And yet you're still alive. I guess it is true that the only good antinatalist is one that kills themselves.
There is no intrinsic value to life other than obtaining happiness and pleasure while giving the same to others if you chose to do so.
>>8256942
Notice how most of these closet hedonist "antinatalists" are shitposting instead of slitting their throats?
>>8256925
Sure enough, but its not my responsibility to insulate people from the iniquity of the world. Besides I never condemned someone who already experienced the tremendous pain of immolation to a life of being a sideshow attraction. I would have let the guy die (possibly even by euthanasia) and I would be right in doing so.
>>8256939
>can't overestimate you enough it seems
Nor can you answer anything.
>i'm god unless proven otherwise
You have no power over the laws of causality, therefore you are not god.
>if you don't need to support your claim, why argue?
Because I still want to hear why you think my concept of love is weak. I am still waiting for a response.
>i do as i please
Not an argument.
>view it in comparison with the image quote
It is a supplementary quote to my own views, you cannot prove it to be a basis. At worse, you can simply say that there are similarities in views and nothing more.
>i responded to your infantile critique,
No you haven't.
>you didn't agree that pain is bad and pleasure good, pretty genius
Sarcasm is not an argument.
There are no absolutes.
Pain can be good and bad.
Pleasure can be good and bad.
All you can do is twist my words by making it sound idiotic.
>>8256953
In certain circumstances I have no problem with euthanasia, but that is a contradiction within your own assumptions.
>>8256942
I'm afraid nobody actually said those words, so using them in an idiomatic sense is idiotic. Furthermore "kill yourself" is not an argument. And the fact that life-cultists will impose life upon someone as many times as modern medicine will allow, I am certainly turned off the idea of any suicide method which can possibly be interefered with. Right now my goal is to get a gun (despite being a britbong) and blow my head clean off.
>>8256941
>words don't mean things RAWR
>I AM SILLY
I just strawmemed you so hard you lost the argument. GG no re.
>>8256963
Killing is good. It makes me happy.
Don't you agree?
Killing others stops their suffering. It makes them suffer less.
Don't you agree?
>>8256969
Christ, your like a slut who caught an STD and now goes around screaming about celibacy at married people.
Crawl into a hole and cry yourself to death you whiney failed hedonist.
>>8256973
Is anti natalism the new/v/ meme?
>>8256982
Ad hominem is once again not a form argumentation, for the record senpai.
>>8256992
I'm not arguing with you. I'm just pointing out that's what you are.
>>8256969
>I'm afraid nobody actually said those words
You still inferred it.
>And the fact that life-cultists will impose life upon someone as many times as modern medicine will allow
Collectivism mindset. People do not impose life upon others but let them decide their own life and death. People only give life to those who accept it. Medicine is given and sold, it is not enforced. Just like suicide,
>Right now my goal is to get a gun (despite being a britbong) and blow my head clean off.
Boring. There are more efficient and quicker ways to kill yourself. The fact that you don't drown yourself shows your lack of determination in your convictions. You are simply prolonging because you do not wise to die.
>Furthermore "kill yourself" is not an argument.
Yes, when one is opposed to the concept of life, there is only death. One cannot be opposed to living while still being alive themselves.
This is why the only coherent antinatalist is a dead one.
>>8254203
>utility
>>8256941
In what sense are you not nihilistic? Are you really such an idiot you think nihilism is just being negative and pessimistic? No, rather its the defense of the non-devotional life free of religious trappings that is truly nihilistic. "Life; why not" is the credo of the nihilists. The Sartrean idea that the meaning of life may be derived from individual discretion and change from one day to the next. That is true nihilism. By comparison, I am practically an ideologue.
>>8256960
>You have no power over the laws of causality, therefore you are not god.
not proven yet
>Because I still want to hear why you think my concept of love is weak. I am still waiting for a response.
because you think the downsides are slight discomfort and disappointment, try to worry over a child and see ifif you'd call that slight discomfort
>Not an argument.
not an arguement
>It is a supplementary quote to my own views, you cannot prove it to be a basis. At worse, you can simply say that there are similarities in views and nothing more.
you copied the quote basicly
>No you haven't.
i have, you didn't agree that pain is bad and pleasure good, pain is inherently bad and pleasure inherently good, your arguement is very weak
>Sarcasm is not an argument.
again, not inteded as such
>There are no absolutes. Pain can be good and bad. Pleasure can be good and bad. All you can do is twist my words by making it sound idiotic.
as stated in the response above, this arguement is weak, infantile
>>8257011
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Nobody has to practice what they preach, the ideas stand apart from the behaviour of the individual expressing them. I am openly hypocritical anyway.
>>8257008
Oh okay
>>8257024
>not proven yet
You are claiming that you are god, however, lacking power over causality is proof that you are not god.
>because you think the downsides are slight discomfort and disappointment
In the grand scheme of love? It is.
>try to worry over a child and see ifif you'd call that slight discomfort
I don't see how that relates to anything.
Are you saying taking care of a child at night when it cries isn't slight discomfort to seeing it grow up?
>not an arguement
It's a judgement of your argument that and its applicability to the discussion.
>you copied the quote basicly
No, I didn't.
>your arguement is very weak
No, it isn't. My argument is that there are not absolutes. Your counterargument is simply saying that my argument is weak without explanation.
>not inteded as such
>smiley face
>not intended as scarcasm
Idiotic.
>this arguement is weak, infantile
You have not proven it to be weak.
>>8257037
There is no ad hominem.
When one claims that everyone should not live, then they cannot be trusted to do what they are preaching after everyone dies.
>I am openly hypocritical anyway.
Of course you are, because you don't want to accept that you are wrong.
>>8257011
>attempt to drown myself (literally most excruciating death next to self-immolation so one has to wonder what sort of spiteful preoccupations really underly this suggestion)
>on my way out
>normie fireman jumps in and "Saves" me
>i wake up in the hospital with brain damage (huehuehuehuehue WAY ahead of you on this one) and an ambulance bill
>still not dead
Brilliant plan anon
I know a damned sight more than you when it comes to suicide
>>8257069
Jesus, just put water in a fucking bucket and put your head in.
Holy shit, how incompetent are you?
>(literally most excruciating death next to self-immolation so one has to wonder what sort of spiteful preoccupations really underly this suggestion)
While this passive aggressive suggestion is part of it, drowning yourself, even if painful, is likely not as painful as the accumulative lifelong sufferings. Wouldn't you agree?
Unless you can calculate that the suffering from drowning is less than your entire life, no?
>I know a damned sight more than you when it comes to suicide
Suicide is boring and that's all there is to it. All you can do is create scenarios escaping your from death rather than firmly accept your death and seek to die at all cost.
>>8257057
I didn't admit to being anything close to wrong. I just think how one acts is entirely separate from their ethical cosiderations. The whole idea of hypocrisy is pretty damn spooky when you think about it. But I know for a fact I am not wrong, I am overwhelmingly correct.
>>8257078
Yes of course I agree but the whole point of dying on your own terms is to do it painlessly in an appealing setting. What do you not get about that you gibbering idiot?
>>8257057
>You are claiming that you are god, however, lacking power over causality is proof that you are not god.
again, prove it
>It is.
it is not
>I don't see how that relates to anything. Are you saying taking care of a child at night when it cries isn't slight discomfort to seeing it grow up?
because you don't know love. i said "worry", don't your understand it?
>It's a judgement of your argument that and its applicability to the discussion.
it's a judgement of your arguement and its applicability to the discussion
>No, I didn't.
yes, you did.
>No, it isn't. My argument is that there are not absolutes. Your counterargument is simply saying that my argument is weak without explanation.
yes, it is. no, it isn't, i did provide an explenation
>Idiotic
idiotic
>You have not proven it to be weak.
i have
>>8257088
Then die on your own terms by putting your head underwater. I'm just calling you a hypocrite using an excuse to prolong your death because you will endless prolong it until you decide never to commit suicide.
Basically, you're likely never going to kill yourself but are bitching that people don't want to prolong the life of others, yet it is likely what you will do to yourself.
Why wait? Why do it on your own terms? Do it as quickly as possible to limit the amount of suffering you are currently experiencing.
>>8257078
And its like you don't actually think instinct is a thing. Nobody is just going to sit there with their face in a bucket of water until they drown and that has nothing to do with life being great but it does have to do with the sort of delusion thinking which leads you to such a conclusion. If base compulsions are to be taken at face value as positive action because "muh naturalistic fallacy" then surely you'll approve of the compulsion a junkie has to shoot heroin as well. You are a very stupid stupid coarse person anon and I sincerely mean that.
>>8257113
Of course instinct exist but you have volition. Use it.
>Nobody is just going to sit there with their face in a bucket of water until they drown and that has nothing to do with life being great but it does have to do with the sort of delusion thinking which leads you to such a conclusion.
Oh please. Virginia Woolf died by putting her head underwater in a place that was barely shallow. Many people have done the same, if not by drowning but by other painful ways. There is nothing preventing you from doing the same.
You're using base compulsions as an excuse to avoid suicide at all cost.
>>8257144
Yes I am. As I said, openly hypocritical. Admittedly its the sort of cowardice and shiftlessness that allowed me to become such a maladjusted fuck-up in the first place that now impels me to commit suicide. Now, I ask does that elucidation somehow make my life worth living and I should in fact be totally commited to drawing it out as long as possible at all costs like everyone else? I don't think so. Furthermore does it totally deplatform the pessimism of antinatalists? I don't know, does your own lack of heroin dependency magically justify the lifestyle of the waster? "Heroin is great bro, you just don't know it because you never experienced how great it is. Also your jealous of my connections."
Brilliant rebuttal chum
antinatalism doesn't advocate suicide
>>8257095
>My argument is that there are not absolutes.
1+1=2 is an incorrect statement then
>>8257225
But its not irreconcilable.
>>8257057
"there is an upside to everything"
"there is two sides to every coin"
"an exception to everything rule"
strong shit m8
>>8257267
true
>>8257095
oh wow lol
>>8257095
>I've never heard of "burden of proof" the post
>>8257311
Sarcasm does not make it untrue.
Can you give an example where there is no upside to something?
Can you give me an example where there are no two side to any given issues?
>>8250152
Antinatalism is such a bore.
>>8257778
I wish people would stop shitting on children's attitudes and acting like maturity is some brilliant thing. What is an adult really but a child that's capable of dissimulation?
>>8257778
Yes, because an adult never thinks anything can be boring. For instance, reading the phonebook might be considered boring by the majority of the adult population. That is unless you're retarded or autistic. So, who the fuck are you, Rain Man?
Either explain yourself before lobbing ad hominem attack, stop trolling terribly, or drop your nascent ideals.
>>8257788
No, its just adults don't announce how something bores them, least of all in the context of heated discord.
>>8257788
>nascent
>>8254184
No, it's like saying the answer to a complex math problem is to eliminate math from the universe.
That's not possible. Eliminating life is.
>>8257793
Really? I think some people get paid to do just that. They're called critics. I also think that its very childish thing to make sweeping absolute statements about 4 and a half billion people. Take your silly idealistic bullshit elsewhere peamongerer
>>8257797
What? They were unarticulated and therefore presumably hardly formed—like wee tadpole
What I don't understand is how antinatalists can e such ingrates. You were fucking born! You were born as a human capable of tremendous understanding. Do you not recognize what a rare and exclusive and exquisite experience that is? Yes I am fucking mad.
>>8257873
>humans
>understanding
Pick one. If you think you understand anything in this absurd universe, perhaps you don't yet realize the extent of your delusion.
>>8257873
Yes, this highly unique experience that allowed this conversation to take place AT ALL. Do you even think before you type this shit?
>>8257873
But you wouldn't care if you hadn't been born, you wouldn't experience any misery.
>>8257917
I also wouldn't experience anything good.
>>8256848
Some people willingly look for pain.
Others willingly avoid pleasure.
All seek happiness. You can't reduce happiness using the chemicals meme.
>>8256834
The argument you and everyone else proposed and states at every corner specifically use the words ''pain'' and ''pleasure'', which demonstrate that's it's stuck in scientific reductionism. Don't start moving the goalpost because the AN cocksuckers you fap to are incapable of using terminology that favors their position.
There are honestly no objective definition of suffering or ''categorically bad experiences''.
Soem horrible disfigured people, blinds, deaf, the poor and refugees manage to find happiness, while you have people that fail to find it while they have everything your average guy would ask for. Happiness is something you create for yourself, it is your responsability.
> But I was not brought here under my will
Completely irrelevant, since you can take yourself out of here with your own free will. There's no conception of you before birth, you don't exist before that. There's nothing to experience in non-existence. It's also preferable for there to be humans rather than no humans at all.
The problem is that the common view of life treats human feelings like fundamentals of the universe. An advanced intellect does not even feel pleasure, pain, or happiness.
>>8256969
Sure it is. If you believe procreation to be immoral, why do you stay alive knowing that you run the risk of procreating as long as you are there? Doesn't matter how small the risk is.
If you believe life to be suffering, why do you keep living when there exists a billion ways of killing yourself with almost no way for you to survive?
A good AN is a dead AN.
>>8257778
>Veruca Salt
>an American music group
I don't get it.
My view on life is that life is simply meant to be entertaining while we're still alive. Dying doesn't bring me entertainment, only an end to both suffering and entertainment, as there is no life after death, just nothingness. And that, to me, is boring.
>>8257793
I didn't announce that something was boring me life a child, but that the implication that one should die to end suffering is, in of itself, boring.
>>8257973
Veruca Salt is the Salty sassy bitch who goes down the egg-schute in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory.
>>8257970
>he thinks I run the risk of procreating
Oh my, you are toomuchanon
>>8257964
>It is your responsibility
>It is preferable for there to be humans
>Happiness
TopSpook
>>8257943
Don't get them started with that asymmetry bullshit again
>>8257873
It doesn't matter if I were born. Antinatalism only works if you chose yourself not to breed and have children. You are simply not selfish enough to create a lifetime of suffering to someone else. Giving birth means to attach yourself and pass on your legacy to someone else. It is a selfish act.
Antinatalism are feeling pity for a person (or people) who aren't even alive yet.
Antimnatalist are ingrates when they try to convince other people to be as selfless as themselves. Or when they decide it's their duty to kill other people to release them of their suffering.
>>8257979
>Veruca Salt is the Salty sassy bitch who goes down the egg-schute in Charlie and The Chocolate Factory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_stkKZiwNQ
Ah, okay. I don't really see how that relates dying being boring though.
>>8257964
Also I hate Benetar and Ligotti. In fact I have considered writing a book on AN because in all honesty I think I could argue the position a lot better than these guys. And yes, you already lost as has anyone else who has argued against me in the course of the thread. About 100% of the universe is inhospitable to human preoccupations (whatever those may be).There you go, fucking Checkmate.
Here's another one for you AN cucks.
Assume this garbage is true, and that AN is true in general.
(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.
(3) The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
(4) The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
From this, follows:
A) This applies to all sentient beings, not only humans.
B) Animals cannot not procreate.
C) Assume you end all human life, animals and other sentient beings are still alive.
D) Therefore ending human life would necessarily allow all other forms of life to suffer for pretty much eternity, or at least a very long time
E) Humans could potentially end all life in the Universe by staying alive and developing the technical means to do so.
F) Situation in E) is obviously preferable to merely ending human life exclusively, since it would end all suffering rather than ending a tiny fraction of it
G) The only way to ensure the survival of humankind is to procreate
H) The the only way of correctly following AN is to procreate since it means you get a shot at ending all suffering rather than a fraction of it. (kek)
There are honestly no reasons for AN followers not to go on an animal killing spree right now. Why are they not castrating male animals en masse? It would reduce overall suffering, following the logic of AN.
>>8257985
As long as you are alive, there is, in fact, a risk of you procreating. For all you know, a woman could come and rape you and use your sperm to have a baby. As I said, it does not matter how small the risk is. As long as you are alive, the risk exists. So why do you stay alive knowing this?
>>8257990
Nice argument.
>>8257998
That's not even an argument you triple nigger.
>>8257993
Because I literally read that comment in her voice. Its like who the fuck enters the fray of an existential debate going "this conversation is so boring". Its even more juevenile to consider the inevitable ultimate outcome of anyone's life being merely "boring".
>>8258006
Its an argument when you want to disabuse people of the insane idea that suffering (or whatever the fuck you want to call it) is on equal footing with pleasure.
>>8258011
What is the relevance of what happens in the andromeda galaxy to our lives though?
>>8258007
Man, it would be hilarious to have Ayn rand argue on /lit/
I'm sorry if you got the impression that what I was saying was that the conversation itself was boring, but dying as a solution to suffering is bad because dying is boring.
Hitchen described his inevitable death as everyone having a party and being force to leave. You want to stay, but you know you just can't. Ah, found the quote.
>"It will happen to all of that at some point you'll be tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party is over, but slightly worse: the party's going on but you have to leave."
Life might be bad at points, but it's still fun. And deciding to kill yourself just makes me shrug and say that it's boring to just die early. Life is entertaining. Dying is not.
>>8258032
Only an egotistical mindset could contrive some sort of equivalency between pleasure and suffering. I am taking the category of "things with tangible relevance", namely the universe, and measuring that against the category of "things which could be considered pleasure -in any sense of the word". But I think the most relevant metric is in fact time. Yes, of course to the deeply anthropocentric and egotistical human mind it can appear as though one is living a temporally commodious existence. Once again though, taken against the universal record we see that any one of us is rent apart by disease or disaster practically just as soon as we come into being. If pleasure was as easy to come by as suffering we would exist indefinitely, not experiencing boredom or ennui and certainly not anguish or pain. So we can only conclude that suffering is the much more relevant factor. Suffering is both easier to experience, ought to be expected in any and all cases and not to mention, inevitable.
>>8258051
That is literally implying souls.
>>8258112
I don't believe in souls. Or in anything happening after death. They're all concept of rejecting the notion of actually dying and remaining immortalized in one way or another.
Dying is boring because by dying, everything ends and nothing entertaining happens.
