thank you for your time. That's an admirable thing you're doing there.

Regarding the second point, you said that we're not comparing life with death, rather we're valuing whether the content of our life is more good than bad, so I don't see your logic here. Not trying to start a debate. Honestly, I want to be convinced out of this reasoning. It's distressing, to say the least.

Well, let's say that overall, our lives provide us with more good than bad. Does that make continuing to live more desirable than dying? I can't say it does, because we won't remain to experience this lack of a deprivation. Conversely, if our lives provide us with nothing but suffering, does that make dying more desirable than living? Again, I can't say it does, because we won't remain to experience releif, or lack of suffering. There is no oblivion to experience at the end of it all.

I'm just having a hard time seeing how anything in life can be judged as good or bad if there is nothing to correlate it with (in nonexistence). It's like trying to understand the color White without having seen the colour black, if that makes any sense. Would you say that because nonexistence lacks any properties, then it is essentially neutral?

so then you'd concede from our standpoint, we can't discern a difference between existence and nonexistence?

well, from our subjective standpoint, if death is nonexistence, then we will never experience this "end state." As such, nonexistence doesn't give us anything we can use to compare it to life. Without a comparison, how can we say that life is any different than death? If I was never born, how would I be able to tell that it is any different than if I was born?

is there anything specific you want me to clarify?

If you're contemplating suicide, then maybe it would be prudent ask yourself what you expect to gain by it. I suggest that, with loss of waking-consciousness, you'd have the vague but horrific nightmare knowledge something really bad has happened, and that it was done by you.

There's no such thing as oblivion. You'll never experience a time when you aren't. Then how do you want it to be?

-

Are you saying that because the horrific nightmare knowledge that something really bad has happened would comprise our last moment, that a lack of oblivion would somehow perpetuate this subjective moment into eternity?

so hypothetically, if you were in a prolonged state of suffering that would likely last for the rest of your life, do you think it would it be better to end your life?

what does that lack of continuity say about nonexistence though? If we never continue out of existence, then would there not be any difference between existence and nonexistence from our standpoint? If that's the case, wouldn't that make existence some sort of experiential illusion that cannot be valued in any way?

I don't disagree that life can be filled with wonderful things, and I know I'm certainly capable of experiencing them again. My issue is more about whether the value of life holds up when we compare it to nonexistence. As previously mentioned, we always picture some sort of subjective state in nonexistence, when this is a logical impossibility. It is easy to imagine nonexistence as being somehow neutral or bad compared to life, but how can we say that? There won't be a me to know any difference between life and death when I'm gone. As such, trying to obtain the good things out of life doesn't motivate me more than ending my life, because it won't put me into a better state of affairs.

It's more akin to "why do I want to do this?" If instinct is driving me to do it, why am I following my instinct?

I agree, which is why I started this thread. I want to be given a rational argument to convince me out of my beliefs, because regardless of whether it's a product of my survival instinct, I want to live. It's just incredibly difficult to do so when I don't have a logical justification.

@Wallows we can place certain values on life, such as life is good or bad. However, does it make sense to say that we are better off living a good life than committing suicide? There cannot be a consequence of suicide, as there will be no you to experience the aftermath. It's impossible for us not to project some sort of subjective state into the outcome of suicide, even if we know this state won't be "correct." So then, death is neither good nor bad for you. Can we equate this to it having neutral value? I'm not sure, but my gut instinct says no. Rather, it makes sense to equate death with having no value, which is something different altogether. For me, it makes no sense to commit suicide, but it also makes no sense to continue living. Ultimately, my survival instinct, and not knowing if there might be some sort of afterlife are what's keeping me alive. I'm aware I would hurt those around me, but as selfish as it sounds, if death is annihilation, then there would be no me to even realize the hurt I've caused.

As some of you have put it, I think this is more a matter of philosophical therapy than psychological therapy. I'm fully aware that life can be filled with wonderful things and that depression isn't forever. I've learned various therapeutic approaches over the years (my degree is in psychology). I think @darthbarracuda is closer to the line of thinking I'm getting at.

As someone who hasn't studied much philosophy but has struggled over suicidal thoughts stemming from issues related to the topic of this thread, I'm wondering how you guys are able to avoid internalizing such issues to the point of madness.