quote
follow
This is going to be laconic. Here's a great quote somebody shared on Fb:
"Most people think life sucks, and then you die. Not me. I beg to differ. I think life sucks, then you get cancer, then your dog dies, your wife leaves you, the cancer goes into remission, you get a new dog, you get remarried, you owe ten million dollars in medical bills but you work hard for thirty five years and you pay it back and then one day you have a massive stroke, your whole right side is paralyzed, you have to limp along the streets and speak out of the left side of your mouth and drool but you go into rehabilitation and regain the power to walk and the power to talk and then one day you step off a curb at Sixty-seventh Street, and BANG you get hit by a city bus and then you die. Maybe." - Denis Leary
And a brilliant poster, also found on Facebook:
That's all :)
More posts from this category: Open Letter to Teenager stating nobody owes them that much goes viralZen parables
Irina |
25-04-2013
Thanks, I'll try to :D |
Patholysian
|
23-04-2013
Love the Leary joke!
Last summer I posted that exact quote as part of a caustic comment to an article in a Danish 'independent' newspaper (i.e. bankrolled primarily by the state and very cultural-political hegemony it's supposed to be critical of) about how beautiful and precious the 'gift' of life is. The article was some sort of portrait of an evolutionary scientist, who, like Richard Dawkins and other 'new atheists', seemed relentlessly awestruck by the wonders of nature. This newspaper's readers generally like to consider themselves lucid and intellectual, so I thought the forum would be fertile ground for a dose of invigorating sarcasm. Boy, was I wrong! Usually my comments on the newspaper's site receive a fair amount of positive feedback, but the Leary quote was definitelynotappreciated. No one recommended it, no one laughed. I was either ignored or attacked ad hominem, one or two commenters even advised me to seek professional help for my shitty attitude. The remarkable lack of humor surprised me at the time. Later I've come to realize some things about the Leary quote. I'm sure the dominant reaction would have been different if my post had just said "Life sucks and then you die" (ha-ha, yeah I know!). Why is that? Firstly, the short joke's ridiculous elliptical attempt to capture the complexity of existence is funny in and of itself. However, the ellipsis also functions as a euphemism that avoids mentioning tragic particularities and thereby makes it safe to articulate and laugh about the absurdity of life. It establishes a secure, comfortable psychological distance to the very real, unavoidable reality of suffering. To some people (me, for example!) the expanded Leary version is funny as a piece of cliche flipping, bullshit cutting black humor (shamelessly relishing in horrific, sensitive subject matters like cancer, strokes, paralysis etc.), but to others, I suspect, it is dangerously threatening because it undermines the lines between irony and heartfelt seriousness, necessary 'this too shall pass'-optimism and honest, negative realism. Most important of all, it flirts with the heredic view that life might not be such a wonderful invention after all. I believe Jim Crawford is on to something when he claims that antinatalism is 'the greatest taboo' of our time. And existential pessimism is certainly not far from that position. |
Irina |
25-04-2013
Yeah, now that I read it again I find it funny as well as tragic, though first time I encountered it I didn't think it was funny, because it sounded too accurate a description of reality. But then, sure, if you keep the delusional cliches in mind - it is a witty way to ridicule them. I believe Jim Crawford is on to something when he claims that antinatalism is 'the greatest taboo' of our time I think so. Now that atheism is no longer a crime it's the last taboo, perhaps. |
Steven-Inquisitor
|
23-04-2013
Witty, it made me fuckin' laugh. No need for this eccentric outlook though.
|
|
29-04-2013
Just watched your latest video: qualms, asusmptions, antinatalism.
Have you read Better Never To Have Been by Benatar ? I just finished. It was great. |
Irina |
29-04-2013
I have. It's great indeed. It actually convinced me of antinatalism. You just finished? Congratulations! |
|
29-04-2013
I did yeah. Currently reading his other book: The Second Sexism: Discrimination against Men and Boys.
|
Irina |
30-04-2013
Ok, it sounds interesting but not on my list on priorities right now. I'm more interested in deepening my knowledge of congnitive biases so I bought a book on that topic to which I'm getting right after Festinger's 'When prophecy fails' which explains why people with high investment in some belief won't drop it even after their belief is proven to be false. Which I think might also explain why people who've built their whole life around procreation and child-rearing won't accept antinatalistic ideas no matter how logical the refutations of their pro-natalistic beliefs will be. |
Johnathan Strongarm
|
29-04-2013
Your desire to question rather than understand is telling of your position.
Our brain evolved to evaluate the perceived world in practical terms. As it became more advanced humans created mental abstractions (Maths, Science, Philosophy) in order to develop our recognition of natural patterns and phenomena beyond a singular lifetime. None of these disciplines or comprehensions will outlast the natural world from which they, and we, their creators and students, organically emerged and will similarly be engulfed and consumed by. No human perspective or mental device can timelessly encapsulate all of life itself. Everything modern will one day perish or decline into disuse including all known modes of thought and interpretation. Am I saying that we know nothing and should just quit? NO. I am saying that man will conjure unknown numbers of mental techniques to decode and navigate the pressures and dangers of his own lifetime. They will often disagree with each other and some will be adopted by more people than others. But by looking at all known patterns of life, we can assess the qualities of nature, to which everything about us is inseparably bound, which are MORE timeless than others i.e. those which are the most base and unifying. EVERY known species must reproduce itself, but not all members of that species will. The particular device used by those humans who do not replicate to rationalize their lack of genetic influence on the life process (be it homosexuality, celibacy, anti-natalism) is inconsequential. In fact, such devices are best interpreted only as evidence of the type of psychology being observed. The end product is all the same: genetic death or lack of life to be more precise. It could also be described as a state of ZERO possibilities. So given that the anti-natalist perspective rebels against the nature from which it spawned how likely is it that it will be adopted by enough humans to make it a realistic possibility? Can such a life-denouncing psychology be extrapolated to enough members of your organic species, organisms who are, like you, subject to the processes of nature described as �life’, to make anti-natalist philosophy widespread and realistic? NO. So what is anti-natalism then? It is a dream, a fantasy and a rationalization. It is a manifestation of the deepest recesses of your own mentality. Just like Anarchism and Communism and Feminism. It is a philosophy which judges life moralistically then implies that humans are superior to the life process and must redefine it rather than ACCEPT and EXPLOIT it. Anarchism denies the eternal propensity toward centralized power ignoring the observed organic structure of higher life forms. Anarchist want to create their own form of ORDER, the natural masculine function, but are prevented from doing so by a pre-existing order superior and better developed than their own. It is a philosophy for little boys who feel emasculated by a system which usurps the male role in nature and renders THEM redundant. Communism denies the hierarchical and competitive nature of social interaction. Rules can only be established once order is created. Order is always accompanied by FORCE. Communism seeks to extrapolate the potentials of a given population into an unselfish whole with a monopoly on force. It is a philosophy for those who are lost in a world where God is dead and no paradise awaits us after our demise. To see nature as it is – uncaring, ruthless, chaotic – is unthinkable to such types. Nature must be denied or transformed instead. Feminism denies the sexually dimorphic nature of our species. It ignores the obvious fact that no civilization could ever be built upon the backs of women. It claims that all of the arts and disciplines and institution were created by the genius and imagination of a few men ONLY because male brutalization was normative and females we perpetually �oppressed’. It then makes the short step to claiming females are as capable of performing male functions as males are flagrantly defying biology. Feminism is for women who are unsatisfied with the organic limitations that being female or male places upon a given organism and it’s species as a whole. It demands that humans become accustomed to judging males by female standards of empathy, consideration and gentleness and similarly demands that females are judged by male standards of aggression, achievement and capability. NONE of these ideologies will stand the test of time. The nature which created then will consume them equally because they are all NIHILISTIC in their interpretations. They all attempt to supersede the natural world which caused their existence. Your philosophy is analogous to these. Given that all life essentially reproduces, finding identification in anti-natalism is a projection from within. You, as an organism designed to mate and reproduce, that is, to genetically survive, have become alienated from your own nature. You have suffered obvious disillusionment. What caused this? Might I hazard a guess? A woman’s soul is best read through the eyes as her words are often of secondary importance. Did you have a bad childhood? Are you deemed argumentative or pessimistic or even negative by people who do not understand or value your beliefs? Have you opened your heart totally to man and be spurned or use? Were you ALL HIS but he did not need or want you in return? Or were you with a man who was too easy to manipulate to excite you and was too soft to make you feel alive? Was it both? Have you always been smart and eloquent? How is that working out for you? Does your intelligence depress you or does it guide you? Tell me. Happiness is fleeting. It is not a constant state. All need is driven by a lack. Suffering denotes a severe need. Your aversion of suffering is a modern illness. Touch something with your finger. You can only feel it through your nervous systems detection of skin cells DYING. Suffering is a part of the spectrum of existence. It is necessary. It is inevitable. To seek to shelter all organisms from all suffering is to deny the organism life itself. It is ironic that the precious and weak ideology of anti-natalists claims that all life is sacred because suffering is tangible, THEREFORE reproduction should cease. This is contradictory. It is usually clear with such types, yourself included, that life is not EMBRACED but rather tolerated. No other species on this planet behaves or interacts in a way which suggests that happiness is a key component of existence. No other species can be said to value the suffering of unrelated beings above its own survival. It can therefore be safely concluded that the psychology of a person who does this is inherently NOT HEALTHY. But this is what Europe is producing. Did you know there is a very high correlation between intelligence and reproduction? Smarter women are reproducing less and less and less. Our culture is DYSGENIC in this sense. You should know that your unrealistic desire to prevent suffering during the course of life is a projection of your need to NURTURE. A woman with a heart big enough to care for the whole world is really a woman who needs to help her own young adapt to a noticeably hostile world. But, lacking guidance, you will continue your journey with an anti-nature philosophy whilst claiming to love and care for life itself. I hope you find yourself well in the near future. It would truly be a shame to see so many levels of potential squandered through nihilistic pessimism. We are here to live not to question life until we disillusion ourselves with it. But this is all just advice. Do what you will. Kisses. |
Irina |
29-04-2013
Don't expect me to read all that irrelevant babble, I'm tired. But maybe somebody else will find your takes on communism, feminism etc worth reading. Your desire to question rather than understand is telling of your position. Well, slaves don't question. You are a proud slave, congratulations! All existential philosophers were wasting time in your opinion, but you have figured the ultimate question from the start very easily: "We are here to live not to question life". Profound, bravo! EVERY known species must reproduce itself So given that the anti-natalist perspective rebels against the nature from which it spawned how likely is it that it will be adopted by enough humans to make it a realistic possibility? "It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." (Giordano Bruno) So what is anti-natalism then? It is a dream, a fantasy and a rationalization. It might be a dream but it's no rationalization. Rationalization of an urge to procreate is what you're currently engaged in. You, as an organism designed to mate and reproduce, that is, to genetically survive, have become alienated from your own nature. Rape is natural, murder is natural, yet we enforce the laws that prohibit them. Again, the argument from nature. Might I hazard a guess? A woman’s soul is best read through the eyes as her words are often of secondary importance. Did you have a bad childhood? Learn to argue the argument, not resort to ad-hominems. Did you know there is a very high correlation between intelligence and reproduction? Smarter women are reproducing less and less and less. Exactly. Intelligence rejects reproduction for the sake of reproduction. You should know that your unrealistic desire to prevent suffering during the course of life is a projection of your need to NURTURE. Tell that to every male philosopher who has ever argued against suffering. I hope you find yourself well in the near future. You make a lot of assumptions. I have never complained I wasn't well. If I am not well by your standards, I couldn't care less. |
Johnathan Strongarm
|
29-04-2013
Being unable to avoid or disconnect from your past and your genes is not the same as being a slave. You are yourself human, not some static form of intelligence disconnected from humanity. Whatever you wish or try to be you will always be a human bound by human nature.
Those who attempt to shame nature like you are usually intelligent, miserable people. Your philosophy of no life rather than life and no possibilities rather than the vague possibility of some unknown suffering is why NEGATIVE accurately encapsulates everything you have to say. I have no desire to mock or humiliate you or even to question your integrity. What you see as an ad hominem could also be seen as a valid question given your perspective. Intelligent women have been seduced by the state in most cases. Intelligence is a trait designed to facilitate the health of an organism by giving it an advantage in perception. It does not take much knowledge to see that when this trait inhibits or depresses the organism that it is not being utilized properly. The idea that the more intelligent one becomes the less likely they are to reproduce is therefore patently ridiculous. Did the Lion develop claws to gauge at it\'s own eye? I prefer philosophers who accept suffering as a part of the spectrum of life, not ones who demonize and exaggerate suffering as a tangible evil which must be \'prevented\' or \'cured\'. You have superimposed a human morality (spawned from nature) upon nature itself. Is this not what the religious do? Morals always change because life is a process of competitive divergence. As for Murder and Rape, yes we have decided they are bad but they still happen don\'t they? We cannot totally expunge them because they are part of the spectrum within which we cannot help but remain. What you call morality is seen in other mammals and primates. Murder is negative because it creates chaos within the group dynamic. Social systems break down when everybody is out for self in the most violent of fashions. This is why your ethereal bullshit morality is a joke. Murder when normalized or extrapolated in a population is negative. Anti-natalism when extrapolated leads to nothing. The end of all possibilities. This means that your equation looks something like: Some suffering some joy < nothing at all! It is representative of your alienation from life that you could even question life as though anything else exists. Even death is not the opposite of life because it requires life to begin with. Your philosophical absence of life-creation and of self-replication speaks of a lifetime of regret and dissatisfaction. The reason you feel this way is directly related to your retarded perspective. You are smart, attractive and outspoken. Yet your philosophy is all about doom and suffering and futility. As I say, I hope you find your way to good or at least better health. Such an intolerable waste! |
Irina |
29-04-2013
As for Murder and Rape, yes we have decided they are bad but they still happen don\'t they? The point is we do count them as bad. Whether they happen or not is outside the morality question. We still pass judgements on completely natural things. Procreation is but one of those natural things as well.
It does not take much knowledge to see that when this trait inhibits or depresses the organism that it is not being utilized properly. Properly being the way 'Mother-nature' intended again? Right... praise the nature! Halleluyah! Nature knows best.
Anti-natalism when extrapolated leads to nothing. The end of all possibilities. Some suffering some joy < nothing at all! Suffering poses a problem for some, non-existence isn't a problem for anybody. My perspective is that which D.Benatar has argued in his abovementioned (in the comments) book Better explained in his own words: "It is uncontroversial to say that However, such symmetrical evaluation does not seem to apply to the absence of pain and pleasure, for it strikes me as true that 3)The absence of pain is good even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone, I suggest you learn a bit more about the philosophy before you bash it and call it 'retarded'. |
Johnathan Strongarm
|
30-04-2013
"It is uncontroversial to say that 1)The presence of pain is bad and that 2)The presence of pleasure is good
What simplistic drivel. Pleasure in a Hedonistic sense can be disorienting and harmful. Suffering which causes a lesson to be learned or accomplishes a goal can be deemed good. You cannot name any other organism or even any natural process which holds 'potential external suffering' as having a high value (or any value whatsoever) apart from you own ridiculous Ideology. quote:
The point is we do count them as bad. Whether they happen or not is outside the morality question. We still pass judgements on completely natural things. The point I already made is that what you call morality can be observed in other social species. If an action jeopardises the integrity of the group dynamic, it will be chastised accordingly. But you saying that the human morality, developed by years of evolution to accommodate interactivity in large groups, has now SUPERSEDED in importance the nature which created it is something quite different. The argument you are making implies that any degree of suffering is intolerable and that non-existence is preferable. Which is of course RETARDED. quote:
Properly being the way 'Mother-nature' intended again? Right... praise the nature! Halleluyah! Nature knows best. It is YOU with religiously fanatical disposition my dear. When you, as a natural organism, have a psychology which negates or dismisses your own natural needs then you are not a healthy person. The brain evolved ONLY to help us adapt to the perils and dangers of Nature and aid us in our survival. It did not evolve to trick us or to cause us to question the 'goodness' of the natural world and its mechanisms. That is your PREFERRED mode of perception not some timeless standard of truth. You might want to re-evaluate your belief that people are equal. NOTHING in the natural world is equal. In fact biology is characterised by INEQUALITY and DIVERGENCE and DIFFERENTIATION. It is your Liberalised mentality that is preventing you from seeing that suffering is a necessary cost of all life and that to shelter all from suffering is entirely implausible. Anti-natalism is the worlds most nihilistic religion. Let us reject life and discontinue procreating, only then can we all be at peace and free from suffering! Hooray! A world with no suffering... doesn't that remind you of the Christians utopia called Heaven? A Paradise where no harm is ever felt? You have replaced 'God' with 'Nothingness' and are proceeding accordingly. Just like the mystics of the past, your buddy Benatar is willing to sell you a crock of shit. Why? Because it is the easiest thing in the world to sell people what they want to hear: to provide people with a justification for decisions they have intuitively made already. Read some other non-fatalistic books please. Thank You. |
Irina |
30-04-2013
You cannot name any other organism or even any natural process which holds 'potential external suffering' as having a high value Why would I need to? If you don't understand that human animal is higher on an evolutionary stage than a gorilla, what's there to talk about? Go check your morality with weasels if you like, but I call that retarded. And if you see some baboons eating their own shit be sure to do that as well in accordance with your Holy Nature. But you saying that the human morality, developed by years of evolution to accommodate interactivity in large groups, has now SUPERSEDED in importance the nature which created it Yes, and you have admitted that we assign values to completely natural phenomena. But you pick and choose to which phenomenon it should apply, that's all you're doing.
Only if you define 'health' as organism's adaptation to its environment whatever that environment is. The brain evolved ONLY to help us adapt to the perils and dangers of Nature and aid us in our survival. It did not evolve to trick us or to cause us to question the 'goodness' of the natural world and its mechanisms. Yours sure hasn't. You're just looking for ways to rid yourself of any responsibilities for the actions you take. Go SHOUT somewhere else, 'dear', you're not impressive and I've lost interest in whatever else you have to say. |
Neil
|
30-04-2013
Strongarm's argument amounts to saying. "These are the ways of Nature, therefore we ought to abide by them." But this indeed is, as Irina - and Bertrand Russell - say, a slave ethic.
It's also incoherent. Since we ourselves are products of Nature, then absolutely anything we do or think comes from Nature. If humanity, or some wiser suffering race, decided to let itself go extinct, that would just as 'natural' as a mother suckling a baby or a bee collecting honey. |
Irina |
30-04-2013
Hi Neil) Yeah, I actually wanted to add that maybe us questioning nature is exactly 'what nature intended' lol (not that I believe it has ever 'intended' anything) but then I just thought what's the point, this is hopeless. And his argument style isn't something I particularly enjoy so I'll find a better use of my time. |
I really enjoy your website and your videos. Keep them coming!