He's a natalist

What's wrong with having kids? Stalin took many measures to increase Russian birth rates.

Ludwig van Beethoven

But for real, it's Arthur Schopenhauer.

End your life.

laugh all you want it can't unrape you or unpregnate you.

despite hegel winning the Left's admiration, this guy was better in literally every way

being this biologically illiterate
he doesn't know about the hilarious world of parthogenesis

Schopenhauer was vegpilled, Hegel wasn't.

I'm a level seven vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.
Also, Hegel's idealism has always turned me off, and Marx doesn't dismiss his mysticism as much as he wants to.

Oh christ, not you people.
So how do you deal with the fact that your ideology fucking vanishes when exposed to ANY method or moral framework other than gnostic-atheist-ultra-materialism?

Schopenhauer was anti-materialist (anti-reductionist) and was definitely not a Gnostic.

Is it really bad if an ideology is compatible with atheism? because any ideology that's only compatible with religion is COMPLETE HORSESHIT.

If you cannot assert with certainty that the afterlife does not exist with certainty and provide proof you cannot be a logical anti-natalist.

The equation of "life implies suffering, non-life is nothing and nothing is not suffering so not-life is better than life." doesn't work if there's an afterlife.

Nigga, is you surius?

That's the point, you literally cannot prove a negative, but your highly moralistic philosophy is entirely rooted in a negative, thereby you cannot be a logical anti-natalist. You can assert in the absence of any afterlife that you're view has a foothold but given the inherent uncertainty of that negative you're fucked.

Pro-tip, stop arguing with R/atheism-tier "m-muh fallacy" posts and abandon moral philosophy alltogether, it's a meme. Marxism is materialistic, not religious, it has no moral framework, it's merely the course of history in motion.

...

We'll see how history moves once the entire world is converted to golirous anti-natalist revolution, and the mistake that is humanity will end in a generation.

I literally cannot tell if you're shitposting, please clarify so I can laugh or scream at your brain-aids instead of this awful, mirthless fugue you've evoked into this moment of my life.

...

Failure to recognize shitposting is a sign of autism. Seek help.

Also, a note before I forget, Buddhism (even completely atheistic Buddhism) completely BTFOs this retarded shit, even if want is an inevitable invocation of suffering one can merely cease to want and be whole.

That defeatist tool of oppression and resignation?
Those sandal-wearing goldfish-tenders?

No

The issue is that the pattern of posts so far has perfectly mimicked the pattern of the average, delusional and very stupid believer, an articulated first post, a second which shortsightedly misses the argument by nitpicking, and a third which asserts inevitable dominance of one's point of view, implying an ad-populum.

This pattern is so precisely followed that I actually must wonder that it's too perfect.

"defeatist"
The teachings of the Buddha taken without the context of the school which came about after are not at all defeatist, the teaching advises against asceticism and excess and that one has within them the capability to live better.

It's called Poe's Law, lurk moar, there are usually clues
Buddhism is inexorably tied with a caste system, and has led to the oppression of out-groups and the promotion of servility in all its incarnations in the real world, its foundational myths be damned.

I agree with that, not really arguing for the religion of Buddhism here, just the rhetoric. I.E: suffering is not inevitable and you have the power to simply not experience it or to overcome it.

Maybe, but its goals are unattainable, and create an unrealistic expectation for yourself.
"If enlightenment is so attainable, why can't I do it? There must be something wrong with me."- is the inevitable conclusion of buddhism

Maybe, maybe not. Ever heard the Sniff-Man bit about the Kinder Surprise Egg?

yeah, but I don't see the connection, unless you are suggesting that enlightenment is a commodity (which is definitely is)

You didn't think this through all the way did you? If the child grows up to be bad and is sentenced to an eternity in hell this outwiehgs any pleasure he had in his lifetime and therefore not birthing him so he could not suffer is the more logical choice.

If hell exists then you're philosophy still doesn't work, if human existence is in the preordained will of God you will not be able to defy him and further, what he wants is the moral right as he is the creator, regardless of your input.
Did you think YOUR position through?

...

Do you actually think I believe that, rather that my comment was pointing out that your assertion logically gave rise to command theory?
That's not a brain, that's a tumor.

he doesn't even check the flegs to tell posters apart
*gnaws cone hungrily*

You're gonna hurt your teeth that way.

My implication is that enlightenment is an unattainable goal by design, whether or not you actually achieve it is moot, you can get enough from the journey to be happy regardless.

No thanks.
I read his "Studies in Pessimism" and it was pitiful. The man loved to wallow in his own tears, then project the particular onto the whole.

Is she a communist?

I like to live dangerously

\ourgirl\ for reals

...

He was a hypocritical decadent piece of shit that ripped off the Vedas and Kant and was perma booty blasted about Hegel because he didn't have the brain power to understand idealism. Even twittgenstein said he was embarrassed to have enjoyed him as an edgy teen.

...

At least he was open and honest about his influences unlike Hegel that ripped off hermeticism and never explicitly mentioned it.

...

Oh sweetie,

...

Marx was against Malthus because of his notion of completely blaming human misery on overpopulation without any consideration for private ownership of the means of production and fair resources distribution. Which is of course wrong.

Schopenhauer is for kids, read Mainländer you plebs

Any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative.

Are there any translations of his works? Last time I checked I couldn't find anything.

Do you actually think that your pathetic will could defy an omnipotent being were one to exist?

The relation of parent to child has no bearing on the dynamic between an actual creator and its progeny. The parent is only another mere product of material as is the child, the omnipotent creator literally forms the fabric of reality itself, thereby if there is a one moral right in that universe it is his will, as the whole of that reality is manifest only by his will. We and our material would be his labor and thereby he would control the whole of our substance and the fruits thereof.

Nice strawman, but its also sort of sad that this is the best you could come up with. At no point did I imply that low birth rates are the only problems those countries face but yes, they are major problems, and at this point they are so large that even neo-Malthusians struggle to deny it.

Prior to the refugee crisis Germany was tearing down perfectly good apartments built during the communist era because they didn't have the population to fill them. Eldercare is one of the fastest growing industries in the US and age-related health expenditures constitute a massive burden on both the private and public sectors of the economy. The only growth England has seen this year because there were more people in it buying things but this was entirely due to immigration and not natural increase. One-quarter of Japanese are over the age of 65 (soon to rise to 40%) and the population of Japan has shrunk by over one million people in just five years:
theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/retirement/retire-planning/how-japan-is-coping-with-a-rapidly-aging-population/article27259703/
washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/26/its-official-japans-population-is-drastically-shrinking/?utm_term=.081b5737ae5b

Japan used to grow at between 6-10% a year it was on track to be the world's preeminent economic super-power and now its lucky to grow at all–2% growth is a good year in Japan. And the rest of the OECD is largely following the same course as Japan with 0-2% growth becoming the new normal in the OECD since 2008. And look, low-population growth, stagnation, and even shrinkage isn't the only problem but with the same pattern popping up all over the developed world you might start to think that its a major one.

Malthus wasn't just slightly wrong and Marx may have compensated for that– he was absolutely wrong. From the 1600s onwards, but especially in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries, Europe and its off-shoots experienced a demographic miracle that is comparable to and even dwarfs population growth in the Third World today. Despite high-birth rates and high-population growth, Europe and its offshoots experienced lengthening life-spans, long-term falling murder/crime rates, and massive increases in per capita GDP making one of the fastest growing and largest segments of the world population also one of the richest as well. Malthusian pessimism turned out to be completely unfounded as it still is today, most Europeans and Euro-descended peoples are beneficiaries of the long-lasting demographic boom that if Malthus had had his way would not have continued. It turned out it was a good thing that the "imprudent" working class refused to listen to Malthus.

Again, another reason why Malthusians are completely wrong is the trend of falling commodity prices which was noticeable to Marx and other intellectual contemporaries in the late 18th and 19th centuries–this was all in spite of Europe and her offshoots exploding demographics at the time. In spite of monopolization, the trend regularly continues today with governments regularly devaluing their currencies according to Keynesian dogma in order to fight off the dreaded specter of deflation. Isn't it funny how certain people ten years ago were screaming "too many people! too many consumers! Not enough supply!" in response to high-oil prices and now oil-prices have fallen through the floor and it seems that even the radical devaluation of the dollar and other fiat currencies against gold have hardly been enough to put prices back up to where they "ought" to be in the reckonings of the capitalists?

At the moment there is a grain glut (reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-storage-analysis-idUSKBN17D0EO) at the same moment that there are more hungry people then ever. So it seems obvious that the problem is not too many people but the side-effects of capitalist overproduction.

Even if capitalism were removed from the equation most healthy societies are not going to be ones where the population level is below replacement. I think very few people would want to live in a socialist/communist society where there are more old people then young people. Some may want balanced demographics but in general its good to have a population that is slanted slightly in favor of the young. I don't think that M. &E. when they were contemplating what communism would look like had the idea of society that would be one big global classless nursing home in mind.

I'm not the one that is assuming the existence of an omnipotent creator being. Besides Gnostics, which are anti-natalists, believe that there is a transcendental true God that helps them fight against the Creator/Devil to destroy the prison that is the material universe.

The solution is to have a controlled slow decrease of the population not a sudden fall and strongly promote euthanasia for elderly people, I'm sure many of them would be happy to take that option.

So? What's wrong with immigration?

You're a man of taste i see

This is the result of a gradual decades long-trend that has taken place in the most peaceable and non-coercive manner possible under capitalism. I'm sorry that your special snowflake vision of depopulation doesn't match up with the reality but this is how it has actually played out under fairly idyll conditions.

Schoppy was legit depressed all his life.
I'm happy and want a better world for me and my children.
Unfortunatly I can't have them

Good thing there is no actual demographic crisis in Japan and Europe then (besides the imaginary one in capitalists mind because they want more people to buy stuff).

Getting married and raising a family is emotionally rewarding, will increase your lifespan, and make you a better person.
That is all.

Please do not listen to this retard.

t. paying child support

Europe is such a strange place

Well maybe don't fail at life then, buddy.

Just listen to yourself, you honestly believe a natural process like reproduction that's occurs within all species is violence.

I didn't know US imperialism was being so progressive when it forcibly sterilized 1/3 of Puerto Rican women and did the same thing to many black women, native women, and "poor white trash"

The US also used to tie "economic aid" to forcing poor countries to adopt family planning programs; Indira Ghandi also began forcible sterilization of the poor partly because of this pressure. Dengist China introduced its one-child policy punishing individuals for reproducing above replacement or even just at replacement levels. The Nazis also were quite big fans of forced sterilization and arguably the greatest practitioners.

It's kind of funny how population control, sterilization, and Malthusian ideas are popular stock in trade of reactionaries, fascists, and imperialists of all kinds. Which brings me to

Try reading the actual OG eugenicists and not the post-modern cancer on Holla Forums they were very clear that working class fecundity had to be restricted by force if necessary. Malthus and many of his contemporaries refused to donate to alms for the poor for this reason, his ideas even made it in British law.

Malthus was a reactionary and not a liberal, he viewed the liberal faith in progress as profoundly misplaced especially in light of his theories on population growth. It's kinda funny though you talk about Holla Forums and what concerns them is that some people in some countries far away do not follow Rev. Malthus's preachings. I've been in many debates with Holla Forumsacks who actually don't care that their countries or countries they admire (like Japan) have low birth rates but are simply angry that other countries have higher birth-rates or that some people from those countries with higher-birth rates may come to their countries. Most Holla Forumsacks aren't cut out to be fathers after all.

But their ideas really are essentially rooted in Malthus reactionary ideas and it was inevitably that Malthus ideas took on a racist bent since it was also classist at heart.

*their productive years last even longer

...

How bad is it? Do you at least get along with the kid(s)?

That's exactly what progressive meant. Why anybody calls themselves a progressive today is beyond me.