Hacker News Reader

Comment by FredPret | Hacker News Reader

That Ligotti chap really managed to put the darkest possible spin on the greatest possible miracle - consciousness.

Our brains represent a step change in the timeline of complexity in the universe, from subatomic things spontaneously coalescing into atoms, all the way up to Thomas the paranoid android.

Instead of being depressed that we will get hurt and die, let's be happy that we will be able to experience many interesting and wonderful things, many of which can be quite pleasant and meaningful.

View on HN

“One cringes to hear scientists cooing over the universe or any part thereof like schoolgirls over-heated by their first crush. From the studies of Krafft-Ebbing onward, we know that it is possible to become excited about anything—from shins to shoehorns. But it would be nice if just one of these gushing eggheads would step back and, as a concession to objectivity, speak the truth: THERE IS NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT.” ― Thomas Ligotti, The Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Isn't that just saying that impressiveness is not objective?

"Objectivity", "INNATELY IMPRESSIVE".

"Impressiveness" is about the most subjective thing I can think of. It's literally about whether it impresses someone.

I've never heard of this Ligotti chap, but these quotes are not selling me on him.

Ligotti's body of work constitutes perhaps the longest suicide note, and perhaps also the one most "writerly" in its composition, thus far in human history. That the act has yet to be consummated detracts little from this accomplishment, but one may to no less use or benefit spend time perusing road accident footage.

I'd argue that the things he despises so much are the exact same things that prevent consummation, so at a fundamental level, I doubt the soundness of his reasoning.

It would be a sign of callowness to bemoan the fact that pessimistic writers do not rate and may be reprehended in both good conscience and good company. Some critics of the pessimist often think they have his back to the wall when they blithely jeer, “If that is how this fellow feels, he should either kill himself or be decried as a hypocrite.” That the pessimist should kill himself in order to live up to his ideas may be counterattacked as betraying such a crass intellect that it does not deserve a response. Yet it is not much of a chore to produce one. Simply because someone has reached the conclusion that the amount of suffering in this world is enough that anyone would be better off never having been born does not mean that by force of logic or sincerity he must kill himself. It only means he has concluded that the amount of suffering in this world is enough that anyone would be better off never having been born. Others may disagree on this point as it pleases them, but they must accept that if they believe themselves to have a stronger case than the pessimist, then they are mistaken.

Naturally, there are pessimists who do kill themselves, but nothing obliges them to kill themselves or live with the mark of the hypocrite on their brow. Voluntary death might seem a thoroughly negative course of action, but it is not as simple as that. Every negation is adulterated or stealthily launched by an affirmative spirit. An unequivocal “no” cannot be uttered or acted upon. Lucifer’s last words in heaven may have been “Non serviam,” but none has served the Almighty so dutifully, since His sideshow in the clouds would never draw any customers if it were not for the main attraction of the devil’s hell on earth. Only catatonics and coma patients can persevere in a dignified withdrawal from life’s rattle and hum. Without a “yes” in our hearts, nothing would be done. And to be done with our existence en masse would be the most ambitious affirmation of all.

I believe this is the point at which a Brit might say something on the order of "he likes the smell of his own farts, doesn't he?"

Speaking of such a crass intellect that it does not deserve a response...

...yet here we are.

Ligotti repels me because, whether he acknowledges it or not, his is a counsel of despair. He's gotten so wrapped up in his own inability to find an answer to the simple question "why are we here?" that he has totally omitted to consider he may have a responsibility, in regard to his own person, to make an answer to it. Through that omission, he's inadvertently - I think inadvertently - made the purpose of at least his public life to tell everyone else how bad it is he can't come up with one.

Perhaps I'd have felt the same about Lovecraft, in his day.

> he may have a responsibility, in regard to his own person, to make an answer to it

I will concede that existentialism of this sort is really the only honest philosophical alternative to pessimism. Ligotti dismisses it, but I can't remember why right at the moment.

Oh dear. If I've ever seen literary onanism... this goes in the gallery.

Meanwhile, nobody argued that the writer should kill himself. What I said was that the things he does despise prevent the consummation of his expressed desire. Not acknowledging that is unsound.

But, as the kids say, "he probably can't hear himself over the sounds of his own talking".

"Thomas Ligotti is a contemporary American horror writer. His writings are rooted in several literary genres – most prominently weird fiction – and have been described by critics as works of philosophical horror, often formed into short stories and novellas in the tradition of gothic fiction"

The guy makes a living spouting this kind of depressing prose. So, he's good at it. I bet he might enjoy it, sometimes, too. Maybe the recognition, a little? So, perhaps he's a counter example to his own dour outlook.

He's famously reclusive (and not even in an interesting way) and hates being known for his writing.

>hates being known for his writing.

Not to sound too cynical, but if he hates being known for his writing, why does he write and publish? Why have a website about his works?

That's very strange to me. I could understand hating being famous. But hating being known for the thing you're literally putting into the world so that people know about it?

Well he's already conceded that there's nothing impressive about his writing.

Lots of people hate their jobs.

In the case of being a writer, having some sort of PR output (like a website) is part of managing your brand or whatever I guess. Of course it isn't mandatory, but I bet people have done things they hated more for money.

I don't think has a website.

> It is important to note that while all copyright-related content is presented with the permission of Thomas Ligotti, TLO was created upon the solitary actions of Jon Padgett and continues to exist independent of the direction or promotion of Thomas Ligotti.

I think it's normal for someone to feel the need to write and publish without wanting recognition. His publishing schedule is erratic and also dropped precipitously as he got well-known.

> NOTHING INNATELY IMPRESSIVE

An asteroid impacting the Earth will surely make an impression on its surface. Therefore, there ARE innately impressive things in the universe.

Saying that nothing impresses Thomas Ligotti is not the same as saying that nothing impresses anyone.

That guy was edgy

> That Ligotti chap really managed to put the darkest possible spin on the greatest possible miracle - consciousness

I think that Blindsight and its author Peter Watts have a stronger claim :)

In the counterfactual universe where we had strong evidence of higher cognition sans consciousness, sure. But it's pure speculation that anything like his space critters can exist in real life. Perhaps so, perhaps not. Fortunately, we will never know.

Well, it's hard to be happy when it requires you to actually be able to do what you want to do. Social hierarchy, resources and even brain chemistry are not in everyone's favour.

Contentness can be learned, though.

Or just use that brainpower and create medication that tricks the primitive parts of the brain into being happy. Profit!

> Or just use that brainpower and create medication that tricks the primitive parts of the brain into being happy. Profit!

Thankfully, nature already did that for us. It's THC and Alcohol.

“There seems to be an inborn drive in all human beings not to live in a steady emotional state, which would suggest that such a state is not tolerable to most people. Why else would someone succumb to the attractions of romantic love more than once? Didn’t they learn their lesson the first time or the tenth time or the twentieth time? And it’s the same old lesson: everything in this life—I repeat, everything—is more trouble than it’s worth. And simply being alive is the basic trouble. This is something that is more recognized in Eastern societies than in the West. There’s a minor tradition in Greek philosophy that instructs us to seek a state of equanimity rather than one of ecstasy, but it never really caught on for obvious reasons. Buddhism advises its practitioners not to seek highs or lows but to follow a middle path to personal salvation from the painful cravings of the average sensual life, which is why it was pretty much reviled by the masses and mutated into forms more suited to human drives and desires. It seems evident that very few people can simply sit still. Children spin in circles until they collapse with dizziness.” ― Thomas Ligotti

Happiness is not getting what you want, it's wanting what you get.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com