106 posts shown.
Sandra Murphy33 said:If finding purpose in total hopelessness is your one true passion, then I suppose there isn't much I can say... "There is no accounting for taste."🤣
(English translation of Latin "There is no accounting for taste")
No, but I don't go chasing after every little whim or hunting them down; I simply embrace them if the opportunity arises, and if not, I move on. For instance, one of my simple pleasures is having a cup of coffee paired with dark chocolate or perhaps some sweet croissants. I am not out here searching for anything extraordinary from life.
Laura Castillo6 said:Exactly. You push yourself to make things better, even if that very effort ends up making things feel worse for a while. My main takeaway here is that choosing to end it all isn't a rational move.
I would be very interested to hear your reasoning on why it isn't rational; perhaps we could discuss that further if you are willing?
Sandra Murphy33 said:If you actually enjoy that state—if you’ve convinced yourself it’s the peak of logic and the only viable path forward—then you must be satisfied with it, right? (Meaning you believe you made the right call). 🙄
And if you truly find contentment in that choice, in this perpetual "going through the motions," then I suppose existing in a state of stagnation is your ultimate life goal...
It is possible, though I would argue it constitutes a surrender to futility.
Sandra Murphy33 said:Well, well, Gerald Hill, look who finally decided to show up. What's the word? 😁
You still breathing?
:klap:
I am alive, yet I feel utterly lifeless.
Laura Castillo6 said:The issue here is that life lacks inherent meaning, and you’re using efilism to argue that death is actually the only thing that could provide purpose to existence, right?
People only started hunting for "meaning" once humans evolved, which makes it totally irrelevant to the actual survival of a species. Life keeps going regardless of whether some individual mind starts questioning why it's all happening. Death is fundamentally the opposite of living, and over billions of years of evolution, creatures have developed this rock-solid instinct to stay alive. It’s baked into us, just like hunger, sex, or sleep—this deep-seated drive that says you have to survive at any cost.
What efilists are basically calling for is the total abandonment of that survival instinct and the extinction of every living thing on Earth. I don't know how that lands with everyone else, but to me, it sounds way more extreme than even the worst kind of totalitarian regime. You can't even put it in the same category. Honestly, trying to fight against basic biological drives feels as futile as trying to argue with gravity.
We possess the capacity for thought and self-awareness, which is why some argue that if we follow purely rational conclusions based on the facts of our reality, we must accept efilism as the logical consequence of existential nihilism and pessimism.
hollowpuma762 said:Look, as long as you’ve got even a shred of a rational grasp on who you actually are—your thoughts, your feelings, whatever—you have way more control than all that nonsense suggests. This isn't *you*. It's just a state you're passing through. Just sit there and figure out what triggered the spiral and how to actually fix it.
I am being perfectly realistic and rational here; for me, this isn't nonsense, it is simply reality. I am fully aware that this feeling isn't my true essence. I am merely the skeleton, the dust, and the ashes. These physical bodies aren't truly "us"—that is just the way it is.
Larry Moore83 said:From whom, exactly? Are we talking first-hand accounts here?
Death—is that you? 😁
There is plenty of literature on this subject, and you can easily find more information online.
Larry Moore83 said:But you see, death... it isn't just some unverified rumor anymore, is it?
So many people write about death as if they actually grasp the reality of it, but they don't. They really don't. 😁
They ought to educate themselves first if they want to speak with any authority.
restlesstiger49 said:Is that where you find your purpose in life?
Well, I certainly find interest and stimulation in it. "Meaning" might be a bit too heavy a word, but if you insist on using it, so be it.
Paul Thompson3 said:MrBeast gave you the most accurate answer here—honestly, why even bother looking for logic in that kind of pathology? Anyone actually backing up those views is probably just deeply unwell. So, fine, you’re an absolute efilist by your own definition now—what’s your next move?
Nothing, really. Within my current capacity, I can only focus on awakening the will toward death and advocating for antinatalism.
Patrick King7 said:I haven't dug into his theories before, but honestly, there's a massive hole in his logic. Here's why it doesn't track:
If someone is fundamentally against sex, then humanity eventually hits a dead end. No reproduction means no more people. I'm setting aside the issue of assault for a moment—because if we go there, his ancestors wouldn't have existed either. If he doesn't exist, his ancestors don't exist. If nothing exists, suicide becomes a redundant concept; you can't destroy something that isn't there. That should have been step one in his reasoning. If suicide is supposedly the ultimate act of "living," but there was no procreation to get him here, who is left to pull the trigger after him? It's pretty clear this stems from psychological issues.
Look, that isn't actually a logical fallacy. That specific viewpoint is known as absolute efilism. There is both anti-humanist efilism and absolute efilism. According to the doctrine of absolute efilism, not only should procreation cease, but all living beings currently on Earth should vanish immediately—rather than waiting for the cessation of reproduction to take its course—in order to instantly halt all suffering, injustice, and the senseless struggle of life. If that principle is unachievable, then at least we stop procreation. This is essentially the logic behind the absolute efilism we observe in Majnlender; furthermore, he adds the additional motivation of shortening the path for God's remnants toward nothingness.
lonetrucker4 said:Hard to say much when you're just giving me the SparkNotes version without any actual citations. Can someone drop some links to more systematic deep dives or primary sources in German? I'm digging into this whole metaphysical mess regarding origins—you know, cosmogony, the concept of God, self-awareness... that idea where existence just sort of slipped through the cracks of something that didn't even want to be here. It’s like Goethe in Faust: "In the beginning was the act," or that line from Veda about the "blaze of will." He was definitely throwing shade at Schelling and Hegel. So, what, did the Goddess commit suicide? Now that's actually kind of interesting.
All this whining about how life is meaningless? Pass. It's incredibly cliché.
It's spelled "Mainländer," not "Mainlender."
Yes, I misspoke; it should be Mainlander, not Mainlender. Regardless, I don't speak German, so I haven't searched for those specific texts. His cosmogony—the idea that all forms in the universe were once a single, fundamental, self-aware whole known as "God," which had no desire to exist—is both fascinating and intuitive, and he laid out the logic quite clearly in his book. However, one might wonder if this entire concept was simply a reflection of Mainländer's own intent to end his life.
I would like to solicit your opinions regarding a particular school of thought, which happens to be my favorite area of study. On this day, we mark the passing of Philipp Mainlender. In the eyes of most—if not all—those acquainted with the literature of philosophical pessimism, the system presented by this lesser-known philosopher and poet is considered the most radical pessimistic/nihilistic project ever conceived. Born as Philip Batz under tragic circumstances, he eventually changed his surname out of a deep reverence for the Maine River, becoming Mainlander. He was a passionate reader of Schopenhauer, whose works inspired him to pen his magnum opus, "philosophy of salvation." For Mainlander, however, salvation is synonymous with suicide; thus, one might just as easily title the work "philosophy of suicide." Beyond his opposition to sex—arguing that such acts affirm the will to live and facilitate procreation, which merely extends suffering—Mainlander concluded that the world is essentially a will toward death: a slow decay, a dying process, a systemic breakdown. To this end, he proposed a metaphysics of entropy. He proclaimed the death of God long before Nietzsche did, yet unlike Nietzsche, Mainlander meant it quite literally, stating, "God is dead, and His death has become the life of this world." Mainlander envisioned a cosmogony wherein the scattering or fragmentation of a self-conscious, fundamental unity—which we might call "God"—served as the cause of our existence. This entity, by its very nature, did not desire existence. He argued that God, as a supreme being, lacked the immediate capacity to transform Himself into nothingness; instead, He could only achieve non-existence by dispersing Himself into the diverse fragments that constitute every form in this world, allowing them to perish. He famously stated: "The will to death, ignited by the realization that non-existence is preferable to existence, is the supreme principle of morality." Because he categorized suicide as the highest moral act, he also viewed the depletion of resources, hyper-production, and destruction as moral principles. By doing so, one diminishes the collective forces in the world, thereby shortening the journey of the Divine remnants toward nothingness—which was his ultimate goal. He was also a staunch opponent of procreation. Many have stigmatized Mainlander as a pathological case, dismissing his philosophy as the product of a disturbed mind. However, he remained entirely consistent with his own logic. It is noted that the first volumes of his "philosophy of salvation," which arrived just a day prior, served as his final support. Are you familiar with the life and work of this philosopher, and does his philosophy hold any sense to you?
Paul Peterson6 said:I lean much more toward melancholy than depression; I've never really dealt with the latter. I used to struggle with it, but thankfully, those days are behind me. Thank God.
What is the precise distinction between melancholy and depression, considering that sadness is present in both states?
This thread hasn't been touched in a while. To me, melancholy feels like a steady decline in one's vital energy—a pervasive sense of lethargy toward everyday tasks, coupled with a deep feeling of sadness and emptiness. How would you all distinguish melancholy from clinical depression? Are there any melancholic personalities here besides myself, and if so, how do you manage? I find that almost every activity feels like a heavy psychological burden; I struggle to find peace while performing tasks, often experiencing nausea and sorrow, though I frequently feel bouts of anger when I am required to get things done. I find myself gravitating toward boredom.
ironjackal44 said:That’s just plain nonsense. This planet can handle a few more people.
However, I believe that isn't always the primary issue at hand. Antinatalism is generally more closely linked to a pessimistic outlook regarding life and existence itself. Personally, I identify as an antinatalist.
lonetrucker4 said:A quick search on Google pulls up 97,700 results for "antinatalism." You've got Wikipedia articles, entire threads on philosophyforums.com, dedicated blogs on blogspot.com, quotes all over goodreads.com... the list goes on.
You don't have to "hate all of existence" to be an antinatalist.
Isn't the hatred of all reality actually called efilism? I believe that is the term; at least, that is what I have heard.
lonetrucker4 said:In Western philosophy, that term mostly points back to Schopenhauer’s vibe. It isn't even really about whether life has value or not; it’s more the idea that suffering always wins the tug-of-war. So, it's better not to exist at all than to exist and deal with the pain. Basically, why bring new beings into the world just to crank up the total amount of misery?
You see this religious-philosophical angle in Buddhism, and honestly, it shows up in Christianity too (even if they try to look past human weaknesses and suggest holding off on sex or procreation as the "ideal" path). Augustine taught that original sin is passed down through seed, meaning every newborn comes pre-loaded with it. In his autobiography, he mentions how his sexual drive was a huge hurdle when deciding to go Christian, because he felt being a believer meant ditching sex entirely—that was just his personal takeaway, obviously, since plenty of bishops back then were married.
That whole mindset is totally irrational, though. You can't justify it with logic because there’s no way to weigh suffering against pleasure on a single scale to make a utilitarian call.
There's even that episode in the "Aster Blissett" comic where a supercomputer decides to wipe out the entire universe just to bring the total suffering down to zero.
That is pure antinatalism. Now, the demographic argument is a whole different beast. That’s the idea that there are simply too many people, so we need to stop growth and probably shrink the population. Honestly, it's a lot less painful to lower birth rates than it is to ramp up mortality rates.
That stance actually makes sense. We can have a rational debate about how many people can realistically live on Earth long-term while still getting their needs met.
China has been the most hardcore about this, running anti-birth policies for the last 40 years or so, and it worked—they've got about 400 million fewer people now than they would have had without that "one-child policy." Nowadays, growth is basically flat because people are living way longer, and by sometime after 2025, it might even start dipping.
But hey, birth rates are dropping everywhere else, pretty much across the globe. The global population might top out around 9 or 10 billion by 2050 or 2060. Even with a "fourth industrial revolution" and an economy built on renewables and a super efficient "circular economy," that's probably still too many people for the long haul. Looking way ahead, say past 2100, if we dodge any massive disasters, dropping the global population to maybe 4 or 5 billion could be sustainable and let everyone live high on the hog.
Right now, India is packed with 400 people per square kilometer, which is denser than the tightest spots in Europe. South Korea 500, and Bangladesh hits 1,000. That kind of density just doesn't work long-term.
I am hearing the term "absolute antinatalism" for the very first time. For those who harbor a hatred for existence itself and argue that nonexistence would be preferable to being, I believe we ought to devise a new designation. As it stands, the term "antinatalism" carries a distinct and different meaning.
Joseph Bailey41 said:Look, there’s certainly a wide variety of people in this discussion. But if you think about it, religion, by its very definition, acts as a middleman between an individual and the spiritual—the soul, or whatever term you prefer to use for that higher connection. By inserting itself into that space, it actually makes direct contact harder to achieve, all while serving as a tool to manipulate the masses for purely material gains. I'm not saying there aren't some good people within these institutions, but fundamentally, I believe organized religion ends up being detrimental to the human spirit.
You aren't actually an atheist at all; you're more of a panentheist. Check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism.
Larry Moore83 said:So, by that logic, we're all Vjedrogonja (ha!).
🙂
Since we cannot even protect our own ground from a simple storm, I don't think any of us could truly claim to be a Vjedrogonja.