Will pessimism eventually lead some people to suicide?
I've considered myself a pessimist now, and I'm 38 years old. To be honest, it leads me to being severely depressed & suicidal; there is not a single day now where I don't think of death, and even suicide personally. Everything (or most of the time) just seems depressing. There are honestly only very few/little things in this life/world that interests me now, and even they're easily crushed soon by reality. It's depressing. And constantly reading about pessimism philosophy even reinforces how depressing this existence really is. Although admittedly, my pessimistic outlook were perhaps mostly & originally also caused by what I've considered myself & my life to be a failure.
Will pessimism eventually lead some people to suicide? Because if I remember and not mistaken, there are even some pessimistic philosophers who committed suicide too in the end. I think suicide is probably the final conclusion, or the most extreme conclusion, regarding pessimism. It is the final actualization of pessimism; seeing how everything makes one pessimistic, as there is not any single light/ray of hope anymore; everything is/seems hopeless, futile, meaningless, pointless, & depressing. It is no wonder that, eventually, it might (understandably) lead to suicide.
Will pessimism eventually lead some people to suicide? Because if I remember and not mistaken, there are even some pessimistic philosophers who committed suicide too in the end. I think suicide is probably the final conclusion, or the most extreme conclusion, regarding pessimism. It is the final actualization of pessimism; seeing how everything makes one pessimistic, as there is not any single light/ray of hope anymore; everything is/seems hopeless, futile, meaningless, pointless, & depressing. It is no wonder that, eventually, it might (understandably) lead to suicide.
Comments (125)
No. Acute depression (due to XYZ) or unbearable, interminable pain or both will lead some to commit suicide. The switch does not flip itself. Pessimism, however, is simply a rationalization (à la hypochondria) for coping with ineluctable frustrations (i.e. facticity). Besides, nothing seems more optimistic - leap of faith (martyrs) / folly (idealists) - than killing oneself in the hope of escaping from 'the devil one knows' to 'the devil no one can know' this side of the grave.
:death: :flower:
Um, here's a place to start. Please consider junking this pointless hobby.
Here's wishing you well!
Sorry, I know this won't help, and I apologize for that, but, um...
It's literally not possible to be a failure at age 38. You aren't an old man being wheeled in to the nursing home just yet. You may feel old because being young is all you have as a basis for comparison, which is understandable. But from my seat at age 68, you've just barely left the young punk stage of life.
A little story... You've probably heard of Kentucky Fried Chicken. The guy who created that company failed at one business after another after another his entire life. Until he was in his sixties and hit upon the Kentucky Fried Chicken idea. He then lived another twenty five years as a very rich man.
Life isn't over until it's over.
And then, who knows what? Don't assume you know, cause nobody does. Nobody.
I am not quite good at the emotions department, but I as a pessimist can maybe help philosophically,
Pessimism doesn't inevitably lead to suicide, it doesn't actually lead to anything, its left for you to determine it,
now another thing most pessimist tend to forget is determinism, and that you aren't actually committing suicide, life and existence are inherently the ones that killed you using your own hands,
which makes it have zero difference compared to normal death,
now lastly, pessimism doesn't entail sitting down doing nothing all day or ending your life, it only entails one thing, everything is meaningless, worthless, you could still be a very accomplished pessimist who believes in pessimism yet just works because why the hell not?
also the definition of failure is relative, a few thousand years ago you being 38 would have been a great accomplishment, failure doesn't actually exist in some sense, its purely subjective.
you should try to do things for the sake of doing rather then just indulging in pessimism, this is ironic coming from me, but the rule is do as I say not as I do
Have you considered that this experience may not be philosophical in nature, but biological?
Wise words.
My approach is similar yet different. I am also a philosophical pessimist. I like your picture by the way Augustusea! Anyways, a major difference between common "pessimism" and a "philosophical pessimist" is that "pessimism" often implies a depressed mood or outlook. Philosophical pessimism, on the other hand, is a worldview. Akin to but not the same as a religious aesthetic. It is an overarching way the world is seen to exist metaphysically, epistemologically, and ethically.
The main philosophical pessimistic stance is that the world is either inherently suffering or contains suffering as we experience. Usually it is a combination of both these views. I call inherent suffering "necessary suffering" as it doesn't go away by circumstances. That is to say, it is akin to the "seething, striving force" of Schopenhauer's Will. It is the human's need for need. It is the necessity of an individual being needing and wanting survival, comfort, and entertainments, always becoming, never being, always dissatisfaction, frustration, boredom impelling us forward.
The experiential suffering through causal circumstances of life, I call "contingent suffering". You banged your toe, you fell into a volcano, you had a bad interaction with someone, an accident, a disease befalls you. These are things that are contingently true, but are almost always inevitable at some point to some people.
Combining these, philosophical pessimists see the world in terms of these necessary and contingent forms of suffering and have a stance of rebellion against it. Whereas most existentialists, post-industrial relativists, etc. try to find some sort of radical acceptance of the suffering, pessimists ultimately rebel. They don't accept suffering as a good thing, as necessary to endure, as needed. Thus, many philosophical pessimists are antinatalists. No one needs to be born to suffer or experience suffering.
One of my own solutions once already born is Communal Pessimism. That is to say, communities of like-minded people who can discuss their rebellious stance, their worldview, can console each other, etc. There is catharsis in consolation with others.
When a sambar deer hears rustling leaves or twigs breaking it thinks "tiger" not "rabbits" and so it lives to see another day. :chin:
I find the view of yours very coherent, and I would agree with,
but for OP I think his problem mainly doesn't stem from pessimism itself, but what he ought to do about it, I think he has not realized there isn't anything to do actually, other then look cold and angry at existence beating its you down, you can't do anything else, even suicide is not actually suicide, its existence always murdering you in this case, so it could be accounted as rebellion to give that angry look, or it could be counted as the only thing you could actually do about it.
This seems the most concise summary of the situation, refreshingly free of big words too.
This description does however contain a serious error. It's not inevitable that we are AlWAYS becoming and NEVER being. In fact, the experience of being and becoming both happen naturally all the time on their own. And, we have some measure of control over the balance between the two.
So the rational response is not to read a bunch of fancy talk philosophy from grouchy old dead men which tells us how inevitably depressing life is etc etc blah blah blah. The rational response is to learn how to manage the balance between being and becoming.
Becoming and suffering are made of thought. Thought is an electro-chemical information management medium, that is, just another mechanical process of the body.
To the degree one lowers the volume of thought becoming and suffering fade and are replaced by being. It's a mechanical problem which can be addressed by mechanical means.
No offense, but there's plenty to do, so please try not to peddle bad advice to troubled folks.
Whether the OP wishes to do anything is another matter, his or her choice, none of our business. But it's simply not accurate to state that there aren't any constructive steps one can take.
But I find it interesting that we are always in a position to "ameliorate" this or that in the first place. Why is it, that we we weren't "being" to begin with, but are always tinkering, dealing with, needing to fix? That is suspect in itself, and is more cause for pessimism :).
if it wasn't well communicated I was only talking about the situation only philosophically, there is nothing a person can do except be angry at it,
as for how to be angry at it is something for him to decide
I agree that's interesting. But it's not rational to focus on that question INSTEAD of taking concrete practical action to relieve suffering. Considering such interesting questions along with practical action can be reasonable, so long as we keep in mind that...
Thought itself is the source of the problem.
We have to think to survive so some degree of suffering is inevitable, can agree with that. I'm not proposing any permanent solution to all problems, only that reason can assist us in improving our management skills.
I don't fight it, I just don't accept your premise that this is so. I do accept that some degree of suffering is inevitable and that this is regrettable, and sometimes tragic in some situations. But that is not the "nature of existence" but only one aspect of existence.
Quoting Augustusea
Well, each of us has the rational option to stop looking at the big picture, which we know nothing about, and can do nothing about. We have the rational option to instead focus on managing that which we can manage. Which, as it turns out, is actually quite a bit.
as for suffering, tell me, what is this good thing that happened that can be argued to be equivalent to the bad that is the Beirut explosion for example?
also removal of bad thing (such as vaccines) doesn't equal a good thing, it just means that a bad thing has been removed
Nature is inherently full of suffering, as the suffering outweigh any actual good, and I would argue good is only a mask infront of the suffering, since ultimately every good comes at the cost of some sort of suffering.
Pain always outweighs happiness, if you could name on instance where this isn't the case then I'd be happy to change my mind
Hard exercise.
Dieting.
All can involve pain and untold happiness.
Happiness also depends on your attitude and responsibility to create your own.happiness.
Happiness is a verb.
This is WAY too sweeping a statement. There are a trillion times a trillion different human situations, and it's not possible to summarize the whole thing with any simple little formula. It's entertaining to try, but not all that rational given the impossibility of ever getting to The Answer.
What's rational is to focus on that which we can improve.
Here's my specific prescription. :-)
1) Throw away the Schopenhauer books. Here's the evidence to support that advice.
Check out his face. Is that the experience you wish to have during your short time on this Earth?
2) Suffering is made of thought. Thought is just a part of your body. Learn how to better manage this part of your body.
I would say try not to read to much pessimistic philosophy
and try to do things you enjoy.
Thoughts like these arise from a traumatic childhood and this can get worse when your tired.
A lot of times thoughts of failure is just societies bullshit telling you what you should achieve.
It takes bravery to write a public post like this.
Medication exercise fresh air hobbies recalling happy times all help.
Its always been my experience things are never as bad as they seem.
Best of luck. Take it easy.
the answer is not impossible quite the contrary,
you have an evil of millions of lives being taken, torture, mental and physical pain, all combined through all of history, what is comparable or even close to this amount of pain? but in happiness? having children? only for them to go through the same pains? or getting promoted? supporting a system of untold economic slavery and possibly contributing to war through the taxes you pay, what is there of happiness that is not actually just pain hidden under layers?
you're saying its impossible and instead we should focus on improvement? isn't this an argumentum ad ignoratiam?
1) Schopenhauer, is someone who I admire his works but do not fully agree with, in my very short time on this earth, I've seen the worst it has to offer, so my face would be worse then his if I were to reach that age
2)Suffering is indeed made out of the conscious of living creatures, as it is dependent on their existence,
but if I think happy lovey dovy stuff all day, that doesn't mean some women is not getting raped, or some child is not dying, it means that I just have chose to close my eyes to reality in favor of the mask of happiness which would be ultimately irrelevant.
:up: :100:
Quoting Hippyhead
:clap: :point:
Also worth mentioning, just being rude is a separate thing altogether.
Pessimism seems to be an internal way of thinking aka a philosophy that a mentally sound person who does not have a mental complex can choose (or is otherwise forced to) embrace. I imagine the two get confused often.
And anyway, being too happy can lead to suicide too lol. Albeit at much lower rates but- yeah. The afterlife ie. "why am I wasting time in this dump?", etc.I gather you define suicide as a sudden and willful action to stop one's heart but there's plenty of other ways. A life of drugs and drinking, etc.
Again, I'm not denying the existence of suffering, which in some cases can be quite profound. I'm just not willing to make the leap from "suffering exists" to "life is suffering" in the sweeping global sense which some wish to take it to. Life includes suffering, is not equal to, life is suffering.
Quoting Augustusea
Yes, that is a useful fact which can be acted on. Suffering is made of thought. You made this case earlier yourself when you said that failure is subjective.
My argument is that it would be most rational to come down off the big grand sweeping dreary philosophical cloud that people like Arthur Schopenhauer inhabit, and instead focus as clearly as we can on the problem of suffering, and what we can do about it. I'm not arguing a perfect solution is available, only that any partial solution is more rational than wringing our hands, embracing defeatism, and whining about the human condition etc.
My argument is that useful solutions lie in the direction of the insight you've already had. Failure is subjective. Or to put it another way, suffering is made of thought.
By "thought" I don't mean this or that thought, opinion, attitude etc. I don't mean the content of thought. I mean the medium of thought. This medium is just another biological process of the body. It is mechanical, and thus can be managed by mechanical means. As example, people attempt this all the time through mechanical means such as alcohol and drugs etc.
There are other healthier means of thought management such as meditation. Some people go fishing, or walk in the woods, the possibilities are nearly endless.
The point here is that it's not rational to get all wound up in how sad life is etc until such means of addressing the suffering are fully explored. Arthur Schopenhauer is not rational, he's just a sad grumpy old man who is attempting to elevate his personal situation to a global sweeping statement.
Quoting Hippyhead
Moi aussi mon amie.
Quoting Hippyhead
Life is suffering is like an extra simplified version of what we mean which is, that the sum of all live beings consciousness equals into suffering, or in other words, if the experiences of every mind of every being are all combined, suffering would outweigh happiness by a lot, which is not a leap and is quite reasonable, so this would mean, to live is to mainly suffer, anything else is just a side,
as for happiness, it always comes from suffering of one person, therefore can be argued to actually not exist in the large scheme of things for humans.
Quoting Hippyhead
suffering is not something we can do anything about, you can stop a certain amount of suffering, but you would never be able to achieve a perfect, perfection is impossible,
anywho point is,
truly, you can never actually remove suffering without creating new suffering, basically its either negative or zero, never positive, which can be proven, more then happiness which gets cancelled out
Quoting Hippyhead
that is correct, and it is impossible to stop pain, suffering or failure, as long as they are so,
one mans "happiness" is anothers suffering.
Quoting Hippyhead
why would managing it matter? when a child is starving half the way across the globe
Quoting Hippyhead
I do not see how that is not rational or illogical, to view all the good and bad in the world and weight them,
well he wasnt as grumpy, Mrs. Schopenhauer kept him some company as his neighbors called it
And my argument is, whether this is true or not, it's not rational to keep saying it over and over because that doesn't accomplish anything. What's rational is to try to do something about it.
Quoting Augustusea
Sorry, blatantly false statement. Once it's seen that suffering is made of thought, the door is open to do something about it. You already saw this when you said failure is subjective.
Quoting Augustusea
I have already stated my agreement with this.
Quoting Augustusea
The child is most likely starving because most people have not bothered to try to manage their suffering, or have no idea how, and thus seek to fill the empty void in their souls with various forms of greed.
Quoting Augustusea
I don't object to such a weighing process, so long as it is subservient to a serious attempt to maximize the good and minimize the bad. I do object to such a process if it is a replacement for constructive action.
why is doing something rational?
Quoting Hippyhead
yes, and its subjectiveness means one man's happiness is anothers suffering, that's ultimately inevitable, there is no happiness without suffering, hence its just a layer, a mask upon suffering, a tool in which the irrational wille zum leben utilizes to keep you here, to reproduce.
Quoting Hippyhead
Hate, and greed, are the main tools of this will, they inevitably cause the child to suffer, even if there were no children starving, a new problem will arise, everyone in the big picture will utlimately be suffering
Quoting Hippyhead
why do things need to maximize good? why do so?
Well, if we actually want to suffer, then I suppose it isn't. Let's take a poll. Everybody who wants to suffer, please raise your hand! Sorry to be sarcastic, but do we really have to debate this?
Quoting Augustusea
Suffering is made of thought. Literally made of thought. That's what I'm referring to. So to the degree one is not thinking, suffering vanishes. And that absence of suffering does not cause suffering in another.
There is truth in what you say here. There is however a third option which is neither happiness or suffering. Let's call it peace, just to apply a convenient label.
Happiness is, say, when we want something and we get it. Suffering is when we want something and don't get it. Peace is when we don't want.
Both happiness and suffering are made of thought. Thought will inevitably generate the dance between the two. And we have to think to survive, so some degree of suffering is inevitable. We agree on this.
So as human beings we can't escape suffering completely.
But we CAN manage the level of suffering.
Please answer as plainly as you can here.
Do you want to suffer? Yes? Or No?
If yes, then that is your right and none of anybody else's business.
If no, then a rational conversation would focus on maximizing the good.
argumentum ad populum in this case, I wouldn't follow
Quoting Hippyhead
you cannot just stop thinking about depression? or not think about your dad beating you right there and then, this imaginary idealism is just that, trying to live in an imaginary world for an abstract cause of maximizing good.
Quoting Hippyhead
Death basically is the only state with neither
Quoting Hippyhead
a man can never not want, unless that man no longer is
Quoting Hippyhead
you can only trick yourself and cover the suffering with a mask, doesn't mean the suffering won't be there.
Quoting Hippyhead
A False dichotomy, neither, why do I need to want any of them,
and why is suffering bad? just because we regard it as so?
A person who feels this way might ask themselves, how much effort have they invested in seeing if that's true? If none, then that explains that.
Suffering is made of thought. Five words, which contain a path forward if you want it.
Determinism is clear, a man cannot want what he wants.
Quoting Hippyhead
suffering is not temporary to surpass, it is permanent, it is infact life itself, meaning you ultimately are just suffering with breaks,
you might feel happy now, tomorrow you will probably feel worse, there will always be that bad day, always, there is no escaping that
Ok then, so go with that. Your choice. I respect your right to your choice.
I do not have a choice, neither do you is the point, its the inevitability of our condition
You have the right to believe that if that's what works for you. I'm not an evangelist. I'm not going to try to shove an alternative down your throat. Should you express a wish to discuss an alternative I'm willing, but I will respect your choice until then.
ITS NOT A CHOICE, no one has choice, determinism prevails, but alright, take care
Anyway, let us continue. What are the arguments given from the former debater and what are yours? Again seperate the art from the artist. Let's hear it. Eager to continue. Be advised though, I may be even more opposed to your view than the creator of this thread! But I'll still debate with you unless you walk out also.
How does your determinism explain that?
I'm hungry right now, and have the choice to go eat.
Later I'll be tired, and will have the choice to take a nap.
If I start suffering in my mind, I have the choice to do something about that too.
We have the choice to let go of the sweeping grand philosophical claims, and get practical and real. That is, rational. And we have the choice not to do that too.
Ok, no problem, proceed to oppose. I'm not walking away, just allowing folks to have their views, don't want to beat it to death etc.
But the choice to not make a choice is never available. Again, we are always ameliorating after the fact. Somehow it is never questioned by some why we need to put more people into the game in the first place.
You mentioned choices to not suffer, but the choice never to be put in the game of making choices to not suffer is never on the table. That is often the line of thinking a philosophical pessemist is coming from. And of course there are often things that are not choices but often affects ones capacity for choice...mental illness disease, phyical illness, circumstances, etc. But besides all this, the suffering discussed by philosophical pessimism is often about the basic dissatisfaction we find that strives but without end. The circular absurdity of surviving, seek comfortable circumstances, and seek entertainment stemming from a profound baseline boredom of the never satisfied human animal that cant just be, but must continually need and want except for small brief reposes.
Well ok, that's true. So what?
We also have no choice about needing food, needing water, needing sleep etc. We have no choice about the life long requirement to manage all these things.
Where's the news in your philosophy? What are you trying to tell us that we don't already know???
I think youre hitting many of the things I'm getting at. No one had a choice for this surivival, comfort, entertainment game, nor many contingent circumstances they are affected by. And it's a lifelong requirement to deal with these things. It was best never to have been. All the pessemist has now is communities of consolation with likeminded people, ones to share gripes and commiserate and find catharsis in shared griping. That and advocacy for not bringing yet more suffering into the world by antinatalism, not having more people that will do the suffering game and must deal with.
I agree. Again, so what? This is very well known information. Nobody chose to be born, we all know that already.
Ok, sure. Again, so what?
Quoting schopenhauer1
As a personal choice, ok, to each their own. I'm objecting only to this CHOICE being elevated to some kind of sweeping description of the human condition. You know, there are things we can do other than gripe, should we so choose. Evidence: Not everyone is a pessimist, right?
My only real complaint is any notion that the philosophy you describe is rational. If you are willing to agree it's emotional and not rational, then I withdraw any complaint and agree to an "to each their own" perspective.
If you wish to argue that what you're describing is rational, you have a long way to go yet, imho.
You are using rational as a vague signal that means nothing. Its a weasel word that stands for "what you believe to be right and true".
Certainly, if one thinks life is suffering, and it is "rational" to not bring new suffering into the world for a whole other life, one ought not to do this. If one believes its rational to not force others into the life-deal-with game, then one ought not do this. For ethics, its all about appealing to peoples shared sensibilities. Otherwise, there is no impetus. Of course we would have to agree on the premises, like not starting unnecessary suffering on other peoples behalf.
If one is physically hungry, it's more rational to go to the kitchen and make some food than it is to bemoan the chronic need to eat which nobody chose, and nobody can do anything about.
Seriously. Do the experiment. The next time you are physically hungry, don't eat anything, just write a book about how sad it is that we have to eat every day of our lives. Do that again the next day. And the next. And the next. And then come back to the thread and tell us which choice you believe to be the most rational. Eating? Or complaining?
This is what you guys are doing in regards to suffering. Not eating, just complaining. You have every right to it, but there's nothing profound or rational about it. Nor is it very kind to do so in a thread started by someone considering suicide.
It seems you've utterly failed to see the difference between "life is suffering" and "life contains suffering".
Ok, time for me to back out of challenge mode and present a thesis which others can challenge.
Briefly, my argument is that the mind is just another mechanical function of the body which requires management. In no case is there a perfect permanent solution. In all cases ongoing management is required throughout our lives.
Looking at psychological suffering as a mechanical problem opens the door to mechanical solutions. Mechanical solutions are good because they are readily accessible to everyone, no fancy philosophy required. As just one example, millions of people successfully manage their depression with prescription drugs, a purely mechanical remedy. Other people choose exercise, meditation, yoga, swimming, fishing etc.
My argument is that it's not rational to declare "life equals suffering" until all these constructive remedies have been explored.
Life is a game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Life is full of pain, joy, happiness and despair.
Suffering only occurs when a person opts out of playing the game.
Of course, because they weren't determined for so, it isn't their choice, they don't have a choice, i don't, you don't, no one does, this is just where we were determined by the past and our biology and limitations of existence to be.
Quoting Hippyhead
no you dont have the choice to eat, in order to do something you must want to do it or you are forced to do it,
if you want to eat you will eat, can you not want to eat? no you cannot,
you don't have a choice in anything, its determinism 101
Maybe its personal determination that settles reality.
Have you pondered that?
Quoting Asif
Yes.
Quoting Asif
There is no personal determination, you never had any ability to determine your future.
later or even not replied. Your not making any sense at all.
Are not some events possibilities and contingent?
only the quantum basics of the universe are contingent, nothing else is, not events or probabilities, every action has a reaction, everything has a cause.
free will is an illusion
sense is not something we make here, logic is
Everything has a cause? What caused the mythical big bang?
Problem is the philosophically illiterate run to scientism and then cant even explain how they choose their own breakfast.
The two arguments presented for and against determinism present examples that make each true- yet leave out some examples or scenarios where each can be made less true ie. circumstantial to the other.
We don't have a choice in not feeling hungry. Unless you get drunk. Nevertheless our body will still "be" hungry. Does that mean you have to eat? It means you should. But if there is nothing or say you're not eating for some social purpose like a hunger strike. You can choose what to eat. Or you can choose to literally just starve if you really wanted to for some odd reason.
Biologically we're all slaves to hunger, thirst, the elements, etc. This is not unique to human beings. However to solely use these as the arguments for determinism does the philosophy a disservice.
If I was driving home one night after working double overtime and I was just so tired and dozed off, hitting another car and messing up my shoulder as well as my car and the others' and lose my license and job- there are two ways to look at what happened. I simply had to work that job as it was the only thing available to pay my bills and provide for myself and I needed the extra hours because I splurged on a few things last week- or rather something important came up. Ergo, some would say, nothing could have prevented what happened. A common statement during hard times ie. "it was just his time", etc. There's the obvious counter argument- "no it wasn't" lol. Saying it was preventable, etc.
That's the thing about arguing and getting upset about things that already happened- especially misfortune. It becomes tediously irrelevant. As long as lessons are learned that is..
point is, you don't choose your own breakfast,
that was pre determined by many factors before it and affecting it,
and take this example for instance, do you want to kill your dad?
yes? can you not want to kill your dad? if you say yes again, it would require you to want to not want it
which is simply illogical, you cannot keep wanting in an infinite manner,
now if you said now you don't want to kill your dad, can you want to kill your dad? that would require you to want to want to and so on,
you cannot control your wants, therefore you cannot control what you do, meaning you are determined
as for what caused the mythical big bang that's a red herring and is another discussion
When folks get that blinded by their thinking that they cant identify their own will and choice then really I say you have been bewitched by false doctrine.
The examples you gave and the big bang response are just illogical. Tell me was it determined for you to get up this morning at the exact time you did?
I notice determinists cannot explain the simplest of everyday experiences.
Yes, determinism 101, a huge pile of bunk.
haven't even presented a counter argument or an argument for free will at least, jesus
Argumentum Ad Lapidem
Quoting niki wonoto
Why do you consider it a failure? According to what standard? Your own or others? If your own, why do you hold those standards and not others? Some might say you're a success. You need a standard on which to judge failure or success, and it helps by starting with a particular area. Narrow it down a little. Are you a "failure" in finance, health, relationships, education, work, job?
38 seems a little young to be pessimistic. I read Schopenhauer in my early 30s, but never became suicidal. A good antidote to pessimism is realizing what Nietzsche pointed out: it's simply one perspective, betraying a physiological disposition more than anything else. He was responding directly to Schopenhauer.
Is this world really that awful or painful? For some people, some of the time. But not for most. If you live in the United States or in Europe, you're far more privileged than most of the world, and in fact most people in history. Most of these "other" people are too busy to be depressed or pessimistic. We in the West, with our technology and higher standard of living, have the time to say "It's not good enough."The point being: it's something learned, and it can be un-learned. First and foremost, stop reading things that confirm and reinforce your depression -- that's no different than political information silos.
There are plenty of opportunities in life, and you can make what you wish of it. Not happy with yourself? Well, suicide is an option -- true. But if death doesn't scare you, what the hell if holding you back in LIFE? Loss? Rejection? Failing? Compared to voluntary, eternal non-existence, none of these things seem all that bad.
There are also practical measures you can take to beat depression (and pessimism) if you really are motivated. Meditation is a great one for that. There's plenty of resources online. But be forewarned: it's hard work. Exercise helps a lot. Diet too. Having good friends, and generally a strong social support system is also very beneficial -- most suicides and depression stems from isolation and loneliness. Having an idea of what you want out of life -- working towards something -- is crucial as well. What do you care about? Get engaged with others and work towards that.
All of these things, individually or (better) in combination will pull you out of depression. If you're extremely depressed and suicidal, then see a therapist. Meds can really help, at least as training wheels.
Cheers.
“They encounter a sick man or an old man or a corpse, and immediately they say, 'Life is refuted.' But only they themselves are refuted, and their eyes, which see only this one face of existence.” -- Nietzsche
Quoting Asif
Let me formulate this deductively,
I chose my breakfast
therefore I have free will, this is clear circular reasoning, a logical fallacy mon amie,
Quoting Asif
I am determined to learn new things in the future, and yes a boxing match is determined, because of all the factors accounting into it determining the result, the illusion of free will exists, but is just that, and illusion
Quoting Asif
Simple Argumentum Ad Hominem, and then you claim my doctrine to be false without any actual counter arguments, which is a Argumentum Ad Lapidem
Quoting Asif
again with the Argumentum Ad Lapidem, you are providing no reasoning to why my position is illogical nor any counter arguments, this is unproductive.
yes it was, because I didn't get up by my choice, that's pretty clear.
Quoting Asif
you literally are just throwing accusations and fallacies around yet provide no actual counter arguments or point out the illogical in my arguments, I see this debate as entirely unproductive, and doesn't follow to the Socratic method, if you continue to do so I will be ignoring any responses
So along this line... there's truth here. You or I can't choose to have a 50-egg omelette the size of a truck tire with a side of caviar every morning... we can't afford it/don't have the ingredients.
The choices we have for breakfast are limited to what we have available and is a result of other circumstances. When we went shopping, what we bought, what we can and cannot afford or otherwise can and cannot eat or simply prefer to eat. It's not impossible to have nearly anything for breakfast, after all circumstances can and some even say- when undesirable- are meant to be changed.
So where does that leave us as far as determinism? Who knows, a friend can stop by with McDonald's or something on a whim and that ends up being your breakfast. Everything is determined by something. What I think that determinism doesn't properly include is that everything can change. The Earth could lose it's gravity one day. Some things (circumstances or "realities") are simply less likely to change than others.
Quoting Outlander
My argument is, that you don't make the choices you think you do make, you have an illusion of choice, of free will, but it actually is none existent for life,
you have the illusion of two roads you can take to school, and the illusion of choosing road A for example, but you in reality didn't choose, you were determined to for the reasons I explained above.
Quoting Outlander
who knows is not a proper answer, logically, because who knows the tooth fairy may exist and Fascism was humanity's greatest creation, who knows
we can logically prove determinism via deductive methods in philosophy,
as for everything can change? well you have to prove so, you have to prove that there is a possibility, the earth could change suddenly one day,
and then you have to explain how this affects determinism for living organisms
I've been doing that all through the thread. It's true there are some things we have no choice about, and equally true there are some things we DO have a choice about. It's the simplest thing which could be explained to a child of five. Sorry to be harsh, but you're just chanting memorized phrases and concepts at us, not actually thinking.
And you dont explain how you can choose to respond further or not. Just self refuting pedantic guff.
I suppose you cant raise your hand as a demonstration
or choose to blow out candles at your birthday either.
Ludicrous.
I have checked the thread, and you presented no argument for free will or against determinism, you literally just called it a pile of bunk now, that's it,
this isn't productive
Quoting Asif
Appeal to authority? its just a way of discussing a topic as to reach a common conclusion, and for both parties to benefit intellectually, jesus, also committing poo poo, very cool man, you just got the determinist now with all your fallacies.
Quoting Asif
I didn't even imply I was going to choose, because it was entirely dependent on your attitude, this is my last reply, since this is very unproductive.
Did you choose to write that post?
Sorry to be harsh with you, I really don't mean to, and have no personal problem with you at all. It's just that this determinism business is highly sophomoric, and I'm an old man, apparently running low on patience. My bad.
When I was your age I went on a binge of reading Solzhenitsyn, a similar experience as reading Schopenhauer I suppose, all dark and dreary and desperate etc. It's a phase a lot of young guys go through. It'll pass.
There's a good cure for this ailment though. Boobies. I'll say no more. :-)
You had the illusion of doing so but actually did not?
Solved your problem. Determinism is an illusion.
I note early in the thread you mentioned how a person can be angry at suffering but has to DECIDE how to be angry.
Aka,he wills the how,he decides. You cant escape the fact you have choice and will.
The most salient point is if we have no control there is no point to philosophy or science.
But even determinists live as if they have control which of course everybody has.
Can you put the bins out honey? No. Why not dear? I'm determined not to! Its fated! Its science sugar... Divorce.
Some things are clearly determined and beyond our choice. But not EVERYTHING.
What to you would be an example of something determined?
I'm incurably philosophical, as is my family tree, a fact established before I was born and beyond my control to change.
I can't change that i WILL but that is more a linguistic misunderstanding. My nature my innate desire IS to Will.
Saying I can't change that is moot. I Dont want to. In fact its shows the absoluteness of the will in that it cannot be thwarted.
It's like saying to someone you cant will to be unhappy therefore you are Determined and cant change your desire to be happy. An abuse of language I think.
If I understand correctly, and agree with much of it, our circumstances in which we make choices or otherwise determine what choices can be made is largely if not entirely outside of our control?
I get that. The average person has an average job and isn't a millionaire. He cannot go on crazy vacations more than a few times a year or splurge on things like second homes, boats, Rolex watches, etc. And- even if he does "randomly" win the lottery and all that changes, you'd insist on saying it really was not random and he was simply determined or dare I say "destined" to win the lottery. Right?
I guess the question that needs to be asked is what would you say would need to happen/what circumstances would a reality have where there is your definition of free will and how does that compare to the one we live in now?
Genetics.
Correct
Quoting Outlander
Yes, because all the actions done by the production and lottery company, and the store, and all the workers, and shipment, lead for that lottery ticket to be there, and his conditions, his inability to control his wants, his past experiences and actions lead him to buying that specific lottery ticket.
Quoting Outlander
ok, so the definition of free will generally is: the ability to choose to have done otherwise.
so if I chose A instead of B one day ago, if we go back, I would have the ability to choose B instead and would choose B.
so a person needs to one, not be affected by any outside condition or sense, so we need to remove the world and his body (count as senses), and then he needs not to be affected by himself, his psychic and wants, and therefore we remove his brain, then you can have free will we could say, but then he doesn't exist and there won't be any free will to be had since it requires a being existing
A dice throw is determined? Counterfactuals regret or deciding choosing are all meaningless language!!!
Beware of dogmatic words and concepts that have no relation to human experience,and I daresay Common Sense.
Done by human action using their free will... somewhere down the line there's some guy doing what he wanted to just because. The guy who created the lottery company chose to do so? The workers chose to work in said store versus another? The shipping company founder chose to start up the company?
Well, and I can gather the response already, say he literally flipped a coin one day and decided to either spend his last extra entertainment money either on renting a movie or buying a lottery ticket. That coin flip- and nothing else- literally determined him buying the lottery ticket. I suppose we'll say it's literally the exact amount of force used as determined by whatever circumstance determined his mood at the time of flipping... that determined precisely how many times the coin would flip and what side it would land on, yeah?
I dunno... sure. Every cause has to have an effect. We're getting into the territory of refuting Newton's Laws of Motion at that point. But human will generally determined things again if not somewhere down the line. I think that's what we're forgetting.
Other people's free will determines other people's choices. Agree or disagree and why?
Bonus: Thoughts on the butterfly effect concept and resulting book and later movie?
Quoting Hippyhead
Of course it is.
To say that we have no control over anything we do implies equally that we have no control over anything we think or say. Thought epitomizes the awareness of the exercise of the freedom of will (Descates: Nor, moreover, can I complain that God has not given me freedom of choice, or a will sufficiently ample and perfect, since, in truth, I am conscious of will so ample and extended as to be superior to all limits.)
Determinism is valid within the constraints of closed systems, but whether there actually are completely closed systems in nature is dubious. Certainly the universe in toto isn't one. The idea of a universal determinism is self-contradictory, since it eliminates the possibility of the thinking mind that presents it.
If things can only be one fixed way,how to account for diversity movement creativity novelty art?
If a mind can ponder over the question are we free or determined and decide or Express we Are free then what happened to determinism? Determinism cannot explain Individuality or diversity.
And causation,if everything has something causing its behaviour what is the first cause and why could there not be multiple causes?
And how do you identify primary causes? Obviously through the
Individual intellect. Thus showing the intellect is a primary
cause of understanding. Irrefutably so.
I've always thought so. Bemuses me though the number of people who are willing to argue that they are logically incapable of....arguing.
There's truth in it, up to a point. But college sophomore types sometimes try to exaggerate it in to a kind of universally binding principle applicable to every situation, mistaking drama for philosophy. There's no crime in that, and we've all been there I bet.
But if we're going to join threads started by people in trouble, maybe we should strive to make constructive suggestions, observations and comments etc? If a poster wishes to tell us that we're all doomed and there's nothing we can do etc, perhaps they should start their own threads for that?
Its like asking for proof that I exist.
The bedrock of logic has to be our free ability to think and decide. Seems extremely obvious....
I feel the concept of determinism or laws of nature as is commonly used is very misleading and inaccurate.
But I get some people use it as a rough shorthand or jargon.
Obviously we should always act with compassion. But this isn't a therapy forum. If you ask a question about suicide on a philosophy forum then you should expect philosophical information. Suicide is primarily an "affective" thought pattern. So to me, bringing suicide up here suggests a desire to learn something new, to counter affect with reason. That's why I brought up Durkheim: he contextualizes suicide as a social phenomenon, providing an avenue to potential insights, and lessening the sense of isolation that invariably accompanies suicidal ideation. I've been there myself. As close to all the way there as you can get and still be around to write about it (i.e. I was revived).
:up:
My complaint, which I don't want to get too carried away with, is that selling pessimism in a thread about suicide doesn't really qualify as compassion. That said, I will agree that it's very common on philosophy forums for a poster to start some personally dramatic thread like this, and then vanish. So I guess if they have abandoned the turf then it no longer belongs to them.
Quoting Pantagruel
Fair enough. But hopefully, if life and death is on the line, one would hopefully receive better philosophical information than has been made available here.
If a poster wished to claim that death is better than life, and then act on that conclusion themselves thus making their claim credible, then ok, that's a claim that really can't be challenged and they have every right to it.
Otherwise is seems reasonable to proceed upon the assumption that life is better than death, if for no other reason than that is a screaming demand built in to our bodies at a very fundamental level. Should we be willing to accept such an assumption as a valid way to proceed, then the rational act is to fill the thread with constructive ideas of how suffering can be alleviated, to the degree that is possible.
Although I agree I have failed at this, as I so often do, the constructive insight I've been attempting to share is this.
Suffering is made of thought.
Five words, which open a door to very accessible (partial and imperfect) solutions to any serious person. The problem we face here, is that there appear to be no serious folks in this thread, but only honking blowhards such as myself. :-) It's a "get what you pay for" deal here folks! :-)
Yes, I advocate and practise a Stoic-Buddhist philosophy of life. Very much begins with this insight.
Ok then, so we could rehabilitate this thread with that if you wish. Or start another thread on the subject perhaps? Or let it go. Agreeable to any of the above.
Hmmm. Well, vis a vis pessimism and free-will I can share this.
My wife's cousin came for a visit with her four year old son. She's a corporate lawyer, very intelligent, but also with some palpable anxiety issues, which are manifested a lot around her son. As we talked, she started to relate some events, her worry responses were coming up as a theme, and eventually she said to me, "I guess I am a pessimist." So I said, and are you a pessimist by choice?
That stopped her cold. She thought about it and thought about it, then we didn't really go any further. When she got home she emailed my wife, and mentioned that she was still thinking about that question.
Sartre has a conception of radical freedom, that we are free even to the point of not having to follow our own already developed patterns of thought and action. I embraced this conception a long time ago, and I implemented it. There were social things, for example, that I didn't do because I didn't like them. So I decided just to make an intellectual decision and to do them. And the more I did this, the easier it became. Like anything, if you do it enough it becomes a habit. So by embracing the idea of my own limitless freedom, I found it easier and easier to make positive choices, even when these were contrary to my own "inclinations."
So if we are pessimistic, I'd suggest that is by choice. And if we recognize that, then it becomes possible to make a different choice.
My sense is that the answer lies somewhere in the muddled inconvenient middle. If true, this is not likely to be a popular theory with philosophers as it would then be difficult to strike some bold pose, a favorite pastime of we world leading philosophers peeps. :-)
I have a friend who was literally born hysterical. Not a choice. But she's also a MAJOR spoiled brat, which she mostly shares only around people she knows will put up with it. A choice. Her biological situation and her psychological situation are meshed together in a complex manner which seems impossible to untangle. So you never really know whether you should be compassionate with her, or hit her upside of the head with a phone book. :-)
I think the determinists have a reasonable point to a degree, but some of some just take it to ridiculous extremes.
You're making the same error as the determinists. Are you proposing that I have freedom of choice about EVERYTHING? They exaggerate in one direction, you exaggerate in the opposite direction.
I totally believe that not everyone is capable of enacting free choice to the same extent. Even though "theoretically" everyone does have the same capacity. I've lived the life of being trapped within my own inability to exercise the full power of my free choices; and I've experienced the opposite.
If you FEEL that you are trapped by the inability to exercise free choice, then obviously there IS a problem. You alone make that call.
If a general gives a private an immoral order, is the private free to disobey? You are the general of your own mind.
Just more simplistic exaggeration to make a point which sounds dramatic, confusing dramatic with philosophical. Ok, I'll leave you and the determinists in peace now. Perhaps we'll have more luck on another subject.
Sure, it can be a touchy subject, no doubt about it!
Needing and wanting and all the underlying desires that go into that. All the work needed to sustain. There are literally billions and billions of interactions of the economy, all based on our demands to sustain things like "going to the kitchen to get some food".
In your scenario where birth is acceptable, people are meant to play the need and want game, to overcome challenges necessary to sustain needs and wants, etc. You think this is okay to force someone else into. The outcome for my scenario where no one is born, is that no one is forced to play the "overcome challenges" game. No one is alive to care if they are deprived of some "good" that supposedly comes from it either. Win/win.
Quoting Hippyhead
I have thousands of posts on here discussing just that. I call it necessary suffering (the dissatisfaction of the human animal,, becoming but rarely being) with contingent suffering (the suffering based on circumstances of time/place, but is also inevitable nonetheless).
Necessary and contingent suffering can be avoided by simply not having new people. Once born, for those who understand the situation rather than simply live it out without this understanding, may find consolation in community. Thus that was part of my solution that there is catharsis in understanding the situation with others of likemind, if one sees the picture this way.
Just because we are born, doesn't mean that everything about life must be acceptable. It is simply the case that we are born and must live it out or not. By living it out, we are not accepting, but dealing with the situation and making do. This life is not a paradise or utopia. We can imagine a universe that is, even knowing it doesn't exist.
It's exaggerated to turn free will, or determinism, in to a principle that applies to everything. Some things we have free will for, somethings are determined, and there are a billion combinations of the above. Common sense.
I'm always careful not to make a principle of compromise or ",the mean or middle way is the truth".
There should never even have been a serious concept of determinism. Even for matter it lacks nuance.
Quite. R.G Collingwood says philosophy is a "poem of the intellect." I also recently read a comment that what substantiates a metaphysical theory is its "elegance"....
The truth hurts the ideologue and propagandist!
Poetry is the most sublime Logic.
Poetry is the true Phenomenology.
Nope, their actions were determined too, and you keep going back, for it all to be determined.
Quoting Outlander
Choice is an illusion as I illustrated, in order to choose you must want to choose that specific thing, you cannot control your wants, or outside forces, so you truly have no free will of your own here.
Quoting Outlander
a coin flip, would be interesting to say the least, here he didn't actually choose himself, the coin chose for him, he still doesn't have free will, meaning it's still determined.
Quoting Outlander
I personally don't believe there is any randomness to any living beings actions,
because in order for an action to be truly free it has to not be affected by anything else, not even the self,
The thing I explained about wants defeats any notion of such, since you have to want to do something in order to do it, otherwise you're forced to do it, but one could say, there may have been, a totally random action, however improbable, that was done once, not affected by anything, and that action would have been different if we went back in time, it would prove some randomness, although it wouldn't prove free will, because free will requires an agent of it.
Quoting Outlander
Hmm I agree kind of, I would say other people's determined actions determine other people's actions to and so on, this would be Hard determinism.
The Butterfly effect is a really interesting concept, one that is deterministic, and perhaps has truth, everything down the line will determine other actions and condition many other things, its like the domino effect, just more complex.
I've never read the book personally, as for the movie it was a 6/10 for me.
Whatever is said by the determinist is false because he couldn't say anything else! His intellect couldnt decide between two theories! His intellect is not free. He is an automaton and automatons cannot think.
Where does the word freedom come from? Who determined it to become an actual word!!!!!
Karl Popper has written probably the most succinct refutation of determinism I have found, volume three of his Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, the Open Universe.
Many thanks.
No more. Today melancholy has even lost its name and has become, in the words of Lyn Cowan, a Jungian analyst, “clinicalized, pathologized, and medicalized” so that what poets, philosophers, blues singers, artists, and mystics have forever drawn on for depth is now seen as a “treatable illness” rather than as a painful part of the soul that doesn’t want treatment but wants instead to be listened to because it intuits the unbearable heaviness of things, namely, the torment of human finitude, inadequacy and mortality. For Cowan, modern psychology’s preoccupation with symptoms of depression and its reliance on drugs in treating depression show an “appalling superficiality in the face of real human suffering.” For her, apart from whatever else this might mean, refusing to recognize the depth and meaning of melancholy is demeaning to the sufferer and perpetrates a violence against a soul that is already in torment.
And that is the issue when dealing with suicide. Suicide is normally the result of a soul in torment and in most cases that torment is not the result of a moral failure but of a melancholy which overwhelms a person at a time when he or she is too tender, too weak, too wounded, too stressed, or too biochemically impaired to withstand its pressure.
There’s still a lot we don’t understand about suicide and that misunderstanding isn’t just psychological, it’s also moral. In short, we generally blame the victim: “If your soul is sick, it’s your fault”.
For the most part that is how people who die by suicide are judged. Even though publicly we have come a long way in recent times in understanding suicide and now claim to be more open and less judgmental morally, the stigma remains. We still have not made the same peace with breakdowns in mental health as we have made with breakdowns in physical health. We don’t have the same psychological and moral anxieties when someone dies of cancer, stroke, or heart attack as we do when someone dies by suicide. Those who die by suicide are, in effect, our new “lepers”. In former times when there was no solution for leprosy other than isolating the person from everyone else, the victim suffered doubly, once from the disease and then (perhaps even more painfully) from the social isolation and debilitating stigma. He or she was declared “unclean” and had to own that stigma. But the person suffering from leprosy still had the consolation of not being judged psychologically or morally. They were not judged to be “unclean” in those areas. They were pitied. However, we only feel pity for those whom we haven’t ostracized, psychologically and morally. That’s why we judge rather than pity someone who dies by suicide. For us, death by suicide still renders persons “unclean” in that it puts them outside of what we deem as morally and psychologically acceptable. Their deaths are not spoken of in the same way as other deaths. They are doubly judged, psychologically (If your soul is sick, it’s your own fault) and morally (Your death is a betrayal). To die by suicide is worse than dying of leprosy.
I’m not sure how we can move past this. As Pascal says, the heart has its reasons. So too does the powerful taboo inside us that militates against suicide.
There are good reasons why we spontaneously feel the way we do about suicide. But, perhaps a deeper understanding of the complexity of forces that lie inside of what we naively label “depression” might help us understand that, in most cases, suicide may not be judged as a moral or psychological failure, but as a melancholy that has overpowered a suffering soul.
Wow, Natherton, what a great post. Well done, more please.
I was listening to a NPR show about suicide awhile back where a panel of experts was passionately making the case for suicide prevention etc. They obviously had the best of intentions, but the irony of their cause seemed not to dawn on them. The message they were really sharing, without intending to, was something like this.
What an uplifting message for a depressed person to receive, eh? Especially given that the depressed person is inevitably going to die sooner or later anyway.
And of course, the widely shared assumption that death is bad, to be avoided at all costs, is based on pretty much nothing more than fear and ignorance. So, based on our own fear and ignorance we presume to lecture and judge suicidal folks, give them advice, "rescue" them etc. Good intentions, sloppy philosophy.
I dunno. In my own mind I tend to draw an age based line. If someone is over 50 and has been here long enough to have considerable experience, and they decide to leave, I don't see how anyone is in a position to advise them. But younger folks are often overwhelmed by temporary strong emotions driven by hormones and inexperience etc, and I would be more inclined to intervene there.
One of the factors driving suicide would seem to be that folks are having a bad time in life, and they assume that the badness is all they will ever have. If death were perceived as being something other than the worst possible outcome, the situation would be less desperate. Maybe we need to upgrade out relationship with death? Not just the troubled person, but all of us?