Can one provide a reason to live?
I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.
I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.
This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.
I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself.
I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.
This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.
I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself.
Comments (97)
Death is a part of life, just as much as birth.
I don't agree. I agree with the sentiment that it is unavoidable and natural, but death is, by definition, the absence of life. I believe your comment not to be applicable to my query.
But also unable to increase the sum of human happiness, which one has almost certainly just measurably reduced.
a reason to live?
To find out what happens next.
Well that is your choice.
Well, there is a chance of there either being an afterlife, or a method of acquiring immortality, which would be an argument about whimsically taking your own life.
I am agnostic about whether life has meaning so I can't rule it out.
I do feel like philosophers are defeatist though and settle for a weak conclusion rather than examing the hard conclusions of a stance.
When pondering the meaning of life...using the criterion of falsifiability is misplaced. Neither you nor I can say why we exist. There is always incomplete information to any model you take. The assumption of equating your life with a scientific, or technocratic experiment is a very big one. Man did not give rise to man. We have budded from a substrate far beyond our reckoning. If we don't have free-will, it doesn't mean you're programmed by something else either. There are unknowns...many, many unknowns.
But I think it is possible that life is terribly meaningless and that we shouldn't try and mitigate that conclusion by sentiment or vagueness.
I do find it hard to understand peoples rational motivations because life is so complex that it seems seems very hard to evaluate what people ought to believe.
And that applies even if it is framed as an intellectual pursuit or "curiosity"...rather than as a personal search for a reason not to end a particular life.
I am of the "live and let live" school...which almost demand a concomitant "stay alive or end it...your choice" element.
That said, however, if you actually are contemplating suicide (despite your disclaimer)...think really long and hard about it. There is a good deal of finality about it.
I don’t think that fearing death necessarily follows logically from the conclusion that it is bad. Your attitude towards it could be more stoic, or indifferent, or any number of things.
Another is whether you should create new life if you think life is fundamentally pointless.
Not having a really shitty life depends on many coincident elements. Many of them are well outside of our control. But some margin of possibility in us can either be preserved or not. You don't have to kill yourself to let yourself die. You do have to live in order to live.
You might fear death ending your goals and pleasures prematurely.
You might see it as negating your efforts.
You might be worried about a bad afterlife or just the ending of yourself.
You might fear a painful or protracted death.
But as a general agnostic I can't say I know what my death will entail.
For example I don't think any of Hitler's ancestors could have predicted his impact on the world just like no one really knows what their future impact will be.
But as an agnostic about meaning and the afterlife I cannot categorically and honestly rule out some kind of underlying purpose to reaIity.
But I think we shouldn't resort to platitudes or make things up. It seems the current pandemic is shaking up perspectives though.
Quoting JacobPhilosophy
:roll:
Memento mori. :death: Memento vivere. :flower:
[quote=Albert Murray]We invented the blues; Europeans invented psychoanalysis. You invent what you need.[/quote]
:sweat:
[i]"In the morning
Want to die
In the evening
Want to die
If I ain't dead already
Oh, girl, you know the reason why"[/i]
I dont think that makes sense. If you swap out life for other things your logic doesnt seem to hold, and so you would need to show why life in particular works this way and you havent. I dont see how you can.
For example, “a game of hockey cannot be both worth playing and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can both.
“My favourite book cannot both be worth reading and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can be both.
And so on, for any number if things other than life. Why does the logic change in the case of life? Also, you are essentially saying that things worth doing cannot end unless they arent/werent worth doing to start with. I think thats clearly not the case.
I think there is a difference between maintaining yourself as a means of preventing pain or pursuing basic pleasure as opposed to giving a specific reason for prolonging and creating life.
Pain and pleasure are probably more relevant to the maintainance of life than reason.
Reason probably can't resolve the dilemma.
I"m apart of a political party called, Shark Fighter Nation
#Shark_Fighter_Nation
this includes:
fighting a rattle snake with pair of garden shears
bears, alligators, Bobcats, poisonous snakes and ofcourse sky diving.
There are alternatives to suicide.
Whether there is a after life or not, there is no reason to commit suicide.
Every last suicide tears a huge hole in society. Mothers get real up set when such things happen too.
There are alternatives to suicide.
This is a rather simplified view of life and death. Life has a complex structure of value and potential that is both positive and negative, but it is also limited - that’s not a contradiction. It is the way that you structure and then collapse this potential information that results in a reduction to ‘either fear death or kill yourself’. Every action we take is a result of collapsing this potential information in relation to interacting, ever-changing and limited events, but I think we need to always remember that the potential information itself is irreducible. There is much more to life as a potentiality than whether or not to evade death.
The end of life is arbitrary? Seems pretty cut and dry to me, you read the book and it ends when your done reading, you live the life and it ends when you die.
Life may have an arbitrary quality to it in the sense that you dont know when you're going to die or how, but that isnt the same as what the examples of hockey and a book illustrate about the failed logic of the premiss that something cannot both be worthwhile and acceptable in ending.
The point is not how or when it ends but only that it ends. It is worthwhile, and is acceptable in ending. Its both, and there is still no good reason to think life is an exception. Its something you do that is worthwhile, and is acceptable in ending. Just like the book, you may not want it to end but it must, and often that it ends is part of what makes it worthwhile.
In that this relates to anti-natalism, it is the same petulant, juvenile kind of perspective, focusing on not experiencing “bad” things instead of appreciating the beauty that can result from them. Adversity is the mechanism for growth and maturity, and is worthwhile for that reason.
Speaking for myself, and hopefully shedding some light on what you presume to be a conundrum, life is worth living for it's a prerequisite for pleasure - the dead can't be pleased. Too hedonistic? Look at the reasons for suicide - mostly has to do with pain and subsequent depression (sorrow). The problem for the living comes to a sharp focus because life invariably involves pain - for the lucky it may be minor and for the hapless the pain may become insufferable. So, we must navigate through life, seeking out pleasure and where we find it drink to our fill and at the same time avoid painful life-negating experiences. In short, life is worth only as much as the pleasure we get in experiencing it.
As for death, its fearsome reputation is explicable in terms of the positive impression we have of life - life is good and so death, the end of life, has to be sad, bad and scary. I believe the fear of death diminishes proportionally to the amount of pain experienced in living (suicide). However, if one is to recognize the fact of its inevitability, we can begin to draw some amount of comfort from it and begin to accept our appointment with the grim reaper, an appointment that we can possibly postpone but never cancel.
Life is still good but our death is as certain as Socrates' own demise. Isn't it logical then that we should appreciate life and accept death. The bottomline is that death is acceptable, not because there's anything wrong with the value of life but because it's inescapable. There doesn't seem to be a contradiction.
Ps I can't figure out how to quite effectively
You make some good points. Let's recall that Socrates was an old man with a fixed self-image. Dying the way he did was one of the most interesting things he could do with the time he had left. It was a deed he could add to his words, a nice period. Imagine him sneaking off. He had a legacy to think of. Isn't it beautiful that a rational old man could walk calmly into the mystery/abyss/void?
More generally, let's assume that death is just non-existence. If life is good, then the movement from some positive value to a neutral zero is indeed a loss. (I agree with you.) Of course our judgment of whether a life is good (worth clinging to) depends on all kinds of things, but that's a different issue.
Good point but what's the purpose of memory? Is it to allow you to experience pleasure repeatedly with each recollection of a pleasurable experience? To my reckoning, memory if it is at all relevant in re death is just another way of expressing that universal, fervent desire to escape death - we seem to regard the continuity of our memories as an evidence of something that doesn't change as we live and the hope is that this unchanging soul continues on even after death. This deeply-rooted intuition is clearly evident in the scenario you described: you wouldn't want to experience pleasure if that pleasure isn't recorded for future reference for that entails no continuity, no self, no soul as it were.
While it seems that life isn't worth it if death is final, it does make sense to make the best of our time alive, no? That seems to be the general consensus among people in my opinion. You may not remember the enjoyable event but you're there and you have nothing better to do; might as well enjoy the event.
I believe there's someone with a memory illness like the one you described: this person's short-term memory is normal but his long-term memory is faulty. This person is then is in the exact situation you described but he seems to have come to terms with his condition which brings us back to the notion of acceptance as an appropriate response to what are inescapable truths.
I can relate. I connect this to the future-orientedness of human beings. We can imagine ourselves so far ahead in the future that all becomes absurd and unreal. Yet in general being future-oriented in a non-radical way is a sign of intelligence and prudence.
It's a good example of logic having a strange result. Because surely it matters right now to you, but you say it shouldn't. What backgrounded framework grounds that shouldn't? I relate to what you say, so I'm not immune to that framework. I'm just interested in whether we can take a certain distance from it, see it from the outside.
If I knew this memory wipe was approaching, I would enjoy the event and find a way to express that enjoyment in a lasting way: whether that’s in a diary, or sharing my experience with someone for whom my experience matters. Your life is not about its meaning for you, in the end. You’ll be dead, after all. I think that enjoyment, once shared, has the potential to come back around to us in some form or another through our relationships with others. But then I’m a glass-half-full kinda thinker.
For a light-hearted look at this topic, watch ‘50 First Dates’. It’s surprisingly thoughtful.
Well ya, the memory wipe is removing the experience and the experience is what makes the thing worthwhile. However, this scenario does nothing to make sense of your claim that something cannot be worthwhile and acceptable in ending. The mind wipe is just an ad hoc attempt to hold onto a point that still fails and Im sorry to say that it doesnt make much sense either. Once you introduce the mind wipe, then your original point can no longer be made since it refers to that experience (the end of it, of life). Even if you make another ad hoc adjustment to not include the end as part of the experience then you haven't said anything interesting at all, youd just be pointing out that if you only experience something negative and specifically do not experience what makes that negative thing worth going through then this negative thing isnt worthwhile. Thats not saying much at all, so Im afraid youve fallen quite short here.
So find your reasons to live! I suspect that won't be done intellectually but through trying 'life' and seeing what appeals.. From my experience you cannot find reasons to live from an ivory tower, you have to get stuck in and let your reactions tell you what's worthwhile and what isn't. We 'philosophers' may think we're highly evolved but we are animals at heart with the same drives and needs as anyone else.
Sure, but it doesn’t mean you have to. That’s all I’m saying
Indeed, if one gives it some thought, to have a 7 second memory is identical to dying every 7 seconds. I wonder what death would mean to such a person? John Locke was of the opinion that a person's identity was defined by faers memories.
Is it just that it's more inconvenient to be aware of the absurdity of one's existence than to be unaware of the absurdity of one's nonexistence.
Honestly I revel in the absurd, so I'm not going to search for a solution in death.
I'm not so fatalist, though. I don't know if death is ultimately survivable, but judging from first-person accounts, it's revelatory, and I look forward to that, regardless of how short-lived it may be.
There are infinite reasons to give for living, evaluating them by whether or not they're compelling or objective is a choice. If someone gives a reason for living and you say their reason is not objectively true and therefore invalid, you have missed how your argument lacks any objective validity. You are just like the others, you have opinions and reasons for doing/thinking things which are not going to be agreed upon by everyone, they're subjective and whether or not they're compelling, valid or rational to you or anyone else doesn't help fundamentally change the subjective nature of opinions.
It is asinine to reject reasons for living based on their subjective nature, there are no reasons for any action that aren't subjective and I would describe it as a complete misunderstanding on the subjective/objective dichotomy.
You have this life that no one else will ever have. You have an experience, a set of insights, thought patterns, behaviour, a quality to your personality that no one else can ever replicate because they will never be you. You occupy this finite space with your body, a space that - though ever changing in relativity to all other spaces as you move around in the world, can never be occupied by another in its entirety, can never be claimed or possessed by another. It is you. Your DNA, your systems of function, your biology and organisation of matter will never again be in this exact configuration that makes a "you".
Being alive is a stasis in a sense. Like the solidification of self in a sea of non-living. Homeostasis keeps you organised and fit to live. The amount of information and organised systematic exchange and interaction it takes to keep you from dying, to keep you from falling apart into a soup of trillions of disorganised molecules is unfathomable.
Life in this sense is a Rock and death is a fluid. Statistically for the duration of the universe you are going to spend a long long time, a lot more, as a fluid of matter and energy aimlessly being passed around possibly unaware and devoid of conscious sense at all that you were once a "you"...but for this blink in time, this brief lifespan moment in everything, you are a rock that is in dynamic equilibrium maintaining its object and the phenomena associated to that object.
So for the sake of diversity of being, this is the moment where you can do all the things living things do. And when you are dead you will do all the things dead things do. Both are states of being and existence in the universe it's just that this current one is seemingly the only in which you can discuss that fact.
A sunny day, a sunset, beautiful landscape, novel experiences (seeing a new place, trying a new thing), seeing old friends, sharing life experiences with others, aesthetic or sublime states from art and nature, music, humor, laughing, flow states, creative endeavors (projects, writing, designing, music and art creation), engaging discussions, engaging dramas, tragedies, comedies, and stories, new understanding of something, seeing something in a different way, relationships, friendships, accomplishment, physical pleasures such as moderate drinking, exercise high, moderate eating of good food. This is more-or-less what you will see when people say why we should live.
So it all starts from being born in the first place. Whether the parent knows it or not, they are making a political and philosophical decision when having a new person. They believe life is good enough to make a decision for someone else to be born into. They like their way of life, and want to perpetuate that to others. Now, this doesn't include unintended pregnancies and birth (though it may because abortion is available but other ethical ideas might make this murky for certain people). However, most people see birth as something that is good. However, is it?
My main question is: Is a world not even close to a utopia worth being born into?
A utopia is achievable. No, not in this universe, true. It is conceivable but not achievable. This is a world where we must cope, accept what is not ideal, change expectations, adapt, overcome, survive, maintain, and find entertainment. It's a world where we are constantly lacking, and not totally satisfied for long.
If we distill it down to a basic principle, we can see that involves a basic lacking principle. The philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer called this principle "Will". Whatever you call it, the principle is the same. It manifests in survival, maintenance, and seeking entertainment. That is where all desires spring from. There is also the day-to-day absurdities of repetition. The world turns, over and over. We eat, crap, sleep, repeat. The absurdity of maintaining and entertaining. There are the whole myriad of uncountable contingent harms of circumstance. These are harms that happen on a daily basis: frustrations, physical harm, humiliation, shame, annoyances, conflict with other people, social pressures, disappointments, uncomfortable environments, etc. etc.
In an non-utopian world, so-called therapies include things like "radical acceptance", "positive psychology", "no pain, no gain" mentality, changing expectations, comparing your own situation to worse situations, and a whole lot more. The main point with these therapies is that it is your fault that you perceive any negative thing. It never wants you to think that the perhaps the world itself is inherently of a negative position, and that of all the possible worlds, this one is on the lower mediocre one at best (if that can even be qualified). If we were to see the structural flaws, we would have more despair, less enthusiasm for birth, and a general turning away from this world. The powers-that-be would not want this.
Perhaps with this conclusion of a lower mediocre world, we can take the view of Philosophical Pessimism. That is to say, the world isn't that great (despite romantic odes of fervor and praise trying to convince otherwise), and that we should not put more people into it. We can form pessimist communities where we can all recognize this reality for what it is, and not try to pollannaize it, overlook it, ignore it, etc. We can look at it dead on and give the appropriate assessment of it. These communities can bring people together in this understanding.
You can be a happy-go-lucky pessimist. Pessimism is not depression or a mood state. Rather, Philosophical Pessimism, is generally a negative assessment about the structures of existence and human nature. Mainly, it is asking: "Is there an inherent and necessary suffering to being born"?
I was not assuming anything about you, just providing a response to your question.
First off, do you know how to use the quoting function? You can click and drag over the words and then let go. You will see a "quote" button. Click that, and you have quoted someone's post.
Anyways, you are making a category error. The fact that math, physics, and chemistry describes the physical processes that make our experiential states, that is a non-sequitor as to the human experiences life itself qua human experience.
I don't care either, but if you don't quote, it potentially means your post is overlooked as quoting will allow the other person to see that someone has responded to them. There will be a small notification that appears when someone is quoted. You may not care if someone sees your response, and again, doesn't matter to me what functions you use or not, just trying to be helpful.
Quoting Becky
This is an interesting philosophical claim. Physics and chemistry are sciences that explain observations. That is not the "thing-itself". Rather it is an epistemological methodology for explanation. What the nature of existence is, is a metaphysical claim, that is not the realm of science itself. What you mean to say, I think, is that you take a physicalist metaphysical position of the world. However, a physicalist metaphysical position entails no assessment or evaluation for how humans can respond to the world. That is why it is one reason why it is a category error. You have not provided the steps to justify why a physicalist position entails anything regarding how humans experience the world.
That does not follow; if "thing-itself" can refer to the thing-itself, so can "water" and so can "H2O". H2O may be theory laden, but it can still be used to refer to the thing-itself.
Your whole life is spent gaining experience points, completing challenges and trying to get as close to 100% completion, realising 100% is impossible because of certainly in-game one off choices and therefore must decide what the closet to 100% completion is to you this time you play. There are Easter eggs, bonus levels that both affect the outcome of the game and those that don't, and ultimately at the end of the game you die, and all this points are lost.
Maybe you respawn in a way that some level of attainment is important, maybe its a one time around map, but either it doesn't matter, cos the new game isn't based on any of your 'save points', a new character would play the same game a new way from an infinite amount of start points, story arcs etc...
This means life it pointless, yet this pointlessness is the point, the aim of the game is only to play the game, you decide right and wrong, sometimes a group can agree on these ideas and thus create groups and scoieites and civilisations, but it all boils down to each person in that group choosing that similar path for their game.
I am not referencing some kind of destiny here, just the acceptance that sometimes one can create a isolated 'fate' where one keystone choice will inevitably lead to an outcome unless certain other choices are made.
(I am also not talking literally, as in I am not referring to this dea that we live in a (or somebody's?) simulation, that is a different idea, my sandbox rpg is metaphorical.)
If I am right, then you already live, and that is the reason, to 'play' your 'character arc' until it is concluded, and also trying to 'complete' the 'game'.
Im not talking about how how names refer to their referents in the world but rather the specific statement that math and science are the world. That is not a metaphysical position. It is using an epistemological statement for a metaphysical position. Further, my actual point is that even that metaphysical position doesnt tell us much about the himan experience itself other than claiming perhaps a statement about the constituents that make up people and the world
I realize you're scratching a metaphysical itch, but I'm scratching a semantic itch, and I posit that you have to cross my playground before you reach yours. For example, what does it mean to say that math and science are the world?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree, but I think we have a bigger issue. You present that chemistry not being a metaphysical position is a problem with the claim that we're just chemistry. But I think chemistry not being a metaphysical position is a problem with your objection to the claim that we're just chemistry. Water is H2O; two parts of something we call hydrogen and one part something we call oxygen. Hydrogen has one proton in it, oxygen eight. Protons are made up of two up quarks and one down quark bound by gluons. And a quark is, maybe, a primitive classical unit. Or maybe, a portion of the universal wavefunction. Or maybe, a mode of vibration of strings. Or maybe, a particular equivalence class of features of the simulation we're in. Or maybe some combination of these things, or maybe none of them. All of these things have possibly distinct metaphysical implications.
But I submit it doesn't matter. Whatever quarks are, that the stuff coming out of my faucets is H2O is just a model saying such things as that I can run a DC current through it, and get two parts of something I call hydrogen and one part of something I call oxygen. So who really cares what the metaphysics is? That's irrelevant. What's relevant is simply whether that model is apt.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But with respect to the claim that we're chemistry, it's irrelevant what the metaphysics are. It's quite simply the wrong conversation to be had. What's relevant is simply whether the physics is apt to cover it.
ETA: Just to remain close to the topic I'll toss my view in. Life is quite simply an opportunity. Beyond that I don't think there's much to say; what it's an opportunity for is open ended, and whether that's a sufficient reason is open ended (and as some have said, it's not even necessary to have a "reason" to live to live). I would only hope that people find something to do with that opportunity and enjoy it if they can.
I don't know, that's a pragmatic claim, which itself is a metaphysical claim. What works, is what is the case. Okay, if you say so I guess? But it looks like you are making an epistemological claim, which I would agree would help a species built on surviving on empirical patterns. That matters though, only if you feel life itself matters, and that seems to be the question at hand.
Quoting InPitzotl
But that isn't the actual question at hand which is nothing to do with the physics, but what we should do as humans in the world.
Quoting InPitzotl
I mean we do live until we don't, but this isn't much of a statement. So dear sir, why should humans keep living, keep continuing, keep procreating? This itself has nothing to do with whether we can harness DC energy or not.
Why can't both be good?
How do you know this?
Ha, ha! Guys=Wordy. True that! :-)
Funny thing is, and this is purely from my own experience of the topic.
When I wanted to kill myself, I could not find a reason to live.
when I was not able to pull through and do it, and had to accept that death was not a option, I then found reason to live. I realised that it is a selfish act to do suicide, it is not fair if you have a family, parents, siblings, that you are an uncle, if you have friends etc.
because what you put them through by doing suicide is a selfish act.
But I did not see it in that way before after the state in which I wanted to not live.
I was thinking of a selfish reason to kill myself but found reason why not kill myself which happened to be a non-selfish reason.
So for what you ask and what I conclude from my experience, I see it as, there is no one single, one true answer to you're question.
This quote from the play Hamlet,“To be, or not to be? That is the question—Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And, by opposing, end them?” The idea of whether is it better to live or to die.
And to answer the hamlet quote in which the question is, is it better to or not.
It is better to die because you will not suffer.
but it is better to live because then you will not be dead.
/(In advance, I am sorry for bad grammatical writing. and also I am brand new on the site, and firstly did not want to comment, I just wanted to read through topics and answers, but since this was something I have had a real life experience on. I took the liberty to share my view. Even that it is inconclusive :D)
Quoting schopenhauer1
You're still walking through my playground. What does it mean to say humans should keep living, keep continuing, and keep procreating for reason X? What does it mean for life to matter? How does metaphysics help you answer that?
I offered that life is an opportunity; open ended. If you have something you care about, you can devote your life to it, and that's a reason to live. What is your objection? And how does metaphysics help support your objection?
Metaphysics might not, though someone like Schopenhauer has some interesting answers using a metaphysical starting point.
Quoting InPitzotl
You can see it sort of in my first response.
I see this in your first response; I'll label them:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
(A) is a value-judgment; I offer that it has no meaning for a reason to continue living unless it has meaning to the subject under consideration. What is your objection?
(B) is just a generic prescriptive question; (C) is a bit more particular. So considering (C), I offer again that life is just an opportunity, open ended. You should keep on living if there's something about life that you value. Same thing about continuing, and procreating. Both, however, may be challenged and weighed against reasons against the same. So I ask again, what is your objection?
Actually, I meant the first response to this whole thread, sorry if I wasn't as specific, so it was before that post.
Quoting InPitzotl
I don't have one. I was just saying that the fact that we can harness DC electricity isn't a reason for humans to live by itself.
Quoting InPitzotl
Correct. Something that the statement "the world is made up of chemistry" doesn't really get at, which was my point of the statement.
Quoting InPitzotl
I guess my main evaluation is in regards to suffering. This is not a utopia. Is the world worth bringing more people into if it isn't a utopia? I concluded that it is not. A mediocre world (one that is at least not a utopia) is not worth bringing more people into in the first place. However, I can see not committing suicide once born because of the fear of pain and the unknown, and being attached to projects already in place once born. However, I do take Schopenhauer's (and Buddhist for that matter) ideas seriously that there is a basic lack in the humane experience. This I call inherent or "necessary" suffering (it doesn't go away, it's always there in the background). On top of this, it is self-evident that there is also myriads of ways to contingently suffer. Contingent suffering is suffering that is circumstantial to each person's circumstance (not necessary) but nonetheless still pervasive in almost all human lives (e.g. physical pain, mental anguish, frustrations, disappointments, tedium, etc.). I also see the idea of the absurd (often discussed in existential literature). That to me, is the repetitious nature of living that one sees if one reflects too long (the world turns, we basically have to do the same things over and over). To get a better understanding, see my first response.
My basic objection to Becky was her (his?) objection to my response by saying "the world is chemistry and physics" and therefore X evaluation of the world.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Okay, I think we're talking past each other then, because I was just saying addressing the metaphysics is the wrong conversation. I see @Becky's quoted claim as off myself (as far as the description goes, because energy isn't a type of thing, but rather a metric for a property; that's always a property of something physical, and we "aren't" and can't "become" energy), unless possibly it's a metaphor I don't quite get.
.
Yeah, I'm just trying to say that whatever she was trying to say, it didn't seem to be fleshed out as to how the world being "chemistry and physics" means something evaluative about the human experience.
I was also noting that "chemistry and physics" is an epistemological methodology, and not a metaphysical claim in itself, unless explained as such. Does Becky mean scientific naturalism? Does Becky mean physicalism? Could he/she be committing "scientisism"? It's hard to tell just from the statements. It was more a prompt to explain the position more fully. It could go in many directions, but I see Becky didn't really address the issues much further.
This is a non-sequitur. A life may be worth living at some point, but turn sour later on. Furthermore, a life can be worth living without its end being a bad thing. Indeed someone whose life is well-lived seems to me to be someone who is not overly-concerned with keeping it around. They do not fear death but neither see any reason to bring it about.
Life is of so little importance that to ponder suicide is somewhat absurd. You spend so much energy to bring about the end of something that will end on its own anyway. Certainly it is understandable if you are experiencing a great deal of pain, but otherwise what's the big hurry?
But this only pertains to a life that already exists. If we are instead talking about life in the sense of the entirely of one's journey between birth and death, then the question is not so much is life worth living (aka is life worth finishing) but rather: is life worth starting. These are two very different questions.
A life can be worth finishing, even if it was not worth starting.
:up:
#Shark_Fighter_Nation is the political party i belong too.
This includes skydiving, shark fighting, fighting a rattle snake with a pair of garden shears, moving to Chicago, moving to Iran, fighting a bobcat, fighting a bear, fighting an aligator
Suicide is never in any circumstance or after any set of bad choices the right answer. Suicide is never the right answer.
Suicide is, however, always the first question (Camus).
:death: :flower:
It seems you suffer from depression. Sorry to hear that. I wish you the best.
So, supposing there are no positive reasons to want to live, at least there's the negative one of death being just too painful to experience.
It's not that Jane married John instead of Jones because she loves John but because she hates Jones. :chin:
It can worth living at a certain age or time, and worth ending at another, either because one is past one's prime and doesn't enjoy it anymore, or because the circumstances have changed.
So, for you, is "seeming" believing? Whatever. I "suffer" from cheerful pessimism (i.e. prepared for things to get worse and usually quite amused that they haven't yet) instead.
:death: :flower:
My reason is simple. I want to see what happens tomorrow.
self doubt = success but we should try to avoid self doubt as much as possible. Success isn't all that important. We should always forgive ourselves and Suicide is never the answer.
Live Long and Prosper.
Death is “acceptable” to us due to its inevitability. If we truly had a choice about it, we could debate the merit of existing forever vs ending one’s life. The question is whether life is worth living in spite of death. I’d argue that death’s inevitability and permanence makes life’s worth living, even if to simply see what’s next.
Isn't this a false dilemma you're committing here?
for example life ought to be lived is a good statement, but that doesn't necessarily entail death being a bad state, there is nothing to entail so,
but as for my opinion, I believe the "a person ought to live but death isn't bad" statement comes from a place of both the wille zum leben and the rational mind, since there is nothing that inherently makes living an ought except the irrational force of the wille zum leben in my belief.
You wont die. You will only live. You can't experience death much like you can't see beyond your visual field.
So for you, death wont come, but I think you agree.
You don't need a reason to live, you need a reason to end it.
A rational reason to end your life is when your total estimated suffering outweighs your total estimated enjoyment.
Life has no purpose whatsoever, it's just an expression of the natural laws.
But if you think life is pointless, let's turn to Death - the Grandmaster of Utterly Pointlessness.
Life is something, death is not.
The chance to be born is very small.