Read ligotti it's fun

From what I'm getting off of Amazon, this seems like a pretty run-of-the-mill antinatalist monologue about absurdity and meaninglessness or whatever. What makes this stand out?

he reminds me of a mix of Lovecraft's neurosis with Noam Chomsky's eloquence

Th-th-this author has a funny face

Antinatalism isn't exactly run-of-the-mill...

I really enjoyed this book, and I recommend it with anyone who finds this sort of thing interesting

It gives a really level-headed survey of historic pessimisms, engages with scientific psychology, manages to maintain a compelling style, is very well written, doesn't pussyfoot around like contemporary academic philosophy, and, surprisingly, is very humble in its conclusions (Ligotti doesn't pretend that pessimism is an objective truth, but explores the pessimistic perspective with respect to the world/life/existence and contra the ubiquitous popular optimism). Plus it's pretty short.

>is very well written
this is what I don't understand. how can people be saying this? if you like what he's saying, that's fine. but his writing style is not good.

I TRIED SO HARD
AND GOT SO FAR
BUT IN THE END
IT DIDN'T EVEN MATTER

>forever a puppet now
Ha ha! Got you, bitch.

elaborate

Why would you ever do that to yourself?

The dude literally wrote a poem about skull crushing. Not as a metaphor. Literally skull crushing. Just to demonstrate that skull crushing is a thing. To remind you that your skull can be, quite easily, crushed.

If I remember correctly he has a neuological disorder, making him incapable of joy or something.

Honestly didn't get a lot out of it. His overview of some of the lesser known pessimistic thinkers was cool (namely the ones who are not in english) but the attention he gives Lovecraft is overblown. Also has very limited insight into philosophers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Its been a while but he dismiss Nietzsche's entire view of pessimism by just calling him a preacher (which was Cioran's idea.).

Honestly Ligotti is just a boring Cioran to me.

It is in this community. We have these threads like once a week.

>he dismiss Nietzsche's entire view of pessimism by just calling him a preacher (which was Cioran's idea.).

It's a pretty simple conclusion. If you've ever read Thus Spake Zarathustra, it's basically Nietzsche's attempt to make a New Testament for atheists.

Great book
Good for a laugh

>he has a neuological disorder
Kek. The excuses people will pull.

I mean, I don't know what to tell you, bro. Ligotti is known for his great prose, it's his thing, and most critics point to this when reading his work, I think he's one of what, two, living writers that Penguin gave a classics spot to in their publishing? I mean, you can just say you don't like his writing style, but you should have some sense that there are a few things that several critics like that you don't. It's like asking a sports guy why they think Michael Jordan is a good basketball player, you might disagree, but being somewhat self aware, you wouldn't think that everyone is wrong and you are right about your OPINION

I have, he doesn't adress his actual arguments or position. Aphorism 28 from Human All Too Human addresses pessimism in a way that I think pretty accurately diagnosis the problem of Ligotti's ideas but if my memory is right Ligotti ignores that stuff. Its fine if Nietzsche's tone bothers him, but I can not say I find his reading insightful or his philosophical arguments convincing.

I find it fun to read, just like all other antinatalism/existential nihilism/pessimism. That's mostly just because I'm a sadboi though. I can see how it is a logically inconsistent position, but it's one I sympathize with

>can see how it is a logically inconsistent position
Please share your findings.

not findings, but antinatalism is obviously a flawed argument. Suffering is only the base of existence for those who suffer, and if people can find a fulfilling life with what they've been given, it is self-evident that they wouldn't subscribe to pessimism. While it's true that we are thrown into existence without choice, and for some who are given a bad lot it can be unbearably tragic, everyone follows a different trajectory of experience and some can be lucky enough to come in contact with the aspects of life that are worthwhile more so than those that are painful. To prescribe that 'humanity would be better off never having existed' is too narrow-minded

Agreed. Also some people also do not define their meaning/purpose in life as a good/bad dichotomy. You can have a life that is good in the sense it is comfy but be bad for other reasons like it being sheltered.

You're not smart enough to engage with the material.

>I can not say I find his reading insightful or his philosophical arguments convincing

To each their own.

>Aphorism 28 from Human All Too Human

Isn't that about the limitations of art? Ligotti deals with the condition of human existence.

No its the on of the best of all possible worlds and pessimism vs optimism.

Sorry I went so far beyond good and evil I must have became not smart enough for lovecraft 2.0.

So if positive philosophical views of life are deluded according to Ligotti because they rest on assumptions why are the assumptions of Ligotti's scientism okay?

nice """"""""argument""""""""

When did I ever say my post was an argument? It's my opinion

go be 16 somewhere else, please. I'm willing to bet that you've hardly dipped your toes into philosophical pessimism and your understanding of Schopenhauer/Neech/Cioran comes from wiki articles and Veeky Forums shitposts

...

>What earthly reason could anyone have for being an optimist unless he had a god to defend who must have created the best of all possible worlds, since he is himself all goodness and perfection?

I hate Nietzsche with a passion.

Predictable. I rest my case

>smart
>continental """""philosophy"""""

Be gone from here, pseud.

>continental

>I think he's one of what, two, living writers that Penguin gave a classics spot to in their publishing?

Nah. You can go back to /mu/ though

Bad post.

Buttmad Autodidact Continental.

Are you stupid?

Are you just stringing random words together now?

Rocket Salad Arduous

>Are you just stringing random words together now?

dont bother, half the anti-continental posters are markov text generators

>no, I liked Ulysses. not enough to finish it

lol

this guy

I downloaded it again and it now as a Ray Brassier foreword.

Ray is an intense lad.

youtube.com/watch?v=dE4FPDSRDpA

>ywnb this lit

>Ray Brassier forward

Interesting. What did he say?

Have you read Nihil Unbound?

To be completely honest i got about a third in but got distracted by other stuff. It did interest me though, but I never got to it after accidentally destroying the e-reader it was on.

I was reminded of it by his foreword because he immediately starts with that tense style of his which made me laugh. I passed out drunk after a page though yesterday.

I'm a pretty disappointing lad.

>Nihil Unbound

What is he, the Richard Dawkins of nihilism?

>The dude literally wrote a poem about skull crushing. Not as a metaphor. Literally skull crushing. Just to demonstrate that skull crushing is a thing. To remind you that your skull can be, quite easily, crushed.

Cool.

>Noam Chomsky's eloquence

good 1

more like the sherry trousfeld of topology

What scientism?

there are none bruv

You're still stuck in a juvenile state if you take this book seriously.

You're still stuck in a juvenile state if you don't take this book seriously.

Never heard of this guy before, but I'm more interested in this, desu, it sounds amazing. Anyone got any?

What did he mean by this?

We all got distracted from what really matters in this thread:
Where can we see that poem?

It says contrary to what you underlined. Instead of bridging Heidegger and Wittgenstein he's "plugging eliminative materialism directly into speculative realism," whatever that means...

"I'm 16 and noffin matters cos we're all going to die someday"

I hope none of you take this meme """philosopher""" seriously.

Is there any coherent argument for why it matters other than "it just does lol" or "grow up"?

Only a man who truly suffered can legitimately holds these views. A man who experienced terrible events: war, violence, constant stress, betrayals, loss... Not that these views would be any more valid but his pessismism would be understandable. A middle class kid who claims that life is suffering and that we shouldn't reproduce is nothing more than a poser who got so alienated by his first world comfort that he decided to be "edgy" in a vain attempt to escape his very alienation.

Not a single person's life is perfect and devoid of suffering.

is this real

I never implied that. But suffering as a middle class kid is something easier to overcome.
A writer like Céline, who experienced WW I, saw the horror of Africa, the Scientific management in America has every reason to be pessimistic. A guy like Houellebecq on the other hand, if we exclude the fact that he was ugly and that he had a shitty mother but a good grand-mother, can't really complain.

Why does life need to 'matter'? Why does life need a more sophisticated purpose than 'why not'?

Ligotti is just indulging in his own depressed perspective, he's not doing anything practical. He's not raising any points that need to be considered. He's pandering to the depressed.

I'm holding my copy in pic related and I still can't tell if I'm just imagining it or not.

Meh

See? That's the kind of juvenile thought I'm talking about. Your thought is clearly reflected by your reaction.

>he's invalidated because i think he should be happy!!!

what self-righteous, idiotic reasoning.

Because I don't care to argue with you anymore? OK.

Question: what is in that book senpai?

I would agree with you, but your insinuation of pessimism as being depressive, as well as the word practical, doesn't make sense with what you said. Either there is practicality, i.e. doing things that have relevance and external value to life, or there isn't because the ultimate purpose of action is, in your words, "why not", hence the external value of the action is diminished because the value it depends upon (improving life) is meaningless.
Why does middle-class upbringing validate or invalidate feelings? Genuinely curious, not trying to be a dick.

Inmendham is my Ligotti.

Look at that sexy ass smirk.

What does he say about Marr

Love that guy. Especially the video where he goes nuts and says he'd kill a woman who would try and have his child

A strawman argument is always a self-righteous, idiotic reasoning, I agree, and that's exactly what you're doing.
It's not that he should be happy, he can be content with what he has (or improve and get more) but he's so self-absorbed and narcissistic that he comforts himself in the idea that life is suffering when it's nothing but a succession of events that we experience as positive and/or negative (conceptions that are usually subjective and depend on our environments, upbringing and genetic potential). It's a basic side effect of modernity, we do not have to struggle for our survival so we're stuck in a state of ennui so deep that it takes any notion of rationality and collective consciousness from us. "Thinkers" like Ligotti are the most egotistic individuals there is and they are intelligent enough to rationalize this disgusting behavior and attitude towards life.
The feeling is "real" as he is experienced by the middle-class kid but, as I said, it'll be much easier for him to overcome, knowing that he didn't struggled as much as an Iraqi kid.

Have you even read the book?

Yes. Like a lot of guys here, I discovered it thanks to True Detective.

Well, good job. I still think you have a shallow understanding of humanity and the tribulations of existence, but to each their own.

There is literally nothing more self-absorbed and narcissistic than having kids. It is, categorically, distilled narcissism.

Actually, no, because it is the perpetuation of our species, it is initially an act signifying a collective awareness and the crystallisation of a mutual attachment (two individuals forgetting their individualities through an alterity and forging a transcendental bond, that's "love"). In our modern ages, where everything is reduced to desires and impulses, it can be narcissistic but this isn't inherent to the act of reproduction itself.

My mom used to use an argument similar to this to make me finish eating dinner.

That's a nice opinion. Maybe we can have a debate about it.

I taught her.

I'm not in the mood to debate how stupid the concept of privilege is for the umpteenth time right now. Ask me later.

>offering up your child on the altar to the thresher that is life because you're a self-absorbed narcissist who wants to see a little version of yourself running around, and rationalizing this by telling other people you did it "for the perpetuation of the species"

It's obvious you didn't actually read it lad.

I read the first 30 pages of this book and couldn't continue. It was fucking shit

No, thanks. You don't get it: it's not about privilege, it's about humility.
>"boo hoo life is a constant struggle"
Humanity have been going through this constant struggle for thousands of years and guess what? Some people enjoy the ride. We all experienced joy, pleasure, pain, surprise, fear... Some of us even experienced transcendence or a life of pure hedonism. Most of us have been, are and will always be instinctively and consciously attached to "the alter to the thresher that is life".
(Jesus... you're so far up your own ass...).
No one is trying to rationalize reproduction because it is initially instinctive, it's innate. It became "a choice" as human conscioussness evolved but it's our purpose to perpetuate the species.
You're depressed? Seek help or stay in this perpetual state of mediocrity. But don't generalize your biased "edgy" views on life.

MALIGNANTLY USELESS

Contain your autism.