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.

That's not what evolution is nor how it works. There are no strong or weak genes, there is only what works at the time.

You logically justify your depression like others logically justify their happiness, truthfully, neither of you are correct. It's just that you can't possibly account for the hormones and genetics which govern how you think and feel. Humans aren't just the sum of their choices, there's an underlying biological reality which affects how we think and interpret. I'm not afraid to die, I see death through the lens of the dead, no fear, no regrets, no anything. If one does choose to die, that's their choice but their thinking was likely a result of some underlying problems, that person was likely in need of help. I'm not going to treat it like a logical choice made by a clear-thinking person unless there are special circumstances. — Judaka

Happiness from what I can tell has no logical justification. People believe that just because something feels good they should keep doing it even though that is not really logical.

That fact that you don't treat someone seeking death as logical choice with clear thinking says more about you than them. I think some of the people who think about suicide are thinking clearly and see the big picture. But society is scared to accommodate them because we have this paranoia about death and encouraging people to live when they clearly don't wish to. We assume something is wrong just like with school shooters, because our brains can't think of any other reason. It doesn't fit the narrative. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

Exactly there is no logical reason to and yet I do failing to be able to off myself.

I'd still choose nonexistence.

It is near-universal that people want to live. I do not think people want to live due to "the good things", it's just normal, healthy psychology to want to live. People no more "choose" than they "choose" to be attracted to the gender they're attracted to. It's just one of those things that nature takes care of, we don't need to make a choice.

Even if I gave you all my reasons for wanting to live and you shot them all down, proving they were all poor - I'd still want to live, even if I decided I didn't want to live - I'd still want to live. Just like I can't decide who I'm attracted to.

I really don't think it's anything more than that. — Judaka

Normal and healthy psychology has changed with the seasons. Nature doesn't really take care of it, we do. Nature also causes death as well so your points are moot. You can't decide who you're attracted to but you can decide to live or not. You're proving there isn't a good reason to live. If you were to die you'd be done with this whole dance. People talk about the struggle as if it's noble but why? That just sounds like death anxiety trying to rationalize sticking around.

I know that but as I said, survival instincts are hard to overcome. So, unable to do it I do this.

You can overcome that instinct and let death take you, plenty have done it. The trouble with suicide though is that it’s not always successful and then you get placed on watch. You say you don’t control it but you do. You choose to listen to it. If you did nothing then death would just take you, you’d starve eventually. It’s hard to overcome but not impossible.

You actually don’t have more choices than the dead nor are you freer than the dead. The dead carry no burdens and in a sense are ultimately free. The burdens of choice are removed. You haven’t listed a justification for going on. You are not powerful nor entirely in control, that’s a lie you’re telling yourself. You may have options but that’s not a good thing it’s more of a burden. Again death is just the better option in the end because you don’t have to live ergo choices don’t really matter when you can forgo all of that.

Actually those exceptions aren’t that uncommon. There are many examples of parents who don’t do that. Of course they get reported and you can ask a social worker how that works out. But the “not have to” when raising kids isn’t really much of an exception as people think.

Then you have a reason for living right now, which is to lend insight, even though you can't really succeed at that as you're confused. — Kenosha Kid

Incorrect. Unable to take my own life (because survival instincts are very strong) this is the alternative. If I had the strength to I would not be here right now. This is not a reason for living.

No. Survival instinct is not logical to those who live it just is. Life propagates itself despite the absurdity. There is also no justification for living either. Asking the death if living is preferable is a non starter and not a counterpoint. The only emotional and practical justifications are for death. Because in death all concern, hope, etc is wiped away. Staying alive for others is moot when you no longer would have worry once you die.

Correction. I didn’t do/ perform my own conception and birth and infantile years - they happen to us not through anything we can consider our choice or consent. What you do when you have capacity to consider death or be able to self inflict it is then your choice... something you can actively do. (Though I wouldn’t recommend it personally). So it’s not as cut and dry as living is something we do actively it is also passively passed onto us when we are created by our parents. — Benj96

It’s not though. Living is something you do. If you did nothing you would eventually die. Hence living is what you do and death is something that happens. It is that cut and dry.

And I have yet to see why the "reasons for living" that have been offered are "rooted in fallacies" and I am even more puzzled why hope is "illogical and privileged." And as I said, I believe its a mistake to think people purely operate on logic in life. Humans are emotional beings and thus it wouldnt surprise me that someones reason for life might be love or fun,... Who are you to say that this is an incorrect reason to want to live? What would a correct reason look like? — DoppyTheElv

Hope is illogical because it assumes things will work out without evidence and is privileged because it usually is adopted by those who can stand to lose. It's incorrect because it's not reason that moves them, just rationalization of the survival drive. Death seems more logical than living TBH. Humans can't live by emotion yet claim reason and greater purpose at the same time. Sounds like wanting your cake and eating it too. There is no "correct" reason to live. That said his claims are still wrong. Everything dies eventually and that is the case for I would wager 90% of people, maybe a bit more. They don't have a legacy, they will be forgotten. Look upon the nameless statistics of those who starved to death, died to some illness, or died in wars. There is no legacy or immortality there, just a tic mark.

Okay I'm sensing you're a bit of a brick wall. You have no ability to lend insight, and no ability to learn.

Here's a question, though: why do you keep going? I mean... this isn't worthwhile, it's dumb and pointless, but you keep doing it. Why? — Kenosha Kid

Merely showing how your reasoning doesn't follow. Me liking something therefor I should do it is not a statement that logically follows. It's simply a fact as it is. I'm trying to lend insight but people insist there is reason for living. As for why I keep going, so far there is no painless way to die. Well, not one that someone will help you with. Suicide is considered a "problem" by society.

Things like logic, reasons, absurdity, purpose... these are all human attitudes toward the world we find ourselves in. We have them as a result of living. To ask if there's a purpose to living is to ask if there's a step in a flight of stairs, purpose doesn't mean anything outside of the context of a living thing. — Isaac

Not exactly. I would argue that our ancestors didn't really have logic or reason as much as we do or even purpose. But those are not a result of living. It's not the same to ask if there is a step in a flight of stairs as there is to asking a purpose for living. One simply is and the other is a choice that we attempt to rationalize. So far there doesn't seem to be a good reason to choose life over death.

"good things" is not a reason because that only counts if you have to stay alive where as in death there is no good or bad things anymore and no concern over what will happen. In terms of net "good" it's the only choice for a living thing, to live seems absurd and illogical.

Absurd may as well be synonymous with pointless considering how many people live with purpose and in the belief they are correct in how to live. I would argue Monty Python is pointless because it’s absurd. Even Sisyphus rolling a boulder is pointless not to mention absurd. Most instances that can be called absurd are also pointless.

Also I don’t know, logic tries to do that with ethics when it comes to ought and ought not.

No, it is not absurdity. Logic applies to thought and language. But our relation to the world is one of sensation and emotion. One senses that shit smells, one has a feeling about the smell of liking or disliking, and logic tells one that if one dislikes the smell of shit one ought to build a flushing toilet. — unenlightened

Incorrect. Emotion tells you to do that not logic. It doesn’t apply to thought and language. Like and dislike are just states of affairs, any action that results from that is emotion. Avoidance and seeking are emotion, not logic. I like ice cream, however logic doesn’t say I should eat it. All it says is that I like ice cream.

If logic can’t derive premises then what is it good for? If it can’t determine if a premise is true then what is it good for? It derives conclusions from something it can’t prove, that sounds like absurdity to me.

This goes to show that you are locked into a worldview and assert that everyone behaves the way your, rather dark and close minded, worldview dictates. Countless of people here are giving their reasons for why they keep on living but you seem unable to accept that other people do find meaning in life even if there is no ultimate purpose or afterlife. You musn't simply charge them with wishful thinking.

I for one believe that "being" is the most precious thing I have. To paraphrase the bible: What is a man without his soul? What am I if I cannot even be?? I wouldnt be able to laugh, cry. I wouldn't be able to participate in the drama that is called life. Even when I am going through terrible things, which I have, I can console myself with the fact that it will not kill me. And better times are coming. — DoppyTheElv

You clearly didn’t read the part where I said that stuff dies too. My mother doesn’t remember the dreams of her grandparents and my grandmother with dementia doesn’t remember her family’s either. As I said everything ends and you can’t seem to accept that. Your ego dies to because eventually people will forget. Think of all the people who have lived and only a handful are written of in books while the rest are lost to time. Even the current ones will only last as long as we do or as long as we remember them. But everything dies, nothing lives on. We are not immortal. The only ignorant one is you who can’t see the reasons so far aren’t good ones for living and are rooted in fallacies. I mean you have hope which is by itself illogical and privileged. Open your eyes.

One lives either because they have to (logical), or they want to (emotional). Most people live for a mix of these things with overlap between necessity and desire on multiple levels. But you could simply remove both need and desire and say “I live because it is happening to me. i exist because I exist. I have no control ultimately” - a predeterministic view — Benj96

There is no have to for living. You don’t “have to” do anything. I would consider living illogical to a point because you will eventually die and after a certain peak your body breaks down till the point where you wish you were dead in old age. Survival instinct is not logical, there is no logic to going on living. You don’t live because it is happening to you rather it is something you do. If you stopped you would die. We’re it something that just happened to you there wouldn’t be a need to do anything to maintain it. Death happens, living not so much.



Enjoyment is never intellectual, that is rationalization. The reality is that we don’t choose why we like something or how. We make up reasons but in the end it just is. You can say you like a song because of the rhythm but then the follow up is why do you like the rhythm? You just do, you don’t control it. Rationalize it all you want but there is no intellect behind enjoyment. It’s the same with food. If you think you can impact what you enjoy you are delusional. As I said, we don’t choose what we enjoy or dislike it just happens. We have no conscious control over it.

This is illogical. It doesn't follow from the nature of logic that the object of a decision needs to be logical. If you enjoy something and you're at liberty to do it, it is perfectly logical to do it. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between objects and reasoning about them. Both the above points concern the same error.

Irrespective, ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is illogical. — Kenosha Kid

It actually does have to be logical otherwise the reasoning becomes absurd. If you enjoy something and are at liberty to so so it does not logically follow to do it. That is again still emotion. Why should your emotions matter? I mean people like ice cream and are at liberty to do so but they choose to ignore it in favor of diets. Still not saying that is logical but it blows a hole in your reasoning. Liking something isn’t a reason to do it because that is rooted in emotion. Then again I guess at the foundation of all reasoning is emotion, so I guess there is no reason to do anything. If you go back enough logic breaks down.

But ceasing to do something you enjoy for no reason is not illogical. That is just your personal opinion and just because you can’t understand it doesn’t make it illogical.

Enjoyment is never intellectual since we don't choose what we like or don't like. Some even say that it is not you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kX62n6yNXA&t=1s

The decision to stop is logical as is to stay, the enjoyment is not. Actually if you are basing the decision on emotions then I guess nothing about it is logical. I mean why do you enjoy it? There is no reason, no logic.

IMO sages that were too much of a coward to choose death. As I mentioned before, I don't have to do those things and in death there would be no need. Next.

Someone who does not want to understand other visions will never understand. My participation in this discussion is finished. — Gus Lamarch

More like you have serious death anxiety and can't accept that oblivion is the ultimate fate of everyone eventually. I have heard other versions but they don't address the issue just skirt around it. Like so many others you cower before the void.

My response is why I choose to go on. It would no more occur to me to end my own life than it would to walk out half an hour before the end of a film I'm enjoying. It's just an illogical thing to do when you're enjoying it. — Kenosha Kid

Is it? If I am enjoying a film where is the logic in staying? That's not logic that is emotion. I don't have to see the movie until it ends. I've quit many series I liked and had no regrets. I was enjoying my life one day when I came to the realization that I don't have to be here. Suddenly things lost their enjoyment. As I mentioned such arguments only hold water if you have to be here.

I wish to go on for what is perhaps a very Logical and statistical basis leaving meaning nd purpose and sentiment aside. I wish to live my life because it is a rare occurrence. In the 14 billion years of the universes existence it had not yet seen a “me” occur. Even life is relatively short lived in the total existence of the universe- a blink in the eye. — Benj96

Doesn't sound like a good reason to be honest. The "rarity of something" is not grounds for staying.

The question that arises is why would you want to when you don’t have to keep living. All that sounds like a chore to make life bearable and when you die you won’t remember anything at all. So why not skip to the end and not concern yourself with doing things you like? That argument only works if you have to stay alive in which case you should do stuff you like. But if you don’t then I see no reason to do so.

Your Ego can die, there are meds for that and not to mention dozens or religions that do it too. Also you will perish. Your legacy won’t live on, you’ll be quickly forgotten in about 100 years. Nothing that is you will live on.

Also for the record I found Neitzsche to be an idiot who could not cope with issue of death. All that you listed aren’t reasons to live but rather are consequences of living. That said neitzsche couldn’t deal with nihilism and ended up with a cop out just like the rest of the existential philosophers. None of them could take nihilism head on and just danced around it.

But this isn’t about nihilism.

Counterpoint to that is why put it off then?

"The purpose of existence, is the craving for the craving" — Gus Lamarch

As much as I want to buy that from what I gather it's not simple at all like that. If that were the case then Buddhist monks or enlightened ones would commit suicide. Yet despite Buddhism knowing life is suffering and craving they claim that isn't why they stick around.

BUt as I mentioned in the above I have no way to know any of that. IF they feel the same things that I do. All I know is my own experience, everything else is a guess. So even in said relationships it isn't that different from being alone since you are more or less playing either pretend or guessing. You assess them based on deeds, words, etc, but in the end we just end up with what we THINK is going on between us and this alleged other person.

So I guess if you really break it down we were always alone and things like friendship, togetherness, etc, are more or less a lie we tell ourselves.

how can I know that though? I have no way to confirm any of what you are saying, that others feel what I feel or even feel to begin with.

I just find it odd that they try to get around justification.

I don't think so. There is still a justification required to believe in empirical evidence and that of the senses. You never really get around justification because otherwise you would never do anything. What justifies the belief in sensation after all? Science can't proceed without justifcationism, I mean that is essentially the function of evidence, it justifies our claims and beliefs.

If you want to rule out justification then you rule out everything else with it. There would be no reason to claim anything or use anything for support because you could never justify it's use.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. By default everything and its negation might be right and might be wrong; then knowledge comes from determining which things are definitely wrong, and thus narrowing the range of things that might still be right. — Pfhorrest

But how do you do that without justification? The point about the trilemma is that everything is ultimately based on three unsatisfying assumptions. Usually to determine what is wrong we have to justify it, we can't just say someone is wrong. But if all justifications fall back to those three points then one could argue there is no right or wrong because everything has arbitrary beginnings.

That doesn’t sound very reassuring

yeah you clearly don’t get it which is fine but don’t assume it’s unclear when everyone else understands.

That being said I still repeat how do we move on to knowledge. I mean axioms sound like a pretty terrible way to go. “This is true because we say it is”? If we are to go the route of falsification then we are really screwed because an external world or other minds can’t be falsified or proven so the how can we verify anything at all? Ethics would be an issue too as that is more or less just personal opinion and not really facts.

I just feel like the trilemma shows how useless philosophy ends up being and why the pyrrhonists preached what they did

There's no need, the guy is saying the world is not real or does not exist, that's already grounds for the looney bin.

Or the more likely reason is you are defending a nutter, which seems popular in philosophy.

Philosophizing can be said to be the act of taking a few axioms, a few things that one is sure of, and then think about what implications follow or could follow from them. This way, one can discover new axioms, ie. those that one previously was not aware of. — baker

This sort of sounds like the death of philosophy to me. I mean if philosophy is the love of wisdom and the pursuit of truth but everything rests on unproveable axioms then what is the point of philosophizing?

Which again still doesn't address my point. You keep saying that questioning stuff is what philosophy does. Yet what is the point of doing that when things ultimately rest on axioms? Stop dodging the question? Every time someone says questioning is important I look at a duck and am reminded it's not.

I mentioned in last month’s post here that our familiar term “world” is a rounded-off version of the Old English weorold, “man-old,” the time or age of human beings. That bit of etymology conceals more than one important insight. As I noted last month, it reminds us that this thing we call “the world” isn’t something wholly outside ourselves, something we experience in a detached and objective way. It’s something we create moment by moment in our minds, by piecing together the jumble of unconnected glimpses our senses give us — John Michael Greer

I will reiterate my last point about if they are arguing the world is not real then who are they talking to or trying to convince.