I'd question this desire for something more than survival instincts. Our attachment to life isn't "just" survival instinct, it's a complex of attachments and emotions and history and future and present and...

A complex, I think, is a good description -- leaving open what precisely makes us tick, while noting that it's not simple.

So coming to understand how or why we might come to desire death -- while still being alive! -- will also be complicated. — Moliere

No, it has to do with the belief that you are your body; and it has to do with the belief that when the body dies, "it's all over".

Note: These beliefs are dogmatic, axiomatic. We're not supposed to question them.

Yet every day, we also act in ways that show that we don't hold those beliefs consistently. — baker

Yes I can. Science has very strong empirical evidence for The law of Conservation of Energy, which states that “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.” In other words, the total amount of energy in the universe never changes, it can only change from one form to another. It is actually quite unlikely that after you die, some of your disassembled subatomic particles will never be involved in any new combination events until the end of the universe. YOU will be recycled. — universeness

Some motives you can't choose. Like, do you like certain types of food? Do you like orgasm? Do you dislike being hungry? Do you dislike being cold? All of these are ordinary motives that drive our lives and they are wired in our bodies or minds and thus are part of us. And they drive us toward pleasant feelings that make life worthwhile and away from unpleasant feelings that make life miserable. Getting killed is unpleasant and the survival drive drives you away from that. — litewave

You have no information regarding the legacy I will leave so you have no idea as to how long I will be remembered. Modern techniques store more and more information about our individual lives so future people will get to know a lot more about the lives of past people if they wish to. Future transhumanism has the potential to offer humans vastly improved robustness, ability and longevity. This will offer many new options. If you stick around you may witness its infancy. If you don't then there are many newborns to replace you. The global population has been increasing since we came out of the wilds. — universeness

Only one small path leads out, but its trailhead can only be seen by casting one's gaze above shoulder height, and none have yet looked that high up. They've heard of this Path of Hope, but never having seen it, they scoff and shrug, looking at the ground, firmly denying it. — Hanover

As I have said many times, to me, the fundamental is a question of purpose. A universe devoid of life has no purpose that I can conceive of. Such pointlessness is far worse than any concept of undeserved harms human morality or human moralists can come up with. I vote for many more years of harms and suffering for humans, including those who some choose to label 'newborn innocents,' alongside the many many joys and wonders of life which also occur very regularly. I very much prefer this state, compared to the alternative of a lifeless, pointless universe. All good people will also, of course, continue to do exactly what you have suggested many times. We will continue to help alleviate and remove all forms of unjust and unnecessary suffering and even obtain far more control over the inevitability of death.

I would also ask this. Why is the survival instinct so strong in all species if purposeless nonexistence is the superior natural state? Something seems to me to be much better than nothing! — universeness

Well, you're helping my argument, not hurting it. We are humans after all. So, yes, we use rationalization like animals use instinct. Courage consists of going against our tendency towards hopelessness. We use rationalization, of course. But there are enzymes and chemicals in our body at our disposal. — L'éléphant

If you think it's great to be an orphan who has no memory about his or her biological parents, I have to disagree. Do you really think that is better? — ssu

I have no suggestions if one finds life undesirable. Imagination is good, but living at the moment requires courage. That's it. Courage to face the mundane and the ordinary. Escapism has flourished over the last last decade or so. You've seen a lot of them in vlogs. Cottage fairies is one example. Another, is living a life in the 18th century, complete with costume and oil lamps and lack of modern technology. There's also the shopping addiction. Acquiring things to fill a void. Or just simply using drugs and alcohol to enter the state of stupor and mindlessness. — L'éléphant

But I know that looking at the determination of animals in the wilderness, that's what I call living. They have enough energy pent up inside them that when they spring into action, all those energy is released like superpowers. Relatively, they live a short life -- when you always give your all and use all your energy to bag a prey, you're bound to have a shorter life. The wear and tear you sustain makes you powerful, but also short-lived. — L'éléphant

If I die tomorrow, at least I'll be happy that my children are now so old that they will remember me. It would really suck to die when your children are so young that they won't remember anything. But at least I had them and a loving wife, so one notch to the "successful human/animal life"-table. — ssu

Death just means you disassemble back into the spare subatomic parts you were made from. You dissipate back into the universal mix, all of what you were will be used again in new variations and new combinations. Nothing to be afraid of. The little life variation you were is gone forever but you will not be forgotten if you leave a respectable legacy and future transhumanism may offer many more options. — universeness

I assume anti-lifers struggle when nice things happen to them and to others around them as feeling good must be painful for them. — universeness

If one has followed the inquiry thus far and is seeing the true context of death as simplyan ending, which it is, which you wish to postpone for as long as you can since you lack a backbone,

then one puts a reasonable question, if i know there is biological death always lurking around the corner and all your BS is gonna leave you with nothing but sh## in your hands, then why doesn't the human end (psychological death) its weasel-ly-ness. Right.

To end it now! Because that's what biological death will do/does. You won't have a chance to negotiate/weasel out of, as much as want to. So the question then becomes, what is it to die. For example, to all your fears, to your prejudices, to your nonsense. — skyblack

It’s hard and unreliable to kill yourself? I really can’t see how that’s true, but OK.

As for the survival instinct — yes, true. But supposedly you long for death. If the drive to continue living is greater— then you really don’t want it. If you did you’d be dead already— provided that there are means to do so and, as I already mentioned, there are plenty of ways to do so.

People who consider suicide very often don’t truly want to die — they’re either without meaning and joy or are clinically depressed.

Do you consider yourself depressed? It sounds that way to me. In which case: there are ways out. — Xtrix

The OP is confused. There is no peace in death. There is nothing. What the OP wants is peace in life. To get to a moment where they feel peace. You have to live to feel peace. They would prefer a life where they feel peace then a life where they feel pain. Death does not give peace. It gives nothing. There is no chance to find peace. There is no beating the pain. If you die in pain, its the last thing you will ever feel.

To believe that absence of your existence can be preferable to pain is true in some circumstances. Have all of your limbs cut off, your eyes blown out, your brain half blown to bits and you're surviving purely by modern science? Yeah, pull that plug. It does not sound like those are the circumstances of the OP. It sounds like someone who is in pain, and instead of dealing with that pain, looks to invent some fantasy to avoid the work needed to make the pain go away. The OP needs to deal with their pain. They can one day find peace if they work for it. They will not if they keep sticking to this romantic fantasy of death. — Philosophim

It's not always about rationalisation; it's about the variegated nature of preferences and perspectives. I am aware of Becker's ideas. Part of the reason why people fear death is because they appreciate the goods of life. These goods could be complex, such as the relationships one has and could lose, to more basic ones, such as death resulting in some sort of horrible black void that takes away the positive state of we were in. I do think that there is a sort of paternalism when it comes to giving people the right to a graceful exit. Personally, I don't think that one's love for life should justify making someone else endure a valueless existence. Toxic positivity is a significant problem. — DA671

But this doesn't affect my logic that choosing nothingness is just as meaningful/pointless as seeking happiness and valuing life is. Many people believe that the precious joys of life are worth cherishing instead of focusing on a valueless void. — DA671

So after all, even for you life is preferable to death. Which is normal, after millions or billions of years of evolution have geared our motivations toward survival.

I think death becomes preferable to life when suffering exceeds happiness so much that it beats the survival drive. If the survival drive is strong as usual, this must be a singularly terrible situation but unfortunately it can happen too. — litewave

You do enjoy life. Now it may not be roses and "the best", but you do, because you live. You actually do enjoy to some extent talking to other people. Making your voice known. People who really don't enjoy life at all don't talk. They don't write. They hate and despise everything about their very existence. You would loath eating, breathing, and doing anything. You obviously do not.

So no, you don't prefer death to living. You still live. You still eat. You still interact. Perhaps you wish life were better than it is. Perhaps you want peace and a release from pain, and confuse that for a desire for death. Many people do. But if you're talking about death as it is, an unromantic end that you won't get any feelings about or be around to experience, no you don't. — Philosophim

If we should not be afraid of/averse to non-existence because we cannot be deprived of something when we don't exist, we should also not chase/worship the void, since the absence of suffering has no value for an inexistent being. You're not going to be in some better/more satisfied state due to the lack of harms. In view of this, non-existence has no value/disvalue. What one does with their life, therefore, becomes a highly individualised affair that differs from person-to-person and what action/emotion brings them happiness when they exist. Lastly, I wouldn't say there's something "wrong" with you. I am not a fan of blind optimism. All I would say is that, considering that value only lies in existence, I think that it can be rational to try our best to discover a source of joy that can provide us happiness for as long as possible instead of seeking cessation which is necessarily limited in its capacity to provide fulfilment. — DA671

If you want to suggest existence without consciousness, you would have to suggest an object that possesses existence. In this example, we used a chair. But you can't do that. You have to use something that did not require consciousness at some point for that thing to exist. It's stalemate the other way as well, because you could suggest something like "A Rock". This rock is the sole existent in this possible world. That might work, but when we turn around , we're faced with the fact that we just used our consciousness to imagine this possible world where only a rock existed. — Watchmaker

In a world stripped of concepts, there is no existence as existence is itself a concept. Therefore, a fundamental prerequisite for existence is the existence of concepts. Concepts however cannot exist without a conceiving entity. Therefore, existence requires consciousness.

The existence of a thing implies the existence of the concept of a thing. If the concept of a thing does not exist, we cannot refer to it in any way and thus its existence becomes a null concept. Thus, the concept of a thing and by consequence the thing, is a mere state of a hypothetical system that is responsible for consciousness or is conscious. I will refer to it as the conscious system.

(1) Constant change implies that there is a never-ending action, because if action would cease to exist, then change would be at some point impossible and therefore it will not be constant. Thus infinity is an inevitability.

(2) The concept of a thing is distinguished by the concepts of other things through the concept of not that thing. Thus, discreteness can exist, so that all experience does not merge into a single point, which allows dimensions to exist.

(3) The fact that a thing is defined by a set of conditions, reflects the state of the conscious system, which further determines the next state of the system but also forces it to never be in (experience) the same state twice, because that would put the system in a loop which contradicts buttonion's first proposition as it would cause a stable organization in the system (that is all that is) and therefore no more change.

Thus far I have asserted that all that exists is an infinite non repeatable experience.

So when we say that a thing exists, we are really saying that the experience of everything that can exist, has existed or will exist if it does not now. Which sucks.

Being attracted to something, anything is underpinned by a value judgment and invariably one likes what one thinks is better. Ergo, if you feel attracted to a particular race, it amounts to saying that that race is better and that's racism. You may prefer your own race over others and that's your run of the mill, garden variety racism but you may also like a race other than your own and that's auto-racism. — TheMadFool

[Much] of what contemporary epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science count as induction infers neither from observation nor from particulars and does not lead to general laws or principles. [Induction] was understood to be what we now know as enumerative induction or universal inference; inference from particular instances: