Ligotti on his politics and personal hopes

[bendk]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

“I am a liberal who wishes to see the destruction of the human race” The Quintessence of | Mark Samuels

I checked the link provided to Mark's web page again earlier today in hopes that some interesting comments may have been left. I read this instead:

"Seeing as most of the comments I’ve received in reference to this assertion have proved to be the usual common abuse (and thus deleted)," etc...

Sadly, this is typical of religious channels on YouTube as well. Comments are blocked completely or filtered out because the majority of comments disagree with the content posted.

The first day I visited TLO I was sort of cringing at him linking to alt-right vloggers, but I have grown to like Mark. He's a good writer. After reading his fiction, I'd say Ligotti is arguably his primary influence, so it's weird he doesn't seem to try and engage with his philosophy.

[Revenant]

Every "-ism" is merely a different path to the same end: human degradation and death.

Pick your poison.

Quote Originally Posted by bendk

Mark is an outstanding writer of fiction. Ligotti's influence can definitely be felt in Mark's first book. I believe Tom helped him with some of it. But with the possible exception of one story (which I like) none of Mark's work is derivative or pastiche. I disagree with Laird Barron's description of Mark's work as "Ligotti-Lite". Some stories are highly original, as TL himself has pointed out. "The Search for Kruptos" is a classic.

Not being on Ligotti or Oliver's level isn't much of a criticism considering their skill. Mark may be somewhat of a traditionalist and not have moved the form forward in the day a Robert Aickman or Ramsey Campbell has done, but he's very skilled at atmosphere and structure. I'd say he's at least as good a writer as Lovecraft was.

I thoroughly enjoyed the two collections of his I own. I reread my favourites from them quite often.

[Evans]

Quote Originally Posted by miguel1984

If I remember correctly, according to the interview Ligotti gave to Tina Hall at Macabre Cadaver and then transferred to The Damned Interviews, he considers himself a Socialist because life is so meaningless and full of suffering that we should make everyone's life as less painful as possible. I see no contradiction in that.

Well it's not necessary incoherent as in one could provide a fleshed out theory as to why that is the case. The summary though is just the derivation of a normative statement, 'we ought make everyone's life as painless as possible', from a descriptive one 'life is meaningless and full of suffering', without any clue to the meta-ethical principle by which such derivation is made.

(Although it is arguable that the description 'life is meaningless' also entails the abolition of all normativity)

EDIT: was trying to find the text of that interview in order to better present the view Miguel mentioned. I think the quote is

Quote

A: I would call myself a pessimist. At one time I thought it simply inaccurate for anyone to call me a nihilist, since the dictionary definition of nihilist applies to me in very few of its aspects. The term nihilist is more apt in connection with someone like Nietzsche, for whom I have no use at all. Nietzsche also considered himself a type of pessimist, but after he ceased to admire Schopenhauer he modified the term pessimism so that it carried almost none of its original meaning. These days I don’t mind being called a nihilist, because what people usually mean by this word is someone who is anti-life, and that definition fits me just fine, at least in principle. In practical terms, I have all kinds of values that are not in accord with nihilism.For example, I politically self-identify as a socialist. I want everyone to be as comfortable as they can be while they’re waiting to die. Unfortunately, the major part of Western civilization consists of capitalists, whom I regard as unadulterated savages. As long as we have to live in this world, what could be more sensible than to want yourself and others to suffer as little as possible? This will never happen because too many people are unadulterated savages. They’re brutal and inhuman. Case in point: Why is euthanasia so despised?Answer: Because too many people are barbaric sons of bitches. And even in those places where euthanasia is allowed, you can’t be assisted in dying until you’re suffering to the brink of madness. At the Swiss clinic known as Dignitas, where you can be humanely euthanized, or in Oregon, where euthanasia is still legal, though perhaps not for long, you have to jump through a host of hoops to prove you’re mentally lucid. Who the hell is mentally lucid when they’re in such pain that they can hardly think? What a boon to humankind it would be if we offer everyone euthanasia before they are reduced to zombies of misery, so that they could say good-bye to their friends and families with a smile on their face and a clear mind. And what about people who are in mental pain from which they are not likely to recover? Have some ####ing mercy. There is nothing in this world as important as to be able to choose to die in a painless and dignified manner, something we do have the ability to bestow on one another. If euthanasia were decriminalized, it would demonstrate that we had made the greatest evolutionary leap in world history. If we could only arrange society so that we didn’t have to fear every one of us, the throes of agony that routinely precede death, I would be proud to call myself a human being.

Quote Originally Posted by Prince James Zaleski

I think it makes perfect sense that somebody whose antinatalist worldview is based on mitigating/eliminating suffering would believe socialism is preferable to capitalism.

On the proviso that Capitalism has failed, something it's defenders are unlikely to grant. In theory if one is a negative Utilitarian one could be one of any economic stance providing one held that said stance was the one that accrued the most utility.

[Ascrobius]

In the past I've had some pretty heavy conversations with Tom about politics (which we both generally have agreed to avoid, over time, due to some major differences that exist between us). He does, as he has explained in interviews, have an affinity for many aspects of socialism, and in general, has great disdain for many facets of what might be considered "traditional capitalism" and certainly despises anything that is even remotely considered socially "conservative." That's an over-simplification, and of course I wouldn't speak for him. I find it amusing that the end of the OP's post includes an inquiry into what Tom's "personal hopes" might be. Without getting into personal information, I think Tom spends a great deal of time hoping to experience a limited amount of suffering from day to day. In addition, I think Tom feels as though he's achieved all he's aspired to become, particularly as a writer, and I think he is surprised at how much more widely known he's become in the last several years for all the reasons we all are aware of, not the least of which is the simple fact that he's a brilliant and uniquely talented writer and thinker. As far as hopes are concerned, and I am by no means sharing anything he doesn't openly admit, the kinds of things Tom hopes for are far different than most people would imagine or hope for themselves.