( if you havent read it i suggest you do, its quite short) Ive been readin ligotti for some time now. None of his stories left an impression as strong as "the red tower" on me. The story ties in beautifully with the conspiracy against the human race. Id love to hear what others think about it if you read it. I tried to write a quick summary and my analysis on it but i suck at writing, so please gimme your thoughts and ill respond!
Whenever i see some bullshit going on i just think to myself that nothing is eternal. I wanna let time do its thing and chill. Ultimately the goal for a antinatlist is unachievable (at least within my lifetime). What is achievable is me refusing to be a part of this suffering perpetuation machine and thats all i have strength for, if i were a perfect person id also try to relieve some of the pointless suffering but alas im not. Do any of you actually work towards "universal extinction", or is that more like an ideal?
Im curious how many of yall are anti natalists and why/ why not?
This is pretty much just a copy of my comment under another post but i wanted to make this a post because the level of misunderstanding and lack of thought shown by most people paired with confidence in either themselves or that its actually "unknowable" not only on philosphy subs but in all corners of the internet is painful to look at.
Every decision has a source (whatever it may be doesnt matter) ->
We have no control over these sources ->
We also have no control over our decisions because they are the effect of these sources, not our choice
One way to "solve" this if someone is uncomfortable with the concept would be to redefine the term "free will" to fit this but at that point i think the term would be misleading. There is no agency in doing what you want if you dont choose what you want be it brain chemitry or quantum mechanics and that is the only point of disagrement between the two defendable positions (determinists and compatibilists + variations), the definition of "free". The disagreement is precisely over whether ultimate authorship is necessary for meaningful agency/free will and not about ultimate authorship itself. Otherwise all who have given this a tiniest bit of thought agree. Now to be clear, im not dismissing the compatibilst point i just simply dont think the term "free" fits what they call free will, id simply call it "will" which would be enough to preserve justice systems, social responsbility etc. which seems to be the whole point. But thats just semnatics, a question of what should we name this thing that we all agree exists and what should we call this other thing that we know doesnt exist.
However most of the debates i see on the internet dont concern themselves with what free will even means, they start of immediately with some shitty arguments which are not only shitty because they are shitty in a logical sense (just to name a few: all of libertarian free will arguments, mistaking non determinism with freedom, all sorts of fallacies) but also because they talk past each other assuming the other side agrees with their definition of free. Its all just "Is the universe deterministic? Yes -> no free will. No -> free will.” its idiotic
"If truth is what you seek, then the examined life will only take you on a long ride to the limits of solitude and leave you by the side of the road alone with your truth and nothing else." Thomas Ligotti in Conspiracy against the human race
I find this to be one of the strongest lines in the text. Its so dense and conveys so much despite being so short. It steps back and looks at the price we pay for seeing through the illsuions we feed ourselves. There is no grandeour in relentless examinatiom, we end up by the side of the road and after the long ride all we get is solitude with our truth while others pass by us and at some point we will have to stand back up forget what we found and join them (but thats just my reading of it) I think the emphasis on "your truth" is important, its left ambiguous if what you find is ultimately deeply personal, and is difficult to share, not just because it might be uncomfortable for others but because the examination involved your own perception of the world, or if its simply isolating due to everyday life requiring some form of shared delusion OR its ironic, you stripped shared illusions and are left with your illusions, you dont actually have the truth. It could be a mix of the three. Whichever the case it doesnt matter to the person in the quote, they know their truth and are alone because of it when life just continues not giving a damn. I wanna hear what others think about it becaue i think ita so powerful and opens possibilites for more interpretations than it seems even if the central idea is quite simple and obvious
Bassically just the title, id like to know if there is anything relevant i should read or get educated on to make the read easier/simpler? I got the book after reading "the conspiracy against the human race" and then "the last messiah" liked it but i want something more concrete. However on the tragic is bassically scientific research and analysis of the tragic and it will be pretty much my first actual philosophical book. So if there is anything even basic i should read please tell me