Let's reframe this. There's a beautiful girl (or boy or whatever) who likes you and you like her. Unfortunately, she has to move to the other side of the world in 24 hours. But she wants to spend all the time she can with you before she gets on that plane. Do you say "what's the end goal here?"

Some people may think they "need" to live (suicide is a sin or something), but most people want to live. And I'm not sure that very many people believe in the afterlife in their guts. So every once in a while they face their mortality and then get re-absorbed in some form of work or play. This play is what it's all about. All this angst and second-guessing is obliterated along with the "neurotic" self in the authentic, flowing, more or less creative play. Maybe it's the writing of a novel. Maybe it's flirting with your lover. Maybe it's a video game. All of these "little" things are what life is about, as I see it. The "big" things are usually employed in self-conscious power games. "X is the truth or the god or the real." "No, Y is the truth or the god or the real." So Mr. X and Mr.Y slap each other with words that are supposed to point beyond this "play" that we can all have sometimes, and yet this too is a form of play if it's not too serious or hateful.

I would live the life I actually have for thousands of years if only "the gods" would let me. (Just turn off the aging process for me, if you don't mind, dear lords.) But then I got better at living life (after some serious angst in my teens and 20s) by accepting the world as it is, evil and senseless as well as beautiful and rational.--and finally getting around to earning the type of job I love. I'm not above or beyond the world except in this refusal to be above and beyond (which is to say that I don't get assimilated by some infinite duty in the mouth of Mr. Z that condemns play).

Who goes there? hankering, gross, mystical, nude;
How is it I extract strength from the beef I eat?

What is a man anyhow? what am I? what are you?

All I mark as my own you shall offset it with your own,
Else it were time lost listening to me.

I do not snivel that snivel the world over,
That months are vacuums and the ground but wallow and filth.

Whimpering and truckling fold with powders for invalids, con-
formity goes to the fourth-remov'd,
I wear my hat as I please indoors or out.

Why should I pray? why should I venerate and be ceremonious?

Having pried through the strata, analyzed to a hair, counsel'd with
doctors and calculated close,
I find no sweeter fat than sticks to my own bones.

In all people I see myself, none more and not one a barley-corn
less,
And the good or bad I say of myself I say of them.

I know I am solid and sound,
To me the converging objects of the universe perpetually flow,
All are written to me, and I must get what the writing means.

I know I am deathless,
I know this orbit of mine cannot be swept by a carpenter's
compass,

I know I shall not pass like a child's carlacue cut with a burnt
stick at night.

I know I am august,
I do not trouble my spirit to vindicate itself or be understood,
I see that the elementary laws never apologize,
(I reckon I behave no prouder than the level I plant my house by,
after all.)

I exist as I am, that is enough,
If no other in the world be aware I sit content,
And if each and all be aware I sit content.

***********************************************
These are really the thoughts of all men in all ages and lands, they
are not original with me,
If they are not yours as much as mine they are nothing, or next
to nothing,
If they are not the riddle and the untying of the riddle they are
nothing,
If they are not just as close as they are distant they are nothing.

This is the grass that grows wherever the land is and the water is,
This the common air that bathes the globe.
— whitman

That is a beautiful and articulated response. I guess my follow up question is, what if you find no joy in life? What if you see it as a continual struggle - a constant form of stress. Even without the belief in an afterlife, if you suffer continually and see no end in sight and everything seems futile, then why continue to live?

Even if death is a blank void of nothingness, do you not think some would choose that over their current existence if it consists of nothing but struggle, agony, and misery?

It's a fair and profound question. But let me stress this: youth doesn't know. If an old man is dying of brain cancer and wants to go out on his own terms, before his personality crumbles, I think that's f*cking beautiful. I would do that myself, though my wife doesn't like it when I talk that way. Death has its beauty. But youth is a series of stubborn "illusions." I don't know if you ask about this for personal reasons, but you have a sincerity and openness about you that makes me think you will be happy if you aren't there yet. Novels, poems, and philosophy really turned around my attitude. I can't be grateful enough for the liberating ideas in those books. But it took time for me to wrestle through not only the intellectual complexities of existence but also to train my heart. It's not just having the right thoughts that matters. It takes time for those thoughts to reveal themselves in your guts in all of their fullness and power.

I really appreciate your answers, they are very thought provoking. I am not posing this question necessarily from a personal reason; it mainly stemmed from some of my research into the philosophies of Nietzsche and he believed that the underlining premise of philosophy was whether to live or commit suicide.

Though, it is highly controversial, I really thought this was an interesting point.

I very much agree with you that learning and inquiring, especially philosophically, can lead to a deeper and more meaningful understanding of reality. I also agree that these revelations do take time and persistence to uncover the truth, or at least a truth that can better you own life.

That is why I have joined this forum and pose such questions.

So, thank you for your responses. It is much easier to expedite the process of learning through intaking other's perspectives; so, thank you for yours!

You're quite welcome. These are fascinating issues even if one is happy. For me the "dark" thoughts have become (more or less) toys for the intellect.

"For me the 'dark' thoughts have become (more or less) toys for the intellect," very well said!

I'm not sure that very many people believe in the afterlife in their guts — Hoo

You're not, but Jung certainly was ;)

What stops us from committing suicide? — saw038

In most cases I would argue that what stops us form committing suicide is an inherent instinct to survive that overrides any higher-level thought processes. Humans are, as far as I know, the only species on Earth that has a rather high percentage of self-inflicted deaths, but this percentage is still rather low in comparison to other ways of dying or to those who continue to exist whether it is justified or not.

This may come across as rather harsh but I honestly think that most people, perhaps myself included, would be personally better off not living. It's not my call nor my responsibility to enact this, but nevertheless I think that if people were able to objectively and honestly evaluate their condition, a very large amount of people wouldn't see the use in continuing - they would realize that reality has little to offer them. This is where the whole "instinct" factor comes into play, in particular fear and anxiety, a form of motivation that appears from the void which control us, forcing us to consent to a raw deal.

If you believe there is a purpose to life then I can understand your reason for wanting to stay.

But for those that believe life has no purpose, or better yet, that it is something that is filled with continually suffering. Why continue? — saw038

Generally suicide is a difficult thing to accomplish. You have to be in the right mind-set to even consider ending your own life without having an uncontrollable aversion to the thought of annihilation. So the way I look at it is that life generally is not really worth it but death, in particular suicide, is something too difficult to accomplish to even consider as a legitimate option. We're all going to die anyway, dissolving into the infinite void in which we came.

But how to live in this mindset? In this case, I think there is a phenomenal difference between living and surviving. In both cases the system persists, but the latter involves some element of risk. In my opinion the authentic existential life is one filled with risks, dilemmas and perhaps even outright disregard for the well-being of the system itself. A chaotic life of rebellion and aesthetic expression, like a star going supernova. There's nothing more beautiful than a star that explodes in a brilliant light display, and there's nothing more authentic than a person who willingly exposes herself to danger, living on the edge, prepared to supernova at any given time.

At the same time, there's nothing more noble than a person who sacrifices themselves for the sake of others. The authentic person is not one who rains chaos around her, but one who brings order to the chaos by immersing herself in it. To be perpetually at war against the universe, to not play by the rules, to ignore the signals trying to force her to stop. To be an expression of pure power, manifesting as a deep concern for the well-being of others and a hatred of the oppressive environment.

We need not go around on our motorcycles and leather jackets, drinking diesel and fighting ISIS while high on cocaine to be authentic, although that certainly sounds pretty badass. All we need to do is not be complacent, to not accept the norm, to reject the constraints imposed on us, to not only live but to survive. We must go outside our comfort zone while maintaining our responsibility to others as an ethical priority - the best way of doing this, in my opinion, is to rebel primarily in the mind, for the mind is where the self is, and let our physical bodies (ignoring any dualistic/monistic metaphysical ideas for now) operate within the world by helping other people. The best way of surviving then is to have a mental rebellion that corresponds to our ethical duties - to help other people not only out of ethical duty but out of spite, rebellion, and desire.

We also should consider prioritizing our mental rebellion over physical rebellion because we'll never actually be able to free ourselves from the physical. We have to eat, sleep, drink, pay taxes, etc. Starving ourselves to death is not tenable even if it is rebellion. But mentally continuing to exist despite what the universe throws at you is. It's making do with what we have, rebelling as much as we can like a child does to its parent - never able to quite accomplish the overthrow but beautiful in any sense.

So there you have it - I have no environmental ("natural") reason to continue to exist. But I at least like to think that I have an existential, personal, and authentic reason to survive.

That's an amazing answer. It really does make me think. I posed this question simply for philosophical purposes, not because I am suicidal, but because I see so many people who constantly complain about their lives and how there is no way out. They say they will continue basically living the same day over and over until they die.

I think this is quite sad. But you have demonstrated that while the physical reality may not change, our perspective and attitude towards it can. And, by doing so, we truly do alter reality, at least, our reality. Because by altering our perception we alter how we perceive.

Glad you liked it.

Because by altering our perception we alter how we perceive. — saw038

Just as long as we don't delude ourselves. It's less about altering our perceptions and more about changing our response to the perceptions. Whether there is a difference between the two, I'm not sure. There doesn't seem to be any "right" way to react to the world, but certainly it does seem to be the case that many people limit their perceptions in order to limit the reactions they have. In these cases it seems as though a lifestyle is only compatible with certain beliefs or lack thereof - existential angst manifests as an inability to continue living as one has habitually in the past given what one now knows.

I don't know if there is a 'right' way to respond to the world, but I do believe that we should not let the world dictate our inner world. That is to say, even if the outer world is in chaos and turmoil, to remain still and calm within oneself - act in a cool, calm, rational, and appropriate way.

Indeed, I sort of remember something like that. Then I believe he made some bold hypotheses about archetypes being physically manifested, which Pauli I think found fascinating. For me, though, the primordial images are just there if one is pointed in the direction. Jung pointed me in that direction, so I can see things in those terms. But Jung is no authority for me, just another human being with insight, neither perfect nor sacred.

It's not my call nor my responsibility to enact this, but nevertheless I think that if people were able to objectively and honestly evaluate their condition, a very large amount of people wouldn't see the use in continuing - they would realize that reality has little to offer them. — darthbarracuda

Respectfully, there's an immense arrogance in this. It implies that you know the "real truth" about the lives that indeed are not yours. Your worldview is something that makes you question whether you should be alive, and yet you project this as a true or objective worldview. Strange gods, this worse-than-useless "truth" and this "objectivity" that is miles away from consensus or falsifiability. I quote Nietzsche below not as an authority but as worth contemplating.

About life, the wisest men of all ages have come to the same conclusion: it is no good. Always and everywhere one has heard the same sound from their mouths — a sound full of doubt, full of melancholy, full of weariness of life, full of resistance to life. Even Socrates said, as he died: "To live — that means to be sick a long time: I owe Asclepius the Savior a rooster." Even Socrates was tired of life. What does that prove? What does it demonstrate? At one time, one would have said (and it has been said loud enough by our pessimists): "At least something must be true here! The consensus of the sages must show us the truth." Shall we still talk like that today? May we? "At least something must be sick here," we retort. These wisest men of all ages — they should first be scrutinized closely. Were they all perhaps shaky on their legs? tottery? decadent? late? Could it be that wisdom appears on earth as a raven, attracted by a little whiff of carrion?
...
Judgments, judgments of value about life, for it or against it, can in the end never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are meaningless. One must stretch out one's hands and attempt to grasp this amazing subtlety, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they are an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not impartial judges; not by the dead, for a different reason. For a philosopher to object to putting a value on life is an objection others make against him, a question mark concerning his wisdom, an un-wisdom. Indeed? All these great wise men — they were not only decadents but not wise at all. — Nietzsche

↪Hoo That is a beautiful and articulated response. I guess my follow up question is, what if you find no joy in life? What if you see it as a continual struggle - a constant form of stress. Even without the belief in an afterlife, if you suffer continually and see no end in sight and everything seems futile, then why continue to live?

Even if death is a blank void of nothingness, do you not think some would choose that over their current existence if it consists of nothing but struggle, agony, and misery?

I think there're two things of issue here. If it is your view that there is no joy in life then that only is your view. The reality of the situation is distinct from your view of the situation. And the reality of your view is something wholly unstable. You may hold the belief that life is a continual struggle but that doesn't mean you held that belief when you were a child and it doesn't mean you'll think the same as you grow older. So then that joy, would presumably be felt at some point.

The second thing is the idea of choosing nothingness. Death involves no-one. There's not a void to be chosen, theres just a ceasing of you. There's no cessation of suffering, theres no sense of relief, there's just a ceasing of experience all-together.

Why we should be motivated to live another day is a psychological problem, not a philosophical one. No one has ever been persuaded or argued into happiness.

Isn't that precisely what cognitive therapy is supposed to do? Are you saying that there have been no cognitive therapy successes?

I'm saying there have been no cognitive therapy successes administered by philosophers.

On the contrary, there is a strong bias toward therapy throughout the history of philosophy. 'Get the world straight in your head and psychological health will follow' is a theme for many philosophers including Socrates, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. The therapeutic value of philosophy has been the theme of Alain De Botton's work for many years and his 'School of Life' would very much be a practical example of cognitive therapy administered by philosophers.

I stand by my uncontroversial claim that philosophers are entirely unprepared to deal with assisting with the psychological problems of others. For that reason, I wouldn't go to a psychologist schooled primarily in Heidegger or Wittgenstein, and certainly not one who insisted on the Socratic method.

Life is not filled with continued suffering.
A great deal of my life is a rather enjoyable experience and this is true of many people.

I can understand how, if one focuses exclusively upon suffering, it would be difficult to comprehend the motives of those that wish to remain alive.

But it is simply not true that all lifes is constant unbearable suffering.
All the suffering I have encountered in my life is made bearable by the fact that there is also opportunity to improve upon my experience.
If I believed that there was no such opportunity perhaps I would be inclined to give up, but that is not the case.

You might argue that it is not possible to improve all experience such that there is no suffering and therefor there is no point in living.
But I disagree that because suffering can not be completely eliminated that therefore life is not worth improving.

A great deal of my life is a rather enjoyable experience and this is true of many people. — m-theory

Whilst I'm glad that you find this to be the case I would suggest that it is not something you should advertise around the suicidally depressed. One is ill advised to add a sense of injustice to their woes.

If a person has no opportunity to improve their lives then this would be an injustice.
Very often that is not the case with the suicidal, at least in developing or developed countries.

Often the suicidal have irrational standards of themselves and or others.
Especially if they believe that they themselves and/or others should not ever encounter any suffering at all.
Due to the nature of life that is simply not possible.

Suffering is a necessary part of life.
Without it we could never learn or grow.

Suicide is very often based upon irrational beliefs and expectations (I know this from experience as I have actually attempted suicide).
For me the key is to be grateful for the good things in my life, to realize that suicide is not a solution to temporary problems, and of course I take my meds which help stabilize my mood.

But to the point of the OP, life is worth living if there is opportunity to improve upon life.