One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first...

nah

god forbid someone not praise the dirt

I too enjoyed that

>Dawkins dedicates the book to Douglas Adams and quotes the novelist: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

>one can begin to comprehend the true nature of the universe and simply choose not to be a miserable cunt
Keep enjoying those self-help books, -.

Who are you quoting?

Says the lover of dirt on plant matter, and admires he organization enough to think it refutes the twinkle of stars.

In the innate, the dull cow eyes of this man saw diamonds and thought rocks. His lack of investiture and capacity to appreciate is not a fault in others.

Just the Wikipedia article on The God Delusion

It just seems to me that Ligotti takes his anti-natalist edgelord position out of bitterness. Theres a reason scientists and really most people dont have to ask themselves the dumbass questions about the "true nature of the universe" as he does because the reason to be alive is quite straightforward.

Dedicating the book to Douglas Adams was nice, but I always thought that was a poor choice of quotes. Ford thought that line while they were enjoying the binary sunrise over the mysterious planet in the nebula, because Zaphod kept insisting it was the mythical planet Magrathea. Thing is, Ford was wrong, and it was Magrathea.

I'm not saying it doesn't sound like a good quote to use, but context kind of pulls the rug out from under it.

Physicist here. The universe couldn't be more boring, in a sense, for some more than others. I'm pretty bored of it by now but I'm not a brilliant physicist either so go figure.

This is a pretty pointless argument to have anyway. No one was saying the universe doesn't fall within the realm of subjectivity. If you don't like people who marvel at the universe then you can frequent different coffee shops (Some can be insufferable, some can be endearing) but if you resent the fact that people do AT ALL then you're just a bit a cunt.

Anyway ligotti is a bit of a hack for this. He's arguing with people in his own head. If you're looking for people who've had similiar epiphenies then a physics department is your best bet.

'Innately impressive' is a pretty vapid phrase. Something's capacity to impress is completely subjective and varies wildly from person to person.

they are not about being impressive, brainlet

Since the reason is so straightforward, why don't you state it explicitly? Hardmode: you cannot include various unstated assumptions about what it means to be alive, assumptions about the "ego", or teleological claims regarding evolution (purpose is "survival" etc)

If one cannot see past matter to the immaterial Forms.

Probably making love to beautiful women, drinking wine, singing with joy and watching sunsets, instead of being a faggy little emo.

Perhaps while participating in a society that potentially eredicates the chances of future generations enjoying what you did

>Physicist
What field? What kinda research do you do? I'm an undergrad in physics rapidly approaching graduation and getting nervous about making these decisions. It's pretty rare to see anybody else in the field interested in anything more literary than ASOIAF-tier shit

Wil to power. The reason people reproduce is simply because they are better than you. You don't because you are a defective man whose study outclasses his intellect.

>And you thought that lifting weights above your strength was dangerous! But reading books above your intelligence is unimaginably more so. But that, too, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and heed, precisely because evaluating the power of books is an unimaginably harder task than sizing up the weight of a couple of barbells, while to you books are, after all, just books. "What harm can there be in reading them?", you think, like all uneducated people.

Not to say that ligotti is intelligent. He is much in the same boat as you.

don't worry user, you won't be fifteen forever

Wow....so.....t-this.....is.....the....p-power......of....anhedonia......

t. scientist

Brings up an interesting point: How DOES one make sure that the books they are reading are at their intelligence level?

I was the universe, desu.

So was Ligotti so he blew himself.

Geez, how scathing.

>The reason people reproduce is simply because they are better than you.
You realise there's no teleology to natural selection, right?

MALIGNANTLY USELESS

the universe is dope, this guy sounds like a fag

>will to power
>people reproduce because they're better than you
Is your gf pregnant, user?

He's just clinically depressed; think there's some chemical thing wrong with his brain

value judgements are (the product of) brain states of course, but that includes 'dope'.

The universe itself is perfectly neutral until apes start hollering about it.

This. Nothing on earth good or bad but thinking makes it so.

Nihilists are an entitled bunch of people. They think about the world the same way golddiggers think about rich men: "Amuse me! Entertain me! Make me laugh! Show me the good things! Do this to me! In return you can fuck me". But in a weird coincidence, they somehow are never responsible for anything. If you suggest them that they should change, they should love someone, they should go out and actually do something useful, they will be baffled.

I get what he means. Like when bill nye, Sagan or degrase tyson rant on about how there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and there are billions and trillions of galaxies, etc.
Who cares? It's just arbitrary numbers. What if there were ten or a thousand times as many stars? What if there was a star every few billion miles? What if there were only sixteen stars in the observable universe? It's just a bunch of hydrogen and what not anyways.

good ole bill

There's a quote from him for every topic, I swear.

What a gloomy Gus! Ligotti needs Jesus.

i like tommy ligots but he looks like a dyke

After me, the deluge

>"making love"
>not a faggy little emo

>It's just arbitrary numbers
Those shows are marketed for the general public, it's impossible to explain or show the actual depth of scientific discoveries because you absolutely need to use math that's way beyond them. That's why they resort to bullshit like counting stars.

weare r all starstufss... :)

He has clinical depression, like two thirds of people here.

>being too weak minded to change your disposition

his life is of little value to him so he pretends he's being objective by saying that nothing has any value

How will the universe ever recover from this BTFOing?

It's true.

dumb demiurge

>There's no a priori reason one should find the universe neat
>LOL look at these fucking idiots who enjoy the mysteries of life and studying them. Why aren't they depressed, diabetic, and nhilistic like me.
fixed that for you

>I fucking love science!
The universe was a mistake

Holy... I want more

>This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.
W-wow....

>No, donny, these men are nihilists

How Kafkaesque.

Quite

>the purpose is to reproduce and make sure the human specie endures for no reason or purpose because the Will tells them to
Enjoy that superiority of yours, lad. It will shine brightly in few generations when your name will be forgotten by your descendants and your genes dissolved completely in the great genetic soup of mankind.

>THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT
No one even claimed this. It is at least, better than sitting in an intellectual and physical cage.

Also, they don't really coo over the universe by itself. More like an expansion or development in their field, a field that they've labouriously learnt and pondered about. Just like anything, anyone invests time in, they're excited about new developments. Even if it's just the trailer for a new season of a tv show that you like...Even then, most don't do that. This is a hyperbolic example he intentionally and unrealistically sets up so he be dramatic and to exude an aura of superiority and knowing, over the naive and childish people who dare do something and enjoy it.

As presented in media and academia, yes they absolutely are about being impressive and provocative. Or more accurately, painting an empty image of the two concepts.

No you don't and he doesn't know what he's talking about on the matter either. Those are popsci showmen, meant to popularise "science" and instill healthy growth in curiousity and "wider thinking", mostly for kids really. These are completely removed from actual scientific work, academia or the scientists themselves.

You should challenge yourself. Understanding is a spectrum.