Best arguments against suicide?
If I told you I wanted to commit suicide and you had one response, what would it be?
Basically, I want to know what's your best argument against suicide?
I'll start.
========================================
Me: I want to commit suicide, convince me otherwise.
Fictional me therapist: The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Just to give some perspective, a billion seconds is almost 32 years worth of time. What difference does it make if you want to commit suicide now rather than die of old age?
Basically, I want to know what's your best argument against suicide?
I'll start.
========================================
Me: I want to commit suicide, convince me otherwise.
Fictional me therapist: The universe is 13.8 billion years old. Just to give some perspective, a billion seconds is almost 32 years worth of time. What difference does it make if you want to commit suicide now rather than die of old age?
Comments (112)
I know you're interested in Wittgenstein. I think there are some Wittgensteinian points to make here. If I wish to persuade you that your suicidal thoughts are a sort of error - to show the fly out of the bottle - it will depend greatly upon my becoming acquainted with you as a person and the sorts of reasons and motivations in virtue of which you're entertaining these thoughts. Philosophy as therapy. For a certain sort of person you might say: Go read Dostoevsky. For another: Get your doctor to prescribe lithium then see if you still want to debate the topic.
So, you don't think we can empathize with someone seriously and quaintly considering suicide? Only sympathize?
I think, as a Wittgensteinian, the problems of people are mainly psychological or what we tell ourselves. It's a matter of identifying with a new voice in your head and listening to it instead of the incessant critic or what others would call a demon. Socrates talked about listening to his daemon.
I definitely agree, so long as we understand psychology in the deep sense of the term - the sense of the term that led Witty to love Schopenhauer and Dostoyevsky, engage seriously with Freud, etc. - as opposed to being a mere set of subjective preferences, tastes, and inclinations.
Quoting Wallows
Well, I suppose this is the "two-in-one" of thinking, the fact that I can carry on a dialogue in thought rather than being restricted to monologue. I think you're right about the ability and perhaps necessity of utilizing the capacity for thought in order to find one's self. Though beyond that I'm not sure what I think of this - would love to see you expand on the thought. My own feeling is that suicidal thoughts tend to be a much larger expression of how one lives a life - the way one copes within the local world one occupies - than a view one comes to through thought and internal dialogue. But I may be misreading you (or plain wrong)!
Quoting Wallows The opposite, though these words are used in such myriad ways that it might not be worth it to go to the bother of attempting to use the terms.
Yes, I've seen solipsistic and trite comments, like the following: "The problems of philosophy are psychological" - Pseudo-Wittgenstein or just made up. Analyzing a person tends to be much more complex than breaking down the self into three parts and trying to address each of their needs or beefing up the ego.
Quoting John Doe
Well, yes. We talk to ourselves every day. The whole point IMO of therapy is to form a new narrative we tell ourselves with small behavioural changes.
Quoting John Doe
Well, given my dealings with psychology; dialectical therapy (talk therapy), CBT, logotherapy, reality therapy, even behaviourism to some extent... The main gist in my view is to create a new voice within your psyche. One of the first lessons of CBT, as far as I'm aware, is to role play a therapist with all the cognitive distortions in your mind. You then play talk-judo with yourself by writing down your thoughts and then addressing each one that comes to mind, in regards to the automatic thoughts arising. A lot of my affinity towards CBT or meta-cognitive therapy is derived from Stoicism, (big surprise). I have a lot of resentment towards Hume for calling reason the handmaiden of the passions when this is clearly not true. Perhaps, the most essential component in therapy is having a keen "ear" (so to speak) on what reason is telling us. Some people have this inner-"ear" more refined/tuned in than others and go on to become renowned psychologists. Some people have an inner voice shouting at them and reason is drowned out of the dialogue with one's self.
So, it's basically maintaining a healthy signal to noise ratio between competing voices from within our own head. Most of the time, medication quells the bad thoughts down (although calling voices "bad" or "good" really idiotizes the issue) It can be also the fact that we simply do not understand what is being said to us and we plead ignorance instead of putting in the effort to understand the other/different voice to borrow the term from care ethics.
Quoting John Doe
Or rather the final 'shouting voice' telling us something is wrong. Don't get me wrong, suicidal thoughts should be interpreted as a sign that things are not right. Though to "listen" to those thoughts too intently is a mistake and a blunder that has to be addressed through medicinal and cognitive approaches.
What's your favourite therapy technique? Mine has to be CBT (devoid of the behavioural component, rendering it as a metacognitive therapy along with Stoicism).
Quoting John Doe
Let's clarify then. To understand a person going through with suicidal ideation requires us to appeal to some inner voice. The only voice that stands out from the crowd is mostly reason. What do you think?
10. Committing suicide will deprive you of the good things in your life.
9. Having a suicidal mindset often times exaggerates your suffering.
8. Any suicide will probably be physically painful.
7. You should try to improve your life before considering suicide.
6. Being a failure or hating yourself is not a good reason to commit suicide. One could hate oneself but be perfectly happy about his life because it is more pleasant and contains less suffering than the life of a successful person. Not all self loathing people live bad lives and not all successful and self-loving people are happy. Besides, would killing yourself really make you feel better about yourself?(Well, I guess it would after you've died though)
5. If you don't have intense and unbearable suffering, then it's better to just continue living your life. Don't worry, one day you're going to die and your suffering will end anyway. But you'll only get to live once.
4. Suicide can cause you to go to Hell. This will make your suffering worse. (This is one only works on religious people who believe in Hell though).
3. Suicide will cause extreme bereavement to your loved ones. Think of how much suffering you will cause your friends and family.
2. Failed suicide attempts can be extremely painful physically and psychologically. They could also lead to permanent disability. If the point of suicide is to reduce suffering, then this could make the problem worse.
1. For every successful suicide, there are roughly 25 unsuccessful attempts. If you're going to kill yourselves, you better know what the Hell you're doing!
As for next year, we predict an uptick in your fortunes, and it would be regrettable if you were not here to enjoy the bounty of slightly improved circumstances.
Killing yourself on the The Philosophy Forum, the leading forum of professional kibitzers this side of the Milky Way, would set a bad example. And it would be in bad taste. `Etiquette is so important. Blowing yourself up is just rude.
You are too important to the health of our kibitzeria to depart now. We expect you to be here for the next 10 years, minimum. We need you. We want you.
So, unless you were looking for a snarky "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" such questions should not be asked in the first place.
Go in peace and get get back to work!
For me? There is no better argument against trying to commit suicide than yours above.
BC is right on target my friend. We NEED you. We WANT you! And suicide has a contagious factor. Once you have "a" suicide in your family tree, it is very hard not to see suicide as an easy way out.
WE are a family here at TPF and WE need you and we NEED to maintain a suicide free history for WE are here to support anyone that needs it and "Posty"@Wallows, we love you~
In my view it's not something that you're goint to talk someone out of with "one response." I don't at all believe that a drive to commit suicide is caused by "rational content" in the first place, so the idea that some curt rational response is going to change someone's mind is way off base.
TheHedoMinimalist has a good list.
Thinking about it as a continuation of the Stoicism thread, it occurs to me that suicide controls an outcome but the life in question doesn't belong to the agent that would end it. I don't own my life. I don't own anything after it is done. I fear my death and it has brought me great anxiety thinking about it at some points in my life. But I won't be the one to experience the loss except perhaps at the moment it happens. The fixation on that moment has no relation to the thinking about when I am gone. The experience of that moment will be mine but that experience does not own the moment when it is over.
The fixation upon suicide is like the fear of death in its mistaken belief that one's life belongs to oneself but is a violation in the way fear is not. When overwhelmed with fear, we lose control of what preserves our lives and become too weak to be responsible for what nourishes it. With suicide, one agent wants to dominate the rest at the expense of life itself. That is why so many instances of suicide are combined with an orgy of violence against others, either in the form of actual mayhem or psychological torture of survivors. In the framework of an immortal life, the reason the suicide is not saved is that the act of domination causes irreparable damage to the soul. In a framework of virtues as understood by the Stoics and the ancient Greeks, when the will to dominate is not balanced by other ends, the result is hubris which tends to ruin the person and those in the immediate vicinity.
You dont think that someone can arrive at the decision to kill themsevles rationally and/or logically? (In situations where they arent terminal or suffering horribly etc, What I mean is opting out of life not necessarily a “mercy” suicide if that makes sense.)
RIght. Folks will ad hoc rationalize it, but I don't believe that it's something that's arrived at via just reasoning about anything.
Just to clarify, you are saying its never arrived at that way, or that its not possible to arrive to it that way?
Not saying anything about metaphysical possibility (lol). Just contingent fact.
Ok so the former. So what are you basing that on? Obviously niether of us is aware of all the cases but it seems to me that a person could justify suicide by reasoning that lifes ups and downs arent enough to make it worthwhile, for example.
Doesnt seem like you have enough data to take the position that you are.
Based on data re people who have attempted or committed suicide, including from health care professionals/psych professionals I know personally, and including a handful of people I've known personally who either did or attempted to commit suicide.
The best 'argument' against suicide is to have a life worth living. Go find a woman who loves you.
Ok, so anecdotal. Fair enough.
Nooo! I have become a Nihilistic Locomotive too. Ahh!
It also takes some guts and balls to commit suicide.
No. It takes a surfeit of despair and hopelessness, and a deficiency of gut and balls.
People choose suicide as a way out. True it does take something akin to bravery to actually take your own life but that bravery is in a one time act. Staying alive day after day when you are tired of life is the real challenge, that is a different type of bravery. According to Kant it is the only duty to yourself that you must perform.
What about the argument that since you are not responsible for making your life, it is not moral for you to destroy it. I think this gets made in prior eras in the context of god(s) - i.e. suicide is an affront to god(s) who created you; you are essentially their property and suicide is destroying property you don't have full ownership of. However, leaving the god(s) out of it for the time being, it still seems like there is an argument that it is immoral to take your own life to the extent you had no role in bringing yourself into existence. In this case, you are undoing the handiwork of another (presumably your parents, or maybe an IV lab scientist) without justification. Effectively, it would be still be a kind of property argument: you don't have full ownership of your life and so therefore cannot ethically destroy it.
How is suicide not a courageous act? I fail to see how someone wanting to commit suicide against everything life has to offer as not a determined and courageous act?
In the sense that all empirical evidence is anecdotal, sure.
If you have an incurable degenerative disease, or are in untreatable continuous pain, I present no argument. If you are starving, homeless, and helpless, I present no argument. If the world is unbearable and inescapable, I present no argument.
If it is you yourself that is unbearable, then I argue that that suicide is the opposite of an escape; contrariwise, it seals you forever into the unbearable being. This is why it is called the only unforgivable sin - if successful, it removes the possibility of repentance, and thus of redemption. One can change, and this is the gift of life.
But, surely you aren't the religious type from my ponderance of you. Or at least this is the hope of the suicidal person, that they become nothing or return to nothingness, the same nothingness that existed before they were born. That's the rationale as far as I can tell of a suicidal person. To become nothing.
What are some thoughts about this property of nothingness that makes people want to become nothing?
I'm sure some suicidal people may as well be religious; but, simply don't care about going to heaven or to purgatory or to hell also. What do you tell the person that doesn't want to go to heaven or hell or to nothingness? Can any argument be made?
And get thrown into a psych ward for running around telling people I am God?
Just kidding. So, what's your best argument against suicide?
That might potentially change things, but as an empirical reality it is not, of course, the case with anyone that they get to make that call. Even if you did have that kind of insight or ability to decide whether to be created or not, then you might still be obligated to carry through with your initial decision. In other words, if you had concerns about the value of life before being put into it, then the rational thing might simply be to opt not to come into being in the first place. Also, it kind of begs the question, since did you create the "real you" or how does that fictional entity come about? If the first possibility, then was there a "really real you" that made the call about the merely "real you"?
Yes, that is the hope. But if I tell you to fuck off, and then kill myself, have I told you to fuck off? Of course I have. The only thing that has changed is that I cannot apologise. the nothingness that existed before I was born can never return.
I'd first ask, how old are you?
But, what is that something? I don't think that argument is very convincing if you don't specify what that something is.
My argument is the fact that in my scenario there is no escape from being the real you, God.
If everyone is God then paradoxically there is no 'everyone', it means 'we' are just one, God trying to see itself from a perspective outside of itself, but as there is no 'outside' it has to imagine there is by pretending to be all things and all people. To really pretend it has to forget who it really is and believe it's really a separate human being, that entails free will on the part of that human. God playing hide and seek with itself and getting into all sorts of adventures, some really dark but when it wakes up it knows it wasn't real, so all actions are useful for it to experience.
There is no one making a call on anyone. I'll quote Alan Watts:
"You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn't really doing this to anyone but himself. Remember too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It's the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner."
In essence, that seems to be the sentiment of a suicidal. Fuck off to you; the world, my family, my life, all my problems. Again, I am not suicidal, just posted a hypothetical situation here. But, the fuck off is stated in the act of committing suicide.
You mean the unconscious desire to die? I suspect that they can manifest in those ways. But, suicide is such an act that instantiates all those desires into one act.
What's the purpose of asking that? Please elaborate.
Quoting Wallows
You are projecting a purpose where it may not be. Consider changing the focus from one of motivation influenced by a desire to achieve a particular result to just looking at the agency itself. To be the one who acts in a certain way is what fascinates many killers.
So what is happening with a person who is going through this fixation will make one intervention smarter than another but the persuasion is not happening on the level of disqualifying a rationale.
I have had some close encounters with this thing with some family members and close friends and my experience is not a part of learning something like how to draw or shoot arrows. I know less everyday.
I would ask the hypothetical person considering suicide how old they are because life experience is a very relevant qualifier for questions of such scope and scale.
As example, imagine asking a seven year old, "What is love?" The child may be brilliant, but they simply don't have the life experience to do a meaningful analysis of the question. The wisest seven year old would reply...."How the heck would I know what love is, for crying out loud, I'm only seven!" :smile:
For a purely technical matter such as say, computer programming, age wouldn't be relevant, as a higher school could easily be a better programmer than a senior citizen.
No, I mean people who kill themselves unconsciously through the many channels which are consequences of negligence, carelessness, bad habits, etc, etc. For example, people who develop liver problems through excessive consumption of alcohol and which leads to death. Isn't it suicide because it's self-inflicted.
It's a matter of willpower to get better. The scary thing about depression from what I read is that as a person gets better the motivation to kill oneself rises. I don't know what to call this, some sort of SSRI syndrome where the depression is lifting and someone begins contemplating suicide with the new returning energy. I've never had a suicide in the family, and don't know any people who would want to do it as close friends. My only experience with it is from within my own head.
I think the best advice I could offer a suicidal person is the lesson of learning how to be patient. One of the highest risk factors contributing to suicidal rates is the degree of impulsiveness of a person. If one can endure or cope with the suicidal tendencies, then that's half the hurdle.
There's also another means at addressing depression. It's Ketamine, which is being researched and will soon become standard treatment for depression in the US. I'm quite intrigued by Ketamine and its ability to lift oneself out of depression. Just another good tool in the arsenal of the pill pushes I suppose.
Haha, I wonder how a child would respond to someone asking about suicide? What a daft thought.
I'm still not understanding you here. Are you proposing that someone who unconsciously inflicts self-harm is tantamount to them slowly committing suicide?
Any thoughts?
Yeah. I mean, most people already know the possible consequences of their bad-habits or careless acts. Also think of drunk drivers who end up dead, it's just as much a suicide.
I wouldn't go as far and say that self-destructive behaviour is tantamount to wanting to commit suicide. Just my two pennies.
I’ve struggled with impulsivity my whole life. I’ve dealt with mental illness my entire adult life. Patience is difficult when one is under a lot of stress. I have found that removing the stressors helps a lot, and where that isn’t possible, meditation helps. However, sometimes people are in very high stress situations that they can see no easy way out of. That’s when they need to find the courage to ask for help. I find that praying as a form of meditation, asking God (or the universe or your inner self if you prefer) for patience has been helpful to me.
Isn't self-destruction the very definition of suicide?
Has the impulsivity ever resulted in bad decisions? And, what kind of mental illness if you don't mind me asking? I struggle with psychosis (My p-doc tells me it's a psychotic disorder; but, I'm inclined to believe it's some schizotypal traits of paranoia), depression, and anxiety.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Why do you think it's so hard to reach out for help? Is it denial that one is incapable of taking care of one's self that is the barrier here? On a personal level, I don't like going for therapy. It's just uncomfortable asking for help, as a man. I don't like opening the wounds and going to talk therapy also. It's uncomfortable talking about one's issues.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Personally, given my adoration for reason, I take the stance that science may be able one day to address my issues better in the future. So, hope is as much an important factor in preventing suicide as much as being patient is.
I'm not quite sure. I think that suicide isn't the same as self-destruction. Might need some expanding on my part; but, it doesn't seem like that's the intent of suicide. The intent in most cases is the cessation of suffering or pain. That suicide is an act of ultimate self-destruction is a separate issue.
As a Stoic, you might want to meditate on living in accordance with the Logos if you prefer not to pray.
Yes. I’ve overdosed five times.
Coming from someone that doesn't like going to therapy, I am intrigued why so many patients with mental illness find it hard to commit themselves to get better by going to therapy. Do you think it's akin to opening a wound that hurts?
I asked one of my group therapy counsellors if many people don't show up for therapy, and she said that it's true. I think this is restricted to males only given the way society perceives the need for men to look after themselves and such.
Oh, sorry to hear. I've been institutionalized and in hospitals myself quite often.
Do you think half the battle is just coming to terms (as harsh as they are) with one's diagnosis?
I feel you. It doesn't bother me anymore that I'm different than other people. I guess I've come to terms in my own way with my diagnosis. That entails living with my mother and just sucking the suck factor in life up.
I'm sure cessation of pain is one of the reasons. But the mode still remains by committing an act of destruction of self. There are many ways to alleviate pain, drug use is one of those ways, I'm just saying reasons don't change anything because the act of suicide is not justifiable unlike killing someone where self-defence is ok.
I’m not sure what “coming to terms with one’s diagnosis” entails, though.
Suicide can be justified in some way. But, if you have a family or other people that need you, then no, I don't think suicide is the right choice. There are alternatives to getting better.
Well, I was institutionalized in the military. It was a bitter pill to swallow for me that I couldn't become a soldier or repair ejection seats for the Air Force. I finally came to terms with my diagnosis sometime after this with the act of going on disability. For a short period of time I fantasized becoming a police officer; but, given my diagnosis, nope that would never happen. Entertaining fantasies I can; but, realize them I cannot.
Yeah, for people whose life conditions no longer allow the extraction of utility from them. For them it's ok because we judge lives by the value they provide. People who are already useless through no fault of their own are entitled to suicide because their value has already been taken from them. So, in a way, it's not really suicide, just an end to their physical structure. This is why I think people who cause damage to their bodies or negate the utility of their lives should be considered suicides regardless of time frame.
Suppose someone dies after years of being in drug induced stupor, a drug problem caused by his own carelessness, even though the final cause of death is unrelated to his drug problem, ultimately, I believe it is still a suicide because he devalued his own life by his own actions. Other than disease (including aging) or acts of infringement upon one's will by another, I think the rest of the causes of death can be considered suicides. Some may be accidental but most, especially the ones with larger time frames are almost always deliberate to some degree.
After all, it’s a long movie, and you shouldn’t try to force people to sit through the whole thing if they don’t want to.
Nice comparison. Though treating life as an ongoing movie seems somewhat constrained. Maybe more like a Hilbert cinema with an infinite amount of movies playing. Though some get stuck in some uncomfertably scary horror movies to kind of beat the analogy into the dirt.
- Forget about the debt and consider it only when asked or forced upon.
- Forget about the people and remember only when needed.
Do you remember your rejection? Your solitude? I don't.
The ultimate satisfaction that comes from your existence is none at all. To be strong and to endure is to suffer. We can leave that to the idiots. To live in peace is not to be strong nor to endure, but to let go.
Suicide is an individual decision, implying that we have to tailor an anti-suicide argument to the individual. There can be no general argument against suicide. Some circumstances may make life unbearable such as extreme torture and painful incurable diseases. To say I have the argument for all people wanting to end their lives would be an affront to such people, to not speak of being irrational.
However, what if everybody wanted to commit suicide. I remember the Heaven's Gate cult. I don't know if you know of it but I believe around 20 people committed mass suicide in the hope that their souls would be taken to another world on an approaching comet.
I don't know if such an argument is possible.
The reasons for mass suicide can range from pain or the expectation of it to bizarre cultist beliefs.
Again, we face the same problem. It's not possible to construct a general one-size-fits-all argument.
That said, the most common cause of suicide is extreme depression.
Of course, the cause of depression will differ with the individual, landing us back to square one on constructing a general argument for depressed people but one religion, which is more of a philosophy, Buddhism, provides an answer.
In Buddhism suffering is axiomatic. Everything about Buddhism is built on that noble truth. The cause of suffering, per Buddhism, is ignorance of impermanence and the ensuing craving/clinging to things ephemeral like objects, people, values, etc. As you can see, if we realize that everything is impermanent and subject to destruction we understand the pointlessness of craving for them to the extent that loss would produce depression severe enough to commit suicide. It's a completely rational outlook on life and therefore can form a good argument against severe depression - nipping the problem in the bud as it were.
Of course it may be argued that since everything is passing why not prepone the inevitable death. To that the answer would be that realizing the truth of impermanence and the foolishness of craving actually, paradoxically, produces contentment and not depression, making us happier than if we didn't know it.
I don't know of any other religion that is more rational than Buddhism. It's 2000 years old and still makes sense.
This is strange: To understand death makes life happier
Firstly, my observation from various funerals I have seen is that there are often many people that love the deceased and are greatly saddened by their death. Some of them the deceased would have known about. Some are surprising. Call me an optimist but my impression is that, except in the case of outright bastards, there are generally more people that like and are positively affected by a person than they are aware of.
Secondly, it is possible to do a lot of good in this life. If one has spare time, there are an abundance of volunteering opportunities in which one can make the lives of others better. If one has little free time but a steady income (most people have one or the other), one can give to causes that make a material difference to people's lives. Oxfam is an easy general one, but there are great niche ones too, like those that fund medical activities in developing countries to fix things like cataract or glaucoma blindness or fistulas. One doesn't need to give a lot to make a great deal of difference. For every year that one can put off one's demise, an awful lot of suffering of others can be prevented.
Hear hear. This is good. Why do you think the answer of impermanence and the foolishness of craving produce paradoxically contentment and satisfaction?
My argument is among the lines that the idea of "becoming nothing" is a logical error.
I know this isn't something that will likley help people in a sucidal state. However it helped me.
The argument:
If you want to commit suicide you evaluate your current situation. Based on the evaluation you conclude that you should take an action to change the future situation. The goal of the action suicide, is that your future you (you f.e.1s in the future) will be better of.
However if you kill yourself there won't be a future you*.
This reasoning is selfcontradictory. Since you choose to use effort in order for your future you to be better of. However since this future you only exists virtually in the moment you decide to take the action and the action itself denies the future you becoming real the action denies the justification for the action.
The reason for the logical mistake is an equating your virtual future you now with the real future you.
If we look at your statement about the comforting aspect of becoming nothing we can now identify two things.
1) The comforting element is the motivation or in other words the benefits you ascribe to the virtual future you.
2) The becoming nothing won't happen. Since it is predicated on a the virtual you transitioning from one state (now) into another state (nothing). While in reality you will neither transition, nor will you be in another state. You will simply cease to exist. You won't be or become anything since being or becoming implies your existance that won't any longer be the case.
*Worldviews that seperate mind/soul and body and therefore see suicide as the ending of bodily pain while not negating the soul like f.e. Christianity usually have a doctrine of getting punished if one chooses to commit suicide to prevent suicide.
Even if I had the guts and the ability (which I don't), the four main reasons I don't commit suicide are because:
1) I can't do such a thing to my family. It would rip them apart emotionally.
2) Most attempted suicides don't result in suicide, and I can get seriously injured for the rest of my life. Making my life worse off.
3) I have a whole life ahead of me, and since no one can predict the future, life is uncertain. Things can, and do, change for the better.
4) The process of killing yourself is very painful.
What does one do when one is born but doesn't want to do what is required of being alive?
Sure, you can throw out some plan of action like the ole Stoic program, but in real life, the fact that this is even required, is a bummer. People are focused on minutia throughout the day that is required of them. Focused on this or that. The world requires more refined minutia-mongering as society moves from hunter-gatherers to post-industrial economies. For what little meritocracy is left is for those focused on the minute. If you know your specialty well you get to move up (if it isn't taken by nepotism already). The harder you focus your attention on an organization's little orbit of ideas and needs, that is what society wants. Production. Mind taken away from one's own thoughts.
But then what are one's own thoughts? Just the babble of a linguistic animal that cannot quiet its brain. Then Zen. Zen tries to bring one to the "Now" or is it the "Nowhere"? But why do we need that program? Like the Stoics, it is just adjusting expectations and focus. Why do we need to do this to be healthy of mind? Another requirement of living "well" they say. What if one doesn't want to do any of this, third world, second world, first world requirements? Being born is the issue.
Honestly, I would like to say something helpful, but if you are up shit creek and refuse to paddle, then you will remain up shit creek. There is only one thing that will lift the curse, which is to think one kind thought. Until then you are trapped indefinitely in wanting and wanting not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5z2R5LKh3g
I just don't buy into the idea that the individual must change his/her attitude. The fact that one can even "choose" to do so means that this is not the default. Not being a default means we have to "buy into" something. What is this something? Usually it is society's need for production, and for the individual to be compliant in sharing in the productive output- preferably with joy and with ever increasing results.
Drop dead? No, just a snarky comment -- not a serious suggestion.
Since you do exist, as unfortunate as that might be, it would seem that you could do whatever you wanted to do to make life as pleasant for yourself as possible. Of course there are downsides to existence. Gravity, for instance. It's a drag. Life sucks.
At times, we all can feel the futility of soldiering on through the swamp of existence. You are not the first person to lament it. You do seem unusually immobile, however. I don't know what idea or drug or strategic shove would get you moving again. Here in the northland winter people are forever getting stuck, spinning their wheels on ice. Sometimes pushing doesn't help. It's tough to get out of an ice rut. But... eventually they do, else they are found in the spring, frozen, clutching a nihilist anti-natalist tract in their dead hands. Figuratively, of course.
You have an idée fixe. You could dislodge it with a little effort and that might help.
Magic mushrooms. Seriously. They’re doing research on it for depression (at Harvard I think) and it seems to work wonders.
That's a tediously modern, materialist answer to your question, and I agree it is inadequate and simply false. Plato's way out of the cave is through contemplation of the form of the good, and there are Buddhist and Christian responses that you are well enough aware of, that cannot be so facilely dismissed. I think there is a common thread, which is 'love' that answers your question. I would guess that the Christian response - of a salvation that is not a choice, and does not have its origin in the self, would most fully answer your complaint.
What am Insaving and why? The materialist conception seems to be the social reality. Charity is just one part of it if that’s what you’re referring to. But that is a symptom and not part of the structure.
But that’s the attitude change. If it’s a choice, what does it mean to choose society’s need for production? At the end of the day that’s what I’m choosing. There is no rebellion outside of the abstract notions which are just talk around the behemoth material social reality that is to be accepted with joy.
You don't have to choose "society's need for production". There is over production as it is.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I know people who didn't, who haven't accepted the behemoth material society reality with joy. I didn't accept it with job. To paraphrase the liturgy of baptism, "...behemoth material society reality, I reject you" (instead of "Satan, I reject you").
I, and others, like you may have to put up with social crap, but we don't have to rejoice in it. You can be as nonconforming as you can manage, and have as little as you can to do with the toilet full of social crap. Granted, it isn't easy. If you have to work (for daily bread) then you are likely to be dealing with at least some social crap. But you don't have to soak in it up to your eyeballs like some people do.
Keep complaining -- it's good for people to hear dissenting voices. But for your own happiness, carve out a little niche where you can feel OK at least sometimes.
Schop, I cannot go much further, alas; I am not a Christian, or any kind of expert here, but charity as do-good-ery is the opposite of what I am talking about.
It's all a question of motivation. I might be charitable in order to feel superior, powerful, or to impress others, or to conform, or because Guru un tells me it will make me happy, and in any such case, and many other variants, it is all about me. And as long as it's all about me, it's the endless round of dissatisfaction and suffering you describe.
The life you save may be your own?
I think what Un is talking about, and he can speak for himself, is something called "grace". Grace is freely given and unearned. You probably are suspicious of grace, or unfamiliar with the idea. It's not charity and it's not materialistic. Suppose you don't like, don't believe in God? Is there then no grace for you? Grace isn't a deal: We don't -- we can't -- do anything for it. It's a gift. "I believe in God the father, almighty" isn't an incantation that forces god to shell out grace. I haven't audited god's accounts, but as far as I know, god can give grace to whoever--believers and nonbelievers, Hindus and atheistic communists.
Is there a secular, non-christian, non-religious version of grace? Yes, and it is elusive. It's a paradox that you can not struggle to get grace. You can't force even godless grace to just appear. You can prepare yourself but you have to let grace happen to you. (At least, that's the way I understand it.) It's like love -- you can't make yourself love somebody, and you can't force somebody to love you. But what you can do is let it happen.
You have to "let go".
Meditation would probably help you, if you were directed toward the right goal.
So I've heard. I have no experience with the drug.
I like this. Well said. :up:
Quoting Bitter Crank
No doubt, giving to fellow humans out of pure compassion is something. Schopenhauer discussed it as the root of true morality. What you describe is almost exactly what Schop says about compassion. It cannot be cultivated as much as just "happens" to an individual (though his conception seems to be tied up in someone's character).
However, my comment was to the broader point- charity is within the larger framework that people even need charity. It is all a part of the material social circumstances. So what of the structure itself that creates work, that creates the need for charity. I don't see giving charity as an exercise in me displaying grace, surely you don't either. So, what exactly do we do with this whole structure, work, charity and all?
No, I don't see it that way either. Grace isn't something one displays or does.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Are you familiar with the religious idea of being "in the world" but not "of the world"?
Not being "of the world" represents one separating and distinguishing one's self from "the world" (structure, work, charity, social media, all that stuff) to the extent that one is able. It means identifying what in the world "is not for me" and what in the world "is for me". Philosophers have observed that people are driven like slaves by the demands of the world--not just that you work, but that you have a weed free lawn, drive a nice car, keep the monetary value of your property up, and so on. Strivers are all about achieving maximum rewards and displaying them to best effect.
You don't have to associate yourself with all that. Do you have to work for your daily bread? So you do because you don't want to starve. But you don't have to be a striver; you don't have to be the fastest worker, the top salesman, the largest grossing real estate agent, etc. You can arrange your life to get by with as little as possible -- thus requiring the least amount of effort possible, and least possible commitment to "the system".
How well does that work? At best, I'd say "so-so". At worst it is just another existential shit pile.
Well, I guess if Schopenhauer had his cherished poodle...
Procreation is ultimately the arbiter of the existential pile, hence my focus on it. Everything else is stemming the damage done. Now comes this organism. This organism is impinged upon by the complex factors of its interaction with the environment and its own dealing-with its genetic blueprint (and epigenetic working-out-in-the-environment). The organism is impinged upon by contingencies of history and circumstances- ranging from deep mental and physical disadvantages to minor annoyances of life.
The organism is forced to keep itself alive. Language, social learning, memory, problem solving, and other cognitive functions enable the organism to be socialized into navigating the socio-economic realm that will be key to its survival.
A system is in place since the organism first evolved- the need to socially organize. This forced the individual into ever more focused cognitive tasks. At first they were hunter-gatherer based. Many societies moved to agricultural based, then industrial, then post-industrial. The specialization and focus went further and further. The organism with all its contingent disadvantages (of various distribution), interacting with others who will need production. Interacting with others who simply need. The need forces us to deal with the needs of others.. And on and on and on.
In the end it is all about our complex needs and wants forcing others to deal with those needs and wants. Why do we force others in this system? What to do once in the system? We simply try to strengthen people's resilience.
What is the framework of the "rebel" type? How does one circumnavigate the very systematic structure that creates the very ability to survive for the individual (in a society)? The longing for the spiritual and religious is just the longing for this rebellion.. It gets coopted time and again by the needs of the community to perpetuate itself (thus its natural codification). But perhaps its function is to transcend one's own very mundane material reality.
Well, then to do? What does the rebel type do? Your suggestion is live the austere life being in, but not of the world. At the end, the cynic might be right. Make a garden for food, shit in the hole in the outskirts of your little hovel (not too close to your food..but make sure to get shit from other animals to help fertilize..though your own might do). Take the seeds, grow some more, store some in the form of pickled vegetables for the hard times... Create a Robinson Crusoe economy?
One has nowhere to go, but always something to do.
I might give them this book https://qprinstitute.com/uploads/Forever_Decision.pdf
Why want the impossible? It would be foolish and so the wise are satsfied/happy with what they have and even if they desire for more they only do for things that are possible.
The question that ought to be asked is whether there are sufficient resources to alleviate suffering people's pain so much that THEY, (not those of us judging from the outside), would want to continue living. There's a deeper question of self ownership, but the immediately salient question is whether we realistically have the resources to take others' pain away reliably and sufficiently. If we don't... then we have no business preventing others from doing what they feel they must to end their suffering.
It's stunning that so many in the lay and professionals assume that the medical, public health, and community (not to mention the financial) resources as they exist are enough to address suffering globally that we, arrogantly, can dismiss others' evaluation of their own moment-by-moment existence. Suicide hotlines, are very often overstaffed by volunteers. They're overworked and uncompensated (financially), and as a result they often can't or are disinclined to help. Nor is it any guarantee that mere words or concepts can cure what ails someone suffering.
There are associations among biological and social variables in depression, but no precise cause-effect relationship. Depression may even be a natural response to certain experiences one cannot control, and genetics reveals there's a mood "set-point" that may predispose some to becoming depressed. Predilection to certain moods may be a matter of variation. Consequently, the therapies — drug, CBT, DBT — may work well enough for some, but can't guarantee relief for sufferers in general. Worse, it's anathema just to admit this in professional circles that have reputations and financial investments to protect, creating a significant intellectual and social bias on a subject we all should own and share in talking about.
And just to mention one more area in which assumed resources may be sorely lacking, community members — family, coworkers, employers, acquaintances — are under no obligation to be understanding or supportive. Many deeply depressed human beings are abandoned for being "burdens" to others — the same others who, ironically, then refuse to allow these burdensome individuals the dignity of choosing a way out of life and suffering. Add to this the financial pressures inherent in surviving in a capitalist culture that asserts no one has a "right" to a job or general entitlement to money, which is a prerequisite of modern survival; and the additional challenges *different* people may face — minorities, those judged aesthetically unappealing, older citizens, etc — and the mere practicalities of surviving become more and more challenging even without factoring in the emotional elements of surviving. That the rest of us "do it" shouldn't be a mandate for every other human.... If we cannot take others' pain away, then it is cruel and presumptuous of us to demand they stay alive.
I am confident that, if humanity survives long enough, psychology and psychiatry will cease to be valid disciplines or will be wholly subsumed into cognitive neuroscience. Without physical biological causation, these so-called disciplines have no credible justification for claims of "illness." Besides, that globally the per capita suicide rates continue rising is incompatible with the position that these fields are a net help to society. More research articles by true scientists over the past five years have called the body of "psychological research" into serious question, with random samples of published studies in psychology proving not to be reproducible, to suffer from a poverty of statistical rigor, to be confounded by imprecise, poorly defined verbiage, and to suffer from what members of the international scientific community increasingly find to be the lethal confounding of cultural, professional, and even individual biases that distort so-called research in psychology and psychiatry from the design of studies to the interpretation of data.
Also it's a terribly sad thing to do.