Ah but they do have meaning though, otherwise they wouldn't be enjoying life. They find meaning in those little things and food on the table. They haven't lived without it they just express it differently. Even you did, though you seem largely unaware of it. The people you met were the exception not the rule, I've seen the norm (it's pretty ugly).

As I said, values and life goals are the only reason people live. The folks you met haven't even pondered nihilism so I don't get what you thought was going to overturn what I said.

It doesn't really give you a key though. Camus is still dodging by assigning meaning and value to living. Nihilism says there is no meaning or value.

How exactly do you figure?

From what I can tell nothing mattering isn't what Buddhism says though it appears that way.

I still stand by my last point. Nothing mattering would just evaporate any reason for living.

I fail to see how nothing mattering can be empowering.

Everyone has an Ego so when we say "nothing matters" that is a claim to objectivity and can only be emotionally held on to as a meaning in life. The fundamentals of karma work. Do evil and evil comes to you. Do good and you won't go to hell (maybe you'll just be annihilated). But justice and fairness are not the same thing. The universe allows itself to be just to us but our lives might not be fair in themselves, or in comparisons between us — Gregory

no such thing as Karma, or good and evil for that matter. Doing evil doesn't make evil comes to you and doing good doesn't mean much either.

Justice and fairness are pretty much the same thing.

The universe doesn't allow anything, it just is.

Why should one kill oneself at all? Why do one need "values" or "life goals" to live? Enjoy the joyride. Sure there are people that live shit lives, mental disorders or whatever. People that run into hopeless situations. Those people also probably dont think much about values and stuff, they know bloody well their pain and thats probably it. But for anyone not in a current hell, why suicide — Ansiktsburk

Values and life goals are pretty much the reasons why anyone is alive at all.

Life is not a joyride, it's hell unless you're in the developed world.

Again, chance. There is no design to evolution. That's the first mistake they correct in class.

Adaptable mutations are lucky because it is a role of the dice that they don't hinder the organism. There is no "mold" they fit, that's just you projecting design.

I would be willing to wager, if I actually likely pinball. But they're just lucky. Much of our lives is based on chance and not really our own efforts.

Reread the definition. It presupposes and external entity imbuing it.

No standing still is not worse. Stop trying to affix to life qualities it does not possess.

The creation cannot imbue itself with purpose. Purpose is imbued by an outside force not from within. So it cannot be given to oneself.

Why cannot it be true that the purpose of nature works THROUGH evolution?

Too much emphasis is placed on the randomness of evolution by ppl who only look at mutation in genes. Yes, that mutation is indeed random, but the mutations that are accepted...are they merely random? No, they must be adaptable; and then we come to the question of what is adaptability, and we must allow that it means something like, “what fits in to the scheme of the universe”.

It’s like if someone said, “pinball is a game of pure chance, for there is no way to know how the ball will return to the paddle, at what angle or speed. The player just pushes the button by reflex, and hopes it sends the ball into places where big scores can be racked up.” But there are, in fact, “pinball wizards”, who correspond to our evolutionary adaptability, able to choose the random things that fit into the scheme of the game. — Todd Martin

But that would be misunderstanding evolution. The first mistake is that people believe it has a purpose. It doesn't. It just happens. Organisms that fit the mold survive and reproduce while the rest die. There is no purpose or reason behind it. It just is.

The mutations ARE random. It's really luck that a mutation generates a benefit for the organism. There is no adaptability to the level you think there is. That isn't how evolution works. There isn't a scheme to the universe.

Pinball wizards are really just lucky. It happens. People misattribute such things as skill when it's luck. The same goes for success or promotions. We say it's skill because it gives us a sense of control in our lives. We don't want to admit that our accomplishments are really just about luck.

I really don't think a philosophy forum is for you, maybe try some new age nonsense.

But we agree - creating goals and behaviours in life (like helping others) are what give you purpose. But everyone has different ways of achieving that. — GLEN willows

They don't though.

Purpose is something imbued by a creator, evolution has no purpose it simply is a force that happens. If you want to say purpose it would be something given by parents I guess but even then that is more a desire.

Goals and behaviors in life can't give you purpose for you will have none at the end of the day. All they can do is distract you from the reality of existence.

In my philosophy I only have one life, so I'd better get moving on it right now! :wink: — GLEN willows

Why? Why get moving? You won't remember any of it when you die and you can't take it with you (assuming an afterlife). There really is no reason to get moving or do anything.

They came together. — Ken Edwards

No they didn't. It's clear you don't have any real evidence for your claims.

But what I said about psychology is the truth, so much so that even my professors grudgingly admit it. Psychology has always been the least accurate of all the sciences so it's no surprise your evidence is incorrect.

To correct you, no it isn't.

None of that is to create warm or a star, it's to delude yourself into thinking such things exist in the universe and ignore what IS.

Again, still wrong.

Pretty sure the conscious mind came first otherwise you wouldn't have language. I wouldn't put much stock in research put forth by psychology since half of it had to be thrown out due to reproducibility and from what I learned in psychology courses in college it's not the best indicator of how humans work or their minds. So many theories yet nothing truly conclusive.

"However, I think the conscious activity is just like the tip of the iceberg, and there is a vast amount of non-conscious activity going on, which is supporting a tiny amount of conscious activity. We could represented it like a pyramid, the base being non-conscious, with the point at the top being conscious. Since it is activity we are talking about, represented as a thing (the pyramid), there is continuous back and forth throughout this proposed "thing". — Ken Edwards

There isn't. The unconscious as we have found out turns out to not be some hidden brain but more just upkeep processes of the body.

Scientist applied motion detecters to lips and tongues and vocal chords and observed that when guys thought in words tongue movements, sometimes just tiny little twitches, were invariably recorded but never registered with non word thinking, admiring a sunset or something. — Ken Edwards

And yet you have many saying they don't including me so they're clearly doing something wrong. It's more likely the inability to keep the tongue still. I mean it's fairly tricky for humans to remain perfectly still even if they are sitting down. Their study had nothing to do with thinking and words.

But I guess psychology is desperate for something to publish since that blow it was dealt.

That's not really an answer as a self generate purpose is no different from nihilism. I mean...it's sort of like saying "it's true for me" in an argument (depending on the subject) it renders all discussion meaningless.

But to correctly answer the question, there is no purpose to life. Even generating a purpose yourself is little more than just avoiding the inevitable and ignoring the void we live in. It's a band-aid solution but not a long lasting one as once you glimpse the void attempts to patch it again continue to fail. No philosopher has successfully conquered it either without giving into the desperation to make meaning.

The purpose of life is precisely this thread,: to create, to explore, to share, to enjoy. — MondoR

No it isn't.

The purpose of life is make good on the struggles of all previous generations, by using what is thereby gained to secure the future for all subsequent generations; to know what's true, and act morally with regard to what's true - to live, to know, to live! — counterpunch

Also no.

Sorry but those experiments are flawed. As has been shown plenty of people don't move their mouths at all while thinking.

Myself included. Not sure what you were getting at here. I think we can call this "fact" false.

Well, no moral statement, that's my point.

Ethics is nothing but value judgments so it's impossible to be unbiased.

And "what really matters" will be what counts for us (how we will account for ourselves), what we will take as our culture, our words, that we will be heard in, be bound to, answerable for (or flee from). — Antony Nickles

No.

The fact is that harm (e.g. hunger, pain, bereavement, isolation, etc) always causes dysfunction, or worse, especially when it is ignored and not alleviated adequately somehow. This is objective because it obtains whether or not "everyone sees it as bad". — 180 Proof

Again, no. That is still mere opinion. Dysfunction is implying a state of deviation from normalcy which itself is a value judgments. So no it doesn't cause dysfunction. It isn't objective. You're still wrong.

And why isn't this an acceptable description of where we are in a moral moment? There are such things as actions: a slight, or betrayal, lies, recrimination; and also reactions: an excuse, qualification, etc. And if we look at what they tell us about moral action, we might see that there is the act, then there is the reckoning for it; that there is a responsibility after the consideration of ought and the founding of morals. Most times we know what to do and what to expect, but then there are times when we don't know exactly what to do; nonetheless we act (or fail to). The moral realm is where we stand for what we say (or not), act beyond what is good and right, or against it. But we are held to it, we are separated by it. Where our knowledge of morality ends, we begin; into our future, our self--can you live with the results? — Antony Nickles

No, again. Because when it comes to morality people want to dress it up with words that in sense avoids responsibility. Saying something is right means you are doing it simply because society deems it such or that you need to validate your choice. That is what people do in moral moments, well technically there are no moral moments.

I said there is no right or wrong but actions and results and it comes down to if you can live with the results. It's not about what is right or wrong. It's responsibility in it's truest form to me rather than hiding behind labels.

If you mean right as in true or correct in terms of facts then that's a different story.

But morality speaks in terms of should and should not, which is what they mean by right and wrong. In this sense they are value judgments and as such morality can never not be an opinion. If by Xing you mean some act then sure.

Obviously as stated the conclusion doesn't follow. It needs the following premise added to it

1. Different people and groups have different moral beliefs
2. If different people and groups have different moral beliefs, then morality is individually or collectively subjective
3. Therefore, morality is collectively subjective — Bartricks

Incorrect. Premise two is redundant and unnecessary. Premise 3 logically follows from premise 1. Though judging by your post I find you to be an idiot.

Because what you have listed are still just value judgments and I already said that everyone sharing a value doesn't really make it objective fact. Not everyone sees pain as bad or crippled as bad either.

Regardless though, if you agree that:

1- People generally have the same moral compass.
2- There are and will continue to be punishments for immoral acts
3- You have no basis on which to say those should stop.

Then really your view is practically the same as meta ethical realism or relativism. You will continue to try to be moral and avoid being immoral to avoid punishment. And you will not have a basis to argue something like “Murderers should not be punished”. And you will probably also continue to feel like murderers and such “deserved it”.

Which is why I think meta ethical questions are usually a waste of time. — khaled

1 is false. People I come across have quite the different moral compass when it comes to a variety of issues. I'm still reminded of abortion debates or welfare or government assistance. Folks don't have a moral compass.

2 isn't entirely true and some "immoral" acts are quite legal and people can and do perform and get away with them. Repeatedly.

3 is on you to say why they should even start to begin with.

I'm not trying to be moral or immoral, I just avoid conflict if possible. Sometimes that involves "immoral" acts and not as much. I have a value and act in ways to facilitate that. I do in fact have a basis that murderers should not be punished, mainly that there isn't a basis to begin with when punishing them. I don't feel they deserve it either, but I don't feel they don't either.

You keep trying to foot the whole thing on me but the reality is that it's on YOU and anyone espousing morality as to why such things are right or wrong to begin with. But YOU can't because it's just opinion.

Bob and Alice decide it would be good to tie you down and do to you things that caused you some experience (what does not matter much). Are your experiences capricious and arbitrary?

Or another way. You see in the newspaper a photograph. What is it a photograph of? Is it a photograph? What is it?

The point is that meaning is provided at an appropriate level or closeness of engagement with the thing to which the meaning is given. Not so close or far away that meaning is lost. And that meaning is neither capricious nor arbitrary, rather instead it is meaning itself, and according to the precision of that application, absolute.

We usually do not question if good things befall us - maybe we should. But these matters are usually honed and stropped on bad things. So the question becomes what is the value of the capricious and arbitrary. If your objection to being hurt by Bob and Alice is mere arbitrary caprice. What claim can you make on them to get them to stop? — tim wood

Yes they are capricious and arbitrary. I wouldn't like them doing that, but that's still opinion as me wanting them to stop. I cannot make a claim on them to get them to stop that wouldn't be personal opinion. Only force would do so. In fact that's the only way moral claims carry weight, the threat of not doing them. Essentially morality is about forcing your views on other people.

I read your posts but your arguments are wrong.

The necessary moral conditions for communicative debate are not in place. Language is made up, therefore it's all bullshit! :vomit: — unenlightened

It’s more like nihilism knows we made all this stuff up. It is similar to language and one could argue it’s all BS because we made it up but considering language is what we need to communicate I’m not putting it on par with morality. You sound like the rest trying to desperately create some objective standard to live by when it’s foundations are just opinion.

The only problem we end up with is what do we make of the person who has no conscience and can live with the consequences of anything: murder, rape or genocide. That is where things become a bit tricky with what I will call the subjective utilitarian approach. Do we say that there is no objective criteria and that there are no objective moral principles at all? This is where we begin to get into the rough waters and possible moral nihilism. Okay, most of us have consciences but, unfortunately, not everyone does. — Jack Cummins

That’s not a problem at all, again you are attaching aspects that don’t exist on to actions, in this case murder and death as bad. If they can live with that then I have nothing to say, same with someone who is intent on killing me. I can tell them no but in the end it’s only my opinion against their own.

Moral nihilism is pretty much what morality is from what I see. Anything else seems like lying to yourself.

"We" did make it up; that doesn't mean it is merely arbitrary and capricious opinion. It's is also true, especially in your case, that your mere opinion will not outweigh everybody else's. — Bitter Crank

I mean...when you get down to it the whole thing IS arbitrary and capricious opinion. That’s not my opinion that’s a fact. Morality being a value judgment can’t be anything other than opinion.

Also I would like to reply to the beginning comments that I don’t believe that everyone agreeing to something makes it objective, just means that everyone agrees. But how many times have people done that and it led to ruin? Plus isn’t that a fallacy or appealing to popularity?

Changes nothing.

If someone says they don't value improvement, and they feel no shame at all in the refusal to take part, there is no reddening of the cheeks as they refuse the relationship, then so be it. I'm not sure I would believe them. — bert1

Such people tend to be smarter than most.

Heaven help the person who jumps off that bridge, with certain death imminent, and who, in those five seconds of falling, realizes he hasn't thought things through as thoroughly as he first assumed he did before jumping.

Not playing the proverbial game is much harder than just offing yourself. If you think that by offing yourself, you'll exit the game, then you're still giving supremacy to others, still letting others dictate your life, and you're even devoting those last few seconds of your life to them. To people who don't care enough about you to be there for you. Now that's a shame. — baker

No you aren't. You aren't giving supremacy to anyone. By opting to not play you win. Think about what happens when enough people stop playing the game, there is no game anymore.

What's a true shame is how you can't see that. The reality is that we have been convinced we must play, so the only way for others to win is to keep playing.

Also some might have regret but some experience great peace knowing it will all be over.

Apparently not. What has philosophy done that had made things better?

At the job I lost a year ago (and still haven't replaced), which I had for 8 years prior, I would routinely beat the everliving shit out of myself, with my actual fists, because of the pressure to keep up with the insane workloads that got dumped on me all at once. And then be awake all night anxious about the next day. And just barely be able to unwind back to "normal" by the end of the weekend, only for Monday to fuck it up again.

But I put up with it because the alternative was ending up homeless, or at best living in the tool shed next to my dad's trailer again, which was even worse. — Pfhorrest

For many others though homeless would be an improvement. Either that or death.

I'm not sure and it's a good question. For me the possibility and actuality of relationships keep me going, I think. And I am most despairing when I find myself unable to relate to others well. Maybe separation creates the possibility of value, but then if relationships don't work well, or others are uncooperative, there is a tendency to want to take one's ball home, permanently. That'll show the buggers. I know I feel it quite a lot. — bert1

But why bother with such things though? Why not choose to "not play the game" so to speak?

More like it takes funds to pay for such education but if philosophy hasn't answered anything important then why do we bother teaching it? Just to sit on a treadmill?

Yes, but they put up with that suffering only to avoid even greater suffering, and in the hopes of some small pleasures along the way and even greater pleasures afterward. — Pfhorrest

I don't think you've worked a service job before. The kind of work wears you down to the point that most people dread waking up and going through it, never really being able to enjoy days off because they have to go back to the job.

It's not about having a reason to live, it's about having a reason not to kill yourself. — baker

Literally the same thing, he's just splitting hairs.

We don't choose to live, we live and that's that — TheMadFool

But we do choose to live, with every action that prolongs exists it's a choice to go on. Stop choosing and eventually death takes you.

Technically there is no good or bad in anything, only in us.

So if philosophy hasn't answered any important questions then why bother with it? Seems like a waste of university money then.

I want to show that there is no reason for living so that when I eventually take my life people won’t call my illogical or clouded

And that, I suppose, is the rationalization that allows you to be confident in your position despite the numerous advances against it in this thread. — DoppyTheElv

It’s not rationalization, that is literally what the defenses against death or suicide are, appeals to emotion or nature, which is why they fall flat. They don’t see why their logic does not follow.

How convenient that the will to live is the obstacle to understanding you. I'm sorry to say then that indeed most of the population who enjoy life, no matter how good in philosophy they are, will simply not be as enlightened as you. Except for the ones who, sorry to bring this up despite to your request, are depressed. — DoppyTheElv

I wouldn’t call it the will to live so much as it is the bias towards life. Considering most living things tend to avoid death quite intensely it would make sense our reasoning would be clouded by such a drive. “I have to live” yet when trying to pin down why that is you ultimately have nothing to stand on. Death however doesn’t really need a reason, it finds you. You don’t have to live but you will die. Sorry I don’t have a more poetic way to put that.

I like music and it makes me happy. There is nothing illogical about liking music being a sufficient reason to play my piano. This would change if you add a twist. If you play the piano, someone dies. Yes, then it's arguable about it being a good reason, but a reason could be there none the less.

You haven't argued anything in your responses to me man. You literally just say "it's not an reason" and then "I've argued why." — DoppyTheElv

I have argued why. I’ve told you that it’s only an automatic response to stimuli, it isn’t you. You don’t decide what you like or dislike. Liking music is not a reason to play it, all that means is that you like music. The same goes with playing the piano and someone dying, that isn’t a reason to stop. I like music but that is no reason to play the piano, all that is is an automatic response to stimuli. It doesn’t mean I should play nor does it logically follow.

That’s like trying to derive an ought from an is.

You are trying to argue for life when the reasons of so many have been shown to be fallacious.

No it's not. It's an appeal to it feels good and there is no reason not to do it so it's perfectly logical to want to do it argument. And I said you didn't explain anything because I still don't see why there is no reason to do anything at all. — DoppyTheElv

It is. You are arguing it’s only natural to do so so it’s appeal to nature. I’ve already said why it’s not logical to want to do it. Stop repeating the same debunked arguments. Desire and emotion are not reasons for doing something, they are simple feelings that come and go. We choose to assign meanings to such things when in reality they don’t mean anything. Take away what we attach to them and they are pure sensations, not reasons for doing anything.

Emotions are not reasons to do something either. They are just reactions to situations but we think they mean something or that we should do something but this is in error.

The end note to your question is: People live life because it's worth it and it's simply fun. It's perfectly logical to me and seemingly to most people who are alive. You don't think it's a valid reason? Well, I'm afraid you're not going to convince very many people. — DoppyTheElv

Both those points are false. Life is not worth it. Nor is it fun. It just is. There is no logic to doing something because it is fun. Why can’t people see that? Just because most people believe that doesn’t make it true or logical. I know I can’t expect to convince folks of this because they are too attached to life and can’t see clearly.

If multiple people are telling you that you're in fact not explaining anything then you should probably look into it. — DoppyTheElv

Again just because many people say something doesn’t make it true. I have already shown every argument for living to not be logical and rooted in fallacy yet people want to believe otherwise.

But again, those are not reasons to not do it. To repeat plenty of people do thinks they don’t like for years. Most jobs tend to be like that for the population as a whole.

Besides the parts of your arguments which are demonstrably incorrect, which you did not even try to defend further, you've got "perhaps" and "think about it" to challenge decades of science and study. Your worldview is not based on logic and honesty as you claim, it's created through a unique interpretation which selectively acknowledges and emphasises pieces of information to create a particular narrative. When in doubt, assume whatever suits you, that's pretty much your argument summed up, we both know you can't back up your claims, that's why it's "perhaps" and such. — Judaka

Except they aren’t incorrect. I’ve told you that society has a stigma against suicide and that is not made up. It’s literally something I was taught in my sociology courses.

If anyone is not using logic it’s you, trying to argue that desire and liking something are reasons to do something when they aren’t. As was mentioned logic can’t tell you what to do. To be it just sounds like you hit a wall because appeals to emotion no longer work. I have backed up my claims, you however have not.

You've got an excuse for everything, it's a whole conspiracy against suicide and the evidence or arguments don't matter because of "death anxiety". My last comment, you chose to address only what you thought could be ignored by "death anxiety" yet again, even though your main argument is demonstrably invalid and false. I don't know why you're intent on promoting suicide but I imagine it's a personal story. Anyway, I don't think you have anything left to do but insist on things you can't back up and dismiss facts with wishful thinking, I'm out. — Judaka

Because suicide is the only logical choice by metrics of living, meaning maximizing pleasure and avoiding pain. I’ve already explained why pleasure is not a reason to live. You refuse to accept it. You cling to your illogical views that life is worth it. When you get rid of your attachment to life you see it’s not “worth it”. Every one of your arguments is biased by survival instinct. You don’t have facts. You have a the narrative that suicide is the result of depression when it isn’t always but that’s the story we tell. Similar to how shooters are mentally disturbed even without a history, because that makes sense when some of them had no history. The facts aren’t on your side. But it is fitting you should leave. That tends to be the attitude of most when the truth gets too close.

It is hard to grasp because it speaks against my personal experience. If I'm hungry, then I will eat. If I am in love with a person, then I will try my best to be with them. Reason being? Hunger and Love.

These are valid reasons to pursue my wants in my eyes. But according to you they aren't. And that's why I have asked you multiple times before, what would count as a valid reason?

If something feels good then it's only natural to want to pursue it just for the sake of it feeling good. Setting aside all arguments one can make about chasing feelings at the expense of others, etc. — DoppyTheElv

Appeal to nature argument. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it good to follow. And I have already explained why not. As I said if you take it further then there is no reason to do anything at all.

So you deny that there can be a reason to do anything and then go on to say that life needs a reason to continue which by implication means that death is the only option. This seems fallacious at worst and requiring justification at best. Or did I misunderstand? If so, sorry. — DoppyTheElv

It’s not. It just shows that death is the only option left. Life requires to a reason to exist, at least for people. We are past the point of being unquestioning animals. Yet there is no ultimate reason for existence or living. Reproduction is what live does but that doesn’t mean it should. Therefore there is and never will be a reason for living (that isn’t rooted in appeals to emotion or nature, AKA fallacies) making death the only logical choice.

Could throw in 100s if I wanted, polls, experts, characterising suicide the same way but you've got "perhaps" on your side, guess that's even. If someone is calm and happy and wants to die then they're a massive minority who nobody even talks about, I'd have to hear them out to understand where they're coming from but I don't really care, people can kill themselves if they want just don't tell me that it's the only sane choice or that people are just talking negatively about suicide only due to "death anxiety" or whatever. — Judaka

I think there is a stigma against suicide and that any attempt to portray it as positive by any means is looked down upon or underreported if at all. Think about it, it's your life. Who says you can't "quit" so to speak? We dislike talking about death overall and as I mentioned are obsessed with living to the point that we keep people on life support when they are unable to function as a human being. We even made up afterlives to feel better about it, at least I think so. But that's another can of worms.

However, the question "What is your reason for living?" is misleading, insofar as living is the default, and as such, there's no specific personal reason for it — baker

Except it isn't the default. It's a choice. There is a "personal reason" that being survival and fear of pain/death, but these aren't good ones. Most living things "fear" death to a degree.

It's perfectly logical to do what you like. It would be nonsensical to say: "I like eating ice cream but I don't because life is a chore." And that's all I'm getting from you. You can have reasons to pursue certain feelings you know. — DoppyTheElv

Again it isn't but I'm tired of repeating myself. There is no reason for me to eat ice cream even if I like it, me liking it is not a reason to do it. Why is that so hard to grasp? There is no reason to pursue a feeling either by the same logic.

The reason not to just take pain killers all the time is the negative (unenjoyable) consequences of doing so. If those weren’t there then it would be a good thing to do. — Pfhorrest

But that is not a reason to stop. You said if you like something then do it so therefor someone should take painkillers despite the "negatives" because they like it.

What do you think would constitute a reason to do something? (Even if no such reason exists; what would you imagine if you imagined that such a thing did exist?) What does “should” even mean to you? — Pfhorrest

Nothing, because there is no reason to really do anything. However in doing nothing by extension of this you eventually reach a point where it doesn't matter anymore (death). Life needs a reason, death doesn't. Life only goes if you upkeep it, death will come one way or the other without your help.

I've already argued something similar to this, the question is how is that drive overcome? Is it overcome through distress, depression and negative emotion or is it overcome by, being very honest and logical? Hopefully, we could at least agree that the former can be true, suicides can be impulsive or they can be planned out but people who choose to kill themselves are generally not both calm and happy. — Judaka

You don't know that. Perhaps they are calm and happy but see the futility of life. I'd like to think that happiness clouds our judgment and makes life appear better than it really is.

Death today or death in fifty years, there is no difference — Judaka

There is a difference though, death today means never having to wait 50 years or dealing with that much life.

Any good reason anybody has for anything they can only have because they're alive. Any ambition, any relationship, any activity, any reason for doing any of these things is also a reason to live. If someone is excitedly planning out their day, or next year, or looking forward to things they'll get to do and your mission is to tell them that they're insane for not wanting to kill themselves, because, why? All I've heard from you is explaining people away with death anxiety and saying they're reasons are not good. What is your actual argument about why people should choose death over life? — Judaka

I've already explained it. Happiness only counts as a reason when you have to stay alive in which case it makes sense to fill that time and make it enjoyable since you have to be here. If you don't it's a moot argument. From the point of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain suicide is still the better option and I think Benatar made a similar point with his Asymmetry argument. Pleasure is not an argument for living because it only applies if you are alive and again only makes sense if you HAVE to stay alive or can't die for a certain time for whatever cause. In death there is no need for pleasure or seeking it out, or disappointment or love, anything really. By any metric for choosing life, death is better by all counts. Pleasure becomes irrelevant and you avoid all future discomfort, agony or pain. There is simply not a reason to live, to be born even. One is thrust into the world without consent and then when they want out society says no because........they don't like it? I'm honestly surprised how you can't look upon all these words people are saying and thinking they justify living.

Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise. — Kenosha Kid

No they don't because the desire itself is not logical. There is no reason one should want to lose weight that is not based purely on emotion.

It's more like they took the appeal to emotion fallacy to it, which is what most of these reasons for living are, fallacies.

Something that is enjoyable is thus an end in itself: it's its own reason to do it. And if one finds life per se enjoyable, that makes life an end in itself. — Pfhorrest

No it doesn't. There is a reason for doing it. It being enjoyable is not an end in and of itself, and the only reason people avoid infinite regress is that they eventually stop at an arbitrary point. Finding life enjoyable does not make it an end in and of itself. AS I said those things don't exist. They just justify living because it's good, until it goes bad.

So eating an icecream simply because eating an icecream brings forth happiness is not a good reason? I dont get that. — DoppyTheElv

Again, emotion. All I can say about eating ice cream is that I like it, but that doesn't mean I do it.

That's the kind of expression that elicits the question "why not?" in a normal person. It calls for an explanation of what un-enjoyable thing will happen to whom to warrant avoiding doing this thing you enjoy. Someone enjoying (or suffering from) something is the usual prima facie reason to do (or not do) anything; those kinds of experiences are the feeling that doing (or not doing) something is imperative, the thing you should do (or not do). All reasons to do (or not do) anything are grounded in such feelings. — Pfhorrest

Pardon but I tend to regard such people as stupid. "Normal" people tend to not question much so such a remark means nothing. I can say the same thing to them about painkillers when they aren't sick. Why not? You say it's avoiding but that implies I am activity doing such a thing when I am not. People seem to have this myopic notion that enjoying something is a reason to do it when it's not. All enjoyment means is what it says, that you like the activity, not that you should do it.

This sort of irrational behaviour is quite likely why you're coming up with nothing for a reason to live. Ultimately the only reason for doing anything is that you desire it to be done: anything else is a contradiction, a failure to reason. It seems to me like you reject this out of hand and are left in want of an alternative reason. But there isn't one. To act is to impact one's world. To act rationally is to impact one's world with a desired result in mind. Any other way of behaving is illogical. — Kenosha Kid

It's not irrational you just say it is so because you don't grasp it. The "reason" for doing something is the desire for it to be done, but enjoyment does not mean that at all. Plenty of people do something they don't enjoy but do so based on desire. It's still illogical as why would you wanting to do something be reason for it? But I digress. As I said, people have a narrow view of what constitutes a reason and think wanting something or feelings are reasons when they aren't. If you want to take it all the way then action ITSELF is not rational or logical.

You may as well ask for a justification to eat ice cream, or any other pleasant thing. If you don’t like ice cream, then it makes sense to ask “Why should I eat this? What do I get out of it?” But if you do like ice cream, you just want to eat it, and you may be willing to go through some hardships to get it, but you don’t need any further justification for eating it: it’s an end in itself. — Pfhorrest

Incorrect. Liking something is not a wish to KEEP doing it, only that doing it elicits a certain feeling in you. It's like saying I enjoy dancing. However I do not dance. MY enjoyment of a task is not a reason to do it. Ends in and of themselves don't exist IMO. There is always some justification for doing something even as simple as eating a sweet.

Enjoying something is the state of wishing to be doing it. It is illogical to simultaneously enjoy something and not wish to do it. Conversely it is perfectly logical to wish for something and to act to realise that thing. Competing desires weigh in on whether the ultimate decision taken is logical -- eating ice cream when you are obese is illogical if you wish to lose weight -- but those aside, logic dictates that that which you will to be done is that which you act to realise. — Kenosha Kid

It's not. Enjoying something is not the wish to be doing it. Merely a sensation of pleasure. That's it. Stop adding more to it. It's not illogical to enjoy something and not wish to do it. IT happens every day. IT isn't logical to wish for something and act to realize it either. Everything you just mentioned is not logic but emotion. All your points are prefaced by desire which by itself is illogical.

Again you keep making it to be more than it is in order for your argument to even function.

That's a feelings based argument. Evolution relies on natural selection, which does decide if your genes are strong enough to keep for the next iteration. We have altered our environment in a way that has disrupted our 'natural' selection. — Edy

Again, no. There is no such thing as strong or weak genes, only what works at the time. That is essentially evolution. A change occurs, animals that benefit from it survive and those that don't die. You are making the mistakes folks make when describing how it works.

But if not for choices we would not be free? One would imagine that the number of choices available to a person is directly equivalent to their degree of freedom. Slaves have no choice of their own as it is alway decided for them by their master. Meanwhile the truly free answer to no one. How can you exile choice from the state of being free? It makes no sense. Even if we are free to choice from a limited set of choices this is still more free than only being able to choice from a more limited set. Ultimate freedom being to choose from an unlimited set of choices. I don’t see how the dead’s choices or freedom is unlimited. I can’t possibly see how having absolutely no influence or control over anything is more free than the potential to have control (ie be aware/ alive). What can you do as a dead Person except be dead?

I understand what you’re saying in that being dead means you have no challenges to overcome, no stress, no worries or suffering. But you also don’t have love or happiness or any pleasure. So it’s a question of either being totally numb and void of all sensation (dead) or living and yes maybe suffering at times but ultimately having the chance/ opportunity or “freedom” of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering. One would imagine worldly pleasure is better than nothingness/ emptiness — Benj96

Choice is not equivalent to freedom. There is such a thing as choice paralysis were more choices equals less freedom. In death though it's essentially ultimate freedom as is wipes all that away. So long as you live freedom does not exist. No happiness or love or pleasure is only a bad thing if you are alive, in which case there is a hunger to fill life with it lest you suffer, another reason living is illogical as the stuff that makes it "worth it" doesn't matter if you choose death and freedom from such seeking. Worldly pleasure is not better than nothing.

A trademark trait of depression is honing in on the negative, interpreting things negatively, tunnel visioning on what is negative and being impervious to outside opinions. Such as a person feeling like they are a burden on their family and friends regardless of what they say, or feeling like a failure regardless of what other people think. Your worldview is bleak and dark, because it's being seen by someone who has a bleak and dark view, not because the world is actually as bad as you think it is. Logic is manipulated by emotion and psychology much more than the other way around. I think it's very human of you to notice that in others but not in yourself because that's pretty much your entire explanation for why people disagree with you.

I'm not sure what your motivation here is, you want people to realise suicide is the only sane choice? You want people to realise they only oppose suicide due to their death anxiety or because taking it seriously would challenge their life's meaning? — Judaka

Sometimes one has to wonder whether something is depression or an honest look at life. I know our society has a tendency to sweep the bad things or negativity under the rug, I mean that's what Facebook is more or less. Your assessment on why people disagree is not correct though. I find on here people are subject to the positivity bias or think that logically because you like something you should do it. They can't see how that does not follow. My worldview only appears bleak and dark with that bias, but it's just honest. To see through the "reasons" as nothing more that rationalization of the survival drive, that there is no good reason to live. Yet the drive is very strong and few overcome it.

I do regard what you think, otherwise I wouldn't be replying to it. But what you think is easy to see through.

I mean you do know something or else you wouldn't have written this.

Isn’t that something that’s unpleasant to feel? Is not an unpleasant condition the very definition of a sickness?

Consider also: if you want to live, then whenever you’re alive, you’ve at least got something good going for you, and so something worth living for. So “wanting to live” is in itself something to live for. — Pfhorrest

Wanting to live isn't something to live for it's what you do. The reason behind it is what is to live for. Being alive doesn't exactly mean you have something good going for you. Wanting to live is that biological drive. It isn't you.

Staying alive is not the meaning of life, that's just what life does.

You know that people can lack material wealth, friends, love etc and still enjoy life — Judaka

Those are only a small handful of people and that is more cases of extreme denial or hope. Those stuck in their lives don't have that.

How on earth is happiness illogical? Happiness feels good -> Going out walking with friends and messing around makes me happy. -> It doesn't harm me. -> Since happiness improves my overall well being and has beneficial effects there is no reason to not do what makes me happy as long as the good outweighs the bad. This is a deeply personal thing because different things make different people happy, and they're not all healthy. But I sincerely fail to see how the above form of happiness is not logically justified. How?? — DoppyTheElv

Because it does not follow. Your chain of reasoning does not compute. You need to stop at "happiness feels good", that's all logic can tell you. None of that is logically justified. Just because something feels good doesn't mean you do it. Come on I already shut this part down.

Humans aren't driven by logic, they're driven by emotion and logic usually just accommodates how people feel. I don't think suicide is illogical, I think it's motivated by negative emotions which cloud judgement. — Judaka

No it's not. It's honestly the only sane choice to make when it comes to life. Saying it's motivated by negative feelings that cloud judgment is what the narrative is because we HAVE to believe that. Otherwise if someone chose death over life it would have to involve us questioning our own framework of meaning and existence.

Obviously, a person can only understand things that are already within their scope of understanding.
Everyone is like that. — baker

This isn't really getting the answer I want but more like trying to see what a philosophy forum would say and see if their answers were better than anywhere else I have asked this question. At least people don't jump to depression, therapy, or the suicide hotline.

In regards to your point that's what I'm getting at by people assuming that wanting to die is some sickness.

So don't bother trying to answer the question "why live?" It can't be answered, because the question is meaningless. Instead just try to get into the state of mind where you see how the question is meaningless, and where there instead seems to be the (equally meaningless, but much easier to ignore and move past) question "why not live?" — Pfhorrest

Why not live seems to have more reasonable answers than living itself. Bear in mind that a good deal of the population don't have the privilege most have of internet, therapy, food, etc. Lots of people starve to death or suffer illness and often times (at least from what I gather) our comfort is at the expense of others.

The question itself is not meaningless as you seem to think, because living is something we do and we tend to have reasons for doing things. Not logical ones per se but still reasons. NO human does something just because. In fact nothing does. But living generally requires a reason for being capable of thought as we are. Most animals likely don't question it, or much.

In short, there are several reasons to not live and no real good ones to live (well not ones that death would not be a better solution for). In short, why do all this when you don't have to and when in death you need not concern yourself with any of it?

You contradict yourself. If the living is not ultimately any freer and have no true choice beyond what you would have if dead then by that logic you have no choice in whether to live or die. But then you say you can overcome instinct and allow death t take you. This sounds like a conscious choice to me. Suicide is active (the self attempts it, beckons on their own death) Dying is passive (caused by your environment/ natural failing of the organism). — Benj96

Death is freedom. From all the constraints of life. What you call freedom are really just chains. Yes we do have choices but that doesn't equate to freedom. Reread it.

The same necessarily follows for every non-urgent thing you do. The logical conclusion is that you're a deeply illogical person living a deeply illogical life, which goes some way to explain your deeply illogical comments about what is and isn't logical. — Kenosha Kid

No, I'm perfectly logical. You just seem to think that emotions factor into what logically one should do. You Illogically state that if you enjoy something you should keep doing it, why? Just because you like it? Why does that matter? You want to use logic but logic can't really tell you what to do. As I said with ice cream, I like it. Does that mean I should eat it? No. All that means is that I like ice cream.