Death is an event. It is momentary (depending on definition - but the on/off event is momentary). — AmadeusD

That's just an ordinary folk's view on death. Death continues eternally. It is an event for transformation from a physical being to immaterial being. Does immaterial being exist or not? This is a matter for further discussion.

After thinking about it it's not that I want to die, it's that I don't another way of dealing with my present situation. — Darkneos

When I first read your reply I thought you were in a better state than before, and I was happy for you. Then it occurred to me that the missing word after "don't" would most likely be "see".

I take it you are no longer interested in answers to the OP, "to find a good argument against suicide". Some people continuing the discussion here, after its nine months lapse, are no longer trying to answer that; they are more intent on finding conditions in which they think suicide is justified.

It sounds like what you need now, more than philosophical wisdom, is prudent practical advice. May God lead you to good counsel to lift you out of your present situation.

You've simply changed the basis of the analogy. The entire point is that a child/pet/person is not a book. Ownership of a Pet does not entail you can do those things. Ownership of a book does — AmadeusD

Sorry, I don't know what analogy you want me to make. But it looks like we are agreeing that in whatever sense I "own" the life of a human being, whether my own or a child's, it does not give me the same kind of rights to do whatever I want with it, as if it were a book or another piece of material property. And that's all I was aiming for, really.

Aside from this:

But I wanted to put owning a life into a context that made it clearer, IMO, how absurd the idea of owning one's own life is. — Ludwig V

If someone owns a life, that is slavery. — Ludwig V

which was a very real thing back in the day and thoroughly wicked, but of course that's not what we're talking about here. Ludwig V is right to point out that whenever we speak of "owning" somebody or somebody's life, unless we do mean slavery, there is something odd about this sort of speech. It is not univocal with "owning" a car, a house, a picture, or even a pet.

Fair enough, and it does. I can't believe in the mystical stuff either, but I do see value in ritual for those that do, or who practice it as ritual. — Jeremy Murray

Ah I didn't know you were familiar with them too, more than a pop understanding. Yes I tried to dig deeper into it and the metaphysical became a stumbling block each time as it is pretty unavoidable.

You have to do a lot of 'bracketing off' of that stuff and there comes to be so much bracketing off you wonder 'is this still Buddhism'? I still haven't found a good teacher/writer on the subject who seemed to have a high level of attainment while also dismissing that stuff. The book Buddhism without Beliefs promises it but did not deliver imo. They just do silly renaming of everything, even things there was no need to - for example, changing 'life is suffering', to 'life is anguish' - yea so what was the point of that? and much other semantics reshuffling. There was no conflict there, I think they just wanted to 'soften' it but anguish seems just the same kind of weight to it so don't know why they would change it. Mostly other pointless changes like that which made me stop reading not for in.

Sam Harris in his book Waking Up does the best job at extricating the useful from the bloat but all too little attention is given but what he did write in there was good. His basic evaluation was that the fantastical stuff was a product of their worldview or the times or just their flawed characters, which we must accept they were still human and capable of flawed judgement, despite what the writings would say that they are perfect beings who always made perfect decisions (that might be another debate if they always acts perfectly or not having attained 'enlightenment'), but we can still take a lot from their skills at insight and should not let the former color the latter.

Oh actually, now I think of it, Ajahn Chah and the Thai Forest traditional has been the closest. Although on deep inspection, from my reading, he did still believe in all the 'woo woo', but from some snippets I got he deliberately downplayed them in his teachings as he thought them distractions to learning the path as should be learning the nuts and bolts of practice.

Whatever his personal reason that did make his teachings very palatable from my perspective.

I've had both bad and good experiences with counselling. I also take medication. — Moliere

I believe this is where you exited the thread of mine on communism/anarchism when I implied that western medicine is mostly in place to pacify the worker and keep them productive in the Protestant work ethic tradition.

I am not saying some great things are not achieved with modern medicine, like how they can put a wire up through the groin with a camera and pull out a blood clot from the brain for example. There is lots of value, but there is also lots of not wanting to find a cause and just pacification because it is easier/cheaper to do that.

I am saying that medicine, like pretty much anything in society is steeped in politics as to what decisions are made on where to pour money to treat what. Sometimes that happily aligns with what is best for the patient/their ailment and often times it is not.

To bring it back round to counselling I would say that is subject to the same things as mentioned above. What counsellors encourage as healthy vs maladaptive will be in line with what the status quo is of society at large.

Ludwig V is right to point out that whenever we speak of "owning" somebody or somebody's life, unless we do mean slavery, there is something odd about this sort of speech. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

There is indeed something odd. I think there are two aspects to it. The first is fairly straightforward "A owns B" asserts that A has the means to control B and is not inhibited from exercising it. The second plays of the implicit reference to slavery and suggests that B is a lesser person as a result. It is like calling a human being an animal. In one way, it is a fact, but in another, it is an insult.

It is not univocal with "owning" a car, a house, a picture, or even a pet. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I agree. And it is even less univocal with "I own my own life". But perhaps the point here is to assert one's right to decide whether and when I have the right to end my own life. The bad news is that it is not an argument.
Perhaps, in some contexts, the relevant part of the metaphor is the assertion that I do not own my own life. The implicit claim is that there are some decisions about my own life that I do not have the right to make. This may well be true, in the sense that we all have responsibilities to others, in one way or another. But it does not follow that there may be circumstances when those responsibilities fall away, as when I am no longer able to meet them.

No. Death is an event. It happens once in a lifetime. Two if you're lucky. And there is no more to be said beyond that.

No. Death is an event. It happens once in a lifetime. Two if you're lucky. And there is no more to be said beyond that. — AmadeusD

I wonder if you are reading posts at all before replying. I have never said that you will die multiple times. No, never said that.

I said that death continues, once one dies. Death is a fact or case, which will continue eternally. Once one was born and lived in this material world, death, when it happens, continues eternally. No one can erase the fact or the case.

Difficult. The mania of bi-polar can be super distressing. The manic periods are disordered, almost inhuman. The depressive episodes are almost the worst mental prison one can be in. It's hard to say there's any objectivity to it not being that bad.

That said, it's up the actor to decide this - not others (saving for true perspectival mental illness). — AmadeusD

Some people enjoy the mania.

I agree, ultimately, that the individual gets to choose. I don't know what my friend might have done differently had he realized how much harm his choice was to cause my family.

Personally, I think the depression side of things caused him to act impulsively, and that he would have preferred not to act when in that state. The drinking and arguing he had done with my brother certainly complicated his choice.

For sure we should not, societally, make it 'easy' to choose death in moments of despair. But Ryan didn't have a gun, he chose a train. I don't think we can, or even should, regulate that sort of choice out of existence.

No matter what else I think on this subject, I know that I have always forgiven Ryan his choice.

I don't think you understand what is being said: Birth is an event. So is death. Your take is a weird elongation of a concept it isn't apt for.

If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong.

You have to do a lot of 'bracketing off' of that stuff and there comes to be so much bracketing off you wonder 'is this still Buddhism'? I still haven't found a good teacher/writer on the subject who seemed to have a high level of attainment while also dismissing that stuff. The book Buddhism without Beliefs promises it but did not deliver imo. They just do silly renaming of everything, even things there was no need to - for example, changing 'life is suffering', to 'life is anguish' - yea so what was the point of that? — unimportant

Right. I've had similar concerns.

I guess my premise is that there is something about that 'stuff' that furthers the project, meaningfully, for some practitioners?

I am a straight-up atheist, but I particularly dislike the secular sort who dismisses the religious as fools and then tells you about that ghost they saw once. (Not suggesting you or anyone else here posting).
Even the secular tend to be spiritual.

However, the "Buddhism without Beliefs" premise strikes me as being as silly as you suggest. It feels very narcissistic-now to take that stance, one that implies a sort of certainty that enlightenment rationality is definitively the superior belief system.

I think all belief systems have things to offer, and that science is the best one yet, but science sucks when it comes to any sort of 'spiritual realm', and I might be wrong in thinking it best.

My favourite reason for ignoring the mystical in Buddhism without dismissing it for all is the 'world's happiest monk' Matthieu Ricard. He spent a total of five years alone meditating in a hut, and his brain scans are remarkable.

Perhaps one does not half to be mystical to do that. But I suspect some mysticism makes is more possible.

Sam Harris in his book Waking Up does the best job at extricating the useful from the bloat but all too little attention is given but what he did write in there was good. — unimportant

I liked "The Moral Landscape". I will have to check out "Waking Up". My own premise insists I remain open to all paths as potential sources of Nirvana. 'Many paths, one truth'. Harris seems to need his truth to be true, which puts him in the same camp as the typically-religious to me.

the fantastical stuff was a product of their worldview or the times or just their flawed characters, which we must accept they were still human and capable of flawed judgement, despite what the writings would say that they are perfect beings who always made perfect decisions (that might be another debate if they always acts perfectly or not having attained 'enlightenment'), but we can still take a lot from their skills at insight and should not let the former color the latter. — unimportant

I totally agree, but I don't think, as an atheist, that we have to insist that genuinely religious people must be so literal? I mean, all those scribes, scribing away at holy texts. Someone screwed up along the way.

I just re-read "Siddhartha" by Hesse. Have you read it? Hesse's questing protagonist rejects all teachers and teachings, essential to his enlightenment. The first time I read "Siddhartha" was as close to divine inspiration from a text as I have come, but it's definitely a western take, low on the mystical, and praising it too much may get you charged with cultural appropriation.

I am saying that medicine, like pretty much anything in society is steeped in politics as to what decisions are made on where to pour money to treat what. Sometimes that happily aligns with what is best for the patient/their ailment and often times it is not.

To bring it back round to counselling I would say that is subject to the same things as mentioned above. What counsellors encourage as healthy vs maladaptive will be in line with what the status quo is of society at large. — unimportant

To reply to your comment to Moliere, I agree with you, but wonder if the essential component of spiritual teaching and rationalistic counselling is the same, some sort of virtuous / relational quality between people, that may be more valuable than how 'silly' or 'conformist' a statement is?

BTW, to repeat a story I shared elsewhere, I did find a good teacher once. I asked him when to meditate, since I was 'too busy' in the morning. He told me to 'meditate twice'.

I don't think you understand what is being said: Birth is an event. So is death. Your take is a weird elongation of a concept it isn't apt for. — AmadeusD

They are not just events. They are also extension into the being and transformation of the being. That is exactly what I was pointing out. But you can only see one aspect of the event, and were blinding yourself into darkness.

If you're going to just repeat yourself, that's fine but you're wrong. — AmadeusD

I had to repeat the points because your couldn't see them any further.

I understand you're trying to be poetic. I am uninterested given the context. Death is an event, it is momentary and after that time you are no longer.
That is my position and you haven't said anything that even could move this. All good.

Nope. I was talking about metaphysics here.
Please go and read some books on Introduction to Philosophy.

Then humour me - are you trying to fit the term "the state of being dead" into the word "Death"?

Because I don't think anyone is going to take that seriously, in same sense no one considers "life" an extension of "birth". You are not "born" for your entire life. You are born at one moment, right? And hten your life extends beyond the moment of birth. Hence use of that term. THe same applies to Death. So what are you talking about? It would be helpful to not repeat yourself, because that has been poetics so far. But you seem hell-bent, to the point of being childish, on having this taken seriously - so help me out.

Birth is a part of life. There is no life without birth. Death is the end of a life. But it is not just an event. It is also a fact, a case and memory of the lived life by those know the dead. There are also topics for after deaths which takes us into Philosophy of Religion and God from death and possibility of after life and existence of immaterial being.

It is not that simple just like the shallow medics and legal folks see the issue. If that is all there is to it, then why people do philosophy? Philosophy is a subject which goes deeper and behind what is visible and audible. It is a serious subject.

If you say they are just events, then that is the talk of the ordinary folks. Yes, even 10 year old know what you are talking about. But here we want to go deeper and behind the objects and events. But you mock the wisdom of depth. Hence I asked you to go and read some Introduction to Philosophy.

He wears a suit in his profile pic, so that must mean he knows what he is talking about. :smile:

I get the impression of a chap who is an alumnus of the Jordan Peterson school of Philosophising.

:cool: :wink:

Ah yes, poetics.

This is not philosophy mate. All good.

Your low-level posts are noted and will be dealt with if they continue.

"Death" can mean
1 the act of dying
2 the state of being dead

https://www.wordnik.com/words/death

@AmadeusD has been using the word in sense 1, @corvus in sense 2.
Aren't you guys tired of quarreling over semantics?