Meaning to self-destruct? If one dies for a cause, that's one thing. But if one just waste away because of discontentment, then that's a problem.

It sounds like you are alluding to the utilitarian theory in your valuation of valid versus invalid self-destruction. If the destruction is considered to be doing the greatest good for the greatest number by the most widely held social sentiment, then it is acceptable. However, there are inherent problems with utilitarianism, which is why it is not used as a mechanistic model of moral good. The idea of social value determining the value scale of what is self-destructive is problematic because the act of self-destruction itself will always appear irrational to society, unless it is represented in an external place or time.

Take crime for an example. Any functioning society would say it is wrong to break the law in all cases except the moral one, where the function of breaking the law is to be in opposition to the former homogenizing mindset. No society would consider it favourable to break the law over a moral disagreement because moral disagreements are not supposed to exist, yet it is still paradoxically considered a good thing. We are getting into discussion of grounds that have predominantly actual basis. I would argue that the grounds of self-destructive behaviour are a kind of act of revival of the unity of the actual and rational where contingent rationality has become dogma.

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

This is pretty much a description of a Buddhist monk (albeit an incomplete description).

Do you think a human falling apart in mind, spirit, and/or body can itself be a valid social goal, in the sense that it is a force of thought directed against the overwhelming wave of subsistence as a goal?

In a traditional Buddhist society, yes, actually.
From a worldly perspective, a monk is "falling apart in mind, spirit, and/or body," and yet in a traditional Buddhist society, being a monk is a valid social goal.

This assessment would be opposite of someone who has achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards their attributed circumstances. Don't you find such individuals tend to come from backgrounds of adversity and pain? Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos

The historical Buddha was "catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life" up until a certain point, as the story goes, and yet he gave up on the pursuit of worldly gains. The story is a lot more complex, though.

Self-destructive tendencies are a symptom of a deeper problem within a person, which is better relegated to the field of psychiatry and psychology. Instead of glorifying it within the philosophical discussion, we should understand that it is a problem. — L'éléphant

Amen

I agree that the proper place for the question is religion, but doesn’t religion sort of become philosophy once we begin to place it’s notions in view through language?

I don’t know that much about Buddhism except it is kind of like a stoicism that hinges on consciousness. What I’m referring to also contrasts with stoicism in the sense that the self-destructive individual acts out inferiority, whereas the stoics envisioned a state of higher thinking that their acts represented.

the self-destructive individual acts out inferiority — kudos

(Leaving aside the very specific case of Buddhist monasticism.)

It's hard to make generalizations by now, because on the one hand, we have societies where self-destruction is basically encouraged at a certain point (ie. in countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal), and on the other hand, societies where it is not.

In countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal, the people are basically told, "If you can't live up to a certain psychological, physiological, social, and economical standard, then it's better that you die, and society will help you to die". In those countries, it is actually a viable social goal that the inferior self-destruct (with the help of the state).

In countries where assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal, the people are basically told, "If you can't live up to a certain psychological, physiological, social, and economical standard, then it's better that you die, and society will help you to die".

In culture, we sometimes play G-d to some extent. And in that sense, our creation comes to feel more real than ourselves.