Uummm... okay, except that isn't the common definition of life. In fact my review of the 20 definitions in Websters, doesn't find that particular nuance. — LuckyR

I wouldn't be impressed with anyone just copying over the common definitions from the internet, and pastes to forum posts. No. That is not Philosophy.

My definition of life is a reflected and meditated points from the common definitions, which is not grossly strange, weird, disagreeable or meaningless. Anyone with common sense would agree with my definition of life. If one cannot find any agreement or understanding from my definition of human life, I would find the person with a very peculiar set of mind, or must be some sort of internet information worshiper.

For the OP and anyone else who can relate, here are my 2cents on this matter, after struggling with severe depression and suicidal ideation as well.

The three words that helped the most were: life just is.

Life is not a problem to be solved.
Life is not some race to win in.
Life is not about achieving anything.

Life, in its truest sense, is a mystery. Existence itself, and the factual experience of being alive or witnessing other living creatures, is both absurd and amazing. Do you ever observe how a river flows or a flower blooms or a bird flies? How they don't need to prove anything or justify their existence or worry endlessy? They simply exist in their nature.

What happened to humans is that the tool of our minds grew exponentionally. We became way too skilled at thinking (and worrying, and rationalizing, and planning, and so on) and this has dominated our true selves. And this is reflected in the world we live in today, endlessly obsessed with productivity, status, wealth, achievement, prestige, and, the biggest myth of all: progress.

The unnatural world we have made is a reflection of our internal world, and our collective internal world is, by and large, defined by fear. Reject this theatre and you will find freedom.

I also strongly agree with Unenlightened that love is what makes live worth living, yet I also acknowledge that millions of people right now struggle with lovelessness and loneliness because we live in a horrible machine-world that has no use for love. So many people are just looking for validation or security or intimacy and they miss the obvious truth that love is unconditional. Yet you can find freedom here also: you can love yourself, love life, love nature, unconditionally and perpetually, even if you feel like your life is not worth living for whatever reasons you bring up.

Suicide is a tender topic but the fact that an absurd amount of people commit it every single day should raise serious concerns for any of us who still care. Suicide should be extremely rare or non-existent, which can only be achieved if we create a world that is worth living in for all human beings, a world based on respect, empathy, rest, fairness, meaning, and so on.

Perhaps one day we will remember who we are and where we came from. Perhaps we have to go through hell to reach heaven. Regardless, life will always be a beautiful mystery, and simply embracing this truth offers stillness.

-edit-

Actually I have had a change of heart and agree now with earlier comments about shying away from discussion which could possibly enable someone.

Plenty of other interesting philosophy topics to discuss which do not have such a weight of responsibility.

Alas, "cuz I said so", isn't good Philosophy.

OTOH... it is illegal and thus unethical for a parent to withhold lifesaving medical treatment from their minor child (thereby hastening the child's death), yet it is completely legal, and most agree, ethical for a competent adult to forgo lifesaving medical treatment, similarly hastening one's death.

Alas, "cuz I said so", isn't good Philosophy. — LuckyR

You seem to be taking things too personally, not reading the post properly. What I said was, copying and pasting internet definitions with no reflection and thoughts into the forum posts, and blindly worshiping the information as some biblical truth, is not philosophy. Nothing to do with because LuckyR said. I don't care who said what.

And moreover, if your read OP carefully, this thread is not about extending or hastening someone's life. It is about arguments against suicide.

But I believe that no one should control other people's life. Only thing a decent human being must do, is to help other human being's life by caring and saving them making better, if they can, no matter under what circumstances.

OTOH... it is illegal and thus unethical for a parent to withhold lifesaving medical treatment from their minor child (thereby hastening the child's death), — LuckyR

It's illegal in our home state of Oregon, but legal in Idaho. The "Followers of Christ" religious group doesn't believe in using medicine. Some of their children die horrible (and preventable) deaths, from diabetes, for example.

Two paremts were convicted of manslaughter in Oregon, but the cult continues its practices in Idaho. My son (a journalist) wrote stories about them and worked on the documentary "No Greater Law", which is quite well done and availsble on line on many streaming channels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Greater_Law

Interesting review. Two things. First, what is your opinion? Is it ethical for a parent to hasten the death of their minor child? Personally it violates my moral code and I'd argue it violates the national ethical standard. After all, why write an article about a routinely acceptable occurrence.

OTOH, refusing one's own lifesaving medical treatment is routinely done and no one bats an eye ( ie it's broadly considered ethical). In fact the practice is codified in the creation of palliative care and hospice.

I don't think denying treatment to children is reasonable or ethical. However, whether it should be illegal is a more difficult question.

In my opinion it should be (and commonly is) illegal.

But to broaden the point, we agree it is unethical to shorten someone else's (one's child's) life, yet most agree it is ethical for a competent adult to shorten their own life.

Interesting, that you find my points are poetics. Poetics are supposed to be beautiful written expressions of thoughts on the nature or mind. What part of my thoughts and writing were poetics? — Corvus

From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward.

Really? What is your definition of philosophy? — Corvus

I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine).

You need more than bluster. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Pretty cool that I gave much, much more than this.

From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward. — AmadeusD

I have no idea what you are havering about.

I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine). — AmadeusD

I don't agree with you.

You need more than bluster.
— Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Pretty cool that I gave much, much more than this. — AmadeusD

In context, what I said was:

my post linked to a site quoting American Heritage Dictionary supporting two (actually more than two) meanings for "death". What's your evidence to the contrary? You need more than bluster. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

You may have given heaps more, but the crucial thing you did not supply was any evidence to support your idea that "death" only means the one thing that you say it can only mean. Unless you are able to provide that, I don't see any point in continuing to discuss this issue with you. To be honest, I am in some doubt as to whether it would be worthwhile to discuss anything with you. So I will just conclude with saying Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. If that fits, wear it well.

There is no case... do it if you can't handle life. Better for those of us who can. Definitely don't try passing on such hereditary exhaustion.

Unfortunately I have allowed myself to become distracted by a needless dispute about words.

The main point I was trying to make, long ago, before Christmas, was that while

@Corvus was saying that (1) there is something, namely the state of being dead, which lasts forever;
@AmadeusD was saying (2) there is something, namely the act or process of dying, which lasts but a moment;

statements (1) and (2) are by no means contradictory, although it seemed to them that they were contradicting each other, because Corvus wanted to call (1) "death", and AmadeusD wanted to call (2) "death", and either one or both of them thought that "death" only meant that one thing and nothing else.
I stand by the claim that "death" has both meanings, but I don't want to dispute about it any further.

Corvus was saying that (1) there is something, namely the state of being dead, which lasts forever; — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

When a death occurs, the biological body ceases to exist. The fact the death has occurred will exist and remain forever. Death is not the biological body. Death is a fact.

The biological body does not cease to exist at death.

Your second line can apply to any singular event. I am a rape victim. I will never not be one. That fact will exist for all time. And, technically, beyond.

And to be clear, my intention was to hold you to the fire about making no real sense. Not a semantic argument.

o be honest, I am in some doubt as to whether it would be worthwhile to discuss anything with you. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I've come to this conclusion some time ago. I'm sure we can get on without each other :)

The biological body does not cease to exist at death. — AmadeusD

Dead body is not a biological body. It is a body. It is about logic.

Hmm, interesting. This, again, sorry to say, sounds like poetics. The body (including bones) are biological material. It is a biological body until it ceases to physically exist. That it's not living does not make it non-biological. DNA, tissue, cells etc.. do not cease. This could be a conceptual disagreement we can't litigate.

You can extract DNA from rocks. Dead body is not biological body. It is a corpse.
Biological body means a body with the biological functions.

Yes, we seem to be talking in different planets for sure. I can tell you are into poetry.

That is not what a biological body means, my man. To use your "death" logic, one meaning of "biological" is simply "a substance of biological origin". Are we saying a corpse is not that? There's a reason that "biological material" can refer to dead hair, blood, skin cells, finger nails etc.. etc..

You cannot extract DNA from rocks, per se. You can extract other organic material in the rock pores. Di you mean to indicate that Rocks have DNA?

I do like poetry. But I don't think it's the right way to approach this type of thing, outside of writing poetry.

I have no time to argue with you on the point which is not even main issue with this thread. Enjoy your poetry mate.

I have all the time in the world to point out mistakes in logical and semantic error :)

You don't say a corpse with no biological function, a biological body. It is just nonsense. Please understand that Logic and Semantic are closely related, if not the same.