Can one provide a reason to live?

JacobPhilosophy

I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.

I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.

This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself.

A Seagull

death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? — JacobPhilosophy

Death is a part of life, just as much as birth.

JacobPhilosophy

↪A Seagull

I don't agree. I agree with the sentiment that it is unavoidable and natural, but death is, by definition, the absence of life. I believe your comment not to be applicable to my query.

bongo fury

Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, — JacobPhilosophy

But also unable to increase the sum of human happiness, which one has almost certainly just measurably reduced.

ChrisH

↪JacobPhilosophy

a reason to live?

To find out what happens next.

A Seagull

↪A Seagull
I don't agree. I agree with the sentiment that it is unavoidable and natural, but death is, by definition, the absence of life. I believe your comment not to be applicable to my query. — JacobPhilosophy

Well that is your choice.

Echarmion

I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. — JacobPhilosophy

Well, there is a chance of there either being an afterlife, or a method of acquiring immortality, which would be an argument about whimsically taking your own life.

Andrew4Handel

I think a problem with a lack of meaning is that it makes neither living or dying meaningful.

I am agnostic about whether life has meaning so I can't rule it out.

I do feel like philosophers are defeatist though and settle for a weak conclusion rather than examing the hard conclusions of a stance.

Anthony

I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics — JacobPhilosophy

When pondering the meaning of life...using the criterion of falsifiability is misplaced. Neither you nor I can say why we exist. There is always incomplete information to any model you take. The assumption of equating your life with a scientific, or technocratic experiment is a very big one. Man did not give rise to man. We have budded from a substrate far beyond our reckoning. If we don't have free-will, it doesn't mean you're programmed by something else either. There are unknowns...many, many unknowns.

Andrew4Handel

I think general agnosticism is a strong position where you try and avoid making false judgements by over confidence.

But I think it is possible that life is terribly meaningless and that we shouldn't try and mitigate that conclusion by sentiment or vagueness.

I do find it hard to understand peoples rational motivations because life is so complex that it seems seems very hard to evaluate what people ought to believe.

Tim3003

Why is it that you need a reason to live? Given that you were born, living is your natural state; surely your question should be 'is there a reason to end your life?'. Of all the life-forms on earth only man ever questions whether he has a reason to live, and then only when he's idle..

JacobPhilosophy

↪Echarmion

if these are the only answers (which I am not disregarding) then my cynical proposition remains as both are unrealistic.

Frank Apisa

The question doesn't even exist for me...and I suspect that anyone who has to look for a reason...will never find it.

And that applies even if it is framed as an intellectual pursuit or "curiosity"...rather than as a personal search for a reason not to end a particular life.

I am of the "live and let live" school...which almost demand a concomitant "stay alive or end it...your choice" element.

That said, however, if you actually are contemplating suicide (despite your disclaimer)...think really long and hard about it. There is a good deal of finality about it.

JacobPhilosophy

↪Tim3003

I agree completely with what you are saying, but feeling as though the only reason to live is "why not?" seems unsatisfactory to me.

JacobPhilosophy

↪Frank Apisa

I appreciate the discussion; it is deceptively difficult to actually search such a topic without being referred to a suicide hotline.

JacobPhilosophy

I have added to my original post, and believe it to be an interesting dilemma.

Pinprick

One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). — JacobPhilosophy

I don’t think that fearing death necessarily follows logically from the conclusion that it is bad. Your attitude towards it could be more stoic, or indifferent, or any number of things.

JacobPhilosophy

↪Pinprick

I personally tend to fear negative things :/

Andrew4Handel

↪JacobPhilosophy

If you enjoy any aspect of life then that is reason to live.

Another is whether you should create new life if you think life is fundamentally pointless.

Valentinus

The dilemma you propose by saying: "Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending", assumes your life belongs to you just because you are given life. It is yours to live or not but it does not belong to you on the basis of being able to end it. It only belongs to you if you try to live.

Not having a really shitty life depends on many coincident elements. Many of them are well outside of our control. But some margin of possibility in us can either be preserved or not. You don't have to kill yourself to let yourself die. You do have to live in order to live.

Andrew4Handel

I think fear of death is rational.

You might fear death ending your goals and pleasures prematurely.

You might see it as negating your efforts.

You might be worried about a bad afterlife or just the ending of yourself.

You might fear a painful or protracted death.

But as a general agnostic I can't say I know what my death will entail.

JacobPhilosophy

↪Andrew4Handel

I hear you. Antinatalism is what led me to this train of thought, as I found myself agreeing with a lot of the points. An antinatalist, referring to the asymmetry, may say that life is a bad movie, that isn't worth starting but may aswell be finished. This analogy is similar to my unsatisfactory "why not" justification. In addition, the implication of antinatalism is ultimately extinction, which is uncomfortable to think about, but not necessarily a negative outcome. As not having been born and dying are identical states, accepting that not having been born is not a bad thing, in my opinion, leads to questioning whether ending life is a bad thing.

JacobPhilosophy

I'd like to conclude by saying that we live due to intrinsic and subconscious survival instincts, but overtly due to pleasure. Within this life, suffering to all sentient beings must be minimised, and subjective meaning (or essence as Aristotle referred to) should be found, in a strive towards happiness. Although life may end, proceeded by a dreamless sleep, there is no reason not to live, and enjoy life in the present tense, as some existential fears and queries are incomprehensible, and should therefore not lead to permanent means (suicide). Thank you to everyone for a development of my understanding.

Andrew4Handel

↪JacobPhilosophy

I think personal extinction is inevitable unless there is an afterlife. I have asked in the past why people care about a future they won't be in or have access to after they die.

For example I don't think any of Hitler's ancestors could have predicted his impact on the world just like no one really knows what their future impact will be.

But as an agnostic about meaning and the afterlife I cannot categorically and honestly rule out some kind of underlying purpose to reaIity.

But I think we shouldn't resort to platitudes or make things up. It seems the current pandemic is shaking up perspectives though.

180 Proof

"Meaning" presupposes life. Thus, this 'perennial question' is incoherent (i.e. pseudo). The hand is dealt: play it and be played. "That's life ..." (Sinatra). Fuckin' entropy! Besides, what difference can [the] cosmic / ultimate "meaning" (i.e. reason) make to ecology-situated / proximate persons? (Zapffe, Camus) "I've got a right to sing the blues" ... "Everybody wants to go to heaven / But nobody wants to die" ... "Well, you can't spend what you ain't got / You can't lose what you ain't never had" ... "I know my Mama loves me / But she may be jivin' too" ... " Amor fati, bitches! :rofl:

This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself. — JacobPhilosophy

:roll:

Memento mori. :death: Memento vivere. :flower:

We invented the blues; Europeans invented psychoanalysis. You invent what you need. — Albert Murray

:sweat:

"In the morning
Want to die
In the evening
Want to die
If I ain't dead already
Oh, girl, you know the reason why"

JacobPhilosophy

↪Andrew4Handel

I agree with everything stated here. Another thought is, if it doesn't matter THAT humanity becomes extinct (it is inevitable), why would it matter WHEN it does? It certainly feels wrong to accept that if all were to die instantly and painlessly tomorrow, there would be no issue (in terms of suffering or desire as death is a state of non-existence), but that doesn't mean that it isn't the rational conclusion. While we live, we live and when we don't, we don't.

JacobPhilosophy

↪180 Proof

it was partially cynical hyperbole.

DingoJones

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. — JacobPhilosophy

I dont think that makes sense. If you swap out life for other things your logic doesnt seem to hold, and so you would need to show why life in particular works this way and you havent. I dont see how you can.
For example, “a game of hockey cannot be both worth playing and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can both.
“My favourite book cannot both be worth reading and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can be both.
And so on, for any number if things other than life. Why does the logic change in the case of life? Also, you are essentially saying that things worth doing cannot end unless they arent/werent worth doing to start with. I think thats clearly not the case.

Andrew4Handel

↪JacobPhilosophy

I think there would have to be some reason to end life prematurely rather than await its inevitable cessation. What would be the reason for ending life wilfully?

I think there is a difference between maintaining yourself as a means of preventing pain or pursuing basic pleasure as opposed to giving a specific reason for prolonging and creating life.

Pain and pleasure are probably more relevant to the maintainance of life than reason.
Reason probably can't resolve the dilemma.

Andrew4Handel

↪DingoJones

A book and a game of hockey have a coherent ending not an arbitrary one.

christian2017

I know that this may sound pretentious or unnecessarily "edgy" but I am genuinely trying to enquire about a difficult and unfalsifiable subsection of metaphysics: death and the value of life. From my research, most philosophers, most notably Socrates, conclude that death is not inherently bad, but also that life is worth living; These two premises are contradictory in my opinion. If something (life) is worth keeping, then surely the removal of said thing is inherently negative, no? In conclusion, I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. Once one is dead, one is indifferent to such event, and indifferent to the life from which was lived, therefore length and memory are invalid to the state of non-existence, as death and not having been born are an identical state in my opinion.

I am incredibly curious as to how much more intelligent people answer the question provided by the title of the thread. I'm new to this forum so I hope that this is to standard and isn't removed.

This was originally a Question but I have changed the category to debate, because I do not believe that I am able to mark a comment as having answered the question, as it is incredibly subjective.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. One of these premeses has to be false, either life is not worth living (and therefore there is no reason not to end it) or death is inherently bad (and therefore should be feared). This presents an interesting dilemma as neither outcome is particularly desirable in my opinion: either fear death or kill yourself. — JacobPhilosophy

I"m apart of a political party called, Shark Fighter Nation

#Shark_Fighter_Nation

this includes:

fighting a rattle snake with pair of garden shears

bears, alligators, Bobcats, poisonous snakes and ofcourse sky diving.

There are alternatives to suicide.

Whether there is a after life or not, there is no reason to commit suicide.

Every last suicide tears a huge hole in society. Mothers get real up set when such things happen too.

There are alternatives to suicide.

Can one provide a reason to live?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions