Great to see you still around. And I agree. Love is not all there is.

I've been there myself, a long time ago. I agree with you: I was being chertitable. The post got some facts right, but it was wrong in all the ways that really matter. Take care.

I've been there myself, a long time ago. I agree with you: I was being chertitable. The post got some facts right, but it was wrong in all the ways that really matter. Take care. — Esse Quam Videri

Hindsight is always 20/20, I see that now.

What do you believe the most significant difference is between people who love life and those who seek suicide?

Think of this example.

1. Amad died and his biological body was found in his house.
2. Amad's biological body was removed from his house after his death.
These statements sound not correct and misleading.

Biology is a term which has strong connection with and implication to life or living which has biological function such as breathing, eating, digesting, growing or getting old.

Just because you can extract DNA from the dead body, you insist it is biological body.
That is a claim which is devoid of logic and also linguistic coherence, which is incredibly silly.

There is no case... do it if you can't handle life. Better for those of us who can. Definitely don't try passing on such hereditary exhaustion. — DifferentiatingEgg

Social Darwinism in action! Yay!

What do you believe the most significant difference is between people who love life and those who seek suicide? — Martijn

The feeling that one's material wellbeing is guaranteed. The former have it, the latter lack it.

Regardless, life will always be a beautiful mystery — Martijn

Mysteries stop being beautiful once one is hungry, sick, and cold.

Okay, but what about the situation when killing oneself is the answer to the problem? — LuckyR

The answer to the problem according to whom?

Perhaps the Palestinians should all kill themselves to solve Israel's problem, the Russians should kill themselves to solve EU's problem, the Greenlandians should kill themselves to solve America's problem ...?

Historically, in many societies, a sexually abused woman or a widow was expected to kill herself in order to solve her and her family's problem. For a member of the nobility, suicide was the proper answer if he or she fell from grace. And the list goes on.

What I'm getting at (and which you and several posters repeatedly refuse to address) is how much a particular person's suicide solves _other_ people's problems. And how, in some cases, it is expected that someone would take their own life, even when said person does not experience any particular pain or profound suffering.

The flip side of the question is 'what makes life worth living'. My problem I have had throughout my life is that society in general I find so vapid and disgusting. For most people in western society consumerism and binge drinking are the highest ideals.

If there was something worth fighting for that gives one reason to live but why does one want to fight for the above soulless nonsense? It seems that is satisfactory for the majority of society and I have never been able to get it or see how that can bring them satisfaction. — unimportant

I doubt they hold consumerism as the highest ideal per se, or that it brings them much satisfaction per se. But it certainly looks like it is the best available relief from existential anxiety for them.

Invoking the name of Darwin as if anything intelligent, is what you call "Social Darwinism."

We can tell your Christian sentiments from your response to LuckyR. Doubling down on the notion above are we?

Why must people take seriously the brain affliction of dead web spinners...? :roll:

Invoking the name of Darwin as if anything intelligent, is what you call "Social Darwinism."

We can tell your Christian sentiments from your response to LuckyR. Doubling down on the notion above are we?

Why must people take seriously the brain affliction of dead web spinners...? — DifferentiatingEgg

Eh?
I, a Christian??
A disenchanted socialist, yes. A Christian, never.

What do you believe the most significant difference is between people who love life and those who seek suicide? — Martijn

No idea.

Just because you can extract DNA from the dead body, you insist it is biological body.
That is a claim which is devoid of logic and also linguistic coherence, which is incredibly silly. — Corvus

Uhhh, no. There is nothing devoid of logic, the dead body is still biological because it's organic material. Death and decomposition are still part of biology.

What I'm getting at (and which you and several posters repeatedly refuse to address) is how much a particular person's suicide solves _other_ people's problems. And how, in some cases, it is expected that someone would take their own life, even when said person does not experience any particular pain or profound suffering. — baker

The other odd part is that even those who claim to kill themselves out of some expectation to right a wrong still don't solve anything. The people who claim it does often are lying to themselves, because they still regret the loss of someone taking their life.

Great to see you still around. And I agree. Love is not all there is. — AmadeusD

It's nice, but there's more to life than just that. Life is what you make of it TBH.

Though I was wondering what your beef with Corvus was about. Sounds like defining death, which IMO has nothing to really do with the morality of suicide.

What I'm getting at (and which you and several posters repeatedly refuse to address) is how much a particular person's suicide solves _other_ people's problems. And how, in some cases, it is expected that someone would take their own life, even when said person does not experience any particular pain or profound suffering.

I guess I'm just not familiar with the scenario you're describing. Whereby person A commits suicide because person B "expects" person A should do so. Specifically because B reaps a benefit from the event.

Please enlighten me about this situation. I'd think such cases would be all over the media. Perhaps I missed them.

The Stoics were closest to the truth, atleast in my view, regarding how one 'shapes one's life'. Life is a duality of actions and reactions.

Our actions are our behaviours and choices, the tiny ones we make every day to the larger ones we might make in life. Actions can only occur if we are in the position to make them, and this varies wildly between individuals based on countless factors, which is why every single unique individual has a different life.

Our reactions are our thoughts, emotions and feelings based on what happens to us; all that occurs that we did not choose. Life is not inherently 'fair' and there are a lot of issues one may have to deal with such as illness, handicap, loss, betrayal, and so on.

To say that one's life is 'what one makes of it' would neglect the second part, ergo every individual is a blank slate and all that matters are their choices, and the context of the first part, ergo the context is irrelevant because, once again, all that matters are choices. This is misguided because it would assume that every individual could live their dream life if they just 'made it' that way. People who suffer because they are born into war-torn countries, or born with uncurable genetic diseases or crippling handicaps, or those who are raised in abusive households, extreme poverty, and so on and on, just need to 'get it together' and 'fix' their life. It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to live under these circumstances?

The truth is twofold: life just is, we have far less control over it than we think, and our current global society is extremely unfair, where a tiny minority of elites and a small number of companies are absurdly powerful, while billions struggle daily, with of course the root of evil - money - being one of the main pillars.

The point of all this is to help you ease your mind. If you contemplate suicide, for whatever reasons you have right now, then reconsider because you do not have full control over your life. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in life. There are problems in life, some of which can be solved and some which cannot, but there cannot be a singular problem wherein suicide is the answer. Even problems that will cause your near-term death, such as suffering from starvation, because dying from starvation is not a choice, and suicide always will be.

They sound entirely correct, and infact, are correct. That is what coroners, expert witnesses, doctors and lab staff call dead bodies and dead biological material. It's in the name "biological material". If you don't like it, that's another thing.

You are simply ignoring reality in lieu of your personal views, and then running htem together. Suffice to say the world doesn't act the way you want it to. Nor should it. But I do understand the distinction you wish was imported to the words we use. It just isn't there.

Bodies are biological, living or not. Nothing interesting going on there. Your claim about "logic" appears to be just using words you don't understand to get points here. Also, uninteresting.

Our actions are our behaviours and choices, the tiny ones we make every day to the larger ones we might make in life. Actions can only occur if we are in the position to make them, and this varies wildly between individuals based on countless factors, which is why every single unique individual has a different life. — Martijn

There isn't really evidence to show we have free will or make choices, also the Stoic philosophy is internally contradictory which is why I never took it too seriously. It had some good point but quickly became a case of want your cake and eating it too.

To say that one's life is 'what one makes of it' would neglect the second part, ergo every individual is a blank slate and all that matters are their choices, and the context of the first part, ergo the context is irrelevant because, once again, all that matters are choices. This is misguided because it would assume that every individual could live their dream life if they just 'made it' that way. People who suffer because they are born into war-torn countries, or born with uncurable genetic diseases or crippling handicaps, or those who are raised in abusive households, extreme poverty, and so on and on, just need to 'get it together' and 'fix' their life. It doesn't work that way. Why would anyone choose to live under these circumstances? — Martijn

No it's not, you just lack the ability to see it. It's ironic that you'd cited Stoicism but then go on to say life isn't what you make of it when that's what they teach. And yes ever individual can live their dream life if they made it that way, however it's not the dream you are imagining it to be. Yeah people born like that do need to get it together but not in the way you think.

This honestly sounds more like your failure in imagination than logical holes.

The truth is twofold: life just is, we have far less control over it than we think, and our current global society is extremely unfair, where a tiny minority of elites and a small number of companies are absurdly powerful, while billions struggle daily, with of course the root of evil - money - being one of the main pillars. — Martijn

That's not twofold, that's just one point.

The point of all this is to help you ease your mind. If you contemplate suicide, for whatever reasons you have right now, then reconsider because you do not have full control over your life. There is no 'winning' or 'losing' in life. There are problems in life, some of which can be solved and some which cannot, but there cannot be a singular problem wherein suicide is the answer. Even problems that will cause your near-term death, such as suffering from starvation, because dying from starvation is not a choice, and suicide always will be. — Martijn

Not having full control over one's life is honestly the biggest reason for suicide, a lot of people do it because they see no other option available to them. And there is a such a thing as "winning" or "losing" in life, it just doesn't always match what society says. And every problem has suicide as an answer. Starvation can be solved with suicide because you wouldn't be hungry anymore.

Honestly you just sound naive TBH. But then again you said love is what makes life worth living so I wasn't expecting much.

You're severely depressed and are clinging to your depressed beliefs. Hope you can atleast see this in yourself.

On a side node, how is Stoicism contradictory? Sure their society was flawed as hell, justifying slavery and so on, but that doesn't mean the fundamental philosophical principles are misguided. The first line in The Enchiridion literally states that some things are under our control and some our not. The factors that are not under our control may still shape our lives, some in minor ways and other in major ways. Our only option is to choose how to respond to these factors. The other half is the actions we make every day, the ones we do hold control over: "Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions."

Master your own mind first, and then do the right action (regardless of outcome) to shape your life. We do not have full control, it's part of being human. If this offends you so much that you actively seek to end your own life then what can any of us say? None of us control your mind or what you do every day, only you do.

You're severely depressed and are clinging to your depressed beliefs. Hope you can atleast see this in yourself. — Martijn

You're reading depression into it because you don't have a counterargument.

On a side node, how is Stoicism contradictory? Sure their society was flawed as hell, justifying slavery and so on, but that doesn't mean the fundamental philosophical principles are misguided. The first line in The Enchiridion literally states that some things are under our control and some our not. The factors that are not under our control may still shape our lives, some in minor ways and other in major ways. Our only option is to choose how to respond to these factors. The other half is the actions we make every day, the ones we do hold control over: "Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions." — Martijn

The first line in the Enchiridion is technically not true, at least according to certain philosophies. It's also not true that you choose how you respond to these, that is already made up before you're aware of it. Recent evidence tends to show free will to be an illusion which renders the philosophy invalid. Though you don't need that to see the contradictions between the aims of stoicism and it's methods. But to the second point, none of those are in our control. Not opinions, pursuit, desire, aversion, any of it. You don't control any of that. You either feel that or not. Again choice is an illusion.

Master your own mind first, and then do the right action (regardless of outcome) to shape your life. We do not have full control, it's part of being human. If this offends you so much that you actively seek to end your own life then what can any of us say? None of us control your mind or what you do every day, only you do. — Martijn

This is part of the contradiction. There is no master, furthermore there is no such thing as a right action. There is no separate observer that can veto actions as they happen and there is no right action. Also you're deflecting, I never said I wanted to end my life but lack of control is often a reason people end theirs because it's a choice they believe they have. But your last remark is simply false, as that's not how reality works. "you" are not in control of anything, and modern neuroscience proved that. Everything we are and do is the result of everything around and before us, there is no you or choice involved in any of it. But these are nice illusions.

Again you just sound naive, which is what you say stuff like love is what makes life worth living.

Sadly your claim is still coming from appeal to authority or popular media. Your rant is devoid of logic and knowledge what the word "biological" means.

Which 'certain' philosophies are you referring to?

Do you not choose how to respond to events? Are you dominated by your self, your emotions? Do you have to be offended if someone criticizes you? Are we even living in the same reality?

We don't choose what happens to us and yes, most of us respond due to heuristics, habit and so on. But you still have the power to change, to change how you respond, how you view yourself, and the choices you make. This is why breaking free from an addiction, for example, is not impossible, or leaving behind suicidal ideation, or to better deal with grief and loss: the list goes on.

If you don't control your opinions, your pursuits, desires or aversions, then who does? Are we all just NPCs controlled by the hivemind? Is it not possible to detach oneself from desire, or to change political opinion, or to make drastic changes in life?

And no right action.... Would you not mind if I were to abduct and torture someone's child? Would it be fine if I were to buy a gun and randomly shoot up a shopping mall? There is no right or wrong so nothing matters, there is no observer, no conscience, and life is utterly meaningless.

Also funny how you say i'm deflecting or that i don't have 'counterarguments' but you keep calling me naïve and you don't elaborate on anything you're proposing. Again, which philosophies counterargue the first line of the Enchiridion? Neuroscience? Which scientific studies, what are they based on, what did they research and what is their validity?

You are free to believe what you want and live your life accordingly, but so do I, because I have the power to choose.