What about just "I am suffering, therefore suicide."

Seems perfectly logical. Everyone still living is blue-pilled as fuck.

Everyone still living is blue-pilled as fuck. — dukkha

Indeed this seemed to be the perspective of Tolstoy, who thought there were roughly four types of people:

1.) Those who were ignorant of their existential condition

2.) Those who understand their existential condition but focus on pursuing pleasure (hedonism)

3.) Those who understand their existential condition and also understand that hedonism will not give meaning or purpose to life and so kill themselves (he calls these people the "strong")

4.) Those who understand their existential condition and also understand that hedonism will not give meaning or purpose to life, but are unable to kill themselves (the "weak")

This also seemed to have been the perspective of Sartre, or at least one of his characters, when he said that every person is an accident that dies suddenly and persists out of weakness.

Sometimes I agree with Tolstoy (possibly Sartre). Other times I would like to continue to experience whatever it is that I am experiencing.

Life is not a sequence of arithmetic pleasures and pains. The existence of moods effectively disqualifies deprivationalism or any similarly crude axiological calculus.

What seems to be reasonable is to always have suicide available as an option as a means of grounding one's decisions and outlook on life. It's easy to get carried away in a stream of good fortune and forget the underlying mechanisms of life. Good fortune, of course, is good, but having an exit available in case this does not last or shit hits the fan is, in my opinion, only rational. It means to take control of one's life. If you burn a meal in the oven on accident, you don't force yourself to eat it. You throw it away. It's only rational - i.e. in our best interests.

Of course, this is all easier said than done. Probably why Tolstoy called those successful in suicide the "strong" - they were able to exit life without any present strenuous or horrible experiences, but merely the thought of the possibility of horror.

How do you know that you will never suffer again if you suicide? That seems a rather large presumption to make.

That doesn't sound like Tolstoy (who was a Christian) at all. Can you cite a source for that?

Consider this:

Letter on Suicide
by Leo Tolstoy

The question "Has a man in general the right to kill himself?" is incorrectly put. There can be no question of "right". If he is able to do it, then he has the right. I think that the possibility of killing oneself is a safety-valve. Having it, man has no right (here the expression "right" is appropriate) to say that life is unbearable.

If it were impossible to live, then one would kill oneself; and consequently one cannot speak of life as being unbearable. The possibility of killing himself has been given to man, and therefore he may (he has the right to) kill himself, and he continually uses this right - when he kills himself in duels, in war, by dissipation, wine, tobacco, opium, etc.

The question can only be as to whether it is reasonable and moral (the reasonable and moral always coincide) to kill oneself. No, it is unreasonable; as unreasonable as to cut off the shoots of a plant which one wishes to destroy; it will not die, but will merely grow irregularly..

Life is indestructible; it is beyond time and space, therefore death can only change its form, arrest its manifestation in this world. But having arrested it in this world, I, first, do not know whether its manifestation in another world will be more pleasant to me; and, secondly, I deprive myself of the possibility of experiencing and acquiring by my ego all that could be acquired in this world.

Besides this, and above all, it is unreasonable because by arresting my life owing to its apparent unpleasantness, I hereby show that I have a perverted idea of the object of my life, assuming that its object is my pleasure - whereas its objects, on the other hand, personal perfection, and on the other, the service of that work which is being accomplished by the whole life of the Universe.

It is for the same reason that suicide is also immoral. Life in its entirety, and the possibility of living until natural death, have been given to man only on the condition that he serve the life of the Universe. But, having profited by life so long as it was pleasant, he refuses to serve the Universe as soon as life becomes unpleasant: whereas, in all probability, his service commenced precisely when life began to appear unpleasant. All work appears at first unpleasant.

In the Optin Monastery, for more than thirty years, there lay on the floor a monk smitten with paralysis, who had the use of his left hand only. The doctors said that he was sure to suffer much, but not only did he refrain from complaining of his position, but incessantly making the sign of the cross, and looking at the ikons, he smilingly expressed his gratitude to God and joy in that spark of life which flickered in him. Tens of thousands of visitors came to see him, and it is difficult to imagine all the good which flowed into the world through this man, though deprived of the possibility of any activity. Certainly he did more good than thousands and thousands of healthy people who imagine that in various institutions they are serving the world.

While there is life in man, he can perfect himself and serve the Universe. But he can serve the Universe only by perfecting himself, and perfect himself only by serving the Universe.

While there is life in man, he can perfect himself and serve the Universe. But he can serve the Universe only by perfecting himself, and perfect himself only by serving the Universe. — John

Why we need to exist to perfect the universe he does not say. The exact question begging I bring up in other threads. There is no need for redemption if there are no humans who need redeeming. Why do we need to exist just to redeem things?

Because that's just the way things work out??? :s

Because that's just the way things work out??? :s — John

I'm not sure what that means, or you are indicating that you aren't sure either.

I'm indicating that I don't think there's any explanation, of the kind you appear to be after, either available or needed. Which you could take to mean that I am not sure; but then not being sure usually makes most sense in contexts where there is actually a possibility of being sure.

We all want to avoid suffering. — dukkha

That's not true, actually . . . At least depending on how you're defining "suffering." But if you're defining it as something one wants to avoid, you're saying something vacuous here.

Also, the assessment one makes of suffering versus pleasure is subjective.

I'm indicating that I don't think there's any explanation, of the kind you appear to be after, either available or needed. — John

It's the needed part I'm perplexed at. I asked why we need to exist to redeem the universe, and we do not need an answer to that seems to be like me saying "We need to exist to make plastic.. don't ask me why, an answer is not needed".

The summary is of four categories of attitudes outlined in Tolstoy's A Confession. But the rhetorical point Tolstoy eventually makes in that essay is indeed the exact opposite of the conclusion db (and the op) draws. Tolstoy affirms that the lives of 'milliards' of people show him that all these rational categories of despair-in-life are mistaken, and that their example shows him that life has meaning through faith - though he then goes on to criticise the Church hierarchy too.

What about just "I am suffering, therefore suicide."

Seems perfectly logical. Everyone still living is blue-pilled as fuck. — dukkha

How much are you suffering? Are you being stretched on the rack? Are you scraping by in the zombie apocalypse? Did someone put you in the dungeon and throw away the key?

Usually people consider suicide when they become seriously depressed, their suffering seems unbearable, or their situation seems hopeless. Often it's a psychological issue or a physiological one. But just every day life doesn't usually make one consider suicide. Continuing to experience the only life you are certain to have seems like a better choice than not experiencing anything.

Usually people consider suicide when they become seriously depressed, or their suffering seems unbearable, or their situation seems hopeless. Often it's a psychological issue or a physiological one. But just every day life doesn't usually make one consider suicide. Continuing to experience the only life you are certain to have seems like a better choice than not experiencing anything. — Marchesk

What seems to be reasonable is to always have suicide available as an option as a means of grounding one's decisions and outlook on life. It's easy to get carried away in a stream of good fortune and forget the underlying mechanisms of life. Good fortune, of course, is good, but having an exit available in case this does not last or shit hits the fan is, in my opinion, only rational. It means to take control of one's life. If you burn a meal in the oven on accident, you don't force yourself to eat it. You throw it away. It's only rational - i.e. in our best interests. — darthbarracuda

Everyday life 'should' make one consider suicide, it's easier to toy with the idea without actually wanting to comply with it. I fully agree with darthbarracuda in that, it shouldn't be excluded as an option a priori. It's the ultimate option we might have to decide freely upon our own faith and vica versa, being aware of this option might actually negate suffering seeing it can be used to willingly undergo certain circumstances instead of feeling like a slave to circumstances.

How to get rid of yourself, and yet remain alive. That is the problem. Difficult perhaps, but possible.

This is not necessarily my view, but by acting as a devils advocate I may be able to offer an answer from the perspective of religion, or spirituality, which seems to be what you are questioning.

From the perspective of religion, we are God's children in kindergarten, so need to be nappy trained and this is as good a way as any to do it. From the perspective of spirituality we are fulfilling a role within an eternal cosmos of being. That role is not necessarily something we can know, but will have some relevance to the development of being, or the enterprise we find ourselves involved in.

In both cases as I expect you were expecting the greater purposes are known to God/god, or whoever is in that role.

From the perspective of religion, we are God's children in kindergarten, so need to be nappy trained and this is as good a way as any to do it. From the perspective of spirituality we are fulfilling a role within an eternal cosmos of being. That role is not necessarily something we can know, but will have some relevance to the development of being, or the enterprise we find ourselves involved in.

In both cases as I expect you were expecting the greater purposes are known to God/god, or whoever is in that role. — Punshhh

So this is of course subjected to the same absurd conclusions- why does this whole training have to occur in the first place? If it is because God wills it, then he must have also been bored to set up this little game. But, if we are here in order to raise the lower worlds to the higher worlds, I don't see how this should make us feel much better. Now we are just pawns in this cosmic game. Of course, this is all based on a fantasy that somehow is more believable than other fantasies due to historical contingencies of conversion.. Odd, how this cosmic game is something that is oddly anthropological. Of course it centers around humans, of course it is some sort of struggle, of course it has aspects of Platonic and Zoroastrian cultural elements. All beliefs picked up by various philosophers from various regions, reified into a nice little fantasy package.

If God is somehow incomplete or must go through a process of raising his lower parts to his higher parts by our actions and deeds (what constitutes as legitimately a "good" action or belief versus just an action or belief..must have some sort of magical metaphysical quality of course), then it means that something happened to God. He was complete and now he is not. We need to fix Humpty Dumpty back together again.. Mainlander has a similar story reversed though. Instead of God bursting himself into the physical world in order to get fixed again, he was really bored and wanted us to exhaust ourselves in entropic nothingness so that he could commit suicide. It seems either way, God is a bored fella.. He either is bored to death (Mainlander) or bored with being a complete being and so needs pawns in a game (Judeo-Christian mystical traditions for purpose).

It's the needed part I'm perplexed at. — schopenhauer1

At first blush, at least, it looks to me like there is confusion over this distinction:

(A) If we are to perfect the universe (or redeem humanity or what have you) , then necessarily, we must exist,

and

(B) Necessarily we must perfect the universe (or redeem humanity or what have you), therefore, we need to continue our existence.

(A) is noting that the only way we can take a particular action is by existing. We can't act in whatever way if we don't exist.

(B) is claiming that it's necessary for us to perform the action in question, with it being an upshot, then, that we exist to perform the action we must exist.

That doesn't sound like Tolstoy (who was a Christian) at all. Can you cite a source for that? — John

Here ya go. A Confession, by Tolstoy.

olstoy affirms that the lives of 'milliards' of people show him that all these rational categories of despair-in-life are mistaken, and that their example shows him that life has meaning through faith - though he then goes on to criticise the Church hierarchy too. — mcdoodle

Right, similar to how Sartre had characters who were deeply pessimistic but he himself may not have been.

It's the ultimate option we might have to decide freely upon our own faith and vica versa, being aware of this option might actually negate suffering seeing it can be used to willingly undergo certain circumstances instead of feeling like a slave to circumstances. — Gooseone

Exactly. The prospect of suicide keeps us sober and present.

What about just "I am suffering, therefore suicide."

Seems perfectly logical. Everyone still living is blue-pilled as fuck. — dukkha

Fuck the red pill/blue pill debate. The former are a bunch of degenerate scumbags and the latter suffer an inferiority complex. Reality ain't that binary, and both groups are extreme and attempt to impose a universal sexual law upon society. I neither want to be a douche nor do I want to be a whiny bitch.

What's so great about non-existence? That you don't suffer? Existence must be quite horrible if you actually see non-existence as good for you, considering you aren't even you when you don't exist. You're a fiction when you don't exist.

The various experiences we have, extrapolated into good/bad valence, are reasons for and reasons against living life.

Suicide is a the ultimate pain reliever, better than heroin. And the good thing is that it doesn't even matter that you wont experience pleasure again - because this is a kind of suffering, and you are dead. The dead can't be deprived. — dukkha

This almost reads as a rationalization for murder.

The impulse to suicide stems from real suffering. It is a stop gap measure which could just as well accompany an existential resentment strong enough take the lives of other people.

What do you say; do we exist to redeem the universe, or do we exist to make plastic? Or do we just exist?

We exist to entropify with slave-like efficiency.

We exist to entropify with slave-like efficiency. — darthbarracuda

Hmm, I guess my apologies about making long winded posts in the paradox of purpose thread were in place...

It sounds more like you exist to objectify with slave-like efficiency. ;)

What do you say; do we exist to redeem the universe, or do we exist to make plastic? Or do we just exist? — John

Deleted

What do you say; do we exist to redeem the universe, or do we exist to make plastic? Or do we just exist? — John

If the futility of putting more people into the world who must survive, make and pursue goals, and deal with contingent harms is not readily apparent, nothing I say will make the situation more relevant. It is the instrumentality of things.. We exist to exist to exist.

So this is of course subjected to the same absurd conclusions- why does this whole training have to occur in the first place? If it is because God wills it, then he must have also been bored to set up this little game. But, if we are here in order to raise the lower worlds to the higher worlds, I don't see how this should make us feel much better. Now we are just pawns in this cosmic game. Of course, this is all based on a fantasy that somehow is more believable than other fantasies due to historical contingencies of conversion.. Odd, how this cosmic game is something that is oddly anthropological. Of course it centers around humans, of course it is some sort of struggle, of course it has aspects of Platonic and Zoroastrian cultural elements. All beliefs picked up by various philosophers from various regions, reified into a nice little fantasy package.

Yes I am inclined to agree with you, however there are answers provided by believers. Let's break it down.

1, why does this training thing have to occur?
Well the answer goes that God being mighty has a mighty purpose and us mere mortals can't understand such mighty matters. But we can be privy in some way through revelation.

2, how come It is necessary for God who is so mighty to have to make us and make our lives so difficult to serve a purpose which he can bypass with a miracle.?
Well this is covered by the fall. We weren't living difficult lives initially, but we fell from grace, by partaking of the tree of knowledge. Thus we learnt how to be evil and it's been downhill from there. However if we can make the path of return we can be reinstated in paradise in the knowledge of evil, while not practicing it.

3, we are pawns in this cosmic game?
This I see as fallacious, all things, beings etc are pawns regardless, even gods.

4, odd how this cosmic game is something that is oddly anthropological?
Again this is a bit fallacious, because our philosophy could not be anything else, due to us not having higher beings telling us the bigger picture. Also we can see the bigger picture to a certain degree, we can see the same issues playing out in the animal and plant kingdom and so see that it is not just us, but life in general who are acting out this charade.

5, all beliefs picked up by various philosophers from various regions, reified into a nice little fantasy package?
Well that's religion for you, you can pick lots of holes in it and point out its failings. The thing about revelation is still there though, I don't think we can conclude it didn't happen. For example it might all be a plan by some aliens to guide is in a constructive direction so us to help us on our way past the first nappy training session, rather than watch us fall beck into the Stone Age again, which has probably happened many times in the past.

If God is somehow incomplete or must go through a process of raising his lower parts to his higher parts by our actions and deeds (what constitutes as legitimately a "good" action or belief versus just an action or belief..must have some sort of magical metaphysical quality of course), then it means that something happened to God. He was complete and now he is not. We need to fix Humpty Dumpty back together again.. Mainlander has a similar story reversed though. Instead of God bursting himself into the physical world in order to get fixed again, he was really bored and wanted us to exhaust ourselves in entropic nothingness so that he could commit suicide. It seems either way, God is a bored fella.. He either is bored to death (Mainlander) or bored with being a complete being and so needs pawns in a game (Judeo-Christian mystical traditions for purpose).

Yes it's possible that we are in a Mainlander situation, we can't know from our perspective(putting revelation to one side for now). The trouble is that when considering cosmic purpose, it strikes me that we just can't do it philosophically other than through some intuitive contemplation of nature as I pointed out in the other thread. If there is a cosmic purpose being played out unless we are privy to the mind of the active agencies instigating it, we are entirely in the dark as to what the purpose might be.

Also I would point out that we can't presume that God(or whoever it is) is infallible. This was wishful thinking by the early Roman christians.

Anyway in putting the case for spirituality I would categorise purpose into 3 divisions from our position.

a, divine purpose, or eternity. Something which is way beyond us , so it is pointless to speculate.

b, cosmic purpose, the purposes of the greater beings in our vicinity, the entities upon which we live and which sustain us. Something which is beyond our limited understanding, but which can be intuited a little, or passed to us via revelation.

c, human, or animal and plant, purpose, something which is contingent on categories a, and b, so can only be pragmatic.

So in answer to you on this point, we are blind to the purposes which put us here, so such speculation is fruitless.

Well the answer goes that God being mighty has a mighty purpose and us mere mortals can't understand such mighty matters. But we can be privy in some way through revelation. — Punshhh

Yes, a typical answer provided by the major religions. It cannot even be knowable except through past prophetic figures who actually talked with the big guy. Odd how that works.

Well this is covered by the fall. We weren't living difficult lives initially, but we fell from grace, by partaking of the tree of knowledge. Thus we learnt how to be evil and it's been downhill from there. However if we can make the path of return we can be reinstated in paradise in the knowledge of evil, while not practicing it. — Punshhh

Right, so the fall is a great metaphor for humans not even being happy in paradise. That's my point. We are restless beings striving for nothing. Even God was bored it seems, otherwise why not be content in his own existence? He needs to create or experience evil/misfortune in order to feel complete or feel satisfied? Sounds like a bored God to me.. but I guess since God's reasons are ultimately beyond human comprehension, I can't call it bored because that would be too human, it would be something like "blored" because, you know, it is an experience beyond human comprehension..

But really, the most important thing if this is true, is that God is such an alien being to us, that his goals may be inimical to human happiness, and that effectively means nothing for the living/breathing human. Just because a cosmic/spiritual aspect of things supersedes the physical human, does not make my lot as a physical human any better. If my suffering matters because of a cosmic game that is beyond my control, it effectively means I am shit out of luck in terms of life being anything for me, the human. Purpose in a grand sense becomes meaningless for the human.

This I see as fallacious, all things, beings etc are pawns regardless, even gods. — Punshhh

How is this "fallacious"? If God set up a little cosmic scheme that the lower worlds must be purified by humans- that is indeed a little scheme, a game, and indeed we being but a small but important part, are pawns to ensure the scheme's success. Thus, we are pawns in God's game... Again, he seemed bored (I mean "blored") with just, you know, being God.. existing.. better to exist in a physical world with individuated beings with consciousness I guess that has some sort of mission.

Again this is a bit fallacious, because our philosophy could not be anything else, due to us not having higher beings telling us the bigger picture. Also we can see the bigger picture to a certain degree, we can see the same issues playing out in the animal and plant kingdom and so see that it is not just us, but life in general who are acting out this charade. — Punshhh

No, my point was that this cosmic struggle is oh so human.. light vs. dark, "Good deeds", wishing for a better life elsewhere, and of course the very important part the WE humans play. Also, God seems concerned with pretty minute human affairs.. he also seems vindictive- a very human trait.. You don't follow him, it is no good for you.. Also, the point was that it smacks of simply cultural contingencies of place/time- these ideas were ones from various cultures (Platonic/Greek and Zoroastrian/Persian). It cannot help being what it is based on its time/place and then of course the human tendency for myth-making in general.

Also I would point out that we can't presume that God(or whoever it is) is infallible. This was wishful thinking by the early Roman Christians. — Punshhh

I never said he was.. If God gets bored, like I've said earlier, that seems pretty fallible. If this is an experiment gone wrong, that's pretty fallible. If Mainlander's just as fantastical a version is right, instead of humans being pawns that must correct the evil of the physical world by redeeming it, we are in fact pawns here to die out so God can commit suicide from an ultra-complete/pure being to an ultra-vacuum/nothing being then there we go. I don't know which is worse- we are pawns either way. So yeah, the all-knowing, caring god (at least in terms of human versions of this) doesn't seem so if looked at in this perspective. Also, I am suspicious if anything where you get just enough reason to do something (God said it via prophets in an ancient time period when the magical ability of prophecy conveniently existed but no longer does), but no real justification (don't ask why the prophets revealed what they did, that is beyond us). That is oh so convenient a combination.. just a bit too convenient.

Yes, that seems to be your opinion...I get that...

What you don't seem to get is that it is merely an opinion (a not very helpful one at that) and that others may be of an entirely different opinion.

What you don't seem to get is that it is merely an opinion (a not very helpful one at that) and that others may be of an entirely different opinion. — John

The problem I have with this and presumably Schop1 has with this is that we have reasons to hold this opinion, whereas we see those who disagree with us as having very little in terms of actual reasons to support their disagreement.

Simply saying "I disagree" is unhelpful. Much too often do people mistake actual disagreement with not liking the consequences of an otherwise fine argument.