Thomas Ligotti's Poetic Review of Human Consciousness

schopenhauer1

Thomas Ligotti is a horror fiction writer, who can be characterized as writing in the subgenre of "Cosmic Horror". Cosmic horror is defined as a sort of indifference of the universe to the human plight. Ligotti wrote a book of non-fiction, one I bring up occasionally if people pay attention, called The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. In it, Ligotti synthesizes his basic philosophical pessimism, reviewing philosophers such as Zapffe, Schopenhauer, Mainlander, Bahnsen, and others known for their darker ideas on existence, and the human condition. He also discusses the idea of if there is even such a thing as "ego death", and discusses Buddhism as well. I find his prose to be interesting because the passages can often be circuitous and repetitious, but that might be intentional as to form a sort of pattern of thought throughout. He often has a great sardonic and searing turn of phrase that brings home the pessimism whilst satirizing the interlocutor's anticipated optimistic response. It can be quite clever. In the book, he also reviews various cosmic horror writers like Algernon Blackwood and H.P Lovecraft (the most notorious in that bunch), for their ideas of cosmic horror, and the idea of the "uncanny". He also has themes about the imagery of puppets, such that humans themselves are puppets, and being destined and pulled by forces not of our own making. He also has darkly satirical subheadings to chapters like, "Cult of the Grinning Martyrs" which is taking a trope in cosmic horror (cults), and using it to portray the majority view of life (the "Grinning Martyrs" would be the optimistic ideology that everything is alright, existence must be basically good, and reproduction is the default setting). Anyways, I thought this passage at the beginning of the book, from a subsection called "Psychogenesis" did a good job giving a sort of "horror" portrayal of human evolution, specifically regarding our consciousness. Here is the passage (bold is my emphasis):

Chapter 1: The Nightmare Of Being

Psychogenesis:

For ages they had been without lives of their own. The whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. How long they had thus flourished none of them knew. Then something began to change. It happened over unremembered generations. The signs of a revision without forewarning were being writ ever more deeply into them. As their species moved forward, they began crossing boundaries whose very existence they never imagined. After nightfall, they looked up at a sky filled with stars and felt themselves small and fragile in the vastness. Soon they began to see everything in a way they never had in older times. When they found one of their own lying still and stiff, they now stood around the body as if there were something they should do that they had never done before. It was then they began to take bodies that were still and stiff to distant places so they could not find their way back to them. But even after they had done this, some within their group did see those bodies again, often standing silent in the moonlight or loitering sad-faced just beyond the glow of a fire. Everything changed once they had lives of their own and knew they had lives of their own. It even became impossible for them to believe things had ever been any other way. They were masters of their movements now, as it seemed, and never had there been anything like them. The epoch had passed when the whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. Something had happened. They did not know what it was,but they did know it as that which should not be. And something needed to be done if they were to flourish as they once had, if the very ground beneath their feet were not to fall out under them. For ages they had been without lives of their own. Now that they had such lives there was no turning back. The whole of their being was closed to the world, and they had been divided from the rest of creation. Nothing could be done about that, having as they did lives of their own. But something would have to be done if they were to live with that which should not be. And over time they discovered what could be done - what would have to be done - so that they could live the lives that were now theirs to live. This would not revive among them the way things had once been done in older times; it would only be the best they could do. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

It is this idea of something wholly different in the human evolution, something "uncanny", that I would like to explore. The main philosopher he draws parallels to is Zapffe. Zapffe's themes are similar in that he thinks that humans have an "excess" of self-consciousness, that though allows us to survive in the ways we do, brings with it the existential excess of being too aware. And that over-abundance of awareness is really what separates humans from the rest of nature in the sense that we are existentially divided and torn asunder from the rest of nature in our awareness. Unlike other animals, even clever ones like certain corvids, or domestic animals, or even elephants, dolphins, and apes, we seem to have something totally different in our existential orientation. Whereas Schopenhauer's dissatisfaction personified as "will-to-live" is much more in the "now" and "immediate" and the "being", we are much more in the self-reflected now, the analysis, the planning of the future, the angst, the anxiety, the what ifs and what did I dos, the regret, the isolation, the inability to "turn off" for large portions of time unless dead asleep. We have exited Eden, and to gain some sanity we provide for ourselves stories and narratives, mainly to soothe ourselves that this situation is not so bad, but those are just salves, protective hedging.

So I guess a question I can pose here, with all this in mind, is can anyone else see the validity in this idea of "excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? There is something that we are deluding ourselves in, with our goals, narratives, and ignoring of the situation, so that we don't have to "feel" or "sense" the excess. The excess might be akin to a certain sense of angst, existential dread, isolation, loneliness, ennui, and meaninglessness. Ligotti, used a term which is quite "horror" sounding with all caps- MALIGNANTLY USELESS. That might get at the feeling better.

Drawing upon Zapffe here, we can view all the anchoring mechanisms we will use to prevent such horrific feelings of excess:

- The "ideal past"; We should be in tribal units or we should be gardening all day as that gets us "back to nature". It gets us to feel connected with something of substance. But this is a narrative, a story, a façade. It is an anchoring mechanism.

- Relationships; We should feel the community so that we do not have what Durkheim characterized as anomie and feel our purpose sublimated in the whole of a community. But this is a narrative, a story, a façade.

- Flow states; We can imitate the other animals' minds by being fully "enraptured" in interests that are both mentally challenging, and interesting. Time flows, we forget we "exist", and exist "for the moment", concentrating and focusing on that skill, job-at-hand, hobby, task. But this is a distraction. It is not natural, but like a kite, where we have to choose to get "caught up" in something to take our minds to the flow state.

There are several other like salves that people like to posit, but all these just seem weak against the fact of the matter of our existential situation as humans, divided from the world, wholly alone, despite the attempts of the narratives otherwise.

180 Proof

I'm a ~~huge~~ fan of T. Ligotti's horror fiction and love his book The Conspiracy Against the Human Race the arguments and insights of which have convinced me of the futility (i.e. Zapffean absurdity) of 'antinatalism'.

:death: :flower:

schopenhauer1

↪180 Proof

Interesting. He talks at length of antinatalism, and not usually against it. Quite opposite, he often makes fun of them (anti-antinatalists), (e.g. "Cult of the Grinning Martyrs"). He does question his own beliefs, and says, it's a matter of opinion, but he is simply applying pessimism to his pessimism. I don't think he is negating it though. If you can show me where he does though, I'd be interested.

Also, being that Zapffe himself came to an antinatalist conclusion, "Zapffe compares his messiah to Moses, but ultimately rejects the precept to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," by saying "Know yourselves – be infertile, and let the earth be silent after ye."

I am not sure if your conclusion is necessarily Zapffe's, though it sounds like it's simply your take on Zapffe, which you have not given any support for in your last comment.

Ciceronianus

We're alive. No amount of bewailing will change that; in fact, it will likely make us miserable (more miserable, if you prefer). Horror can be self-imposed, particularly that horror claimed to be cosmic. This is the ultimate example of disturbing yourself over matters beyond your control.

schopenhauer1

We're alive. No amount of bewailing will change that; in fact, it will likely make us miserable (more miserable, if you prefer). Horror can be self-imposed, particularly that horror claimed to be cosmic. This is the ultimate example of disturbing yourself over matters beyond your control. — Ciceronianus

You look at it as a zero-sum game, like just ignoring the problems means the problems go away. That is not the case. One is reflecting upon the problems as if an outside looking in. It is an inherent part of our self-reflective capabilities. To not do so is to have bad faith... That is to say, to think that one has to take the positive "life must be good because I can't change it" view. But just because you cannot change it, doesn't mean it is thus good. I believe in the idea of pessimism as a sort of therapy. It is good to recognize, publicly the situation, not just some private angst or therapy session. Just as we are all forced publically to "deal with X" situation (work, other people, life circumstances, angst, existential issues, pain, suffering, whatever we are forced to contend with).

180 Proof

↪schopenhauer1

I did not state or imply that I agree with Ligotti (or Zapffe), only that his book inspired – reinforced – my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' (which I only characterize as 'Zapffean').

We're alive. No amount of bewailing will change that; in fact, it will likely make us miserable (more miserable, if you prefer). Horror can be self-imposed, particularly that horror claimed to be cosmic. This is the ultimate example of disturbing yourself over matters beyond your control. — Ciceronianus

:clap: :100:

schopenhauer1

I did not state or imply that I agree with Ligotti (or Zapffe), only that his book inspired – reinforced – my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' (which I only characterize as 'Zapffean'). — 180 Proof

Ok, but how, why?

To be clear, antinatalism doesn't mean that you believe that an outcome of "zero humans" is possible. I think there is a whole web of pessimistic (don't read that in a derogatory way), beliefs that go with it, and that it is not even about achieving some outcome.

Also, this thread is more about the inquiry regarding consciousness, and "Psychogenisis" not antinatalism. You kind of steered it there.

180 Proof

Ok, but how, why? — schopenhauer1

Besides our many previous exchanges on the topic in the last few years, schop, this post sums up my outlook:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/870315

Ligotti isn't really pessimistic enough (like e.g. P. Mainländer was) about his pessimism (which is kind of funny). Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. Useless, futile, absurd. :sweat:

mcdoodle

You remark of a human absorption in flow states, like other animals':

But this is a distraction. It is not natural, but like a kite, where we have to choose to get "caught up" in something to take our minds to the flow state. — schopenhauer1

It seems odd to me to regard this as 'not natural' when you've ascribed it as being like inside other animals' minds, where it presumably is 'natural'. I went back to your quotation of Ligotti in an old thread where he talks about

...laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own... — Ligotti

Interestingly this is the opposite of how Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics counsels us to live. He explores what are common emotions and considers how to cultivate what he sees as those promoting eudaimonia/well-being, and how to limit the negative emotions. This is, as he sees it, a virtuous education or an education in virtue: we apply rationality to our emotional lives. Rationality is not the opposite of the emotional, these aspects of us need to work in concert

But Ligotti and perhaps you seem to claim that emotions are 'inaccurate', arbitrary'. For me, emotions - informed by rationality - are what guide us to the true, accurate, right, good. A 'flow state', to which I have committed myself by rational deliberation about my emotional life, is a way of living well.

schopenhauer1

Ligotti isn't really pessimistic enough (like e.g. P. Mainländer was) about his pessimism (which is kind of funny). Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. Useless, futile, absurd. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Yeah, based on our exchanges, I do remember this being your position. I was just seeing if there was something else I was missing. But, as I stated earlier, I don't see antinatalism's importance in being about outcomes, or even realistically achieving those outcomes, but as part of a web of related ideas on a certain stance towards the world.

schopenhauer1

It seems odd to me to regard this as 'not natural' when you've ascribed it as being like inside other animals' minds, where it presumably is 'natural'. I went back to your quotation of Ligotti in an old thread where he talks about

...laboratories inside us producing the emotions on which we live. And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own...
— Ligotti

Interestingly this is the opposite of how Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics counsels us to live. He explores what are common emotions and considers how to cultivate what he sees as those promoting eudaimonia/well-being, and how to limit the negative emotions. This is, as he sees it, a virtuous education or an education in virtue: we apply rationality to our emotional lives. Rationality is not the opposite of the emotional, these aspects of us need to work in concert

But Ligotti and perhaps you seem to claim that emotions are 'inaccurate', arbitrary'. For me, emotions - informed by rationality - are what guide us to the true, accurate, right, good. A 'flow state', to which I have committed myself by rational deliberation about my emotional life, is a way of living well. — mcdoodle

I think you misread the point here, and which is why it seems like it is normative and descriptive. Ligotti is being descriptive here, not counseling (in what I have so-far quoted). That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness. As stated in the OP:

Unlike other animals, even clever ones like certain corvids, or domestic animals, or even elephants, dolphins, and apes, we seem to have something totally different in our existential orientation. Whereas Schopenhauer's dissatisfaction personified as "will-to-live" is much more in the "now" and "immediate" and the "being", we are much more in the self-reflected now, the analysis, the planning of the future, the angst, the anxiety, the what ifs and what did I dos, the regret, the isolation, the inability to "turn off" for large portions of time unless dead asleep. We have exited Eden, and to gain some sanity we provide for ourselves stories and narratives, mainly to soothe ourselves that this situation is not so bad, but those are just salves, protective hedging. — schopenhauer1

So yes, flow states might mimic the sort of "in the moment" the animal already has but it is not wholly "being in the moment". Rather, as I stated, it is a rather clumsy deliberative, baroque way of getting "caught up" in the moment, like a kite that needs to find that wind current at the right momentum and angle.

Ciceronianus

↪schopenhauer1

Life isn't good or bad because I can't change it, nor is the cosmos. They merely are. My part is to live. I can (and do) live without judging the cosmos. Montagne wrote something like "Not being able to master the world, I master myself." As 180 Proof has said, it's futile to disturb ourselves over what we can't do or change. Instead, do the best you can with what is in your power and take the rest as it happens, to paraphrase Epictetus.

schopenhauer1

Life isn't good or bad because I can't change it, nor is the cosmos. They merely are. My part is to live. I can (and do) live without judging the cosmos. — Ciceronianus

This isn't quite addressing what this OP and Ligotti is getting at. You can't escape your orientation towards living, as we are existential beings. To deny this is indeed, bad faith. And then Zapffe would be doubly correct in regards to what you are suggesting:

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

In "The Last Messiah", Zapffe described four principal defense mechanisms that humankind uses to avoid facing this paradox:

Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]
Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation.

Instead, do the best you can with what is in your power and take the rest as it happens, to paraphrase Epictetus. — Ciceronianus

No man, you aren't paying attention, you are already reaching for that card you nicely keep in your pocket to hold up. You aren't addressing the issue, which is the excess of consciousness. You can't escape it :sweat:, even if you tried with whatever X philosophy of "overcoming" (Nietzschean, Stoic, etc.). Rather, it's all anchoring mechanisms, ignoring, and the like. We need to stabilize the "liquid fray" that is the excess to keep it in line. Get the flow where there isn't any natural flow. Get to being where there isn't naturally being. Get to the "task at hand" of living, when there clearly is no impetus either way, other than cliches, cultural narratives.

AmadeusD

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. The human craving for justification on matters such as life and death cannot be satisfied, hence humanity has a need that nature cannot satisfy. The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. The human being, therefore, is a paradox.

Huh. This seems to apply to a 'large middle' of humans while assuming positivism. Both seem aspects seem a bit shaky to me. I don't think its reasonable to dismiss Zen, true Stoicism, meditation etc.. as somehow arbitrary attempt to 'not be human'.
These things are human behaviours.

schopenhauer1

I don't think its reasonable to dismiss Zen, true Stoicism, meditation etc.. as somehow arbitrary attempt to 'not be human'.
These things are human behaviours. — AmadeusD

Why is there a need for them?

AmadeusD

↪schopenhauer1

I'm not suggesting there is. I don't think there's any need to overcome anxiety about life and death. It's also part of human behaviour.

Of course, some people run to these things for comfort - But i would posit theism is a much, much, MUCH more ripe example that, according to some (even atheists) fulfills a 'human need'. My point is merely that these behaviours are human, and do not release or jettison humanity in the subject (imo).

schopenhauer1

I'm not suggesting there is. I don't think there's any need to overcome anxiety about life and death. It's also part of human behaviour.

Of course, some people run to these things for comfort - But i would posit theism is a much, much, MUCH more ripe example that, according to some (even atheists) fulfills a 'human need'. My point is merely that these behaviours are human, and do not release or jettison humanity in the subject (imo). — AmadeusD

I don't think Ligotti / Zapffe is suggesting it's not human. I see it akin to a sort of bad faith. The "human" here is equated with the "excess of consciousness". As Ligotti points out, we are irrevicobly divided from the rest of nature.

Everything changed once they had lives of their own and knew they had lives of their own. It even became impossible for them to believe things had ever been any other way. They were masters of their movements now, as it seemed, and never had there been anything like them. The epoch had passed when the whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. Something had happened. They did not know what it was,but they did know it as that which should not be. And something needed to be done if they were to flourish as they once had, if the very ground beneath their feet were not to fall out under them. For ages they had been without lives of their own. Now that they had such lives there was no turning back. The whole of their being was closed to the world, and they had been divided from the rest of creation. Nothing could be done about that, having as they did lives of their own. But something would have to be done if they were to live with that which should not be. And over time they discovered what could be done - what would have to be done - so that they could live the lives that were now theirs to live. This would not revive among them the way things had once been done in older times; it would only be the best they could do. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

AmadeusD

I don't think Ligotti / Zapffe is suggesting it's not human. — schopenhauer1

The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human.

Really? I find that hard to parse from the material you've quoted.

The epoch had passed when the whole of their being was open to the world and nothing divided them from the rest of creation. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

What?

that which should not be — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

A further, what?

The whole of their being was closed to the world, and they had been divided from the rest of creation. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

Getting into 'wtf' territory...

what would have to be done — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

This sounds like the need you mentioned. I'm unsure why, then, I was asked to defend that position?

This would not revive among them the way things had once been done in older times; it would only be the best they could do. — Thomas Ligotti- Conspiracy Against the human Race

This passage seems to be some kind of chimera of Theistic creation thinking and the fallacy of pretending the past was a golden age (ironically, given the 'ideal past' concept from the OP). Obviously, this passage is out of it's wider context so i'm not able to say more than how the passage itself strikes.

AmadeusD

my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile' — 180 Proof

Hey mate - would you mind bumper-stickering your basic reasoning here? I am an anti-natalist and so am interested in objections - particularly as you're saying it's 'futile' rather than like illogical or incoherent or something 'defeating'.

schopenhauer1

Really? I find that hard to parse from the material you've quoted. — AmadeusD

The excess of consciousness is the "Human".. So to me, it is about bad faith trying to constantly keep away from the existential implications of this.. that we need to deliberate our way into being "caught up", that we know of our own dissatisfaction and must find ways to cope with it.

What — AmadeusD

Unlike other animals, we are self-reflective, ripped asunder from a mode of being that other animals have access to. We instead have as I said:

That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness. — schopenhauer1

A further, what? — AmadeusD

Just emphasizing our unique isolated condition as opposed to the rest of nature. We developed self-reflection which puts an extra level of burden and responsibility upon us- one
where we have to choose which mechanism to give us ballast.

Getting into 'wtf' territory... — AmadeusD

Again, the "exile from Eden" imagery.

This sounds like the need you mentioned. I'm unsure why, then, I was asked to defend that position? — AmadeusD

What would have to be done to live this new mode of being, cut off from being "in the moment", a fully existential being. Self-reflective, wholly different in kind, even if evolved from the same mechanism.

This passage seems to be some kind of chimera of Theistic creation thinking and the fallacy of pretending the past was a golden age (ironically, given the 'ideal past' concept from the OP). Obviously, this passage is out of it's wider context so i'm not able to say more than how the passage itself strikes. — AmadeusD

Older times, being a mode of being like how other animals live.

AmadeusD

The excess of consciousness is the "Human".. So to me, it is about bad faith trying to constantly keep away from the existential implications of this.. that we need to deliberate our way into being "caught up", that we know of our own dissatisfaction and must find ways to cope with it. — schopenhauer1

I hear your point (i think) and that's reasonable... But what i quoted seems to contradict, and place this effort in the 'not-human' category. Unsure what to make here, as I grok what you've said but it doesn't seem to follow from the material quoted.

Unlike other animals, we are self-reflective, ripped asunder from a mode of being that other animals have access to. We instead have as I said:
That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. This is part of that ever-discussed "human condition"- the excess of consciousness.
— schopenhauer1 — schopenhauer1

This doesn't make any sense to me: 'being' isn't a choice. We can't get 'caught up' in being. It is the case that we 'are'. If we don't engage in any of these practices, is the suggestion that we 'aren't'? Realise there's poetics here, but it seems incomprehensible without a bit of translating.. and maybe im being cynical about that.

Just emphasizing our unique isolated condition as opposed to the rest of nature. We developed self-reflection which puts an extra level of burden and responsibility upon us- one where we have to choose which mechanism to give us ballast. — schopenhauer1

Again, I just don't understand how this is anything but an existential whine. I agree, we have a unique condition - but I have no idea why this imports any kind of extra responsibility or a 'need' to choose any kind of mechanism. As noted, I don't think these things are needed. It seems you might?

Again, the "exile from Eden" imagery. — schopenhauer1

I guess from here, I would just restate my conclusion on the passage. Appears divorced from anything really beyond fictional sentimentality.

What would have to be done to live this new mode of being, cut off from being "in the moment", a fully existential being. Self-reflective, wholly different in kind, even if evolved from the same mechanism. — schopenhauer1

Sorry? I guess, if you feel there's a 'need' to overcome the human condition this makes sense to you. It doesn't amke sense to me.

Older times, being a mode of being like how other animals live. — schopenhauer1

Sure. I would just restate my take. It appears to be an extension of New-Agey nonsense about a Golden Age. That somehow lacking self-awareness was better, and we're jettisoned into self-consciousness (from where?) as if set adrift on an ocean with no oars. Seems silly to me.

180 Proof

my own conclusion that 'anitnatalism is futile'
— 180 Proof

Hey mate - would you mind bumper-stickering your basic reasoning here? — AmadeusD

Gladly. From a previous post ...

Antinatalism proposes 'preventing future suffering' that neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. — 180 Proof

So of what value is it?

AmadeusD

↪180 Proof

Thank you :)

Is the position such that the failure to address current or past suffering is somehow invalidating the attempt to prevent future suffering? Or is it a way of saying 'the present is inescapable' such that looking at the future to prevent suffering is futile?

mcdoodle

I think you misread the point here, and which is why it seems like it is normative and descriptive. Ligotti is being descriptive here, not counseling (in what I have so-far quoted). That is to say, unlike other animals, we are not "being" but having to make concerted efforts to "get caught up in being". It is not our natural mode, which is rather, a mode of deliberation. — schopenhauer1

I don't accept that non-human animals do not deliberate. In the last couple of decades a number of writers have outlined this argument. Here's a link for instance to a paper from last year: Stauffer says 'Humans are not the only animals capable of slow and thoughtful deliberation.' Orca hunting, corvid theory of mind, are other examples that demonstrate complex deliberative thought.

The more general point I am making is that you and Ligotti are in my view mistakenly describing action driven by the 'emotional' as somehow inaccurate and wrong. What is the case for that? It seems to me to privilege an imagined 'rationality' that in action can't be separated from emotion: the two are intertwined.

Ciceronianus

↪schopenhauer1

Sorry, but I don't think there is a "human craving for justification on matters of life and death." I think some humans crave that, but it's foolish to do so, and I know of nothing which makes it a necessary human characteristic, i.e. a part of being human. And like it or not, humans are as much a part of nature as any other animal.

AmadeusD

↪Ciceronianus

:ok: Bang on IMO. But, once again, this is a 'poetical' take. It's fun in that light.

180 Proof

↪AmadeusD

Neither.

And like it or not, humans are as much a part of nature as any other animal. — Ciceronianus

:fire:

AmadeusD

↪180 Proof

Then i cannot see what the futility is in relation to?

180 Proof

i cannot see what the futility is in relation to? — AmadeusD

Choosing (as I inadvertantly have, btw) to defy one's biological drives, or genetic programming, in order not to breed ...

neither undoes – compensates for – the suffering of past sufferers nor, more significantly, reduces the suffering of current, or already-born, sufferers. — 180 Proof

In other wods, antinatalism as speculation or (voluntary) policy does not positively affect the quality of the lives of those who are suffering here and now.Thus, what's the point of opposing (human) reproduction (which can ony make most sufferers suffer even more (e.g. despair))? :mask:

AmadeusD

In other wods, antinatalism as speculation or (voluntary) policy does not positively affect the quality of the lives of those who are suffering here and now.Thus, what's the point of opposing (human) reproduction (which can ony make most sufferers suffer even more (e.g. despair))? :mask: — 180 Proof

Hmmm, I don't think this goes through.
I recognize AN fails to address current suffering, but it's not intended to. Anti-natalists in my experience harbour fairly extreme sympathy for current suffering, outside of their AN views - and that's actually what lead/s to the view.

If there are 8bil people currently suffering, I want that number to stop growing - otherwise, dealing with current suffering is futile - because it necessarily just racks up, and racks up and racks up with every new birth(is the position.. im not at all claiming that as capital T true). The position says that every new birth increases suffering. So, your point is somewhat moot. There's nothing to be done about current suffering.

Appended, and asking something different:

Choosing (as I inadvertantly have, btw) to defy one's biological drives, or genetic programming, in order not to breed ... — 180 Proof

Good to hear ;)
I have inadvertently fulfilled mine LOL. I feel, and have never felt any drive whatsoever to have any children and have to psychologically prepare myself every single day for parenthood. I regret it, and feel bad for my child every single day. This is my burden.
My wife, however, wants ninety kids (exaggeration - but is physically unable to have any more than the one she has (we have one each from previous relationships). That is her burden.

Is there a catch to this?

180 Proof

There's nothing to be done about current suffering. — AmadeusD

Nonsense.

Thomas Ligotti's Poetic Review of Human Consciousness

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions