u/Aggressive_Log_1992

Optimists think that life is water, food, sex, relationships etc.

Pessimists think life is rather thirst, hunger, inceldom, lack of deep relationships without abuse.

This is the issue to be settled and resolved in this post. I have described clearly the basic difference in thinking of pessimists and optimists. Now I shall reveal as in who has the truth on hand and it's lack thereof.

Revealation : Pessimist are right ;)

Is this self-praise? May be. But the reverse could also be true but that is taken for granted. So let us defend a controversial assertion that life is deprivation not fulfillment.

Shall we?

First, optimist A says that life is good because "food" is good. Apparently dead matter which is definitely NOT life is the reason why life is considered good. Did you read this? A nonsensical statement. FOOD IS NOT LIFE. It's a life-object.

Then optimist B goes life is good because "sex" is good. More like...breasts, vagina and big dicks are good. Atleast that's what I figure from the porn industry especially AI porn, you guys should see it and the fact all insults are based on degrading sex especially r#pe. Never seen someone say sex is good without thinking about sex objects such as breasts, vagina, dicks. If you find a person who when thinking about sex, sex objects don't appear in mind -please report to me. I will duly correct myself.

You never see someone purposely seeking to fuck with inferior genetic quality person but the reverse is true. This means people don't like sex, they like sex objects. Again breasts, vagina, dicks, good face signalling superior genes ARE NOT LIFE. They are life objects!

Third, optimist C makes an entrance and declares life is good because of "relationships". By the way prey and predators have a "relationship". While it can be considered neutral, it can never be considered as good. A r#pist and it's victim has a relationship so does a murder with murdered and a vast majority of parents in the world who beat children whom they have a relationship with.

Summarised - LIFE IS NOT LIFE-OBJECT.

Life cannot be quantised because it is a qualitative no-thing. Scientists say "life began". This is obviously bullshit. Every definition of theirs end up defining a life-form not life. Furthermore the fact we can't measure thirst and hunger but can instead measure water and food proves that objects cannot be considered life.

Let's hypothesise that life is indeed water then what is thirst. What is the this bad sensation is all of our lives that doesn't leave us? The primary discomfort that troubles us. It is LIFE itself.

This is why Pessimist consider life primarily bad and life objects simply as way to starve off infinite suffering instead of deriving excessive pleasure off them. A gambler is an optimist - remember that. The master capitalists - the father of all gamblers are also optimists.

Optimists are perverts of highest order while Pessimists atleast in theory are more reserved.

Optimism is a morally degraded ideology which priorities rick taking over creating suffering. I am 100% sure that it is not ontologocially true.

The book simply tells us that morality is mutually exclusive to utility maximization. That the more moral a person is, more that person would be unlikely to reproduce. Not because the person describes itself as "antinatalist" but virtue of being moral, one cannot procreate.

Let's say a toddler boy is told to be kind then he is unlikely to make into adulthood let alone procreate. Julio Cabrera describes how life is basically power -domination. This is easily verifiable by looking at nature's food chain and the fact human society came up with capitalism - a pleasure maximizing ideology at the expense of suffering. Capitalism appropriates food chain. Sounds obvious enough but the obvious things being real are always concealed and lies put layers upon layers of complexity to hide this from us.

Empirical proof : That's what a scientist is telling us,

Donald Hoffman's "fitness beats truth" theory describes exactly the same thing as Julio Cabrera with scientific method. It says the more ecologically fit a individual, species or population is, more it is deviated from reality!

Lol. Sounds absurd? Not really

Truth can only ever be qualitative and it serves a common goal which would make peace possible. Goal deviate when they are divided and differentiated. It is forms fighting over formlessness.

Has anybody else read this book? Share your viewpoints. I would love to hear!