So how does the story apply to the quote to you?

Here is more complete quote from the book:

"Worthless” rather than “useless” is the more familiar epithet in this
context. The rationale for using “useless” in place of “worthless” in this
histrionically capitalized phrase is that “worthless” is tied to the concepts
of desirability and value, and by their depreciation introduces them into
the existential mix. “Useless,” on the other hand, is not so inviting of
these concepts. Elsewhere in this work, “worthless” is connected to the
language of pessimism and does what damage it can. But the devil of it
is that “worthless” really does not go far enough when speaking
pessimistically about the character of existence. Too many times the
question “Is life worth living?” has been asked. This usage of “worth”
excites impressions of a fair lot of experiences that are arguably
desirable and valuable within limits and that may follow upon one
another in such a way as to suggest that life is not totally worthless. With
“useless,” the wispy spirits of desirability and value do not as readily
rear their heads. Naturally, the uselessness of all that is or could ever be
is subject to the same repudiations as the worthlessness of all that is or
could ever be. For this reason, the adverb “malignantly” has been
annexed to “useless” to give it a little more semantic stretch and a dose
of toxicity. But to express with any adequacy a sense of the uselessness
of everything, a nonlinguistic modality would be needed, some effusion
out of a dream that amalgamated every gradation of the useless and
wordlessly transmitted to us the inanity of existence under any possible
conditions. Indigent of such means of communication, the uselessness of
all that exists or could possibly exist must be spoken with a poor
potency. Not unexpectedly, no one believes that everything is useless, and with
good reason. We all live within relative frameworks, and within those
frameworks uselessness is far wide of the norm. A potato masher is not
useless if one wants to mash

potatoes. For some people, a system of being that includes an afterlife of
eternal bliss may not seem useless. They might say that such a system is
absolutely useful because it gives them the hope they need to make it
through this life. But an afterlife of eternal bliss is not and cannot be
absolutely useful simply because you need it to be. It is part of a relative
framework and nothing beyond that, just as a potato masher is only part
of a relative framework and is useful only if you need to mash potatoes.
Once you had made it through this life to an afterlife of eternal bliss, you
would have no use for that afterlife. Its job would be done, and all you
would have is an afterlife of eternal bliss—a paradise for reverent
hedonists and pious libertines. What is the use in that? You might as
well not exist at all, either in this life or in an afterlife of eternal bliss.
Any kind of existence is useless. Nothing is self-justifying. Everything is
justified only in a relativistic potato-masher sense.
There are some people who do not get up in arms about potato-masher
relativism, while other people do. The latter want to think in terms of
absolutes that are really absolute and not just absolute potato mashers.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims have a real problem with a potato-masher
system of being. Buddhists have no problem with a potato-masher
system because for them there are no absolutes. What they need to
realize is the truth of “dependent origination,” which means that
everything is related to everything else in a great network of potato
mashers that are always interacting with one another. So the only
problem Buddhists have is not being able to realize that the only
absolutely useful thing is the realization that everything is a great
network of potato mashers. They think that if they can get over this
hump, they will be eternally liberated from suffering. At least they hope
they will, which is all they really need to make it through this life. In the
Buddhist faith, everyone suffers who cannot see that the world is a
MALIGNANTLY USELESS potato-mashing network. However, that does not make Buddhists superior to Christians, Jews, and Muslims. It only means they have a different
system for making it through a life where all we can do is wait for musty
shadows to call our names when they are ready for us. After that
happens, there will be nobody who will need anything that is not
absolutely useless. Ask any atheist.

A good one regarding people's reaction to the "complainers" (pessimists mainly):

If human pleasure did not have both a lid and a time limit, we would not bestir ourselves to do things that were not pleasurable, such as toiling for our subsistence. And then we would not survive. by the same token, should our mass mind ever become discontented with the restricted pleasures doled out by nature, as well as disgruntled owe the lack of restrictions on pain, we would omit the mandates of survival from our lives out of a stratospherically acerbic indignation. And then we would not reproduce. As a species, we do not shout into the sky, “The pleasures of this world are not enough for us.” In fact, they are just enough to drive us on like oxen, pulling a cart full of our calves, which in their turn will put on the yoke. As inordinately evolved beings, though, we can postulate that it will not always be this way. “A time will come,” we say to ourselves, “when we will unmake this work in which we are battered between long burden and brief delight, and will live in pleasure for all our days.” The belief in the possibility of long-lasting, high-flown pleasures is a deceptive but adaptive flimflam. It seems that nature did not make us to feel too good for too long, which would be no good for the survival of the species, but only to feel good enough for long enough to keep us from complaining that we not feel good all the time.

In the workaday work, complainers will not go far. When someone asks how you are doing, you had better be wise enough to reply, “I can’t complain.” If you do complain, even justifiably, people will stop asking how you are doing. complaining will not help you succeed and influence people. You can complain to your physician or psychiatrist because they are paid to hear you complain. But you cannot complain to your boss or your friends, if you have any. you will soon be dismissed from your job and dropped from the social register. Then you will be left alone with your complains and no one to listen to them. Perhaps then the message will sink into your head: If you do not feel good enough for long enough, you should act as if you do and even think as if you do. That is the way to get yourself to feel good enough for long enough and stop you from complaining for good, as any self-improvement book can affirm. But should you improve, someone must assume the blame. And that someone will be you. This is monumentally so if you are a pessimist or a depressive. Should you conclude that life is objectionable or that nothing matters–do not waste our time with your nonsense. We are on our way to the future, and the philosophically disheartening or the emotionally impaired are not going to hinder our progress. If you cannot say something positive, or at least equivocal, keep it to yourself. Pessimists and depressives need not apply for a position in the enterprise of life. You have two choices: Start thinking the way God and your society want you to think or be forsaken by all. The decision is yours, since your are a free agent who can choose to rejoin our fabricated world or stubbornly insist on…what? That we should mollycoddle non-positive thinkers like you or rethink how the whole world transacts its business? That we should start over from scratch? Or that we should go extinct? Try to be realistic. We did the best we could with the tools we had. After all, we are only human, as we like to say. Our world may not be in accord with nature’s way, but it did develop organically according to our consciousness, which delivered us to a lofty prominence over the Creation. The whole thing just took on a life of its own, and nothing is going to stop it anytime soon. There can be no starting over and no going back. No major readjustments are up for a vote. And no melancholic head-case is going to bad-mouth our catastrophe. The universe was created by the Creator, damn it. We live in a country we love and that loves us back. We have families and friends and jobs that make it all worthwhile. We are somebodies, not a bunch of nobodies without names or numbers or retirement plans. None of this is going to be overhauled by a though criminal who contends that the world is not doubleplusgood and never will be. Our lives may not be unflawed — that would deny us a better future to work toward — but if this charade is good enough for us, then it should be good enough for you. So if you cannot get your mind right, try walking away. you will find no place to go and no one who will have you. You will find only the same old trap the world over. Lighten up or leave us alone. you will never get us to give up our hopes. you will never get us to wake up from our dreams. We are not contradictory beings whose continuance only worsens our plight as mutants who embody the contorted logic of a paradox. Such opinion will not be accredited by institutions of authority or by the middling run of humans. To lay it on the line, whatever, whatever thoughts may enter your chemically imbalanced brain are invalid, inauthentic, or whatever dismissive term we care to hang on you, who are only “one of those people.” So start pretending that you feel good enough for long enough, stop your complaining, and get back in line. If you are not as strong as Samson — that no-good suicide and slaughterer of Philistines — then get loaded to the gills and return to the trap. Keep your medicine cabinet and your liquor cabinet well stocked, just like the rest of us. Come on and join the party. No pessimists or depressives invited. Do you think we are all morons? We know all about those complaints of yours. The only difference is that we have sense enough and feel good enough for long enough not to speak of them. keep your powder dry and your brains blocked. Our shibboleth “Up the Conspiracy and down with Consciousness.”

Edit: I had the wrong blog. Here is one I meant I think: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzNhNvGDdLrtDsjyK/the-conspiracy-against-the-human-race-by-thomas-ligotti

If there are other ones I think are useful in helping understand the book. I will add them.

Here is a secondary source that does a good analysis of CATHR. In lieu of people not having the book on hand to do a full analysis of quotes out of context, this may be a good place to start before diving into the primary source quotes.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzNhNvGDdLrtDsjyK/the-conspiracy-against-the-human-race-by-thomas-ligotti

Edit: Nothing. It was meaningless. And still is. — unenlightened

Not sure where you are responding but you bring up a good Ligotti quote:

Fact is, nothing can justify our existence. Existence of any flavor is not only unjustified, it is useless, malignantly so, and has nothing to recommend it over nonexistence. A person’s addiction to existence is understandable as a telltale of the fear of nonexistence, but one’s psychology as a being that already exists does not justify existence as a condition to be perpetuated but only explains why someone would want to perpetuate it. For the same reason, even eternal bliss in a holy hereafter is unjustified, since it is just another form of existence, another instance in which the unjustifiable is perpetuated. That anyone should have a bias for heaven over nonexistence should by rights be condemned as hedonistic by the same people who scoff at Schopenhauer for complaining about the disparity between “the effort and the reward” in human life. People may believe they can choose any number of things. But they cannot choose to undo their existence, leaving them to live and die as puppets who have had an existence forced upon them whose edicts they must follow. If you are already among the existent, anything you do will be unjustified and MALIGNANTLY USELESS.

I think it's pretty impressive. — darthbarracuda

The quote or the universe? :lol: .

I think he is trying to make a rebuttal for science writers like Richard Dawkins, or anyone of a "scientism" bent to think that the knowledge of science somehow creates significance. I read someone describe CATHR as like being in an elevator and having nowhere to go. You must remember he's a horror writer and even this non-fiction is written as a cosmic horror of sorts. He is trying to leave no room for air, so to speak.

I already critiqued the ever-"clanking machinery of emotion", and having mechanised emotion and so deprived life of all its liveliness, he declares it vacuous. Emotion is the relationship of a life to the world, and without relationship to the world life would indeed come to a standstill. So what? So treasure your emotions, even the negative ones. — unenlightened

So I think he gets more to the point at what he's getting at here:
Have you ever felt that there was nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, no one to know? I am not asking for self-help or anything or to "snap out of it", just curious if that feeling ever came upon you where no motivation or significance had impetus.

I hope you mean elicit not illicit. :grimace: — unenlightened

Yep.

Depression is an anchor too. One cannot write a book without a strong attachment to the topic.What he does is contrive to negate positive emotions as 'false', 'arbitrary', 'inaccurate', etc, but his own feelings are exempted from this because they are already negative, and thus their negation makes them positive - honest, realistic, intelligent. Thus he is positively attached to depression. And again, he negates the character of life in a very 19th century scientific traditional way here: "the ever-clanking machinery of emotion". The thing about machinery - even quite sophisticated machinery, is that it is devoid of emotion, but with a sleight of mind and a turn of phrase, Ligotti contrives the mechanisation of emotion itself, and even complains of the noise! The age of clanking machinery has long gone! — unenlightened

Again, I don't think he "leans in" to any particular philosophy with too much conviction. He presents certain cases and critiques each one, though piecing together a mosaic that reveals something. Thus he says "both" (depression and the attachment to other emotions that elicit motivation) are not excellent.

As I said:

This means that he doesn't expect nor encourage anyone to take the view of the depressive. He is pulling a "meta meta" here. He is apathetic to both options of emotional attachment and the dysthymia of emotion of the depressive. Neither choice is excellent he says.

That all being said, I think his main insight here is that at the end of the day, if one somehow was able to strip their emotions from their "anchorings" and unquestioning motivations (like family, work, hobbies, things to do, people to see, places to go), we would be cast upon a sort of "bare bones" of what existence "is" without these hallucinations. "What's the point" would be constantly on people's mind. Hence, I think the quote that conveys his point most here is:

Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill. There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. — schopenhauer1

What about that part?

Humans left Africa 70,000 years ago, and migrated all around the world. We have adapted to local conditions; most obviously, the amount of melanin in the skin in relation to how much sunlight there is. There's been plenty of time to adapt an instinctual tendency to reduce activity in cold weather — counterpunch

Yes, I accounted for this idea in that we mitigate through behavior and culture. Our bodies naturally shiver, and the natural reaction is to get warmer. But, on our own, our bodies are not equipped for that without modification.

I get no heat - and all I want to do is curl up against the cold. There's a good reason for it, and I've figured out what it is. I think it's an interesting puzzle, because subjectively, it's a bad strategy. I feel the cold much more when I'm curled up than I do when running around. It doesn't matter how cold it is if I keep moving, I hardly feel it. Yet...I don't want to. Why not? — counterpunch

Don't know. It's like exercising to lose weight.. That will work, but the motivation sometimes is lacking. There is an inertia in starting any activity which you have to overcome. That inertia is usually a tendency to conserve energy, even if not doing so is of some loftier benefit.

Because humans are ill-equipped for cold conditions. You have to layer up which can be tedious.. runny noses whipped by the winds, the stinging cold on exposed skin. etc. Animals more equipped for it don't mind a bit and probably get overheated otherwise.

My guess is that we feel most contented at 65-85 degrees, as that is the environment in Eastern Africa our bodies evolved in. Sure, we can survive in extreme cold and heat, but its always a mediation with tools. There would be no need to mediate if our bodies truly didn't mind it without any preparations to withstand the conditions.

Oh, right - so is this book one long advert for Buddhism? I'm not in the market for a religion. I value existence, I think ego is healthy, 'stuff' is both productive and entertaining, meat tastes great, sandals look stupid, and men should wear trousers. Other than that, awesome! — counterpunch

Quite the opposite. He presents certain aspects from Buddhism but then essentially casts it as yet another religion trying to do X, Y, Z. He is agnostic though sympathetic to some parts of what he focuses on. He never fully "leans in" to philosophers he mentions. For example he says:

Buddhism's ways and means to illumination are full of shortcomings and vexations...
The good news for Buddhism as a for-profit religion is that..[sarcastic derision to be taken here]
Like many faiths and philosophies that go against the Western grain, Buddhism has baited legions of those in the cognitive vanguard. This religion is to be praised both for its lack of an almighty god-figure and for its gateway teaching of the Four Noble Truths...Noble Eightfold Path, a list of things-to-do and things-not-to-do much like the Old Testament Decalogue, except not a s plainly spoken or easygoing.
All religions must have allowance conditions or they would implode upon themselves by pressure of thier own doctrines [speaking negatively about Buddhism here].
His quote on Western religions is pretty interesting too...

I don't get this passage in the way I got the last. I can comprehend the idea of the evolutionary organism, inventing god, nation and socio-economic class status, and wearing this ideological armour to hide his shameful, animal self. But beneath this disguise there remains a kinship tribal creature with parents and siblings, and the self - a moral being, existing in a state of nature. So I don't understand what he's deconstructing the world toward here - or how he dismisses the family or the self. I can only suppose he's driving toward nihilism, but that so, there are easier and more certain ways to get there. And in the midst of this, he speaks of salvation beginning from the bottom, but from what? What is left? — counterpunch

So this may tie into the previous quote, loosely. Just as one thinks that one has attachments to motivating factors ("People to know, things to do..etc.).. People think they have a self. This concept itself is a construction that we hold dear and its taken for granted so much we don't realize it is just a construct (one we have more engrained), just as the concept of family, country, religion, or any identity we attach ourselves with. You can think of it similar to Buddhist meditative practices where one is always questioning who is the "I" that one thinks one is. "Is this me?" "No." It is the slow unlayering of what one attaches to. He discusses ego-death in detail (and then writes about his skepticism, showing his agnosticism to these concepts right after he presents them). He discusses Buddhist ideas of non-identity too, if I remember correctly. I can probably find a quote regarding these to help elucidate this quote. He also delves a bit into neurosicence and analytic philosophy with ideas from Thomas Metzinger regarding no true "self" in the brain.

@BannoTediously, Freud was about right about this effect of civilisation on the discontent of the individual. And the ideology of scientism supports this denigration of emotion - the primary insult against woman - and worship of the great god, Rationality. — unenlightened

So interesting points. However, I think it isn't so much against emotions qua emotions, but emotions that illicit a positive affiliation with this or that "anchoring". The anchoring of "hard work". The anchoring of "family". The anchoring of "good citizen". The anchoring of "creative artistic type". Or alternatively, he is questioning how it is we attach ourselves to certain motivational forces that makes it seem "There's something to do, There's someone to know, There's something to be, There' to know". It seems like he is saying that the depressive doesn't see an attachment to any of these via some emotional value from it. Hence his main point is this:

And to live on our emotions is to live arbitrarily, inaccurately—imparting meaning to what has none of its own. Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill.

He admits that human life on a whole cannot give up emotion without coming to a standstill.

There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know. The alternatives are clear: to live falsely as pawns of affect, or to live factually as depressives, or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive. How advantageous that we are not coerced into choosing one or the other, neither choice being excellent. One look at human existence is proof enough that our species will not be released from the stranglehold of emotionalism that anchors it to hallucinations. That may be no way to live,but to opt for depression would be to opt out of existence as we consciously know it.

This means that he doesn't expect nor encourage anyone to take the view of the depressive. He is pulling a "meta meta" here. He is apathetic to both options of emotional attachment and the dysthymia of emotion of the depressive. Neither choice is excellent he says.

That all being said, I think his main insight here is that at the end of the day, if one somehow was able to strip their emotions from their "anchorings" and unquestioning motivations (like family, work, hobbies, things to do, people to see, places to go), we would be cast upon a sort of "bare bones" of what existence "is" without these hallucinations. "What's the point" would be constantly on people's mind. Hence, I think the quote that conveys his point most here is:

Yet what other way is there to live? Without the ever-clanking machinery of emotion, everything would come to a standstill. There would be nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know.

@counterpunch, @180 Proof@Albero@Joshs@Banno@khaled@Outlander

Next quote

Within the hierarchy of fabrications that compose our lives—families, countries, gods—the self incontestably ranks highest. Just below the self is the family, which has proven itself more durable than national or ethnic affiliations, with these in turn outranking god-figures for their staying power. So any progress toward the salvation of humankind will probably begin from the bottom—when our gods have been devalued to the status of refrigerator magnets or lawn ornaments. Following the death rattle of deities, it would appear that nations or ethnic communities are next in line for the boneyard. Only after fealty to countries, gods, and families has been shucked off can we even think about coming to grips with the least endangered of fabrications—the self. — Ligotti/CAHR

So, no reply, huh? Fair enough, but at least ask yourself - if it's because you disagree with me, or that you fear the retribution of the mob you helped create?? — counterpunch

No, I was just not on this website for a while. Nothing to do with your response.

Then there's political correctness; in my view, an utterly disingenuous dogma that uses identity politics in reverse, in pursuit of the very same authoritarian power a command economy affords. — counterpunch

Oh, I can get on board with that (no pun intended).

I don't buy into the whole political correctness thing, or equality as a virtue. And there's a very strong left wing contingent here - who only seem interested in confirming their beliefs. — counterpunch

Oh shit, now you're alienating me :lol:. I don't know man.. What are you saying?

I've pretty much managed to alienate everyone already, so in practice I would have to say, no! But I would rather it were not so. Me, I value a diversity of opinion - even stupid opinions are useful for contrast!! — counterpunch

Alienating everyone is also second nature here :lol:.
I liken it to porcupines around a fire.. We keep coming back to huddle but prick each other in our mutual gathering. A lot of pricks going on here.

I don't know him all that well, and I'm not particularly diplomatic at the best of times. I don't know how I'd ask if a need to express a lack of sympathy overrode an ability to parse the passage - or if he's actually intellectually incapable, without it coming across as an insult. — counterpunch

You are afraid of insulting someone on this forum? Insult is basically second nature here.

Thanks, but it looks like you made much the same argument before I did - so it's like you're saying your own observations are interesting. A little self serving, is it not?! — counterpunch

Well shit, no one can give a compliment anymore! :wink:.

What I find interesting are the comments of those who almost certainly haven't experienced depression, and have less than no sympathy for it.

Is Banno incapable of the literary analysis necessary to an appreciation that the writer is writing from the perspective of someone with depression? I don't know. But depression angers people. They don't understand that it becomes the suffers' truth - more, the suffers' very identity. Variations upon the 'snap out of it' theme are ubiquitous - and not at all helpful. — counterpunch

Agreed full-heartedly. You would have to ask Banno. People get a kick out of feeling superior I guess. The "well-adjusted" just "have" to let the complainers know their place. If they know what's good for them! Pick yourself up by the bootstrap! Get out of your bubble! All the rest and contemptuous mumblings ayayada.blahblah

Here's one:

Within the hierarchy of fabrications that compose our lives—families, countries, gods—the self incontestably ranks highest. Just below the self is the family, which has proven itself more durable than national or ethnic affiliations, with these in turn outranking god-figures for their staying power. So any progress toward the salvation of humankind will probably begin from the bottom—when our gods have been devalued to the status of refrigerator magnets or lawn ornaments. Following the death rattle of deities, it would appear that nations or ethnic communities are next in line for the boneyard. Only after fealty to countries, gods, and families has been shucked off can we even think about coming to grips with the least endangered of fabrications—the self. — Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Well I find nothing much to quarrel with ... — 180 Proof

Oh, cool then.

having a feeling of losing something that was of value to you. That’s what the ‘de’ in depression indicates. So depression is in its own way a celebration of life in its comparison between what one had or wanted to have and what is now. But even in this feeling of loss, there is meaning, the having moved on from the loss to a strange and alien place with no familiar landmarks. This is depression , an unknown country, not vacuity but inarticulation that carries in itself its own significance. — Joshs

Interesting observations and commentary.

I was obscure.

It seemed from the quote that he had come to certain conclusions regarding which there was no more to be said that wouldn't be repetitious. — Ciceronianus the White

I think that is the risk of taking any quote rather than doing a thorough reading.

I like the passage. It communicates very well how depression feels - while posing an interesting philosophical question about the nature of reality and experience. It's a conceit, of course - for the first thought of the reader must surely be that depression is just a different cocktail of brain chemicals, that give a different quality of experience of reality. But written as if depression reveals truth lends a sense of reality to the description, and that is how depression feels; that happiness is a lie. — counterpunch

Interesting observations.

b. Whether you think consciousness to be a benefit or a horror, this is only what you think—and nothing else ... Nihilism is as dead as god.
— Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race (excerpts)
a. Sophistry or philosophy (i.e. satifisfied swine or sad socratics ... flattery or diagnosis ...)

b. Thinking that 'nothing matters' also does not matter. — 180 Proof

But that is what Ligotti said.. So looks like you are agreeing with Ligotti.

You said this:

What is said here implies that living as a depressive is as much living as a pawn of affect as any alternative. — Banno

Which seems to contradict your statement here:

Grow up. Move past realising it's all chemicals and gets on with being alive. — Banno

But more to the point, a depressive doesn't just listen to Banno and snap out of it. And the point is, what does "snapping out of it" mean? What is one snapping into? And before you answer that, look at the whole quote and not Banno's hallucinations of it :D.

He calls it “The great lesson the depressive learns”. Not “What things seem like to the depressive”. “The great lesson” seems prescriptive. Maybe he is just taking the lens as you say but it doesn’t sound that way to me. — khaled

But "learns" here doesn't mean one must learn it.

I really dislike these kinds of arguments. Where people externalize parts of themselves to depress themselves for no reason. “I want to live” becomes “I am bound by the instinct of life this is so horrible”. “I enjoy playing soccer” becomes “I am a slave to the chemicals in my brain this is so horrible”.

I don’t understand why people sometimes choose to do this. When they can internalize these things as parts of their identity they choose to view them as alien impositions.

I think it’s motivated by the mistaken belief that just because something is more difficult to believe that that makes it somehow more correct. — khaled

I think you are taking his quote out of context. I believe him to be taking the lens of someone who is a depressive-type. He is not saying it as a prescription of what you "should" do. It is a possible illusion to depressive realism.. That if in this mindset, it seems this way, and motivation is lost. Certainly, no one has to be this way.

The thing I don't really like about this is that Ligotti's pessimism and antinatalism seems to translate into a kind of nihilism-but antinatalist pessimists aren't nihilists. They think suffering matters a lot and we ought to not have children to reduce it. I like Ligotti's writing style but I don't think people should look at it like a philosophical work — Albero

Ok. Not sure what to say. I think he has some interesting analysis and synthesis of an array of philosophical pessimistic and antinatalist literature and thus, if one is interested in these subjects, would be worth an analysis. I don't know where you get the impression that he is a complete "nihilist". I get the impression he is a philosophical pessimist and antinatalist, though he doesn't commit fully to anything.

I agree with what he says. It's an Eastern thought, that when a person realizes The Truth, he feels neither joy nor sorrow, neither warmth nor cold, neither pleasure nor pain. In simpler words, he is no longer a slave to the chemical fluctuations in the brain that would otherwise drive a person to greed, lust, hate or sorrow. Or drive him on an eternal search for happiness or love. These fluctuations cease within him since he now has an understanding of who he is and how cosmic interplay has brought him here. He is on the Middle Path, just as The Buddha was. The people who find out their actions are determined by chemical imbalances and the need to satiate it, but haven't found The Truth, end up as depressives. They feel life is meaningless because they are stuck with a lesser truth (our physiology) but haven't realized the Highest Truth yet. — OneTwoMany

Definitely an interesting positive spin on it. He mentions Buddhism and Schopenhauer as well. I'll try to get quotes on those.

That's the end of the book, right? It would seem he'd have nothing more to say. — Ciceronianus the White

Not sure what you're getting at here.

Well of course not, "the world" its just rocks, dust, and chemicals interacting with one another in various states and mediums. — Outlander

I think that is his point, so not sure where the disagreement.

Sounds a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Whatever it may be, emotions, thoughts, etc if it's "on which we live" .. that's called life. You can call a mountain a molehill while your standing atop of it but if it really were you'd be singing a different tune. — Outlander

I think he is taking the stance of the depressive here still. So its more descriptive (of this mode of being) rather than prescriptive.

So, he's using wisdom, thought, philosophy, all of which were largely impactful of and impacted by, emotion. So there is something predating if not validating emotion, which is logic or at least whatever he expects us to assume gives this sentence any value, purpose, or yes even coherence than if I just mashed my keyboard and posted it. Otherwise, what the heck is he even talking about? We know what he's talking about. Therefore, meaning exists. — Outlander

Again, he is trying to give you the "lens" of a depressive-type. In this perspective, emotions seem arbitrary and perhaps post-facto to existence. He's trying to convey the feeling here. Its a sort of dysthymia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysthymia). But philosophically he may be alluding to depressive realism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism).

Sure there would. Chemical processes are never static, always dynamic. Entropy and negentropy. Heat rises. Water evaporates. Without heat, vapor turns to liquid, liquid turns to solid, and with heat it's the opposite. There's no "standstill" chemically or biologically. — Outlander

I think you are making his point. He doesn't discount that these chemical processes are happening. He even alludes to them earlier in the quote. Rather, as a person with motivation, goals, wants, etc. it sort of becomes meaningless, laid bare, "going through the motions" such that one is playing a farce of what is "supposed" to be what people normally do.

Nice save there on his part with the caveat "or as individuals who know what is known to the depressive". Not much to explain with 5 seconds of cross-examining his statement without this bit, really. — Outlander

I actually think this is being more complete in his analysis. Either you may be a depressive or you may be someone contemplating what it is like to be a depressive in regards to these conclusions.

Again with the "nothing has meaning yet for some reason this does" paradox. I'm done :lol: — Outlander

Honestly, this is why I think the whole book needs to be read to put it in context. If you want to set that up, I am cool with it. But again, here I think he conveying the conclusion from the depressive type. Its not meaning per se as much as values such as good, bad, desirable, undesirable. It's more to me about motivations. The feeling that there is "nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to be, and no one to know".

Edit: I deleted previous remark because I read your last paragraph which at least has some content before the posturing...

So that out of the way, the question is - where is that point? At what level of real-world consequence is it justified to show your disrespect for someone's position in order to let them know that your group do not accept such attitudes? — Isaac

Hate speech and bigotry is probably a good place to start questioning the user. Is this incorrigible hate speech.. simply meant to inflame, or is there some broad point? If it is a broad point of philosophy, can this be easily defeated being that it is misguided?

Anyways, an example would be surely vegans feel strongly of their anti-animal product policy. A vigorous debate may ensue on the matter. Just because vegans feel non-vegans are wrong in their actions/views, and that non- vegans continue with their views/actions does NOT mean non-vegans are absolute enemies that deserve contempt, disrespect, etc. At the same token, non-vegans shouldn't be so "hurt" from vegans thinking their activity is wrong to look at them with contempt and disdain either. Any moral claim is a claim. Any moral claim argued in good faith on a philosophy forum is meant to be an exchange and healthy debate in the realm of ideas. Both parties should know this. NOW, if this was a vegan forum meant for a community of vegans, and I kept posting stuff about how veganism is wrong-headed and misguided, then I think that WOULD be appropriate to bristle with ire at someone trying to troll the community. So it depends on context, the way the person approaches the subject, the interlocutor. It is not just one factor.

then? — Isaac

No this stuff happens on any debate in these forums. A lot of the time it's the "style" of the poster. They like poisoning the well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Hold on. I've yet to see this! People who discuss models of the mind and use terms like "computational" and "connectionist" actually use phrases like "worst thing I've ever seen" and who knows what name calling??

I thought that at that level, even the ad homs would be more classy ... — baker

Notice I said this...

It's more like — schopenhauer1

Indicating I'm just trying to give a type of an example. Do you want me to start pulling what people do on this forum as exemplars? Isaac's contention is that we ONLY do this sort of "dripping with condescension and enmity" schtick when the debate is something as extreme as call to violence and bigotry. I'm trying to convey that debates get this dirty in cases that are nowhere near something like that.

So if someone were to come on and politely, patiently explain why Jews were the inferior race and need to be exterminated for the benefit of the master race, and I told them to "fuck off", I'd be the one in the wrong there? We should, rather, have a long in-depth and polite conversation exploring our difference of opinion about the extermination of an entire race.

Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled? — Isaac

Way to use the fallacy of Appeal to Extremes to try to contradict a simple plea for more agreeable conversations on debate platforms...

It's more like this example:
He believes that the mind is computational. She believes that mind is connectionist. He comes in the debate dripping with hatred for her position, calling her argument the "worst thing I've ever seen".. intersperse with ACTUAL content.. more ad personum attacks.. the End.

And you can interchange that with ethical debates, political, debates. It doesn't matter. To use the extreme violence and bigotry to make your point, just shows how much you are trying to avoid the actual topic at hand which is that people do debate in a style of total enmity. It has nothing to do with "Only when the topic is about extreme violence and bigotry". A strawman. If anything, the way the media pits people against each other, Trumpism, etc. should warn us against this sort of enmity debate style. Not EVERYTHING is an offense of the utmost worst degree. To keep treating people you disagree with like this is to perpetuate being a troll.

But it is a greater challenge to educate students who start with much less social capital and increase their social capitalization (like the skills needed to acquire and use knowledge to their best advantage along with social connections). Of course, minority children get screwed out of good educations pretty often, but the "surprising" fact is that white children do too. And anyone who is poorer than average is likely to get a poorer than average education. — Bitter Crank

What makes some poorer families value education and others not? Rich families seem to take it as a matter of course and can pay for all sorts of things like tutors and afford more time to check school work, etc. But what makes some poorer families see the education as more valuable despite the lack of time and less money for tutors, etc.? What accounts for differences at the micro level? Does anyone study that, or are these questions always at the macro/structural level?

It's perfectly possible to be polite to someone whom one doesn't respect. — baker

If you want to make a distinction between having respect and acting respectfully, I am totally fine with that. The outcome for debating purposes is the same. No reason to shit in the arena where you are debating. Just make your argument and counterargument, no reason for the other rhetorical antagonisms other than as a rhetorical tactic or because people can't control themselves when dealing with people they disagree with. To actually want to be an troll seems pretty screwed up to me, if you want to have a fair and clean debate of actual content.