katsucats said: TookMe6Years said: What does suicide have to do with socializing? I don't get it.I am just going to say suicide goes against the human nature of surviving by socializing. It's a half-ass response of suicide is the opposite we(assuming) were taught to act in a society. Thus the socializing word comes in to play. Nothing deep, psychological, or philosophical about it. |
 |
katsucats said: You lose infinite possibilities whenever you make a decision. What I'm trying to point out is no more decisions could be made by the man who just committed suicide, we aren't limited to ONE decisions and one should not underestimate the impact one individuals could make, for example what if napoleon committed suicide after his first exile to Alba? then again thats just ONE of the reasons against suicide, other reasons such as morally speaking, taking your own life is still taking a life. |
| kek |
| Hey OP, Just say straight that "Suicide is a good thing". If you don't think that suicide is good, why you opposing people who said that "suicide is a bad thing"? You will say "I am not opposing bla bla". No you ARE OPPOSING. Maybe you can watch Welcome to NHK which tells that suicide is not a good thing and... |
Sorry for my bad English. |
Face_Faith said: Immahnoob said: Your problems wont be solved you said, but do you think you care after you die? If you die, you're free of whatever problems you have, after all, you'll rot somewhere in the ground. Those that commit suicide don't think about solving the problem, but about running away from it, which also works, why should you give a fuck after your dead if you can't even do that? I don't think literally feeling nothing is better than being in the position to solve your problems and live your life the way you want, but that's just me :O Are you sure you can make such a generalisation? ô_ô Anyway, if they had the choice, I'm sure they'd prefer all of their problems disappearing as compared to "running away". So I suppose solving those problems didn't work out~ katsucats said: but the relief from pain -- the loss of a feeling How is that the same? Feeling nothing =/= relief :O That generalization works. If you can't feel anything, you won't have any pain to relieve either. You can't feel relief either, so it's way better. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| it's not a bad thing for the guy that is suffering. But for others is, because they your death will affect them. Ex: Relatives, friends etc. My question is: What happens when you have neither relatives nor friends? Who cares then? |
im4eversmart said: Suicide for many is basically an escape, people who can't face responsibility and reality, if you think of it in another way however, it might actually be a good thing as those who chose to suicide are those who are incapable and humanity has no need of them logically speaking. The major problem with suicide is the consequences it bears, when a father suicides? what happens to his child? a soldier suicides? whos gonna protect the borders? that is something that I cannot approve, once you have lost everything however, you can do anything you want I believe there's different types of suicides, or I'd put it more specifically in there's different reasons you'd make a suicide. And some probably doesn't care a shit about responsibility and reality because they feel it doesn't matter for them at all. 'it might actually be a good thing as those who chose to suicide are those who are incapable and humanity has no need of them logically speaking' what? you feel like humanity needs you? I'm not trying to be mean here or anything, I'm just very curious about your answer. What would be the point in life if you live only to be used by society, well which is a bit of the case here, but there's other stuff you care about right? Even among the people alive, there's those that are incapable of giving 'profit' to the society, and among those who made suicide some that could provide society alot. Here again, it depends on the reason they made a suicide, and what was pushing them so far |
Face_Faith said: How does death not relieve pain? Let me put it this way, do sedatives not relieve pain in a surgery? When your dentist rubs some benzocaine to deal with cavities, is the purpose not to relieve pain? What do you feel when you're unconscious?katsucats said: but the relief from pain -- the loss of a feeling How is that the same? Feeling nothing =/= relief :O |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
im4eversmart said: And an infinite more possibilities are gained with one person's death. What I'm pointing out is you're conflating world possibilities with personal possibilities. For example, we could as well flip the quote in question.katsucats said: What I'm trying to point out is no more decisions could be made by the man who just committed suicide, we aren't limited to ONE decisions and one should not underestimate the impact one individuals could make, for example what if napoleon committed suicide after his first exile to Alba? You lose infinite possibilities whenever you make a decision. "When a man lives, how much is truly lost? Like weeds on a lawn crowds out other life, would his parents have led more fulfilling lives, or had better offsprings or worse? Would Johnny on the playground have lived a better life having not met the man? Would his wife have won the lottery if she wasn't getting boned? With one life, an infinite amount of possibilities are lost." im4eversmart said: Taking a life is taking a life is tautology, but why is it bad? Is taking a life always bad? Is stepping on a cockroach bad, or eating meat, or killing a murderer in self-defense, or killing an enemy soldier? What about killing someone who wants to die?then again thats just ONE of the reasons against suicide, other reasons such as morally speaking, taking your own life is still taking a life. Where are you informed of this objective irrevocable value of life that trumps any other value? If were given 1 opportunity to kill the innocent parents of a future genocidal tyrant, or standby and watch millions of people die in 20 years, is that bad? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
bxyhxyh said: Good and bad is a false dichotomy. There circumstances that are neither good nor bad. Some things can be considered good in certain circumstances and bad in others, as long as we could articulate the factors which cause that distinction.Hey OP, Just say straight that "Suicide is a good thing". If you don't think that suicide is good, why you opposing people who said that "suicide is a bad thing"? You will say "I am not opposing bla bla". No you ARE OPPOSING. bxyhxyh said: Yeah, because anime is the perfect medium to inform us philosophical issues of life and death... Maybe you can watch Welcome to NHK which tells that suicide is not a good thing and... On the contrary, Welcome to the NHK does not tell that suicide is a bad thing, only that some people avoided it. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Logically speaking, suicide isn't a "bad thing"(in regards of "sin") since everyone dies eventually. Also "How does death not relieve pain?".. No one knows what happens after the human body dies. Many people will claim they know but they are merely bluffing/trying-to-convince-themselves/willing-the-result.. but realistically speaking there is no garentee on what happens.. as it may be possible that pain will be gone after death, it's also possible that the pain will stay |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Ghostony said: We know that pain is relieved when we lose consciousness, and we know that we lose consciousness when the brain is relieved of oxygen. The metaphysical outcome of death doesn't really matter after this point.but realistically speaking there is no garentee on what happens.. as it may be possible that pain will be gone after death, it's also possible that the pain will stay |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I think because it's inconsiderate of the people who love you and would feel very bad if you died, possibly even blaming themselves for a lifetime. I'm not saying if you don't have anyone you can just go kill yourself... but then it's up to you. Might be a waste though, because you never know what could have happened. |
monalizy said: I think because it's inconsiderate of the people who love you and would feel very bad if you died, possibly even blaming themselves for a lifetime. I'm not saying if you don't have anyone you can just go kill yourself... but then it's up to you. Might be a waste though, because you never know what could have happened. What if you staying alive ruined all of your families lives because they tried to help you recover from your poor mental state. They lost their houses, jobs, everything. You don't know what could happen. |
SRTHGV said: monalizy said: I think because it's inconsiderate of the people who love you and would feel very bad if you died, possibly even blaming themselves for a lifetime. I'm not saying if you don't have anyone you can just go kill yourself... but then it's up to you. Might be a waste though, because you never know what could have happened. What if you staying alive ruined all of your families lives because they tried to help you recover from your poor mental state. They lost their houses, jobs, everything. You don't know what could happen. So yeah, good game biatch. ^_^ |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Forgetfulness said: Because 1. It may hurt others related to you In my opinion...Unless it's has to do with property/money kind of stuff... Like if you mean emotionally... then it's "the others" faults for emotionally hurting themselves over it |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
| ^ Do you think they'd want you sitting around crying like a little baby? They'd probably want you to (get over it, move on) be happy |
| sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
SRTHGV said: monalizy said: I think because it's inconsiderate of the people who love you and would feel very bad if you died, possibly even blaming themselves for a lifetime. I'm not saying if you don't have anyone you can just go kill yourself... but then it's up to you. Might be a waste though, because you never know what could have happened. What if you staying alive ruined all of your families lives because they tried to help you recover from your poor mental state. They lost their houses, jobs, everything. You don't know what could happen. If somebody is that much beyond any hope of recovery, then I don't think they would choose the "stay alive just to make others happy" route, especially if they see that it only makes their life more miserable altogether. |
Forgetfulness said: But our actions when we are alive are not always contingent on other people's feelings, so why would they be if we decide to commit suicide? For example, it hurts someone when you take their job, you fire them, you get a college admission (meaning some other poor chap didn't), you decide to be a (your dream job) instead of an engineer that your mother wants you to be, or you decide not to take over the family business, or you argue with some anime fan online, you walk right by that panhandler without giving him a glance, or you walk by that same person and stare, or you decide to be a crossdresser/transsexual, you introduce Jimmy to your parents instead of Mary, you decide your parents won't be having grand kids, you decide to convert to atheism or Islam, you decide you lean closer to liberalism than neo-conservatism, and this could go on and on and on...1. It may hurt others related to you Forgetfulness said: Then they probably shouldn't join the military, drive or travel, or do anything that someone could conceive that his actions or the actions of others had a hand in his eventual death. Depending on how you interpret that, it could mean eating that one fatty meal or drinking soda is a grave irreparable sin because it would probably shorten your life by a few seconds, like committing indirect suicide.2. Some people believe only a higher being has the right to decide when life ends |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| cuz you can't watch the new no that come out and that's aterrible misdeed |
 |
| People are fairly selfish in general so its not something people will be supportive of. The person committing suicide is selfish for not considering the effects of his actions on his loved ones. The loved ones are selfish for not considering that death may be the only release for the individual. I personally think it is taking the easy way out of life and am against it overall. Life has its ups and downs. While it sucks ass for the most part, the ups more than make up for the downs generally. Atleast in this country. |
 |
Forgetfulness said: Suicide is taking life for the sake of ending experience. Regardless, I don't see the distinction. Either way you are committing a decision that you know will shorten your life. Would it make it better if someone commits suicide for the sake of feeling the thrill of jumping off a 100 story building?2. That's not the point. Suicide is taking life for the sake of taking life. No one drives or eats unhealthy simply for the sake of dying. The only valid point there is joining the military. I don't really know how to explain this one, but I think religious people would only support wars and stuff if it was to protect people or its for the greater good. e.g. beating a country because it poses a threat to every other country. The "beating a country" thing is sort of a freedom faux pas. A threat to a country does not necessarily mean threat to the livelihoods of its citizens. It may only mean we pay taxes to a Russian or Chinese face instead of an Anglo-Saxon face. Basically while our narratives usually play out like good versus evil, that is nearly never the case. The "greater good", being that we lack the capacity to predict into the far future, is a usually a product of the human ego. To wit, it may be the greater good of the human race to reduce global population to 1 billion by lottery, and then maintain a diverse representation of all the races, drastically reducing the possibility of war, super diseases due to faster mutation of viruses from people living in close proximity, destruction of nature, loss of clean water supply, etc. But no one will propose we do that because of human rights, ironically... I digress. The takeaway is:
|
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
tripticon said: You are asking some of the right questions, but ironically doling out judgment against those who have chosen a different path to a question that you could not answer yourself. So since we're here already, right back at you: If a person is brave enough to live their life, then what is it that inhibits them from ending their life? What is the point of living?Personally, I really don't care; if someone wants to end their life, go ahead, it's their life to end. However, if I happen to know you, and you had a good life - I will not think too highly of you. Not as a selfish jerk, but someone lacking intelligence. ... Since the question here is about suicide - the act of ending one's own life, if a person is brave enough to die, to end their life at their own discretion, by their own hands; what is it that inhibiting them from being brave enough to live their life? This is one of many big questions; what's the point of living? Then what's the point of dying? If there is is no point to either, then why does someone who chooses to commit suicide lack intelligence? tripticon said: If material burden is a consideration, then this is something perhaps all dying men (or men who participates in activities that risk death) should be planning, whether the ailment is suicide or cancer or extreme sports.Another thing, is since I'm very much about taking responsibility, for someone who plans to end their life, better get everything ready then. They need to get their funeral bought and paid for, get a life insurance plan; basically, take responsibility for the actions they are planning to engage in. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| It is bad because our body reacts against it instinctively. Most, if not all cases regarding suicide have the victims struggling for survival prior to their death. Of course, instant deaths are exception. |
tripticon said: Nor would you ever be inclined to do over because death is not a hollow experience, it is the lack of experience. Life might give you plenty of chances to keep on living; death also gives you plenty of chances to remain dead. You get to live once and die once, there is no difference.the problem with suicide is that there are no do overs, once it's done, it's done, there is no going back. Where as with life, people may not think this, but life gives a guy plenty of mulligans. tripticon said: The value of experience is subjective. No frame in time is inherently great; pause a movie and you get a bunch of colors -- it takes an audience to make out the drama. A movie-goer may mull over the pros and cons for finishing a bad movie at the theater. He may feel that since he has already paid the price of admission, he might as well stay until the end while he is there. He may also feel that leaving early relieves himself of the stress of anticipating a predictable outcome, despite that he won't be able to get back into the theater once he's gone. There's a frame of mind for either: the one contemplating leaving but deciding against it contends that the movie may improve for he values future possibility (he wants to be there when it happens); the one contemplating staying but deciding against it contends that negative experience has negative utility, for he values past and current experience as a summation of his life. For the former, leaving would reduce his experience to 0; for the latter, staying will eventually reduce his experience to 0 or the negative.As for why I'd think someone lacks intelligence I just find some people have no idea how great they have it... no time like the present to do something. The former will eventually be forced to reconcile with his perspective as the movie nears its natural end or he will leave with a hollow feeling of regret, like being unable to put down a book after it ends. tripticon said: I think the irony to this ironic situation is that if the people who are considering suicide are more alive, then they are so because they are considering suicide instead of devolving into the said latter group that run through the daily motions. I disagree though that either group is more alive or dead, but it brings the question into focus: Is negative or passive experience considered negative utility over death, or is it positive utility by mere virtue of the existence of such experience over lack of experience?The general irony here is that people who are considering suicide are more alive then those unhappy people who just run through the motions on a day to day basis, at least those considering suicide are looking at their lives and wondering what is wrong.Many other people may not even realize this, but they are already depressed and dead, but do take the time to question why they feel that way. If a baby was born and lived one year of absolute joy before dying, is his life better or worse than a man who has lived 80 years of mediocrity, with never a day that he experiences true pain nor happiness? |
katsucatsFeb 12, 2013 8:38 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Depends if insurance will cover. |
| because weak-minded teenagers use suicide as a cry for attention, so people think it's something that can be cured or helped, when there are some people out there who would be much better dead. [Not in the offensive sense but in a more positive way.] |
. |
katsucats said: There's no objective goal to life, no objective valuation for our experiences. If someone makes his peace with death, then that's more than what could be said for most of us. In fact, aren't each of us constantly --even if it's subconsciously-- wrestling with our purpose? Someone finds it and we call him a coward. Yet we all die someday. Having a short one does not mean having a bad one. Conceivably, but not everyone necessarily is at terms when they take their own life. If you go though the proper emotions and perspectives after having a fulfilling time being alive then there's really nothing anyone else can say. That is of course if the alternative would mean that you'd be suffering or others be in pain. There's a right time for everything, you just need to ask yourself; do the parameters and circumstances of this time permit the rightful course of suicide. In short this shouldn't even be an issue of debate. There are emotion and logical paths that bring the conclusion of suicide, yet the majority who are against the notion are the ones who don't seem to think much nor properly understand emotions. The only time where suicide wouldn't be permitted are acts of cowardice or boredom. The act itself then really has no other meaning then weakness and weak people shouldn't be in any position to decide anything above their pay grade. |
LordLagann said: Is there a meaning to life? If not (and even if so), what gives "weak" people the right to decide life, if not death?The only time where suicide wouldn't be permitted are acts of cowardice or boredom. The act itself then really has no other meaning then weakness and weak people shouldn't be in any position to decide anything above their pay grade. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: LordLagann said: Is there a meaning to life? If not (and even if so), what gives "weak" people the right to decide life, if not death?The only time where suicide wouldn't be permitted are acts of cowardice or boredom. The act itself then really has no other meaning then weakness and weak people shouldn't be in any position to decide anything above their pay grade. Life isn't decided its bestowed, it isn't an idea. Regardless if there is meaning or not once you're alive you're alive. If you choose not to live because the the world around you does not provide interest then move elsewhere. Unless you have experienced the entirety universe and still opting to commit suicide then and ONLY then will you be permitted. Killing yourself because you were too lazy to try is no excuse to waste away a perfectly good life that would of been better off in the hands of others. The notion of being alive by default presumes making any sort of effort with your life. Otherwise you are not alive and thus committing suicide is moot. In actuality no such concept exist since people of that nature are merely ideas and not actual physical beings with the brilliance of life. |
LordLagann said: Who has the authority to permit what other people do with their own lives? What does it even mean to have experienced the entirety of the universe (this is a false condition)? Why must anyone feel compelled to continue something just because it was bestowed? If I give you a job, must you accept it?katsucats said: Life isn't decided its bestowed, it isn't an idea. Regardless if there is meaning or not once you're alive you're alive. If you choose not to live because the the world around you does not provide interest then move elsewhere. Unless you have experienced the entirety universe and still opting to commit suicide then and ONLY then will you be permitted. LordLagann said: Is there a meaning to life? If not (and even if so), what gives "weak" people the right to decide life, if not death?The only time where suicide wouldn't be permitted are acts of cowardice or boredom. The act itself then really has no other meaning then weakness and weak people shouldn't be in any position to decide anything above their pay grade. LordLagann said: Since it is impossible, even incomprehensible (because life isn't a thing), to pass life between 2 entities, the speculation of it is meaningless. "Perfectly good" is a subjective value, and I wonder what it means to have it be externally dictated... For example, I could say, "Those are perfectly good beans, aren't you going to eat them?" At which point you would be forced to not waste those beans even if you were allergic, because value has been externally assigned and must be taken for granted according to this logic. Those beans would have been better off in the hands of others.Killing yourself because you were too lazy to try is no excuse to waste away a perfectly good life that would of been better off in the hands of others. LordLagann said: So does this mean that if a person that is not doing anything in particular with his life (e.g. he's bored), then he is not actually "alive" (by some arbitrary definition), and his suicide would be moot? In other words, someone is only committing suicide if he is contributing to some externally defined value.The notion of being alive by default presumes making any sort of effort with your life. Otherwise you are not alive and thus committing suicide is moot. In actuality no such concept exist since people of that nature are merely ideas and not actual physical beings with the brilliance of life. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Who has the authority to permit what other people do with their own lives? What does it even mean to have experienced the entirety of the universe (this is a false condition)? Why must anyone feel compelled to continue something just because it was bestowed? If I give you a job, must you accept it? Authority belongs to those who are bold enough to grab it, whether you recognize such authority is not the question, they have power where as you do not. Simple as that. Experiencing the entirety of the universe is equivalent of trying and putting effort into new things, idea, and experiences. It's not about being compelled it's obligation. Just as I am obligated to at least see what this job has to offer not just unwittingly turn it away. katsucats said: Since it is impossible, even incomprehensible (because life isn't a thing), to pass life between 2 entities, the speculation of it is meaningless. "Perfectly good" is a subjective value, and I wonder what it means to have it be externally dictated... For example, I could say, "Those are perfectly good beans, aren't you going to eat them?" At which point you would be forced to not waste those beans even if you were allergic, because value has been externally assigned and must be taken for granted according to this logic. Those beans would have been better off in the hands of others. Don't be absurd, indeed you cannot transfer life from one person in another [in the sense of a life transfusion], but life is most definitely a thing. Slaves are the most obvious of examples as they are treated as literally property of others and are used as such. Your bean example is strange and incomplete. Granted an overlying value would be impose on the actual value the bean already provides but they do not necessarily have to be eaten or consumed. Also scaling down the wonder of life to a mere disposable bean seems a bit out of context don't you think. katsucats said: So does this mean that if a person that is not doing anything in particular with his life (e.g. he's bored), then he is not actually "alive" (by some arbitrary definition), and his suicide would be moot? In other words, someone is only committing suicide if he is contributing to some externally defined value. Being bored and being empty inside are two different things. You take death to literal, one need not has his heart stop beating to be dead. Coma patients with no chance of recovery are only technically alive. It makes no moral difference whether or not they are lying in bed or decomposing in the ground. The same similarity applies to your example of a person who wishes death the moment his life is conceived. That person is not utilizing his life to its fullest, or if at all, thus he is not "living"; only alive by technicality. The difference is my example is bought on by an unfortunate series of events while yours exist outside the realm of reality. One can commit suicide after life has been given a fair chance or has reached a state of impasse. It is up to the living to decide whether there is nothing more for them in life or they are content with what they have done and would like to have life end in their own terms. |
| Nihilistic people/ abstract thinkers make me so glad someone murdered Socrates. I'm just saying. I have a loving family and a tight but small group of friends and that is enough for me to keep living. My purpose in life is living the human experience whatever that is. It is unique for everyone and ironically it's abstract and hard if not impossible to define. If you want to kill yourself go ahead. My perspective is no one wants to die. Even the hopelessly depressed don't want to die. |
zzzeallyFeb 27, 2013 11:35 PM
LordLagann said: This platitude does not quite answer the question. If someone is not compelled to recognize your authority, then you have no authority. And since you implicitly agree that people are not compelled to recognize any external authority, then what is it exactly that has the power to permit how they live their lives?katsucats said: Authority belongs to those who are bold enough to grab it, whether you recognize such authority is not the question, they have power where as you do not. Simple as that.Who has the authority to permit what other people do with their own lives? What does it even mean to have experienced the entirety of the universe (this is a false condition)? Why must anyone feel compelled to continue something just because it was bestowed? If I give you a job, must you accept it? LordLagann said: The difference between being compelled or obligated in this context is moot; this is just semantics. The question remains: Why is it a necessity to perpetually attain new experiences (that is assuming that it is impossible to really experience the entirety of the universe) before death? Is suicide not an experience in itself? This, once again, platitude is self-contradictory -- for if we were to adhere to it, then you would have to experience all my job offer has to offer for all of time until your death.Experiencing the entirety of the universe is equivalent of trying and putting effort into new things, idea, and experiences. It's not about being compelled it's obligation. Just as I am obligated to at least see what this job has to offer not just unwittingly turn it away. LordLagann said: Biologically, life is an attribute; it is not an object, it does not take up mass or volume. Therefore, it is quite objectively, not a "thing".katsucats said: Don't be absurd, indeed you cannot transfer life from one person in another [in the sense of a life transfusion], but life is most definitely a thing. Since it is impossible, even incomprehensible (because life isn't a thing), to pass life between 2 entities, the speculation of it is meaningless. "Perfectly good" is a subjective value, and I wonder what it means to have it be externally dictated... For example, I could say, "Those are perfectly good beans, aren't you going to eat them?" At which point you would be forced to not waste those beans even if you were allergic, because value has been externally assigned and must be taken for granted according to this logic. Those beans would have been better off in the hands of others. LordLagann said: "Slaves" are not "lives". This is a personification, it's not literal.Slaves are the most obvious of examples as they are treated as literally property of others and are used as such. LordLagann said: Not at all, since you are suggesting the lack of internal capacity to determine the value of life for yourself, then is it not exactly the same thing to suggest the lack of internal capacity to determine the value of a bean for oneself? If the latter is absurd, then the prior is clearly equally absurd, by the same logic.Your bean example is strange and incomplete. Granted an overlying value would be impose on the actual value the bean already provides but they do not necessarily have to be eaten or consumed. Also scaling down the wonder of life to a mere disposable bean seems a bit out of context don't you think. LordLagann said: Once again semantics, but feel free to explain the difference if there is any. Or if you would prefer, I could just substitute "bored" for "empty" in my previous assertion and we could move on.katsucats said: Being bored and being empty inside are two different things. So does this mean that if a person that is not doing anything in particular with his life (e.g. he's bored), then he is not actually "alive" (by some arbitrary definition), and his suicide would be moot? In other words, someone is only committing suicide if he is contributing to some externally defined value. LordLagann said: Of course I do. In the context of suicide, metaphorical death is irrelevant.You take death to literal, one need not has his heart stop beating to be dead. LordLagann said: Define (another platitude) "utilizing... life to its fullest". Coma patients are quite irrelevant on the topic of suicide, don't you think? The act of suicide is to purposefully incur one's own death -- and to be sure, we are talking about biological death, not any other kind of death.Coma patients with no chance of recovery are only technically alive. It makes no moral difference whether or not they are lying in bed or decomposing in the ground. The same similarity applies to your example of a person who wishes death the moment his life is conceived. That person is not utilizing his life to its fullest, or if at all, thus he is not "living"; only alive by technicality. LordLagann said: I'm confused why you think committing suicide out of having nothing better to do is outside the realm of reality. If you can conceive it --and you can (because you suggested it first)-- then there is the possibility that it exists.The difference is my example is bought on by an unfortunate series of events while yours exist outside the realm of reality. LordLagann said: It is up to the person making the decision, not mere the "living" (as if implying all living share some singular will), which is why it's odd for you to suggest that said person has the "obligation" to do something as arbitrary as "utilizing his life to its fullest" because it was "bestowed"... just as that lovely waitress bestowed upon you those beans, you should have the same obligation to utilize the beans to their fullest -- by your own logic.One can commit suicide after life has been given a fair chance or has reached a state of impasse. It is up to the living to decide whether there is nothing more for them in life or they are content with what they have done and would like to have life end in their own terms. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Zeally said: Nicely said.My purpose in life is living the human experience whatever that is. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Not gonna quote because I think it takes up too much room but being bored for me is a fleeting/temporary feeling of simply not having anything to do. Being empty is much more nihilistic and often has a negative connotation to it though in Buddhism being empty is a good thing XD. So in a Buddhist context being empty is certainly not being bored at all. You don't have to feel bored to feel empty nor does feeling bored means you are necessarily empty. Just try this yourself if. Ask someone if they can discern the difference of being bored and being empty. |
katsucats said: Zeally said: Nicely said.My purpose in life is living the human experience whatever that is. yup and perfectly content with never finding out the answer ~ |
katsucats said: This platitude does not quite answer the question. If someone is not compelled to recognize your authority, then you have no authority. And since you implicitly agree that people are not compelled to recognize any external authority, then what is it exactly that has the power to permit how they live their lives?The difference between being compelled or obligated in this context is moot; this is just semantics. The question remains: Why is it a necessity to perpetually attain new experiences (that is assuming that it is impossible to really experience the entirety of the universe) before death? Is suicide not an experience in itself? This, once again, platitude is self-contradictory -- for if we were to adhere to it, then you would have to experience all my job offer has to offer for all of time until your death. Good to know we see eye to eye on the subject of authority, but power does not come from authority as it's quite the opposite. I'm fairly sure Africans living in Africa in the 1800's didn't recognize the authority of their white kidnappers but that didn't stop the abductions and force slavery. Authority needn't be recognized to force your will upon others. Of course if you persist to resist then the decision of life or death will be taken out of your hands and decided by upon by another. This is something I've been hoping that was brought up in a post here or there. Yes, suicide is an experience in itself, but due to the nature of this experience wouldn't you agree it is best saved for last after you have gone though a sufficient amount to call it quits. After all no one experience is the same. I also like to point out that no experience is eternal, there is a sense of completion. That "job offer" wouldn't have to last for life, nor very long at all, as long as I feel I have completed the entirely of what is offered. katsucats said: Biologically, life is an attribute; it is not an object, it does not take up mass or volume. Therefore, it is quite objectively, not a "thing". "Slaves" are not "lives". This is a personification, it's not literal. Not at all, since you are suggesting the lack of internal capacity to determine the value of life for yourself, then is it not exactly the same thing to suggest the lack of internal capacity to determine the value of a bean for oneself? If the latter is absurd, then the prior is clearly equally absurd, by the same logic. Well that's just confusing. How can you prop up a question as "what is the meaning to life", take a very objective stance, then use a subjective view such as biology as an example. Indeed my example relies on the proxy of Slavery and object ownership but that's because it is a objective example, not one relying on Biology. It's not literal in the biological sense that you cannot directly touch and hold "life" but literal enough that lives are being cataloged and traded as everyday things. I see your relevance in the bean example now but I still protest they are not the same. As the two will weigh differently since you cannot consciously cultivate and grow a life as you do with beans. katsucats said: Define (another platitude) "utilizing... life to its fullest". Coma patients are quite irrelevant on the topic of suicide, don't you think? The act of suicide is to purposefully incur one's own death -- and to be sure, we are talking about biological death, not any other kind of death. I'm confused why you think committing suicide out of having nothing better to do is outside the realm of reality. If you can conceive it --and you can (because you suggested it first)-- then there is the possibility that it exists. It is up to the person making the decision, not mere the "living" (as if implying all living share some singular will), which is why it's odd for you to suggest that said person has the "obligation" to do something as arbitrary as "utilizing his life to its fullest" because it was "bestowed"... just as that lovely waitress bestowed upon you those beans, you should have the same obligation to utilize the beans to their fullest -- by your own logic. Commiting suicide because you have nothing better to do is outside the realm of reality because I am unaware of any logical pathway that results in biological death due to boredom. Committing suicide because you have reached an impasse where entertainment and happiness is slowly dwindling and eventually coming to a halt is another thing. I am force to wonder if we are just dancing the same dance on opposite sides of the campfire. I acknowledge that to each his own will, but what perplexes me is to take one's own life without even giving it a chance. The idea that a living thing wishes for death the moment he is conceived without even giving it a fair shake is beyond me and frankly unacceptable. The act of being served food, or beans, is to be obligated to try them unless another factor prevents you from doing so. A healthy individual should have no problem giving life a fair shot before contemplating death. Where as a deformity, monstrosity, or an abnormality whose suffering and in pain with every breath would have the default of a instantaneous death; but those are extreme cases which are almost never brought up and now seems like what your argument is centered upon. |
| Suicide, or the will and course of action to intentionally advance the date of irreversible decay (obeying the state of nature such that entropy is increasing given the set of initial conditions to be stated as some fixed period in a time-continuum- alas the big bang), or the transition from X to non-X in a given localized space-time (that is to say, in principle all deaths are technically reversible either by reformation of the individual or the reverse sequencing of events by means that adhere to the principles of physics, that is entirely possible) where X is defined as the constituitive set of elements that remains such that we can identify some notion of the individual to be persistant through a changing timeframe (but perceived to be absolutely universal based on a lack of environmental conditions that would otherwise clearly cause a discernable difference), is considered inherently bad or remains to be inconspiciously frowned upon because [a(u)] : The state of death or equivalence in non-existence as having a lack of elements that constitute a human (artificial, because death is in principle reversible, and is simply localized within a cross-section of space-time) being advanced by the supposed free-will of the individual through reprehensible means is considered to be bad because :  (a) A fear of non-existence; this is exemplified in peoples' notions of encapsulating, full-blown, vivid worlds of persistent existences, whether that be of soul, afterlife or regards to any form of possible reference extrisinic of physical existence ** This may be because we for the most part are aware most of the time, and to which the underlying presupposition is that we live everyday as though we assume we will continue to live tommorow (this can be seen clearly, by the evidential fact that we are not acting in contraire to if we believed that we were not going to live tommorow- in which case the relative urgency or limiting case deems that the relative importance of our final actions are magnified by factors of magnitude by the limiting time, that is to say, the amount of possible existing time frames is proportional to some value of life, at some arbitrary factor, to each individual. And the same paradoxical effect, that is the finiteness of our life dictates some value in any discernible achievement merely just because it is limited.) [a(i)] : Value derives from the finite nature of our existence. The closer to the near of the end of our existence, the greater in relative magnitude to each experience is experienced with respect to its worth. [a(ii)] : Based on a consistent expectation of continued existence, we are conditioned to fear non-existence [a(iii)] : Therefore death is considered bad in this regard  V = V[exist] + V[experience] + k V[experience] =def V[value factor (dT)] value factor E! belongs to a domain [ -N < random variable < N] on a time interval that is finite [0, inf) If our will did not consist in itself of some propogative aspect in the survival of its descendants, we would not exist by that very nature. Thus a predisposition to continue to exist, by physiological means predisposes us to believe that it is bad to not exist. Or that of which we associate with to be diseased, weakness, old age but this itself does not mean death is inherently bad in its value, but merely such that the state of non-X is merely percceived to be undesirable (b) Assumption of innate value of living; for we can only conceive and live in experience, to live devoid of experience is impossible in imagination (before conception of cognitive maturity, neurological maturity in memory circuits --alas before we are born), that of which through some attributive value in experience, thus the more possible experiences, the more likelihood in nature of possible positive experiences, and as such, the opposite effect of being unable to experience these positive experiences or continue to do so means we assign some arbitary negative value to non-existence or positive value to merely existing. We cherish things more if we believe we are going to lose it, or may lose it, then if we were to passively have such thing. There are infinitesimally many experiences that are possible to experience, and we acknowledge its finiteness, to the extent of which each and every possible experience is valued by its counterpart of future non-existence [b(i)] : It is not possible for us to conceive of ourself as not existing [b(ii)] : Given this, we have only so far experienced things of which are positive, neutral or negative in nature [b(iii)] : We thus equate not existing as negative in nature through the lack of aptitude in being able to experience positive experiences However, this is reducible to a function of values for which experiences can be first judged on. Whether there is a factor N that persists independent of experience seems highly unlikely, and by which even to the full extent of merely having negative experiences does not guarantee a rationale for suicide. In this case, we propose that some value exists merely as existing, some value exists for which experience is possible to the extent of the individual's sensorimotor perceptions, and to the extent at which humans themselves define an architectural model of meaningful context in existing with respect to other individuals. [c(i)] : The function of worth of a life is dependent on the net sum of good in experiences, and the perceived goodness in future experiences [c(ii)] : It is unlikely that there is an extrinsic factor to which we can deem we would exist solely for existing, were it to be that we merely experience either or neutral or negative experiences only (see lack of pleasure in eating) [c(iii)] : The function of goodness is arbitrary in nature to what pre-existing physiological conditions that optimize such conceptions of goodness, and through cultural relativism/acquired social learning, this can affect the goodness function And thus, by the reason of lack of continuing capableness of experiencing arbitarily positive experiences, we thus deem death to be most unfavourable. If there is no function that takes the input of experience to output some arbitary positive value, we can only have either or, nor neutral and negative value. In such cases, it seems suicide would be absolutely rational.  The suspension of X' activities, as emulated by sleep, but a recoverable state to X functionality demonstrates that in most cases, partial unconsciousness (conscious only by photons hitting your retina in the morning by the sun and subsequently waking up) is practically non-harmful, and if such we treat death in equability with regards to experience, that is essentially non-experience, we find no objections to which death can be established to be negative in value by which the physiological state of condition is devoid of possible condition itself, including pain, as even predispositionally conceived to be negative, but in effectitude positive for the organism's feedback response system to recovery or recognition of non-"X"ness property. [d(i)] : We note that experiences similar to not being human (in terms of relative function, or the suspension of operations deemed to be aware), that is, not experiencing the world in its equivalency are not really that bad (exclude REM sleep, in the aforementioned example) [d(ii)] : This implies there is no grounds for establishment of physiological tendency to necessarily say that death is bad, given the larger context (such as resource replenishment in soil via decomposition) [d(iii)] : Although, we do have interior mechanisms that make it difficult to "suicide", all cells are programmed to suicide, and we have the will to do so at any time, although it may not be propogated down via heritability due to the contradictive nature of existence, it does not however henceforth imply that death is bad or suicide for that matter The extent of our perceptions are inherently limited by the nature of the universe itself, such that the summative meaningfulness or contrived notions of existence of meaningfulness can only be conceived of by the individual, independent of the experience of other individuals, regardless of any interaction, for which our sense of time, smell, balance, hearing, sight, and any of all of the above or non mentioned artifacts cannot be replicated on a 1 to 1 basis for all individuals. If this is so, it follows that we are truely alone in our conceptions of existence as itself and the uniqueness of such experiences can theoretically be in principle projected to be independent of the actuality of events occuring, because the encoding of such information relays to a dynamic system that has a tendency to itself decay, and the encoding of such information is not guaranteed to be accurate (in both sensing and perception where sensing refers to the anomalies caused by the laws of nature with respect to all phenomena and the cognitive adaptability of an organism to selectively filter perceptions through evolutionary means such that the meaningfulness is extrapolated as a function of average propogative success , and as such by implication, the sum of mere perceptions and alterations to each and every memory, ultimately the product of the physical entity itself. Or that is to say, the physical entity converges in physicality as an abstract form for which can be said to be uniquely a set of arranged elements in a specified interval configuration, with a threshold disorder level that is less than some value for which the existence may be considered human. [e(i)] : All perceptions are erroneous, all memories are erroneous, and thus all constructs formed are erroneous; even independent of perceptions and memories, and if as such is implied if either or both conditions, no constructs of the totality of universe are shared, in which the individual itself can only acclaim the worth in its entirety of its own conceptions, but as such it is an open system that is subjected to degradation, and thus ultimately converges in terms of being entropic in nature with regards to its body, and as such will degrade [e(ii)] : All value judgements are thus merely products of processes of nature that arise to form distinct individuals in a localized spacetime We note that if John experienced some delta N change, such as an alteration in configuration of states of a semi-open system defined by the encapsulation of John's body, there is a direct casual relation to its operant functions. And if its operant functions includes a goodness function that is abstracted from the interactions of k elements interacting in such a system, then ultimately goodness is the reducible property of John to such sets of elements behaving in a certain way on some conditions. And by induction, in principle such a practice is repeatable for any given individual that follows a similar set to John, then any and all judgements from the class of sets that belong to John are also simply P amount of permutations of such states in which case for any entity that can control P states, that entity can define an infinite amount of classes for an infinite amount of sets that can be evaluated to some goodness function by the operant processes undergoing such closed systems.  |
NequamFeb 28, 2013 3:54 AM
Nequam said: Nequam, I'm glad to have your thoughts, but if you don't mind, can I suggest value in succinctness, that complexity does not necessarily improve ideas?Suicide, or the will and course of action to intentionally advance the date of irreversible decay (obeying the state of nature such that entropy is increasing given the set of initial conditions to be stated as some fixed period in a time-continuum- alas the big bang), or the transition from X to non-X in a given localized space-time (that is to say, in principle all deaths are technically reversible either by reformation of the individual or the reverse sequencing of events by means that adhere to the principles of physics, that is entirely possible) where X is defined as the constituitive set of elements that remains such that we can identify some notion of the individual to be persistant through a changing timeframe (but perceived to be absolutely universal based on a lack of environmental conditions that would otherwise clearly cause a discernable difference), is considered inherently bad or remains to be inconspiciously frowned upon because [a(u)] : The state of death or equivalence in non-existence as having a lack of elements that constitute a human (artificial, because death is in principle reversible, and is simply localized within a cross-section of space-time) being advanced by the supposed free-will of the individual through reprehensible means is considered to be bad because : (a) A fear of non-existence; this is exemplified in peoples' notions of encapsulating, full-blown, vivid worlds of persistent existences, whether that be of soul, afterlife or regards to any form of possible reference extrisinic of physical existence ** This may be because we for the most part are aware most of the time, and to which the underlying presupposition is that we live everyday as though we assume we will continue to live tommorow (this can be seen clearly, by the evidential fact that we are not acting in contraire to if we believed that we were not going to live tommorow- in which case the relative urgency or limiting case deems that the relative importance of our final actions are magnified by factors of magnitude by the limiting time, that is to say, the amount of possible existing time frames is proportional to some value of life, at some arbitrary factor, to each individual. And the same paradoxical effect, that is the finiteness of our life dictates some value in any discernible achievement merely just because it is limited.) [a(i)] : Value derives from the finite nature of our existence. The closer to the near of the end of our existence, the greater in relative magnitude to each experience is experienced with respect to its worth. [a(ii)] : Based on a consistent expectation of continued existence, we are conditioned to fear non-existence [a(iii)] : Therefore death is considered bad in this regard For example, you spent a good portion of your post defining "X" complete with caveats about possibilities of space-time manipulation, when X is as I understand it just a person's identity, whereas A, B, and C are elements of identity. You wanted to say that death, as far as we're concerned, is equivalent to "a lack of... free-will of the individual". While the limit equation is interesting, it doesn't add any value to your point. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Cloud87 said: Not at all, but if familial suffering is the reason, then is it also selfish for homosexuals to come out of the closet if it causes familial anguish, or selfish for a baller to follow his dreams instead of going to college and becoming a doctor if it doesn't meet the expectations of his relatives? There are many expectations where your loved ones might blame themselves or you for failing, but for the most part people don't consider themselves beholden to those expectations except when they are perceived distant and don't apply to them.you know what that's really a tough question to answer but if you want to know what i think i do think it's wrong because your family or friends or any of your loved ones blame themselves for this/or for what happen and may not forgive themselves or they might not forgive you for taking your own life. It's pretty selfish of you killing yourself if you think about it ask yourself this do you want your family or friends or any of your loved ones to suffer,be misable or hate themselves is that what you want them to experience and do you want them to experience pain and do you want them to experience pain in their hearts i can go on and on so i leave it here for now i hope this enlighten you. Take care & I'm sorry for this for being a long read :). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Has anyone ever told you in real life that "You are enough"?LenRea - 3 minutes ago |
0 |
by LenRea
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever touched and/or kept any foreign currency(ies)?Kiryotsu - 10 hours ago |
13 |
by LoveLikeBlood
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Has anyone hired a hooker to watch anime with?vasipi4946 - Apr 11 |
29 |
by LoveLikeBlood
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» Is this forum dead? It seems like it. ( 1 2 )DesuMaiden - Apr 17 |
51 |
by LenRea
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» Mentally you're living in what year?IpreferEcchi - Apr 7 |
31 |
by 707supremacist
»»
19 minutes ago |